Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 140 of 140

Thread: Natural Selection and Genetics

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    I think they eat just about anything that comes their way:
    nutrients and bits of plankta and whatever.

    Its a good question but I don't have a definitive answer
    as I am not a marine biologist.
    I asked that to make a small, but perhaps vital point.

    They eat just about anything that comes their way, yeah. Bacteria, plankton and various other unicellular organisms and organic matter as well (depends on the specie I guess). That must be a selectional advantage, right?

    It certainly shows that they are versatile. But most animals at the
    bottom of the sea live on anything, even sewage.

    I don't think that this comprises a selective advantage over protozoa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I don't know why you assume sponges evolved in the sea. They could just have well evolved in fresh water.

    And clearly the microbial community never evolved to take up the niche of sponges, since obviously, there aren't any microbial sponge analogues. So I really don't know what kind of medication you are on.

    Obviously there are ancestors between protozoa and modern sponges
    that we do not know of and these would comprise a missing link.

    Your claim that sponges evolved in fresh water is not supported.

    What evidence do you have for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Heliopolis, genetic evidence suggests that sponges underwent secondary simplification, cited HERE and did not directly evolve from protozoa, but probably from Ctenophora.

    But that is besides the point. Evolution is blind. If a mutated protozoa comes along that can exploit an available niche where it does not have to compete for food, where there are relatively fewer predators, etc., it will populate that niche as a matter of course. What is to stop them?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    Fine, quote me the part which says that sponges can move freely
    through the DEPTHS of the ocean which is what Paralith and I
    were talking about.

    page 89
    "the parenchymella larva breaks out of the mesohyl, exists through the parent's excurrent canal system, and has a free-swimming existence"


    Interestingly this free-swimming larva resembles the putative ancestor of the sponges. A colonial choanoflagellate. A hollow ball of choanocytes...

    Page 69
    "The cells were monoflagellate on the outer surface; the colony possessed a distinct anterior/posterior axis swimming with the anterior pole forward."

    Of course you assume for some obscure reason that sponges plopped into existence. For what reason nobody can imagine, possibly a chemical imbalance in your brain.

    Obviously sponges didn't just come about. They evolved in gradual steps, and a free swimming multicellular stage was an ancestral stage of the sponge.

    Only later on some became sessile.

    The sponge can also reproduce by asexual budding. Then they don't go around swimming. It's more like dropping a turd. But this isn't a reflection of some ancestral state. It is only a more modern modification.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    Your claim that sponges evolved in fresh water is not supported.

    What evidence do you have for this?
    There in fact 150 freshwater sponge species alive today. It seems illogical to assume they evolved in a marine ecology for this reason alone. It could have been either based on this basic information.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    what's next? Early bony fish evolving in the sea as well?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    what's next? Early bony fish evolving in the sea as well?
    Er...so where did they evolve?

    Are you suggesting they evolved in the rivers and they dragged
    themselves out as water levels became low to the next river
    down and so adapted to become amphibians?

    I have heard this somewhere before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Heliopolis, genetic evidence suggests that sponges underwent secondary simplification, cited HERE and did not directly evolve from protozoa, but probably from Ctenophora.

    But that is besides the point. Evolution is blind. If a mutated protozoa comes along that can exploit an available niche where it does not have to compete for food, where there are relatively fewer predators, etc., it will populate that niche as a matter of course. What is to stop them?

    It is a matter of debate about whether sponges are a simplification
    or are the direct descendants of the protozoa. The fossil record and
    genetics do not concur necessarily.

    Anyway, the sponge-like creatures that did evolve from protozoa
    may have become extinct.

    I don't think marine amoebae can live at the ocean depths that
    sponges can, hence I can't see how they could have exploited
    the niche without first undergoing a mutation which would have
    impaired them in their present habitat.

    Remember the point about natural selection and fitness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    what's next? Early bony fish evolving in the sea as well?
    Er...so where did they evolve?

    Are you suggesting they evolved in the rivers and they dragged
    themselves out as water levels became low to the next river
    down and so adapted to become amphibians?

    I have heard this somewhere before.
    No, I am saying the ancestral forms of bony fish evolved in fresh water, not in sea. Some lineages diversified into the marine niche. Some remained in fresh water.

    What do you think the swim bladder of modern fish is?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I can't see how they could have exploited
    the niche without first undergoing a mutation which would have
    impaired them in their present habitat.
    Why should it necessarily impair them in their present habitat?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    Fine, quote me the part which says that sponges can move freely
    through the DEPTHS of the ocean which is what Paralith and I
    were talking about.

    page 89
    "the parenchymella larva breaks out of the mesohyl, exists through the parent's excurrent canal system, and has a free-swimming existence"


    Interestingly this free-swimming larva resembles the putative ancestor of the sponges. A colonial choanoflagellate. A hollow ball of choanocytes...

    Page 69
    "The cells were monoflagellate on the outer surface; the colony possessed a distinct anterior/posterior axis swimming with the anterior pole forward."

    Of course you assume for some obscure reason that sponges plopped into existence. For what reason nobody can imagine, possibly a chemical imbalance in your brain.

    Obviously sponges didn't just come about. They evolved in gradual steps, and a free swimming multicellular stage was an ancestral stage of the sponge.

    Only later on some became sessile.

    The sponge can also reproduce by asexual budding. Then they don't go around swimming. It's more like dropping a turd. But this isn't a reflection of some ancestral state. It is only a more modern modification.

    And Marine amoebae can "swim" too : But they can't traverse the
    depths of the ocean. Their movement is restricted.

    You have COMPELETELY missed the point.

    We were talking about migration to new habitats, not about
    free-swimming larvae.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    migrating larvae cannot migrate?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    migrating larvae cannot migrate?
    Not very far at all , unless some ocean current whisked them to
    a depth level where they would most likely perish.

    I think you'll find that we are talking about metres not kilometres in
    distance.

    There is literally a gulf between the marine protozoa represented
    by amoebae and the sponge-like creatures who dwell at the
    bottom of the sea.

    How can this be explained int terms of natural selection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I can't see how they could have exploited
    the niche without first undergoing a mutation which would have
    impaired them in their present habitat.
    Why should it necessarily impair them in their present habitat?
    The transition from a unicellular organism to a multicellular one
    results in a loss in the reproductive rate and hence a loss of
    fitness.

    Those mutants would have been weeded out by selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    migrating larvae cannot migrate?
    Not very far at all , unless some ocean current whisked them to
    a depth level where they would most likely perish.

    I think you'll find that we are talking about metres not kilometres in
    distance.

    There is literally a gulf between the marine protozoa represented
    by amoebae and the sponge-like creatures who dwell at the
    bottom of the sea.

    How can this be explained int terms of natural selection?
    yes, and bacteria only move by micrometers. Hardly the great migrators of the depths.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    The transition from a unicellular organism to a multicellular one
    results in a loss in the reproductive rate and hence a loss of
    fitness.
    HAHA!!!

    higher reproductive rate doesn't equal higher fitness.

    try modelling that.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I can't see how they could have exploited
    the niche without first undergoing a mutation which would have
    impaired them in their present habitat.
    Why should it necessarily impair them in their present habitat?
    The transition from a unicellular organism to a multicellular one
    results in a loss in the reproductive rate and hence a loss of
    fitness.

    Those mutants would have been weeded out by selection.
    1)The transition from unicellular to multi-cellular does not happen in one mutation, but is a gradual process involving (among others AFAIK) inter- and extra phyla/species symbioses, coordination of cellular division events (Mitochondria, Chloroplasts) of symbiots, eventual specialisation, etc. This all takes time.

    2)Why do you attach reproductive rate necessarily with fitness? Compare rather the amount of time a multi-cellular organism lives to its evolution rate. In fact, why even attach a timescale at all? If you keep living and can reproduce, you are fit, period. A great big mass of cells (us) that create their own habitat to be carried around is a spectacular example of fitness in my book.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    The transition from a unicellular organism to a multicellular one
    results in a loss in the reproductive rate and hence a loss of
    fitness.
    HAHA!!!

    higher reproductive rate doesn't equal higher fitness.

    try modelling that.
    Firstly, bacteria are found everywhere. That shows that they
    have successfully conquered the planet. Whether as parasites
    or not, they have a higher rate of gene flow than any animal
    , fungus or plant.

    Secondly, reproductiviness IS the test of fitness. Not in the
    sense that we understand it, but in an evolutionary sense.

    Reproductive ability is the very basis of natural selection.

    Now, if an organism can't survive because of poor adaptation,
    it will die and not reproduce.

    Actually, viruses are the fittest as they are essentially bits
    of replicating DNA: The only snag is that they are limited
    as parasites and can't act as lone agents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    1)The transition from unicellular to multi-cellular does not happen in one mutation, but is a gradual process involving (among others AFAIK) inter- and extra phyla/species symbioses, coordination of cellular division events (Mitochondria, Chloroplasts) of symbiots, eventual specialisation, etc. This all takes time.

    2)Why do you attach reproductive rate necessarily with fitness? Compare rather the amount of time a multi-cellular organism lives to its evolution rate. In fact, why even attach a timescale at all? If you keep living and can reproduce, you are fit, period. A great big mass of cells (us) that create their own habitat to be carried around is a spectacular example of fitness in my book.
    Yes, you are absolutely correct: it is a gradual process and, as I have kept
    pointing out, each stage must confer a fitness advantage according to the
    theory of natural selection or else it will not be preserved and certainly
    won't reach fixation in the population or one of its subsets.

    Look, unicellular organism have a higher rate of reproduction: that means
    that ,on a model of differential fertility, they have a selective advantage
    over mulitcellular lifeforms. They will, thus outbreed and displace any
    of the latter that are part of the same grouping.

    The simple fact of the matter is that bacteria will be on this earth long
    after humans have become extinct. But this owes to the fact that they
    can adapt to a sudden change in environment much easier than we
    could ever do, as has been proven in numerous lab experiments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Reproductive ability is the very basis of natural selection.

    Now, if an organism can't survive because of poor adaptation,
    it will die and not reproduce.
    Yes fine, but you made a statement regarding the rate of reproduction being related to fitness, which is inaccurate.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Reproductive ability is the very basis of natural selection.

    Now, if an organism can't survive because of poor adaptation,
    it will die and not reproduce.
    Yes fine, but you made a statement regarding the rate of reproduction being related to fitness, which is inaccurate.

    As I mention above, the rate of reproduction is a mark of the
    selective advantage of differential fertility.

    It is the ability to outbreed and displace those of a lower
    reproductiveness. Thankfully, due to symbiosis, humans
    and bacteria have a mutual interest in each others'
    preservation ( to an extent, of course).

    Remember, evolution is measured in terms of allelic frequencies.
    A higher reproduction rate means more chance of increasing the
    gene frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The simple fact of the matter is that bacteria will be on this earth long
    after humans have become extinct. But this owes to the fact that they
    can adapt to a sudden change in environment much easier than we
    could ever do, as has been proven in numerous lab experiments.
    Bacteria encompass a VERY large number varieties, each with its own advantages. If you suddenly eliminate all oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, all animals will die, but a very large proportion of bacteria will also die out. You have to talk about all multi-cellular vs. unicellular life. How do they compare in terms of biomass? Or total number of individual cells comprising multi-cellular organisms vs. total number of unicellular organisms?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    The transition from a unicellular organism to a multicellular one
    results in a loss in the reproductive rate and hence a loss of
    fitness.
    HAHA!!!

    higher reproductive rate doesn't equal higher fitness.

    try modelling that.
    Firstly, bacteria are found everywhere. That shows that they
    have successfully conquered the planet. Whether as parasites
    or not, they have a higher rate of gene flow than any animal
    , fungus or plant.

    Secondly, reproductiviness IS the test of fitness. Not in the
    sense that we understand it, but in an evolutionary sense.

    Reproductive ability is the very basis of natural selection.

    Now, if an organism can't survive because of poor adaptation,
    it will die and not reproduce.

    Actually, viruses are the fittest as they are essentially bits
    of replicating DNA: The only snag is that they are limited
    as parasites and can't act as lone agents.
    as I have tried to point out to you before, bacteria aren't a single species. So far you don't seem to get it.

    The bacteria found in your arse cannot be found in a hydrothermal vent and vice versa.

    They have nothing in common.

    The fitness of one in a specific environment, doesn't mean anyting for the fitness of another bacterial species in another environment.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    as I have tried to point out to you before, bacteria aren't a single species. So far you don't seem to get it.

    The bacteria found in your arse cannot be found in a hydrothermal vent and vice versa.

    They have nothing in common.

    The fitness of one in a specific environment, doesn't mean anyting for the fitness of another bacterial species in another environment.
    Yes, bacteria are as diverse as animals and plants but we are discussing
    the fact that they are single-celled creatures like amoebae and algae.

    These "primitive" organisms have a high reproductive rate and have
    shown a remarkable ability to adapt to new conditions: much more
    so than more complex, multicellular ones.

    As such, there is no reason why anything should have evolved beyond
    them by way of natural selection
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The simple fact of the matter is that bacteria will be on this earth long
    after humans have become extinct. But this owes to the fact that they
    can adapt to a sudden change in environment much easier than we
    could ever do, as has been proven in numerous lab experiments.
    Bacteria encompass a VERY large number varieties, each with its own advantages. If you suddenly eliminate all oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, all animals will die, but a very large proportion of bacteria will also die out. You have to talk about all multi-cellular vs. unicellular life. How do they compare in terms of biomass? Or total number of individual cells comprising multi-cellular organisms vs. total number of unicellular organisms?
    I'm sorry but your point is what exactly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    These "primitive" organisms have a high reproductive rate and have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to new conditions: much more
    so than more complex, multicellular ones.
    i'm glad you placed the word primitive in quotes - present-day bacteria are just as evolved as you and i
    the fact that they're morphologically conservative is neither here nor there, they still invent new ways of life and finding food as we speak
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    As such, there is no reason why anything should have evolved beyond
    them by way of natural selection
    There is an obvious flaw in your reasoning: lots of organisms do have evolved 'beyond' them.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    My point is that multi-cellular organisms can be seen as being comprised of evolved communal unicellular organisms, gaining all the advantages of such a setup. These include better defence against any single organism, energy efficiency (each specialised cell do only what is needed of it) and the ability to create its own environment to carry around. Think of a homogenous human population versus one where each family has its own responsability. One group hunt, another provide care for young ones, others grow crops, others are involved in organisation. It is a much more stable environment. You can even see some intermediate levels of communal organisation in nature, i.e. A certain algae (will look for citation) where you can even see a certain level of cellular specialisation.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    My point is that multi-cellular organisms can be seen as being comprised of evolved communal unicellular organisms, gaining all the advantages of such a setup. These include better defence against any single organism, energy efficiency (each specialised cell do only what is needed of it) and the ability to create its own environment to carry around. Think of a homogenous human population versus one where each family has its own responsability. One group hunt, another provide care for young ones, others grow crops, others are involved in organisation. It is a much more stable environment. You can even see some intermediate levels of communal organisation in nature, i.e. A certain algae (will look for citation) where you can even see a certain level of cellular specialisation.
    Reads more like a division of labor argument than anything else.

    As I said before, multicellular organisms can survive longer
    than unicellular ones for a number of reasons some of which
    you have mentioned, but that does not result in higher "fitness"
    as far as evolution is concerned.

    Only the ability to reproduce is what matters: If the unicellular
    lifeforms live for a tiny amount of time, reproduce and then
    die that is all that counts. They may not survive long, but it
    is long enough to reproduce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    As such, there is no reason why anything should have evolved beyond
    them by way of natural selection
    There is an obvious flaw in your reasoning: lots of organisms do have evolved 'beyond' them.

    Not really: The flaw is in the fact that natural selection requires
    a survival or reproductive advantage as the criterion for
    evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    The multicellular organism does have a reproductive advantage over the unicellular one.

    It have reproduce and occupy niches unicellular organisms can't occupy.

    It's very simple really.

    Do you honestly you could be replaced by a bacterium? Where would the billions of bacteria in your gut go when you would be replaced by a single microbe to start with?

    How would that bacterium drink beer?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Helioplosis, can you explain how it is that genes responsible for sterile worker bees dominate? Unsure dominate is the right word, but considering that fat egg slave bees keep, it seems appropriate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Only the ability to reproduce is what matters: If the unicellular
    lifeforms live for a tiny amount of time, reproduce and then
    die that is all that counts. They may not survive long, but it
    is long enough to reproduce.
    You are sort of making my point here. Fitness involves the ability to stay alive long enough to reproduce, irrespective of the timescale involved. The advantages Spurious and I mentioned, along with some others, are perfectly reasonable arguments for the advantage of multicellularity. HERE are some theories on the origin of multicellularity. Please also follow some of the links provided for a broader perspective. Your arguments are purely from a position of incredulity.

    Take a look at Volvox, Cyanobacteria and Slime Molds for some good examples of possible early forms, as well as this cool experiment where a slime mold finds the most efficient way to get food to the whole colony. Also, look at Cell differentiation, as well as Cephalization and all its advantages (sensory organs = find food faster, etc.).
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    The multicellular organism does have a reproductive advantage over the unicellular one.

    It have reproduce and occupy niches unicellular organisms can't occupy.

    It's very simple really.

    Do you honestly you could be replaced by a bacterium? Where would the billions of bacteria in your gut go when you would be replaced by a single microbe to start with?

    How would that bacterium drink beer?
    Just because bacteria have taken the easy route by existing as parasites
    within us, and break down the waste products of multicellular organisms,
    does not invalidate their ability to adapt to new ecological niches by
    themselves. On the contrary, it shows just how flexible they are.

    You still haven't explained how the primordial sponge-like creature
    had a reproductive advantage over the amoeba-like protozoon. Or
    that it was more adaptable to periodic changes in the environment.

    Even if it was a cannibalistic predator, which I doubt it could have
    been at such an early stage, I don't see how it could have matched the reproductive rate of its parent protozoa. As such, its survival in a
    unicellular habitat would have been very precarious.

    You appear to forgo natural selection. Instead you support:

    1) Bonding & Mutation: to produce the new creature.
    2) Migration: to a new habitat ( ecological niche).
    3) Founder Effect: the new creature founds a new population.

    If that is what I think you believe, I cannot really dispute this
    except that I don't believe that such a mutation could have
    happened just like that. I believe that it would have had to
    have been a gradual process with each stage preserved by
    conferring a fitness advantage favored by selection. And I
    would like to know what that advantage could have been.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Helioplosis, can you explain how it is that genes responsible for sterile worker bees dominate? Unsure dominate is the right word, but considering that fat egg slave bees keep, it seems appropriate.
    Sorry, I have not really looked into the selfish gene controversy as applied
    of bees: strange things happen in collecticist societies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Helioplosis, can you explain how it is that genes responsible for sterile worker bees dominate? Unsure dominate is the right word, but considering that fat egg slave bees keep, it seems appropriate.
    The first consideration is relatedness - all those workers share genes with the queen, and as long as their existence promotes her reproductive success, those genes for creating sterile workers will get passed on. Eusocial species of insects like bees most likely evolved in ecological conditions where the reproductive success of a single individual, out on their own, was far dwarfed by the reproductive success of one individual who was assisted by other related individuals who devoted all their time and energy to her brood.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Of course, natural selection has ensured that cheating will occur.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...30/2105083.htm

    In the ultimate overthrow of the monarchy, worker bees sneak their eggs into the colony so their offspring will be raised as royalty, says Australian researcher Lyndon Jordan, from the University of Sydney.

    To avoid detection, the workers wear a "queen perfume", says Jordan, a PhD student from the School of Biological Sciences.
    His study revealed 23 out of 39 new queens produced by seven colonies were offspring of workers and not the resident queen.

    Of these, eight were laid by resident workers, but most were offspring of parasitic workers from other colonies.
    Try to explain that with your model.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    To avoid detection, the workers wear a "queen perfume", says Jordan, a PhD student from the School of Biological Sciences.
    Katie Price has developed a new range of perfumes ? wicked !
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139 Re: Natural Selection and Genetics 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Its been a while since I mentioned the problem of selection
    as applied to genetics. I was corresponding with the leading
    expert in pop genetics, Prof Joe Felsenstein, about it.

    He has been on vacation but is now going to look at my
    simulation of a multilocus model with a mixture of
    beneficial and deleterious alleles.

    At issue is the very credibility of the modern synthesis
    of evolution.

    The results so far are terrible for the Neo-Darwinists
    and could even have them condemned for almost criminal
    negligence.

    Anyone familiar with pop genetics is welcome to
    request a copy of the simulation by emailing me.

    I am convinced that it will mark the beginning of
    the end for Neo-Darwinism.
    Classic example of:

    fact-free science n. A scientific endeavour—such as a computer simulation of a biological process—that does not take into account real-world constraints such as chemical or biological data.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Excellent! 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •