26 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75As I understand it, a mutation is simply a sudden change in the genetic pattern that is not inherited but caused by external factors. Mutations can certainly be beneficial for the continued survival of the species if the change it causes better adapts the species to its environment.
Mutations usually harm the species, not improve it.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by lucifershammerBig if, wrongly applied.
As I understand it, a mutation is simply a sudden change in the genetic pattern that is not inherited but caused by external factors. Mutations can certainly be beneficial for the continued survival of the species if the change it causes better adapts the species to its environment.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75You say it yourself. "Usually". Not always. In same cases it makes the species better in some way. This is called evolution. You describe one detail of evolution very well. Have you became a evolutionist all of a sudden?
Mutations usually harm the species, not improve it.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by FabianFnas"All of a sudden?" Ought'n there be some transitional phase?
You say it yourself. "Usually". Not always. In same cases it makes the species better in some way. This is called evolution. You describe one detail of evolution very well. Have you became a evolutionist all of a sudden?
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75This is incorrect. The vast majority of mutations in an organism have no consequence as the majority of DNA does not encode protein in humans at least (a large portion of human DNA appears to be viral in origin but I wouldn't trouble you with the details). The result of a random mutation therefore in the human genome is that it does not exert a change in structure or function of a protein and is thus considered a "neutral" event. A mutation in a coding region of a gene or in nearby elements influencing its expression would potentially lead to selection by changing fitness and this could indeed be advantageous or not to the organism and then would potentially be subject to selection and the corresponding alteration of gene frequencies.
Mutations usually harm the species, not improve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks for being patient with me 🙂
Can you explain why you believe that?
How many fossils do you believe should exist and why? Do you know what the rates of fossilization are? ie do you know what percentage of living things that die become fossilized? What conditions are necessary for fossilization?
Roughly how many fossils do you believe there should be, and how many do you believe there actually are?
Honestly I have no answer for those questions. The only answer I guess is the time factor. If millions of years then there should be more fossilization and transitional species just by virtue of that fact right? More time more chances of it happening. I vaguely remember that fossilization occurs with sediment and pressure.
Manny
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeThanks for the link I'll check it.
The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould had an answer to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Basically, he argues that species remain static for most of their history (say, for millions of years), and then particular conditions lead them to evolve relatively quickly and dramatically (say, over tens of thousands of years) into new forms. This explains why, while there are transitional fossils, they are quite rare.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by menace71I get the jest of this theory. So stupid question what is the difference between mutation with in a species and evolution? Crap I'm more confused now!! 🙂 Adaptation is when a species somehow changes to overcome an obstacle right? Example a species suddenly changes color so that it becomes less visible to a predator that usually eats said species right?
Thanks for the link I'll check it.
Manny
27 Aug 10
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
This just supports the argument of the missing transitional species within the fossil record. The theory is to argue why stasis is what is found. A creationist can say all it does is point out the obvious.
Manny