Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
So there's a gene in cats that make cats white and in many cases the same gene makes them deaf. They do not survive in the wild because they lack one of their most important characters. They do not reproudece and create offspring that is deaf which goes towards creating a new species because being deaf is bad. This is a random mutation that's negative. Do you honestly think it will survive and create a deaf population?
Read my entire post and you will see that I said evolution is a product of random mutations, but random muttions are not evolution. Evolution affects more than one individual. More than one line. Evolution is the process of adapting to the environment. Do you think that it is by chance that the polar bear is white or do you think that those with different colours weren't fit to live there? Evolution is both the process of mutations and the process of picking out what is beneficial. The ones that don't adapt will have a lower fitness and their genes will dwindle in the gene pool.
if i recall that gene is in all cats that have all white fur and blue eyes, very cute cats but sadly are deaf. its still arguably evolution its just if it werent for us humans breeding them. natural selection would have killed them off
in terms of your polar bear example, it is partly by chance that bears in the region had pale fur (after a few centuries of breeding would get white fur, same thing with white lions) the bears with white fur could hunt in the snow, while those with darker would starve due to competition and stayed in forest ares.
evolution is the mutation, natural selection is getting rid of the weaker species
for the most part i think we agree with eachother but we worded it and a bad way which is why we are arguing
but the thing i do disagree with you on was that you said evolution does come out of need. you tried to argue it but i didnt get your explanation of it
but i do disagree with the idea it comes out of need
Do you think it is random that life on land started around the time when the resources in the ocean were sparse and the oxygen levels were too low?
Evolution is an arms race. In order to survive you need to be able to compete. Evolution makes one adapt to new niches and new habitats. Bird species that are closely related sometimes have a different diet. One may eat fruit, one can eat nuts. Is it random that the one that needed to adapt to eat nuts adapted to eat nuts?
ok i think you and i both thinking the same thing here, its just we've worded it in two ways which make it seem like we disagree.
the mutations are largely random, you get one which may let the organism eat a new food sorce, such as the bird being able to process nuts, it can eat the new food which others cant, it passes this on, the ones dont have that trait die off. we're saying the same thing just in different ways which is where they argument is coming from, but animals are always evolving even when theres no need.
Actually the difference between our thoughts is that you don't understand evolution as well as you think. The mutations in one individual and the recombinants of 2 mating individuals is not evolution.
You seem to be under the impression that one individual is all we have to consider when we look at evolution and that natural selection isn't related to evolution. Evolution is a product of both random mutations and natural selection. It spreads over several generations and spreads in a population. A mutated gene that is either rare or even disappears after some time is not evolution. That is a random mutation. Evolution doesn't have to be a major change, but it is always to increase fitness.
or maybe you dont understand my argument as well as you think? or maybe i havnt explained it very well aslo a possibility because youve more or less said what i think. except its not always fitness it can also be about improving the brain.
edit2: actually we need to clear on definition of "fitness" one of the most successful multicelular organisms around is whats is commonly refered to as Grass, but if we were to compare the fitness of a chimp to grass i think the chimo would win in a fight yet grass is much more widely spread
edit1
Actually maybe you dont understand evolution as well as YOU think (yes i can be very arrogant as well
) for one i have never said Natural selection and evolution werent related, i just said they arent the same thing, reason for that, look at humanity now, (at least in western society) we have advanced medical science which has allowed genes which would have died out in the wild to survive, and in the event we do get some kind of new gene (im living under the assumption my X gene hasnt kicked in yet and i'l soon have super powers) the republicans would demand the execution of those with the new trait
also ive never focuse exclusively on the individual, but more a small group in a species, which is how the new gene/trait for evolution to start. you know organism X gets Y mutation, it either proves to be an advantage or doesnt hinder its ability to reproduce, trait gets passed on. natural selection comes in when theres too much comptetition and those with out useful traits, or those that are now outclassed by those with superior traits dont live long enough to reproduce or are otherwise unable to reproduce
another reason i seem to focus on small groups rather than the whole species is because a species doesnt always evolve in to one new one, it can take sveral different routes, example would be Homo Heidelbergensis mutating into Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis