[alancalverd]

evolution of species ends in meaninglessness-not valid

Do you look exactly like both of your parents? Obviously not - you have evolved. Are you meaningless?

[hamdani yusuf]

Wouldn't diploidy and polyploidy redundancy also be conservative toward beneficial changes? The  bigger picture make take some time to develop? 

Not always. Dominant alleles show up phenotypically. Don't forget to take natural and sexual selection into account. They work based on phenotypical characteristics. They amplify the effect of beneficial mutations. Specimens with slightly better phenotypes may outcompete their peers in survival and reproduction rate and eventually dominate the population.

[puppypower]

Wouldn't diploidy and polyploidy redundancy also be conservative toward beneficial changes? The  bigger picture make take some time to develop? 

Not always. Dominant alleles show up phenotypically. Don't forget to take natural and sexual selection into account. They work based on phenotypical characteristics. They amplify the effect of beneficial mutations. Specimens with slightly better phenotypes may outcompete their peers in survival and reproduction rate and eventually dominate the population.

The peacock mating ritual is all about shallow surface criteria. If a male mutation was positive in terms of his digestion; individual selective advantage,  but it did not improve his surface "bling", this mutation will not be chosen by the female.  In fact, a negative mutation, that is hidden, and does not impact the male bling will be chosen. Don't birds show changes in species, base mostly on surface bling, more often than the do based on a better motor and drive train? The latter are below mating radar. The ugly duckling will not be chosen, even if they have beautiful internal advances hidden below the ugly.

In human terms, the quiet nerd babe, may pick a bad boy to balance her off. He abuses and then  leaves her and she gets to raise the children, alone. In a more primitive situation this will not help with selection of her offspring, since she will struggle to feed them. There has to be a failsafe to compensate and also allow for shallow consciousness criteria.

Humanistic arguments for selection do not properly deal with the fail safe events at the nanoscale. Most changes are very minor, or else we would see evolution all the time, as drastic changes.  One year we would see bumble bees and the next year they would be twice the size with extra wings. This is not common. Instead, the changes in bumble bees are so subtle, that Creationists cannot see anything drastic enough to change their minds in terms of evolution. You would need an expert to point out the tiny extra. The net affect is this tiny extra will be enough to dominate any type of selection ritual. While primitive fear of novelty,  ugly duckling, will avoid it of they sense something different. 

This means humanistic criteria for selection, will not see the majority of changes. Who will not notice the very subtle benefit of one amino acid changing in the middle of an enzyme allowing 5% improvement in a reaction, that is not rate limiting? This can be an important improvement, but it may be lost, since it does not stand out, like being twice the size of everyone, else during mating olympics. The later would require a huge number of coordinating genes change all at once. What about the proofreader enzymes? Will they even allow this, since they do not predict the future?

The blending of male and female chromosomes, after fertilization, is based on configurational potential within the water. Water is the continuous phase that defines the 3-D shapes of organics things in the cell. Improvements, based on male and female genes blending, cannot be supported without the cooperation of water, since this will be an equilibrium affect. It could occur with the  assistance of a predefined protein grid in the mother cell, that impacts the equilibrium of the water, in which the DNA shape appears,

The cell works hard dealing with environmental stresses. This unique situation in space and tine results in the accumulation of protein to deal with the problems. This will be help define the protein grid of the mother cell. This will impact the water potential of the mother cell, which will be used to merge the DNA into an equilibrium shape. The new combined DNA is balanced to past needs and may show improvements, if it can be balanced perfectly.

[hamdani yusuf]

The peacock mating ritual is all about shallow surface criteria. If a male mutation was positive in terms of his digestion; individual selective advantage,  but it did not improve his surface "bling", this mutation will not be chosen by the female.  In fact, a negative mutation, that is hidden, and does not impact the male bling will be chosen. Don't birds show changes in species, base mostly on surface bling, more often than the do based on a better motor and drive train? The latter are below mating radar. The ugly duckling will not be chosen, even if they have beautiful internal advances hidden below the ugly.

There are females of some bird and fish species who choose their mate based on the nest they build.
The first requirement to be a mating candidate is that they have survived into adulthood. Only then the additional advantages can take into account.

[puppypower]

The science of natural selection, if you look closely, is based on fully integrated lifeforms, In other words, if we are talking about natural selection of birds, we are talking about a fully integrated life form; bird, singing and building nests. We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.

This theoretical bias; connected to consciousness, could explain why evolution is not obvious to so many people. Many people expect  "poof!", a new species, they can consciously see, from head to toe, that is obvious to consciousness. They do not expect a slightly different toe nail material. That type of change does not stand out, even though the concept of a mutation implies little things that may have a survival advantage. Why would the female bird notice a new toe nail if song and dance is on the menu?

In other words, say a gene in a human, mutates to create a useful mutation in the spleen, that improves a single enzymatic reaction by 10%. Unless it is flashy or stands out, or causes harm,  it will not be noticed. If the child is always sick we may trace this to a genetic defect. But if there is a very marginal health improvement, that is within a statistical average, we will never investigate. It will stay below the radar of social and conscious standards and not automatically be selected. It may be lost, if it is not flashing with an open for evolution sign.

Yet, small changes do occur in animals, and overall heath and vigor are the rule in terms of animal species. For the small changes to perpetuate, leading to larger and larger system wide changes, whiten the awareness of consciousness, a mechanism, different from consciousness based selection, would be needed. An nanoscale and/or unconscious mechanism would allow subtle changes to persist and build, even if initially ignored by conscious choices, connected to instinct or social protocol.

In natural selection, if we have a group of male deer, batting for mating rights, selection is a series of conscious choices, from the will to win, to the choice to mate. But not all mutation based changes will be conscious. Flashy is often needed because consciousness needs help. It may not see a diamond in the rough, unless it is sanctioned by instinct or learned by herd values, which in the case of humans, can be less than optimized.

Evolution would need a nanoscale referee, to take advantage of little things, below the threshold of consciousness. Once there is a larger system wide change, then it dawns on consciousness.

The brain is wired into most of the cells of the body. Neurons and nerve tissues are smart tissue and the brain can form memories. If we add ti up, it would make sense that parts of the brain, below consciousness, is aware of change much earlier than consciousness. If consciousness screws up there is a still a movement in the right direction. This mechanism would interface the nanoscale via the water, The water induces an equilibrium for any size change.

[Kryptid]

It will stay below the radar of social and conscious standards and not automatically be selected.

If it improves the chances of survival, then that in itself is a selection pressure. Sexual selection need not apply.

[hamdani yusuf]

We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.

Small mutations can sometimes significantly change survival rates of organisms. They may enable new food sources which previously inedible (see LTE experiment on E. coli and lactose tolerance on human). They may provide immunity to diseases, or adaptability to new environment, such as colder climate, lower air pressure, etc.

[puppypower]

We are not talking about changes in small, often unseen parts of the whole, even though a mutation in a gene, can only alter one protein at a time.

Small mutations can sometimes significantly change survival rates of organisms. They may enable new food sources which previously inedible (see LTE experiment on E. coli and lactose tolerance on human). They may provide immunity to diseases, or adaptability to new environment, such as colder climate, lower air pressure, etc.

Lactose intolerance is an example of what can go wrong with mutations. In this case, an available supply of food has to be avoided. However, what can go wrong, if we throw dice to get mutations, is not as common as you may expect. Liife improves over time. Evolution needs loaded dice for steady progress. 

As far running experiments to investigate a change in a gene, the practical minded scientist will try all types of food sources, which or may not be available in a natural environment. The final report looks better if something happens. This could impact future funding. Even if the food used is too coincidental to be natural, a positive result can still tell us things about the gene.

In a natural environment, change, and choice to use the change, often comes back to consciousness. The Koala Bear may never know if he now could eat meat; hypothetical genetic improvement, since its instinct only likes eucalyptus leaves. We need a mechanism to get the Koala to think outside box, or the hypothetical meat eating change will be lost or ignored by all. Necessity may be one motivation, when it comes to having to try the new food. But the rest of the time, "Don't try to fix it unless it is broken".

Maybe an analogy to consciousness based pitfalls with respect to mutations and evolution, is this new theory section of the forums. If we assume new theories are like genetic changes in the conservative knowledge base ; social knowledge DNA, mutations in thought cannot all be bad, yet they appear to need quarantine away from what already is. One hand evolution is optimistic theory for change, but in practice anything alien is suspect, first.

There is a natural defensiveness against novelty and change. At the best, there is a heathy give and take, as the curious animals. circle each other. and the new food source. But more often than not, the cynical animals in the herd, will stomp the new plant, and try to make it taboo for others to eat. How does positive change get through to consciousness, with consciousness sometimes being the worse obstacle to evolutionary offerings?

Evolution assumes intelligent animals and life, willing to think outside the box, take chances, and even run against the herd. Useful change in evolution is not a dime dozen, or itowuld be very obvious to anyone. So when it happens, how is life made ready to accept it, when resistance to change is also at work? In the new theory forums, the genetic  change analogy, has to coaxed or even force fed, but the animal will still spit out. The do not just eat and self experiment.

It makes sense that unconscious processes, such as implied by the concept of survival of the species, has to override the defensiveness of individual survival. This would need a feedforward mechanism from the change itself. If person feels something is true, they will persist and make an offering of change; supply side evolution at the nanoscale. 

[Bored chemist]

Lactose intolerance is an example of what can go wrong with mutations.

Lactose intolerance is a benefit in almost all mammals.

Do you know why?

[hamdani yusuf]

We need a mechanism to get the Koala to think outside box, or the hypothetical meat eating change will be lost or ignored by all.

Random mutation, food contamination by psychedelic mushroom, weed, alcohol.