[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 77 KB, 541x720, 69297_10150297160540117_302201620116_15238201_6188469_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4059983 No.4059983 [Reply] [Original]

You guys got any questions on evolution? I'm bored and Have time to kill.
>Also General Interesting pic thread

>> No.4059989

what an awful thread you have made. go back to /b/

>> No.4059993

>>4059989
Way to be constructive there.

>> No.4060030

What`s the most correct term for "fitness"? As in the best chance of passing on genes?

>> No.4060074

>>4060030
Depends on Enviromental factors. For isntance - Imagin the scene-


A butterfly has predators. It has a specific pattern on it's wings enabling it to be camoflauged against it's enviroment. These genes therefor enable it to produce more successfuly than the butterfly of different color.

You would say it is best adapted to survival.


It's not about being fit, it's about the best adaptations in genes which can then be passed on.

>> No.4060100

>>4060074

OK. So we graph best adapted vs genes. There is a small local maxima that our butterfly inhabits but not too far away there is a larger maxima.

My intuition is that the further away the larger maxima is the less likelly that the butterfly will ever reach it. Am I wrong?

>> No.4060132

>>4060100
It takes longer to reach something that is further away. You point? The butterfly needs food, is it's food source more availiable there?

>> No.4060140

>>4059983
Why hasn't /sci/ evolved out of their obsession with the retard level science; evolution?

>> No.4060165

>>4060100

I`m asking more about genetic algorythms and simulated annealing. I`m not talking about the distance the butterfly has to travel but the difference in genetic structure from it`s species.

But first we need to get our terms straight. I do have a question about evolution. But we probably can`t communicate yet.

>> No.4060189

>>4060165
Genes change as and when they need to. If there be no evolutionary drive, need to change, very little if any will take place.
The butterfly will take time to change and I am not in the buisness of naming the outcome. Genetic structure changes based on requiremnt, should it's environmental shift require rapid change, the genes controlling color in this instance would change. Whether or not this change would warrant a reclassification to a different species it unlikely.

>> No.4060207
File: 3 KB, 180x189, 1315643780187.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4060207

How the hell Sabretooths winded up as Koala bears?

>> No.4060211

>>4060189

OK. Imagine that there is no need for rapid change. The environment is stable. BUT there is a better way . If the change is minimal then I think that the butterflys will change faster than if the changes are large. I`m working up to my real question.

>> No.4060212

>>4060207
>common ancestor
>different evolutionary path joining millions of years back

>> No.4060218

>>4060211
I think it's very circumstantial. If we are being speculative, why not very large change very quickly? If the environment is stable, the butterfly camoflauged from predators, little change will take place.

>> No.4060246

>>4060218

I think you have summed up my question. "Why not large change very quickly?" It just seems that large change quicky is less likely than slow change. BUT I can see an advantage in it sometimes happening.

Yes. Speculation. Question is do species adapt to evolution. Is there a prefered mutation rate?

>> No.4060281

>>4060246
It has been observed that different organisms change at different speeds. Take for instance the Biston betularia (peppered moth). It went from Peppered black over grey to pure black and back to peppered grey in under 150 years (due to the industrial revolution and subsequent clean air act in 1956). Over stepping the mark may be detrimental. I'm not saying evolution 'has' consious thought, I'm mearly personifying it.

>> No.4060311

>>4060281

Understood. You`ve answered my question. Different species have different mutation rates depening on their environment. For example it may be better for species A to change fast and make lots of mistakes but species B to stick close to adapt slowly but be wiped out in a sudden change in environment.

So it`s a bit more complicated than I thought.

>> No.4060322

>>4060311
As a species, I doubt we will see much change over the coming years as we have a tendacy to simply change our environment to our needs, rather than change due to our environment, A rat can live on practicaly anything, thus it's success. The dodo did not evolve fast enough, in contrast, and died out.
Interesting stuff i think.

>> No.4060324

If we came from monkeys then why are monkeys still around? You can't explain that?

>> No.4060336

This may be a silly question, but I'm going to ask it anyway: there is nothing in the theory preventing 'devolution', is there?

What I mean by 'devolution' is simply organs (or genes) that was once lost through natural selection returning as it helps the species survive.

Really, though, all I'm asking is is humans eventually evolving 'back' to apes possible.

>> No.4060334

>>4060324
Good Ol' Bill O'reily. Makes everyone a scientist.

On the off chance you were being serious.

A: That's like saying if America came from Europe, why still have Europe
B: We share a common ancestor, not us from them.

>> No.4060347

>>4060322
Very interesting stuff. It will be interesting to see how the experiment turns out.

>>4060324

Because humans and monkeys can interbreed. You ever seen a nigger. proof son pproof. Now go back to /b

>> No.4060380

>>4060336

OP is probably a better person to ask. It`s not devolution if it increases adaptation. For example some people have webbed toes. They will have an advantage if there is a flood. tiny tiny advantage if looked at over a single human lifetime.

We won`t become monkeys again. We will become something else. If the monkeys ahve a better chance of survival then the monkeys win. We simply die out.

>> No.4060389

>>4060334
Just joking OP, I had an encounter with a Jehovah's witness who actually used that very same argument. I honestly thought she was trolling me but the scary part is that she actually thought that her "argument" held any water.

>> No.4060402

>>4060336
Thinking about it. That would simply be more evolution. Dogs who don't use the back legs and walk around on the front 2 will develop stronger, mroe flexible frong legs and the back 2 would gradually whither away. The snake's legs are going, but the remains can still be seen on the underside of their stomach.

>> No.4060411

>>4060389
My Gandfather's Brother is a Jehovas witness, He tried to get me with the 'irreducable complexity' of the eye. I told him a thing or two.

>> No.4060419
File: 23 KB, 400x400, are-you-a-wizard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4060419

>>4059983
ARE YOU AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST?

>> No.4060414

>>4060380
Okay, I worded my question badly, as it seems.

What I know about natural selection is that because the genes that appear is suitable only for this particular change in environment, the 'next' step in the 'tree of evolution' is not strictly better than the previous steps. What I'm asking is can a species evolve back to its previous steps.

Not humans back to apes (I was stupid), but like, homo sapiens back to Paranthropus because to survive in the new environment requires the abilities that Paranthropus have but homo sapiens don't.

I'm using humans as an example because that's the only animal whose evolution I know something about.

>> No.4060429

>>4060419
Well done, You guessed it.
I'm also in the middle of studying Chemistry, Physics AND maths seperately, But biology is what I do.

>> No.4060439

>>4060429
Is it true that /sci/ does not consider bio a hard science because there's too much vagina involved with it?

Also did you have any courses on geology/ paleontology or are you the typical molecularfag that makes assumptions about evo without realising that his role is only to verify or debunk suggestions made by the fossil record?

>> No.4060444

>>4060414
I would imagin it is possible. However, the conditions would need to be pretty much exactly the same for us to revert back to Paranthropus. Due to our ability to synthesise our own fur/hair in the form of clothing, we will probably never have that much hair ever again, we would also need to migrate back to southern africa, etc, etc. It's something that I have wondered myself, many factors need to be taken into consideration for a reasonable, logical conclusion to be drawn, however.

>> No.4060447

>>4060414

I`m not OP. more an engineer than biology. But from my pespective keeping old genes around is a adaptive thing unless they are a disadvantage in our current environment.

>> No.4060462

>>4060439
As to your 'point' about vagina (as if an irrelevant and minute part of biology was the study of the female sex organ denoting the entirity of biology - like saying the study of where daffodils grow best makes every geologist a wimp) who or what denotes what /sci/ thinks?
The fossil record has stood up to and survived all scruteny passed over it. We have moved on, thank you.

>> No.4060483

>>4060444
Of course, since humans are capable of changing our environment, it would be very hard for the environment to force us to evolve. I recognize that using humans for example is foolish, but I don't know evolutions of any other animals. Cockroaches are pretty much set in stone and doesn't really help.

>>4060447
Now I'm getting to be really speculative, but could the mutations bring a gene back?

For example, let's say Gene B evolves from Gene A due to mutations M1 and M2.

Can Gene B evolve to Gene A through mutations that either reverse M1 and M2 or some other ingenious pathway?

That is, I'm not asking for 'old genes to be re-activated', but 'extinct genes to return by mutation of existing genes'.

I apologize if this is confusing. EEEEENGGLISH!

>> No.4060491

>>4060483
So Gene A from Gene B as if they were completely unrelated? I think evolution does not exclude relapse, so it is plausible in that respect, It would be interesting to find out.

>> No.4060584

If evolution was real, children wouldn't look like their parents, they would look completely different!