Seems like the genes could do all this before they have to, rather than until they find out if they need to. It's seems as complex as if someone was looking down from an aerial view at the population and while observing the comings and goings of the population try to assess what is the limit of their decision making and the purpose of their interactions. .
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce an organism with a different body plan from the original.
*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
yes, you need to go to eighteen hundreds to find a quote where it says that species dont change. and take it out of context. Now to the actual quote: P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments. Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism. As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant. The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.
Charles Darwin: *_"(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species", p. 162. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."_* Origin of Species, p. 293.
Thanks for uploading this video! I really needed a summary on it for a test question.
Darwin Nemesis! Please give us a link to the new biology! It sounds fricken exciting!
Thanks a lot
Seems like the genes could do all this before they have to, rather than until they find out if they need to. It's seems as complex as if someone was looking down from an aerial view at the population and while observing the comings and goings of the population try to assess what is the limit of their decision making and the purpose of their interactions. .
There are currently no known examples, in nature or science, where one life form will convert to a different life form (i.e. different body plan) by change in the DNA. Current understanding in the field of genetics seems to indicate that varying body plans (for example, the difference between an octopus and praying mantis) do not reside within the DNA. Genes within the DNA of a particular organism code for the different proteins required to build and allow that particular organism to function but has not been shown to determine that particular organism's primary biological architectural body plan. Therefore, no amount of random mutation of DNA will produce an organism with a different body plan from the original.
*_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)
It does, though. You really need to study Biology.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
yes, you need to go to eighteen hundreds to find a quote where it says that species dont change. and take it out of context.
Now to the actual quote:
P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.
Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.
As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.
The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.
Charles Darwin: *_"(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species", p. 162. "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."_* Origin of Species, p. 293.
chicken!!!!! good luck on that exam!!!!
WHOA! HAHAHAHAHA Whos this?