What is a survival trait? exploding the myth.

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

1. Survival traits help creatures to survive.
2. A polar bear paw is an example of a survival trait.
3. Bacteria are creatures.
Therefore, the polar bear paw would help bacteria to survive.

Let's try this...
1. Correction: Survival traits help creatures within a certain population to survive... you continue from there and tell me what new conclusion you draw.

Yes, we can say that, within the population of creatures that are benefited by a particular survival trait, the survival trait benefits them. But that looks like a tautology or something like one.

That answer is too glib, too easy though. I would just like to point out that this is a difficult topic as it involves concepts and logic. I do not have the answers, but I can see where the problems are, and I'm pretty bright and might find one or two partial solutions.

3 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Then, please explain what you find a problem?

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

That answer is too glib, too easy though.

That wasn't an answer. It was a correction in your representation of the theory.

Perhaps we should take a step back and make sure we are on the same page with what Biological Evolution is. The following is a classic discussion of this topic which has been hanging around on the talkorigins archive for decades.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Quote:

What is Evolution?
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Yeah ok let's download an entire biology text for this person. Maybe he needs to be spoon fed.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

. . . I do not have the answers, but I can see where the problems are, and I'm pretty bright . . .

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Oh yeah . . . you're about as bright as a candle on a birthday cake at noon on a clear day . . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

My point was that "survival of the fittest" refers to the species, not the individual. An individual is fit if it survives. That does not mean, however, that the individual will pass on it's genetic code. Successful reproduction is the only assurance of that.

That's an example of the doubling of entities or properties, where there is only one. It's a major untackled problem of the scientific method.

0 Replies

@G H,

G H wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:
Evolutionary survival traits supposedly help a species to survive, but species do not survive when they evolve - they become extinct.

No, a new species emerging from another doesn't mean that the latter is destined to become extinct. Especially if they genetically diverged in the first place as the result of migrating away from the rest, becoming a geographically separated population that adapted to different environmental circumstances. Even in cases where the newbies' success does cause the gradual disappearance of their ancestral provenance, a pocket of the older group can sometimes escape via its own manner of haphazard isolation. As lemurs did on Madagascar.

Species cannot evolve. If they evolved then they would become extinct.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:
That answer is too glib, too easy though.

That wasn't an answer. It was a correction in your representation of the theory.

Perhaps we should take a step back and make sure we are on the same page with what Biological Evolution is. The following is a classic discussion of this topic which has been hanging around on the talkorigins archive for decades.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Quote:
What is Evolution?
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

I don't know what point you are making in your initial text.
As for the quote, please pull out what's relevant. There isn't enough time.
I'm not impressed with name dropping authors, or comments on my scientific prowess, which is more than considerable.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

G H wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:
Evolutionary survival traits supposedly help a species to survive, but species do not survive when they evolve - they become extinct.

No, a new species emerging from another doesn't mean that the latter is destined to become extinct. Especially if they genetically diverged in the first place as the result of migrating away from the rest, becoming a geographically separated population that adapted to different environmental circumstances. Even in cases where the newbies' success does cause the gradual disappearance of their ancestral provenance, a pocket of the older group can sometimes escape via its own manner of haphazard isolation. As lemurs did on Madagascar.

Species cannot evolve. If they evolved then they would become extinct.

Not sure you fully understand... It's possible for a species to evolve and not go extinct. Look to Darwin's Finch as an example. The original species still exists just fine, but new species have evolved from the original which still exists.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Evolutionists talk about traits as if they were real, independent things, like individuals. But if traits were independent things then they could be swapped between creatures. The polar bear's wide paws would be a survival trait for bacteria....

Here's why bacteria don't have bear claws. Sharp claws definitely help bears. There's no question about it. Now, tell me this, if you actually gave a claw to a bacterium, would it be better off?

Right, bear claws are helpful to bears but not to bacteria. Just like a really good book on contract law is helpful to a law student but not a medical student.

You persistently misunderstand the mechanism. All that happens is that the survival chances for a bacterium depend on two things, luck and how well it functions in its actual environment. Over time, the bacteria not well suited to their situation, e.g. very susceptible to a common medicine or not well able to infect a host, tend to die more often than the bacteria with more functional qualities. Therefore, over time, there is a slow drift towards greater functionality because of this survival of the fittest. Bacteria also have never developed tractor treads because (a) they wouldn't help, and (b) there is no real viable pathway to tractor treads for a bacteria colony at every step of which a bacterium is a bit better off than at the previous step.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

Evolutionists talk about traits as if they were real, independent things, like individuals. But if traits were independent things then they could be swapped between creatures. The polar bear's wide paws would be a survival trait for bacteria.

Your intelligent-sounding post does not mask your seemingly complete ignorance for how the scientific process of evolution by natural selection works.

" Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. Therefore the population evolves"

All a survival trait is, is an evolved trait slightly different and slightly more advantageous than it's neighbors' traits. Either inner-species or different species compete for the same resource in an ecosystem (e.g. food or living space.) and this trait gives it a slight edge that allows it to out-compete the others. Natural selection does this by metaphorically tinkering with the already existing genome and altering it slightly. Most mutations fail, but occasionally a mutation occurs that is beneficial. The trait may be so minutely different that it only gives an organism a 1% reproductive advantage over the others, and because of exponential growth that trait will spread to the rest of the population.

Quote:

The polar bear's wide paws would be a survival trait for bacteria.

This is example is extreme and ludicrous because first a bacteria, over hundreds of millions of years would have to evolve a nervous system, a cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system etc. just to be able to use the polar bear's paw. Evolutionary change is extraordinarily gradual not rapid and extreme.

0 Replies

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

Evolutionists talk about traits as if they were real, independent things, like individuals. But if traits were independent things then they could be swapped between creatures.

Actually, despite your complete ignorance of evolution, you do have a point. What you are saying may indeed, because of genetic engineering, be possible in the future. But it still couldn't be anywhere nearly as stupid and extreme as the bacteria's paw. Here's a current example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse

I read a science fiction story once where humans were genetically engineered with gills and could live underwater, and I guess theoretically that is possible but it would take hundreds (or thousands) of years of research and experimentation before something like that were possible, because you'd have to change the whole internal structure of an individual.

"Some animals can see using much more of the infrared and/or ultraviolet spectrum than humans"

Finding the genes that create eyes, and a nervous system that allow animals to be able to see in infrared or ultraviolet, & through GE inserting those genes in the human genome is, I guess, theoretically possible.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

I'm not impressed with name dropping authors, or comments on my scientific prowess, which is more than considerable.

What a clown. If your knowledge matched your ego, you would truly be the "bright" guy you claim to be. The reality, though, is that your knowledge is in inverse proportion to your ego. The former miniscule, the latter enormous.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I haven't read this entire thread, but my guess is he's blinded by the light. Before researching evolution he's already concluded, even though he knows nothing about evolution of the scientific method and process, that it is false because it contradicts the simplistic and idyllic creation myth in genesis. There's probably tens of thousands of books and research papers written on evolution, written by scientists who have meticulously examined and explored evolution from every imaginable angle. He's read none of their research and concluded it's false because of a couple of pages from a book written by ancient sheep herders.
My guess is next will he will start a thread, with equal arrogance and ignorance, on why the Big Bang didn't happen since that contradicts the Bible as well.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

Quote:

Here it is, expressed as premises and conclusion:

1. Survival traits help creatures to survive.
2. A polar bear paw is an example of a survival trait.
3. Bacteria are creatures.
Therefore, the polar bear paw would help bacteria to survive.

I think Fresco may have gotten it right immediately. I'm 50/50 on whether John is a troll or is actually serious. To your credit John, you seem too intelligent to actually believe this college logic 101 statement about evolutionary traits is actually valid and rational. John, are you a troll or do you actually believe this is rational logic?

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

He's a troll. There are only two viable avenues for dealing with him. Repeatedly laugh at him and tell him he's an idiot, or ignore him. He has already started thread after thread looking for a fight or hoping to piss people off.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Yes, but a thought the definition of a troll was someone who makes false & sarcastic statement to evoke emotional responses. He obviously does that, but my question is does he actually believe these statements, or does he actually accept evolution and is just being a jackass? Either way, I found this discussion to be interesting and I did learn a little bit.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

Who cares what he believes. Man, that troll has suckered you hook, line and sinker.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well, he certainly got the attention he wanted. This thread got 14 thumbs up. That's higher than most threads.

1 Reply

@Jpsy,

I spent an hour on one of my threads doing research, and it got around 5 thumbs up. This one now has 15 thumbs up. I see why those stupid shows like housewives of New Jersey are so popular, people love drama and a good fight. On a slightly related note, it's probably why the History Channel doesn't actually show documentaries on history anymore. The masses love the dramatic and fantastic over reality. Entertainment over education. How many programs on the Loch Ness Monster, alien Nazis, and the Bible code can people watch?

1 Reply

What is a survival trait? exploding the myth.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know