670,616,629 mph: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection....

In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.

It is the great irony of modern evolutionary genetics that the spirit of explanation has moved more and more towards optimal adaptation, while the technical developments of population genetics of the past 30 years have been increasingly to show the efficacy of non adaptive forces in evolution. ~ Richard Lewontin

Real arms races are run by highly intelligent, bespectacled engineers in glass offices thoughtfully designing shiny weapons on modern computers. But there's no thinking in the mud and cold of nature's trenches. At best, weapons thrown together amidst the explosions and confusion of smoky battlefields are tiny variations on old ones, held together by chewing gum. If they don't work, then something else is thrown at the enemy, including the kitchen sink -- there's nothing "progressive" about that. At its usual worst, trench warfare is fought by attrition. If the enemy can be stopped or slowed by burning your own bridges and bombing your own radio towers and oil refineries, then away they go. Darwinian trench warfare does not lead to progress -- it leads back to the Stone Age. ~ Michael Behe

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Nice find, subby!

/Bevets is here already? Without a summons?

This is what fundies like Bevets like to point out as "controversy in the scientific community about evolution". It's like watching two people debate Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation and concluding that they're debating whether or not things fall when you drop them.

This is not surprising, but it's nice to see people working on quantifiable models.

Bevets: a word to the wise (or, in your case, the willfully ignorant): quoting Behe is not a good way to support an argument of any kind.

jspenguin: This is what fundies like Bevets like to point out as "controversy in the scientific community about evolution". It's like watching two people debate Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation and concluding that they're debating whether or not things fall when you drop them.

THIS

Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

I love the idea creationist think that God is omnipotent but could not have created evolution.

jspenguin: This is what fundies like Bevets like to point out as "controversy in the scientific community about evolution". It's like watching two people debate Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravitation and concluding that they're debating whether or not things fall when you drop them.

It's more like people debating over the free parking handout in monopoly. Bevets thinks he is playing backgammon.

This has the potential to be very interesting. Time to read the article.

No big surprise for anyone who works with computational genomes.

And BTW, mutation is not the driving force either... Sorry.

I hate those species that just sit there evolving at 5 under the speed limit in the left hand lane.

Interesting as the fossil record shows something completely different. Long periods of time, where stable genetics happen then short extinctions with fast evolution.

PirateKing:

I hate those species that just sit there evolving at 5 under the speed limit in the left hand lane.

With their left turn signal on?

Thisbymaster: Interesting as the fossil record shows something completely different. Long periods of time, where stable genetics happen then short extinctions with fast evolution.

This paper, if I am reading it correctly, does not argue against that. Rather it shows the rate of evolution during that "stable" period and the constraints that keep evolution from developing exponentially more "fit" species as time passes.

Of course it has a "speed limit". The output of the sun puts an energetic limit on the whole system. That's obvious.

Thisbymaster: Interesting as the fossil record shows something completely different. Long periods of time, where stable genetics happen then short extinctions with fast evolution.

The fossil record shows absolutely nothing about 'stable genetics'. Morphology and 'genetics' are not the same thing.

As for 'short extinctions' and 'fast evolution'... the fossil record is remarkably diverse, extensive and detailed. There is no evidence that only a single mode or rate of evolutionary change can be applied throughout all of Earth's history.

Bevets

I was going to list the evolutionary concepts that you clearly don't understand, but I see that you've already highlighted them for us.

And those quotes don't address what you've highlighted either. Lewontin constantly questioned the role of adaptation in the evolutionary process, not adaptation itself. He questioned that adaptation was optimal when an organism also influenced the environment and not just the other way around. At least that's what I got out of it. I haven't read much of his work, but I've clearly read more than you.

And again, you post Behe... Behe was referring to humans and interactions with parasites. I believe it was Dawkins who likened some interaction as an "arms race." So to counter this argument, Behe takes Dawkins' metaphor, likens it to a homo-sapiens' "arms race" with one another, point's out how it's not "progressive" (which means different things between evolution and human warfare) and calls the argument flawed. He constructs a strawman, blows it over and declares himself the victor. And clueless morons like you regurgitate it.

maxheck: PirateKing:

I hate those species that just sit there evolving at 5 under the speed limit in the left hand lane.

With their left turn signal on?

They haven't evolved turn signals yet. It's actually a modified flipper.

"This process is slow, normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward."

Bossk'sSegway: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

I love the idea creationist think that God is omnipotent but could not have created evolution.

Or that even though humans were obviously created with flaws and in need of improvement, that nothing else could have been and thus there was no need for evolution.

I'm not here to lob stones, as I also believe in God as the creator, but I do think that the all-powerful that created the laws of physics, chemistry, and the lot would be fully able to use them. Time need not have any meaning for any creature considered eternal, so the 4.5B year life of the earth can be completely in line with the idea of a creator.

What is amazing though is that this particular concept is one that has been chosen for such contention. If you get past the religious objections, the effects that evolution play in anyone's life are infinitesimally small. Understanding it has considerable value in the study of biology, medicine, and genetics, but how does rejecting it actually enhance one's faith? There is no inherent amorality in accepting that life stems from common sources. Even if you believe that God pulled an incredible hocus-pocus act 6000 years ago in creating humans, he still used the same organic materials to form us, and based our design on those of every other creature (in a general sense) and higher mammals (in very specific ways).

Unfortunately, the concept has been sold as a "test of faith," just like dinosaur fossils and carbon dating.

It's too bad when you die, Bevets, you won't have consciousness enough to know that you're not going to Heaven, Hell, or even Euro Disney. I'd like to see that happen.

So, E.Coli turn it to 11 when reproducing?

Its an Open Access article BTW, for anyone interested: The dynamics of adaptation on correlated fitness landscapes

The Shoveller: The fossil record shows absolutely nothing about 'stable genetics'. Morphology and 'genetics' are not the same thing.

Exactly. I'm thinking he was mostly getting at Punctuated Equlibrium, which is of course an observed trend in many lineages over the fossil record, but morphological appearance and underlying genomics are two related but distinct beasts as you point out. All of the work being done in evolutionary genomics today points to them being, evolutionarily speaking, incredibly fluid and dynamic. There is probably little to no "stasis" when it comes to genomes even if overall morphology may look that way. And of course when dealing with morphology we are only looking at a subset of life on earth and only one piece of a much bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot of evolution that can occur, even in multicellular animals, that is important but non morphological when it comes to phenotype.

also, this somehow seems apropos:

So let me get this straight, in a stable environment, it becomes harder and harder to find beneficial mutations, because the previous beneficial mutations have already happened, making it less likely that any given mutation will be beneficial?

It's the Paredo Principle for Evolution.

Thisbymaster: Interesting as the fossil record shows something completely different. Long periods of time, where stable genetics happen then short extinctions with fast evolution.

Somebody famous said something about that a while back. Punctual... balance or something. Anyway, I think he might have written a book about baseball.

Bossk'sSegway: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

I love the idea creationist think that God is omnipotent but could not have created evolution.

It stems from creationists thinking that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If the Genesis account isn't correct, then God isn't correct. So it's not that God couldn't create evolution if he wanted to, it's that God didn't lie in the Bible.

What I don't understand is how they can look at all of the evidence for an old earth and evolution, or understand how the scientific method operates and still think that the Bible is inerrant. I mean, all of the notable creationists here on Fark have been shown how they're wrong over and over again, yet still recite their mantras as if nothing has been said to them. I understand that a good number of them are trolling(eg. Skinnyhead), but there are several who are sincere, and I can't wrap my mind around how someone could be so willfully and proudly ignorant.

PirateKing: I hate those species that just sit there evolving at 5 under the speed limit in the left hand lane.

Hell, even doing the speed limit is too slow in the passing lane.

Do 80 or get over.

If they are doing 5 miles and hour under then you can usually pass them on the right, but if they are at the speed limit then the right lane is probably also doing the speed limit in which case your farked.


My 2 cents on evolution, it happens at the outskirts of a population where more inbreeding occurs which causes a lot more mutations and can cause chromosomal damage which begets speciation.

emkajii: I understand that a good number of them are trolling(eg. Skinnyhead), but there are several who are sincere, and I can't wrap my mind around how someone could be so willfully and proudly ignorant.

Look at it this way, in terms of risk/reward (and a counter point to my previous post):

RISK: disdain and scorn of scientists, mild heckling on the internet. Otherwise, it isn't like evolution is a freight train bearing down on their house. So, a livable risk.

REWARD: admission into heaven. Sure, you may be able to get into heaven if you believe that evolution was responsible for the origin of man, but you're sure that if you believe what the bible says exactly the way you read it... you get into heaven. Seems like a no-brainer.

NOTE: that assumes that you believe that accepting evolution is a rejection of God.

Jeng: My 2 cents on evolution, it happens at the outskirts of a population where more inbreeding occurs which causes a lot more mutations and can cause chromosomal damage which begets speciation.

It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life... The type of downgrade where we'd have to start picking our mates based on traits conducive to survival. This "get drunk and screw" approach to mating plus modern medicine has removed the natural selection necessary for meaningful change. No matter how gloriously some moron is snuffed out, if he has already had kids, he's fulfilled his genetic mission.

So much for my chances at retractable bone claws....

factoryconnection: Jeng: My 2 cents on evolution, it happens at the outskirts of a population where more inbreeding occurs which causes a lot more mutations and can cause chromosomal damage which begets speciation.

It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life... The type of downgrade where we'd have to start picking our mates based on traits conducive to survival. This "get drunk and screw" approach to mating plus modern medicine has removed the natural selection necessary for meaningful change. No matter how gloriously some moron is snuffed out, if he has already had kids, he's fulfilled his genetic mission.

We still have societal pressures, and our diet has also changed quite a bit in the western world.

I hate this "human's aren't evolving anymore" rhetoric. There are a whole lot of people on this planet that have access to modern medicine. Or take a look at lactose intolerance.

That doesn't even take into consideration that modern medicine can be considered an evolutionary adaptation.

Every time sperm meets egg, evolution is in action.

TypoFlyspray: So let me get this straight, in a stable environment, it becomes harder and harder to find beneficial mutations, because the previous beneficial mutations have already happened, making it less likely that any given mutation will be beneficial?

It's the Paredo Principle for Evolution.

Not harder to find, if I understand, but of less significance. After a certain point, any critter species will reach some kind of equilibrium with its environment where beneficial mutations, while still occurring, are not significantly increasing survival rates (I guess that may subtly alter the working definition of a a beneficial mutation). Since the vicissitudes of life are what they are, the mutations don't have any better chance of being passed on, so are unlikely to become properly dominantly present in the population.

So if the trees are already short enough and stay that way, the giraffes won't stretch more to grow longer necks, and Lamark is again proven correct.

Digital_Addict: So much for my chances at retractable bone claws....

You can still have them, they're just no more likely to be passed on to offspring (than any other trait) unless they're particularly useful to survival you find a chick who digs comics.

It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life

As has already been pointed out by meat0918 , humans are actually evolving faster now then our hominid ancestors did.

http://www.physorg.com/news116529402.html
Link (new window)

Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.

factoryconnection: Jeng: My 2 cents on evolution, it happens at the outskirts of a population where more inbreeding occurs which causes a lot more mutations and can cause chromosomal damage which begets speciation.

It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life... The type of downgrade where we'd have to start picking our mates based on traits conducive to survival. This "get drunk and screw" approach to mating plus modern medicine has removed the natural selection necessary for meaningful change. No matter how gloriously some moron is snuffed out, if he has already had kids, he's fulfilled his genetic mission.

Their ain't enough beer in the world to get some people laid.

factoryconnection: Jeng: My 2 cents on evolution, it happens at the outskirts of a population where more inbreeding occurs which causes a lot more mutations and can cause chromosomal damage which begets speciation.

It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life... The type of downgrade where we'd have to start picking our mates based on traits conducive to survival. This "get drunk and screw" approach to mating plus modern medicine has removed the natural selection necessary for meaningful change. No matter how gloriously some moron is snuffed out, if he has already had kids, he's fulfilled his genetic mission.

Actually, evolution in human beings is, according to some recent studies, speeding up in humans, in large part due to increased mixing of populations that previously had been more or less separate. Natural selection pressures on evolution are being reduced, as you point out, but natural selection is not the only factor driving evolution.

Sexual selection - in which some trait is preferable for breeding, but that trait may not be relevant to survival (and in some cases may even be a hindrance to survival) - also plays a role. Then there is epigenetic evolution which is going on, in which various environmental factors can cause certain genes to switch on that previously weren't being expressed, and may have an impact on several generations. There is also a difference between survival pressure & ability to succeed well enough to breed in modern society - you may wind up a hobo and live to 70 years of age, but if you don't have kids, that longevity is essentially worthless.

metztli: Actually, evolution in human beings is, according to some recent studies, speeding up in humans, in large part due to increased mixing of populations that previously had been more or less separate. Natural selection pressures on evolution are being reduced, as you point out, but natural selection is not the only factor driving evolution.

Sexual selection - in which some trait is preferable for breeding, but that trait may not be relevant to survival (and in some cases may even be a hindrance to survival) - also plays a role. Then there is epigenetic evolution which is going on, in which various environmental factors can cause certain genes to switch on that previously weren't being expressed, and may have an impact on several generations. There is also a difference between survival pressure & ability to succeed well enough to breed in modern society - you may wind up a hobo and live to 70 years of age, but if you don't have kids, that longevity is essentially worthless.

Emphasis mine. I'm really, really interested in learning more about that, especially given some of the recent(well maybe not so recent now) studies concerning offspring expressing traits their parents did not.

factoryconnection
This "get drunk and screw" approach to mating plus modern medicine has removed the natural selection necessary for meaningful change.

I'd argue that we're being handed more control of the process, not that we've ended the era of meaningful genetic change. Modern medicine isn't going to be the end of evolution, genetic engineering is going to be where things really start to get interesting. No longer will we be saddled to the influence of random and undirected mutations brought about by transcription errors and cosmic rays. For that matter, we won't be saddled to sexual reproduction (good news for some Farkers no doubt).

Bevets: A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection....

In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.

It is the great irony of modern evolutionary genetics that the spirit of explanation has moved more and more towards optimal adaptation, while the technical developments of population genetics of the past 30 years have been increasingly to show the efficacy of non adaptive forces in evolution. ~ Richard Lewontin

Real arms races are run by highly intelligent, bespectacled engineers in glass offices thoughtfully designing shiny weapons on modern computers. But there's no thinking in the mud and cold of nature's trenches. At best, weapons thrown together amidst the explosions and confusion of smoky battlefields are tiny variations on old ones, held together by chewing gum. If they don't work, then something else is thrown at the enemy, including the kitchen sink -- there's nothing "progressive" about that. At its usual worst, trench warfare is fought by attrition. If the enemy can be stopped or slowed by burning your own bridges and bombing your own radio towers and oil refineries, then away they go. Darwinian trench warfare does not lead to progress -- it leads back to the Stone Age. ~ Michael Behe

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Do you have any original thoughts? Can you add anything except copy-paste quotes that are not even relevent to the article?

No? I didn't think so.

metztli: Sexual selection - in which some trait is preferable for breeding, but that trait may not be relevant to survival (and in some cases may even be a hindrance to survival) - also plays a role. Then there is epigenetic evolution which is going on, in which various environmental factors can cause certain genes to switch on that previously weren't being expressed, and may have an impact on several generations. There is also a difference between survival pressure & ability to succeed well enough to breed in modern society - you may wind up a hobo and live to 70 years of age, but if you don't have kids, that longevity is essentially worthless.

Good point, and also to Meat0918. My error was forgetting that natural selection isn't the only driver for change... all of our poor decisions are causing evolution as well. I do think that many changes that we've seen in people are products of living longer into obsolescence and also drastic changes in our diets. It is a fairly recent fad where people live so long and even more recent that we subsist on food-like substances. The latter will no doubt drive change in our genes eventually.

mrexcess: I'd argue that we're being handed more control of the process, not that we've ended the era of meaningful genetic change.

Yes what you said, too. Our species is now subject to more of an "artificial selection," which can both be random and not necessarily advantageous (drunken hookups, arranged marriage, bad taste in partners) or deliberate and advantageous (drunken hookups with supermodels, marrying a doctor).

Loucifer: Do you have any original thoughts? Can you add anything except copy-paste quotes that are not even relevent to the article?

No? I didn't think so

Doesn't he just shiat in a thread and leave? Toss him on ignore and forget about him.

factoryconnection
marrying a doctor

We'll see how it works out for Joan.

Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Can you please explain why your claims should be considered to be credible, given that you are a demonstrable liar?

Dimensio: There is no point. If they respond at all it will be with something non sequitur and probably consist of 100% out of context quotes.

Cubicle Jockey: It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life

As has already been pointed out by meat0918 , humans are actually evolving faster now then our hominid ancestors did.

http://www.physorg.com/news116529402.html
Link (new window)

Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.

If you look at it simply the incidence of mutation would increase greatly as a population increases. And as the survival of the mutants increases the likelihood of passing on those mutations would also increase.

And since mutation is one primary engine of evolution it would logically stand that Evolution would increase.

Also we stand on the precipice of planed artificial evolution.

I for one am excited at our possible apotheosis. Though I do fear a possible stagnation as we choose only the "Perfect" options in our future selves.

Dimensio: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Can you please explain why your claims should be considered to be credible, given that you are a demonstrable liar?

Why do you not have him on Ignore ? Those who show only willful ignorance should not be encouraged.

Bossk'sSegway: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

I love the idea creationist think that God is omnipotent but could not have created evolution.

It's even more entertaining when they argue that God wasn't clever enough to make something like a bacterial flagellum without having to step in and perform a miracle to make it work properly.

He got everything else right. You'd think God could manage something like that without resorting to cheating.

mitEj: Cubicle Jockey: It basically won't happen to humans any more unless we're faced with a massive downgrade in our quality of life

As has already been pointed out by meat0918 , humans are actually evolving faster now then our hominid ancestors did.

http://www.physorg.com/news116529402.html
Link (new window)

Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different.

If you look at it simply the incidence of mutation would increase greatly as a population increases. And as the survival of the mutants increases the likelihood of passing on those mutations would also increase.

And since mutation is one primary engine of evolution it would logically stand that Evolution would increase.

Also we stand on the precipice of planed artificial evolution.

I for one am excited at our possible apotheosis. Though I do fear a possible stagnation as we choose only the "Perfect" options in our future selves.

People will still have sex and reproduce naturally, and that stagnation will be reduced. The real fear is discrimination against "Imperfect" individuals.