Preadaptations

[Phronesis]

Riiiiiiight.....I believe.........

Random mutation and natural selection. No preplanning, not even on a cellular level. Them little cells don't have minds remember.

That link you posted, could you please elaborate on one thing please. With what did they actually disagree with? You say they disagreed with something but did not elaborate. I read the link, but you failed to raise a specific point.

I thought the purpose of this thread was to push your deceitful creationist agenda.

My bad.

Why does science-related discoveries (optimality of the genetic code, biomolecular machines, preadaptations, multicellular toolkits, epigenetics etc.) make you think of creationism? Very interesting though. Your point seem to be "don't talk science otherwise your a creationist". Mmmm, strange, seeing that this is the only site where someone is making that connection. Disconfirmation bias, or inability to discuss information leading to the only debate tactic left... character assasination?

 

[alloytoo]

Why does science-related discoveries (optimality of the genetic code, biomolecular machines, preadaptations, multicellular toolkits, epigenetics etc.) make you think of creationism?

Science related discoveries do not make me think of creationism.

Comments about intentionality, planning, design, however may.

The link I posted represented the view point of an actual real scientist. It's his viewpoint (that I may, or may not agree with him is incidental) you seemed to have a fetish that only real scientists should have an opinion, I'm disseminating said opinion for your edification.

... character assasination

My dear boy, there is absolutely no need for anyone to engage in character assassination insofar as you are concerned. The suicide has already been committed.

 

[Phronesis]

Science related discoveries do not make me think of creationism.

Comments about intentionality, planning, design, however may.

Phew, then you must think a lot about it when reading peer-reviewed articles. Fascinating.

The link I posted represented the view point of an actual real scientist. It's his viewpoint (that I may, or may not agree with him is incidental) you seemed to have a fetish that only real scientists should have an opinion,

That is misrepresenting my position completely yet again. I am of the opinion that those who make it sound that they know a lot about science and know what it is should at least make it known that they actually understand scientific finding by discussing the facts. Make an effort, don't just pretend to know about science.

You still have not elaborated on the link you have posted on what they actually disagreed with. Waiting...

 

[alloytoo]

Phew, then you must think a lot about it when reading peer-reviewed articles. Fascinating.

Context.

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

The english lesson continues.....

That is misrepresenting my position completely yet again.

I'm not mispresenting your position at all.

Please note the words "you seemed".

Perception is 90% of truth. This is my perception obtained from your posts in other threads. Is this perception flawed?

Perhaps.

Hence the use of the words "You seemed." Indicating a less than absolute feeling about the matter.

You seem paranoid about being misrepresented. Somewhat ironic given your posting history.

What other new words do you want to learn?

 

[alloytoo]

pre- a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, where it meant “before” (preclude; prevent); applied freely as a prefix, with the meanings “prior to,” “in advance of,” “early,” “beforehand,” “before,” “in front of,” and with other figurative meanings (preschool; prewar; prepay: preoral; prefrontal).

ad⋅ap⋅ta⋅tion ad-uhp-tey-shuhn

4. Biology. a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

pre⋅ad⋅ap⋅ta⋅tion pree-ad-uhp-tey-shuhn Pronunciation

–noun Biology. a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock and was useful in a descendant in a changed environment.

Origin:
1885–90; pre- + adaptation

Punctuated equilibria
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolution which postulates that changes such as speciation can occur very quickly, with long periods of little change (equilibria) in between. This theory explains the evolutionary patterns of species as observed in the fossil record, particularly the relatively sudden appearance of new species in a geologically short time period.

Simulations of punctuated evolution

Recently, computer simulations have provided some insight into how punctuated evolution may work: The equilibrium periods show a gradual accumulation of neutral mutations, and the jump occurs when some beneficial combination of them reaches a certain threshold percentage.

Adaptive radiation
Adaptive radiation describes the rapid evolutionary differentiation of a single or a few species to fill many ecological niches. This process is driven by mutation and natural selection. Adaptive radiation often occurs when a species is introduced to a new ecosystem, or when a species can survive in an environment that was unreachable before. For example, the Darwin's finches on the Galapagos islands developed from a single species of finches that reached the islands. Other examples include the introduction of predatory mammals to Australia by humans, the development of the first birds, which suddenly were able to expand their territory into the air, or the development of lung fish during the Devonian period, about 300 million years ago.

The dynamics of adaptive radiation is such that, within a relatively short time, many species derive from a single or a few ancestor species. From this large number of genetic combinations, only a few can survive on long term. After the rapid development of many new species, lots or most of them die out as quickly as they appeared. The surviving species are almost perfectly adapted to the new environment. The rise and fall of new species is now progressing very slowly, compared to the initial outburst of species.

There are three basic types of adaptive radiation. They are :
General adaptation. A species that develops a radically new ability can reach new parts of its environment. An example of general adaptation is bird flight.
Environmental change. A species that can, in contrast to the other species in the ecosystem, successfully survive in a radically changed environment will probably branch into new species that cover the new ecological niches created by the environmental change. An example of adaptive radiation as the result of an environmental change is the rapid spread and development of mammalian species after the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Archipelagoes. Isolated ecosystems, such as islands and mountain areas, can be colonized by a new species which upon establishing itself undergoes rapid divergent evolution. Darwin's finch are an example of adaptive radiation occurring in an archipelago.

In science fiction sometimes adaptive radiation of humans is imagined. This often makes for interesting multi-species worlds.

Larry Niven's Integral Trees is a good example.

(disclaimer: Literary reference)

I'm still trying to discern what all the fuss is about.

Neutral mutations either build up until they collectively offer a selection advantage, or until enviromental change effectively makes them advantageous.

Some species, quite by chance, find themselves pre-adapted to certain circumstances.

 

[Phronesis]

I'm still trying to discern what all the fuss is about.

Neutral mutations either build up until they collectively offer a selection advantage, or until enviromental change effectively makes them advantageous.

Some species, quite by chance, find themselves pre-adapted to certain circumstances.

Phew, after all that fuss, you still seem confused. You are still unable to elaborate what you meant when you said "unpreadapted" and "naturally unselected. Man that was funny. Were you joking? Seriously now, don't act so confused, the definition was laid in context in the OP.

Another reason why you are so obviously ignorant is that you (by your own admission) do not read any of the posts here. If you had read any of it, with comprehension, you would not look so confused and actually contribute. As is, yet again you are trolling because of your admitted ignorance and failure to read posts that are relevent to a thread. Highly malicious and you know it. But what do you expect from a person that do not have senior high biology but pretend to know a lot about science in general? As is, I think I have tried long enough to engage in civil conversations with people who have differing opinions. The only people capable of that seem to Geriatrix, cocococo, chopsky and to a certain degree DJK. You, w1zzie, cyghost and rwenzori are an absolute waste of time, to get you guys to engage in a civil manner is like getting blood from a stone. Pure fundamentalists. Sorry, if you feel offended, but like Garreth Cliff (IIRC) said, if you feel offended you probably deserve to be offended.

You may continue to pollute threads with your ignorance if you think it is funny. That the mods have not picked up on your obvious malicious behaviour is an indication that they do not read your comments. About time someone does something about, this place can have much more civil and enlightening debates and discussions if a few element are removed, and they know who they are .

This is the only place where this kind of behaviour seem to be tolerated.
Not so here, here or here. That anyone has to tolerate your trolling is sad.

 

[alloytoo]

Phew, after all that fuss, you still seem confused. You are still unable to elaborate what you meant when you said "unpreadapted" and "naturally unselected. Man that was funny. Were you joking? Seriously now, don't act so confused, the definition was laid in context in the OP.

Un-pre-adapted, something which does not have a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock that could be useful in a descendant in a changed environment.

natural selection
n. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

This usually means the organism is Un-Selected (the opposite of selected) IE: Extinction.

Biology. the act or process of becoming extinct; a coming to an end or dying out: the extinction of a species.

one notes that neither "un-preadapted" or "unselected" appear in this quote (below), nor for that matter in my entire post.

I'm still trying to discern what all the fuss is about.

Neutral mutations either build up until they collectively offer a selection advantage, or until enviromental change effectively makes them advantageous.

Some species, quite by chance, find themselves pre-adapted to certain circumstances.

Another reason why you are so obviously ignorant is that you (by your own admission) do not read any of the posts here. If you had read any of it, with comprehension, you would not look so confused and actually contribute. As is, yet again you are trolling because of your admitted ignorance and failure to read posts that are relevent to a thread. Highly malicious and you know it. But what do you expect from a person that do not have senior high biology but pretend to know a lot about science in general? As is, I think I have tried long enough to engage in civil conversations with people who have differing opinions. The only people capable of that seem to Geriatrix, cocococo, chopsky and to a certain degree DJK. You, w1zzie, cyghost and rwenzori are an absolute waste of time, to get you guys to engage in a civil manner is like getting blood from a stone. Pure fundamentalists. Sorry, if you feel offended, but like Garreth Cliff (IIRC) said, if you feel offended you probably deserve to be offended.

You may continue to pollute threads with your ignorance if you think it is funny. That the mods have not picked up on your obvious malicious behaviour is an indication that they do not read your comments. About time someone does something about, this place can have much more civil and enlightening debates and discussions if a few element are removed, and they know who they are .

One notes that this is basically two paragraphs of personal insults, (not solely directed at myself), but which doesn't actually in any way shape or form address my post.

 

[Phronesis]

Lol at unpreadapted and naturally unselected. Hilarious. You were actually serious. Keep it coming. As is, you still seem to be a bit confused. Good luck with finding your point and actually elaborating. It is refreshing that you are swaying away from your trolling tendencies. But confuzzled arguments don't make for coherent reading. Make a coherent point in the context of the discussion. You seem unable to do so. Cheers, here is to hoping you will find your way.

 

[alloytoo]

Lol at unpreadapted and naturally unselected. Hilarious. You were actually serious. Keep it coming. As is, you still seem to be a bit confused. Good luck with finding your point and actually elaborating. It is refreshing that you are swaying away from your trolling tendencies. But confuzzled arguments don't make for coherent reading. Make a coherent point in the context of the discussion. You seem unable to do so. Cheers, here is to hoping you will find your way.

oh dear, again not actually addressing the content, again with derision.

tsk tsk

Either something is preadapted or is isn't.

From one perspective that may be viewed as "UN-pre-adapted" (using English langauge convention), A trifle clumsy, but I doubt anyone (other than yourself) has a problem with the concept.

Either something is selected or it isn't. (Disclaimer, Natural selection is not a god).

That which is isn't selected may be viewed as "UN-Selected" (using English langauge convention), A trifle clumsy, but I doubt anyone (other than yourself) has a problem with the concept.

one notes that neither "un-preadapted" or "unselected" appear in this quote (below), nor for that matter in my entire post.

I'm still trying to discern what all the fuss is about.

Neutral mutations either build up until they collectively offer a selection advantage, or until enviromental change effectively makes them advantageous.

Some species, quite by chance, find themselves pre-adapted to certain circumstances.

Still since we are the only two posting on this thread, and you don't actually want to treat it as anything other than a personal blog, I vote we can it.

 

[Phronesis]

ROFL, that you had to invent unpreadapted and naturally unselected and still believe them to be relevant clearly indicates you are on a path to more confuzzled argumentation. Look at the OP and work with those definitions and when you feel you have a point, make it. As is, you still seem confused and I can understand why you would want to can it. Hiding your ignorance won't do it, I think it is time people see you for who you are.

 

[w1z4rd]

I feel ill when I read some of the post in this thread.

Allytoo.. you are making a world of sense, thanks for those very clear definitions.

 

[alloytoo]

ROFL, that you had to invent unpreadapted and naturally unselected and still believe them to be relevant clearly indicates you are on a path to more confuzzled argumentation. Look at the OP and work with those definitions and when you feel you have a point, make it. As is, you still seem confused and I can understand why you would want to can it. Hiding your ignorance won't do it, I think it is time people see you for who you are.

un- - 10 dictionary results
un-1 a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns (unfair; unfairly; unfairness; unfelt; unseen; unfitting; unformed; unheard-of; un-get-at-able), and less freely used in certain other nouns (unrest; unemployment).

unselected

adjective
not selected [ant: selected]

"UN" for these purposes equals "not".

Again you're being childish about a language which you appear to have a limited comprehension of.
*
hmmmm still can't find those terms here:

I'm still trying to discern what all the fuss is about.

Neutral mutations either build up until they collectively offer a selection advantage, or until enviromental change effectively makes them advantageous.

Some species, quite by chance, find themselves pre-adapted to certain circumstances.

 

[alloytoo]

I feel ill when I read some of the post in this thread.

Allytoo.. you are making a world of sense, thanks for those very clear definitions.

I'm sorry, do you feel the use of the prefix "un" in place of "Not" to be confusing, even where the word isn't strictly speaking in the dictionary?

My four year old understands that.

 

[Phronesis]

Lol, use those words in a sentence were you actually want to make a point to see if you truly understand what you mean when you said it.
From post #45 you actually said:
Unpreadapted=naturally unselected
No elaboration. This came from your equally cryptic sentence (post #43):
Again at a gross level, it's nothing more than glorified natural selection.

You never really elaborated.

Of course wizzy is going to agree with you on this, that seems to be his nature (pretend he understands).

But use the definitions given in the OP and then read with comprehension about the various developmental genes at the base of the eumetazoan tree. What you are doing is what you normally do, come with cryptic little sentence and when asked to elaborate you throw out your toys an tell others how bad they are at languages. The only thing you are doing is trying to be confusing, when in actual fact you just look confused.

 

[alloytoo]

Lol, use those words in a sentence were you actually want to make a point to see if you truly understand what you mean when you said it.
From post #45 you actually said:
Unpreadapted=naturally unselected
No elaboration. This came from your equally cryptic sentence (post #43):
Again at a gross level, it's nothing more than glorified natural selection.

You never really elaborated.

And you still haven't figured this one out. Still your grasp of natural selection is particularly shaky. (like your english comprehension)

Given that Pre-adaption is : "a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock and was useful in a descendant in a changed environment."

&

Un-preadapted = Not preadapted : "something which does not have a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock that could be useful in a descendant in a changed environment."

& unselected (adjective not selected [antonym: selected]

Therefor "Naturally unselected" = Antonym of "Naturally Selected"

an⋅to⋅nym [an-tuh-nim] Pronunciation
–noun a word opposite in meaning to another. Fast is an antonym of slow.

So, either something is preadappted or it's not

Something is "naturally selected" or it's not.


Naturally preadaptation is a huge advantage on the selection front, a reservoir of neutral attributes (or cumulative attributes) in the face of changing conditions would allow relatively rapid evolution and probable survival.

Those without such reservoirs or cumulated attributes would probably not adapt quickly and would probably face extinction.

Of course wizzy is going to agree with you on this, that seems to be his nature (pretend he understands).

But use the definitions given in the OP and then read with comprehension about the various developmental genes at the base of the eumetazoan tree. What you are doing is what you normally do, come with cryptic little sentence and when asked to elaborate you throw out your toys an tell others how bad they are at languages. The only thing you are doing is trying to be confusing, when in actual fact you just look confused.

Nothing cryptic about it. Those genes if they've survived, whatever they did, and what they now do, clearly offered a competitive advantage.

Those genes were select, others were not selected, this is how natural selection (NB not synonym for god) works.

 

[Phronesis]

And you still haven't figured this one out. Still your grasp of natural selection is particularly shaky. (like your english comprehension)

Given that Pre-adaption is : "a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock and was useful in a descendant in a changed environment."

&

Un-preadapted = Not preadapted : "something which does not have a structure or property that developed in an ancestral stock that could be useful in a descendant in a changed environment."

& unselected (adjective not selected [antonym: selected]

Therefor "Naturally unselected" = Antonym of "Naturally Selected"



So, either something is preadappted or it's not

Something is "naturally selected" or it's not.


Naturally preadaptation is a huge advantage on the selection front, a reservoir of neutral attributes (or cumulative attributes) in the face of changing conditions would allow relatively rapid evolution and probable survival.

Those without such reservoirs or cumulated attributes would probably not adapt quickly and would probably face extinction.





Nothing cryptic about it. Those genes if they've survived, whatever they did, and what they now do, clearly offered a competitive advantage.

Those genes were select, others were not selected, this is how natural selection (NB not synonym for god) works.

Unfortunately you again seem to miss preadaptations in relation to natural selection.
Toolkits and switches that control the deployment of the developmental program of animals were present even in single celled eukaryotes. Natural selection together with recombination of these toolkits resulted in the development of animal forms. For example, genes that encode for body plans were present in animals that had no body plan. These programs just unfolded as time went on. Yes natural selection and RV played a role, but as already discussed, evolution is under intrinsic control and biased to a few ends as a result of these preadaptations. Plenty of posts here to discuss it.

Now either these genes had a different function and all of them were co-opted into their respective roles in development (spectaculary converged), or they were dormant and later unfolded into the developmental program in response to the environment together with RV + NS. But here is the problem. If genes are dormant and do not contribute to fitness, they are liable to degrade as a result of random variation because selection won't preserve their function. Yet these genes were preserved through whatever mechanism. Natural selection only selects for what happens to work and it does not have a goal. Preserving a function or buffering a function from the effects of random variation that does not contribute to present fitness implies a goal, a back-up plan for the future when this function might be needed again. And there are plenty of examples of toolkits and switches for nerves, eye, bone formation etc in simple organisms that do not even have a body plan. Hence the word preadaptation...

 

[alloytoo]

Unfortunately you again seem to miss preadaptations in relation to natural selection.
Toolkits and switches that control the deployment of the developmental program of animals were present even in single cells eukaryotes. Natural selection together with recombination of these toolkits resulted in the development of animal forms. For example, genes that encode for body plans were present in animals that had no body plan. These programs just unfolded as time went on.

Now either these genes had a different function and all of them were co-opted into their respective roles in development (spectaculary converged), or they were dormant and later unfolded into the developmental program in response to the environment. But here is the problem. If genes are dormant and do not contribute to fitness, they are liable to degrade as a result of random variation because selection won't preserve their function. Yet these genes were preserved through whatever mechanism. Natural selection only selects for what happens to work and it does not have a goal. Preserving a function or buffering a function from the effects of random variation that does not contribute to present fitness implies a goal, a back-up plan for the future when this function might be needed again. And there are plenty of examples of toolkits and switches for nerves, eye, bone formation etc in simple organisms that do not even have a body plan. Hence the word preadaptation...

What about those single celled organisms that didn't have these preadaptations?

Where are they now?

 

[Phronesis]

Still around, many of them still have these genes. Some are lost. Some genes and gene sets have expanded. But when you look at the hedgehog signaling pathway, almost all of the parts of this pathway necessary for the development of multicellularity and multicellular body plans were present in archaea and bacteria (see toolkit thread). The advent of oxygen (induced by life itself) unlocked further signaling capabilities, including multi-domain extracellular receptors rich in oxygen containing amino acids as well as signaling capabilities of hedglings (see toolkit thread).

 

[alloytoo]

Still around, many of them still have these genes. Some are lost. Some genes and gene sets have expanded. But when you look at the hedgehog signaling pathway, almost all of the parts of this pathway necessary for the development of multicellularity and multicellular body plans were present in archaea and bacteria (see toolkit thread). The advent of oxygen (induced by life itself) unlocked further signaling capabilities, including multi-domain extracellular receptors rich in oxygen containing amino acids as well as signaling capabilities of hedglings (see toolkit thread).

How can they still have genes they never had in the first place?

What happened to single celled organisms that didn't have these genes (ever)?

Where are they now?

 

[Phronesis]

How can they still have genes they never had in the first place?

What happened to single celled organisms that didn't have these genes (ever)?

Where are they now?

We can only work with what we know know. The rest is speculation. We know what genes are present, we can't speculate on genes we do not observe. As is, even simple prokaryotes contain many of these genes. Gene loss instead of innovation seem to be the order. The only innovation seem to be expansion of pre-existing genes through co-option and duplication.