What is the exact mechanism of Darwin's Theory? Do random mutations increase with increased change?
113213
Ahem. People, he's asking about the RATE of change. Not whether changes occur or whether evolution occurs. He clearly already knows that.\n\n__________________________________\n\nWell done. You’ve asked one of the most controversial questions in current evolutionary biology.  Much debate rages about this subject right now. \n\nWhat you are describing is commonly referred to as the evolution of evolvability. As you point out, if a population doesn’t have sufficient variation then environmental change could lead to extinction. But at the same time if the population is too variable the outliers will simply perish in current conditions. For example if elephants contained the inherent variability to produce young twice as big or the size of a rabbit those individuals would die.\n\nThe belief was for 100 years or so that the selective pressure of current environment would maintain a fairly tight rein on variability, that mutation rates were approximately constant and that survival in times of change was simply a case of pot luck. But then people started to look at the fossil record and the real world and it seemed like that wasn’t plausible. Novelties seemed to appear almost overnight, and they appeared almost any time they were needed. \n\nSo then came the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The idea that  a population would sit still for long periods, then as conditions changed they would suddenly leap forwards into a radically different form. That was all well and good, but it was basically just a restatement of the observations, not really an explanatory theory.\n\nIn the past 15 years ago there has been a lot of debate about the idea that organisms have evolved to evolve. That they have evolved in such a way that they are physically stable in times of environmental stasis, but when the environment becomes stressful change they can either mutate more, or reshuffle genes or express pattern of dormant genes to produce stable phenotypic novelties at rates that far exceed background rates.\n\n\nThe theory certainly makes sense. It’s hard to argue that such a trait wouldn’t; be a survival advantage. Unfortunately the evidence is ambiguous. And at the moment there are umpteen dozen theoretical mechanisms to explain how it could occur, and they are impossible to separate out. There is some work which has shown that many species can open up dormant genetic material for expression and re-assortment in response to stress (see first link below). And some experimental evidence suggests mutation rates increase in response to environmental change. Some say that prions are the key. Other favour inherent genetic instability in those individuals that survive initial changes, meaning that the decedent population is inherently prone to genetic varaiation until the environment stabilises and kills of the outliers again. Other propose that assortment of populations within the same or closely related species could explain it. But at this point we can’t even prove that genetic variation does change under stress. But at this point we just don’t know. \n\nYou ask a damn good question but the concept is hard to study and harder to establish with any certainty.\n\n_______\n>>>>Being able to actually understand how, and under what\n>>>> circumstances mutations happen strikes me as extremely\n>>>> important.\n\nWe've actually got a pretty good handle on how and when mutations occur. This is more of a question of when they are expressed or encouraged. Organisms have the ability repair genetic damage thorugh several mechanisms. They also have the ability shield the nucleus fom many mutagens. The issue is whether they may be able to damp down those processes to encourage more mutations.\n\n>>>> I can definitely see that species that do not have the \n>>>>capability to mutate in response to external forces\n>>>> would be selected against.\n\nYes, it's a rather hard
411785
Genetic information is increased by mutation of the genetic material inside an organism. Natural selection simply removes the less advantageous mutations. An increase is not necessarily an improvement but is simply an increase.\n\nDo not think of one current species becoming another, instead think about one common ancestor to both and then how the mutations occurred over million of years and generations to present very different animals.\n\nCertainly, there is a consciousness that can be applied to the selection. Genocide is a good example of somebody thinking they can direct the development of a whole species. Surely the Final Solution is evidence that humans can think in this way. It doesn't mean we should but it proves that we can.
8972
Evidence for evolution:\n\nHomologous proteins\nThe near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids)\nGenetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens\nDNA technology that can show relationship\nDevelopmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny)\n\nThe interesting thing about most of these points of evidence is that it was predicted by Darwin's theory even though Darwin had no way of knowing about genes or biochemistry at all.  Evolution as a theory is merely commonality of descent, and this evidence here is all evidence of evolution.  It doesn't necessarily say that evolution is directed by natural selection, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the origin of life itself or God.  But in experimental science, we can see evolution occuring, and natural selection is one of the major ways of that evolution (the other being artificial selection).\n\nSo when you take the reality of evolution--that is, the commonality of descent amoung all living things--as supported by a great deal of evidence, and you look for possible ways of directing that evolution, natural selection is the only theory that expalins it with existing observable phenomena.\n\nIf you have a better way of explaining it with existing observable phenomena, and it fits all known data better than Darwin's evolution by natural selection, then by all means, let's hear it.  Otherwise, you're objection is not to just evidence, but to SCIENCE ITSELF and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.  And I'm very sorry, but this method has been for too useful to abandon right now.\n\nYou have a complaint with science and think you have a better way?  I'd like to hear it.  OItherwise, you must face the reality that as of today evolution is an indispensible part of the scientific body of knowledge, along with Newton's descriptions of dynamics, Maxwell's electromagnetic principles, the three laws of thermodynamics, and Mendel's theories of genetic sorting.
1040585
Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: \n\n1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view. \n\n2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region. \n\n3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species. [This is now contested by a view of episodes of rapid change and long periods of stasis, known as punctuated equilibrium]. \n\n4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. \n\nhttp://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.
216155
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.51\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.51\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 196663\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."50\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.51\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:  \n  • Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n  • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n  • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.51 \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.51 \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.51\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
1158623
Evolution is infinite.
1025199
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\nWe have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" or
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
639448
thousands....changing always due to evolution
739874
To evolve a thing must have a point at wich to begin,in the limited thought mode.\nevoltion is a constant in the universe, just like change. Evolution is Change and that is the only known constant in this Universe. as we understand it. \nCan time repeat itself, maybe. \nNot as we understand and accept things, so no, evolution cannot repeat itself.
831468
An existing organism is born with certain genes.  Those genes determine how that organism will develop during its life.  Those genes cannot change ... there is no mechanism in life to alter the genes for the entire organism (individual cells yes ... e.g. cancer, but not the entire organism).\n\nSo even if that single organism lived for centuries (like a redwood tree), it cannot change (evolve) in ways not dictated by its genes.\n\nNew life (offspring) is a brand new set of genes ... a new mixture from each of its parents.  \n\nSo each offspring can be different from either one of its parents ... better or worse in some characteristics, or all characteristics, from either parent.\n\nSo over the entire group of individuals in a species ... you have many individuals with slight improvements over their parents.  Those will produce more offspring than those who have fewer improvements (or are slightly worse adapted) than their parents.\n\nThe result is evolution.  Many many tiny improvements in genes, over many many generations.  You cannot have that evolution, without the opportunity for new genes with every new life.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
189913
Did your car evolve or is it the result of intelligent design?\n\nCreation is infinitely more complex than your car, and you think it happened by random chance?  Who's the nut?
289835
1.Evolution occurs.  Lineages of organisms change over time.\n2.Gradualism.  Darwin argued that differences between populations of organisms -- even radically different organisms -- accumulate by a series of innumerable small steps through intermediate forms.\n3. Population speciation: Another idea that was original with Darwin. Individual organisms do not evolve and offspring are not different species from their parents. Evolution is a process that occurs in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. \n4. Common descent: This is the major crux for creationists and an idea original to Darwin. He was the first to argue that species had diverged from common ancestors and thus comprise a great tree of life. \n5. Natural selection: Darwin's most brilliant and original hypothesis, independently arrived at by Wallace. Natural selection is the mechanism of change.\n\nIt is important to remember, however, that Darwin wasn't the first to think of evolution.
151991
Darwin's ideas are essentially the same ones accepted today. You could be referring to the fact that at the time of the publication of "The origin...", Mendel's genetic work was largely unknown (it had passed unnoticed), therefore Darwin did not have a good explanatory mechanism for the inheritance of characters. The predominant idea at the time was something called "blending inheritance" that assumed that the parental traits got "blended" in the offspring. This made it very difficult to support the idea that "good" characteristics would be conserved down the generations (they should blend and eventually disappear). Darwin could never provide a satisfactory explanation, and in subsequent editions of the book he even accepted Lamarckian inheritance again.\nWhen Mendel's work was rediscovered (1900), his model provided a strong support for Darwin's theory. Later other discoveries and developments led to the "New Synthesis" or neodarwinism.
1104927
read here\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation