Login

Join for Free!
117518 members


Evolution interactions

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Evolution interactions

Postby tennisgurl729 » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:57 pm

Does anyone know if evolution is the response to interactions between organisms and:
a) their future environment
b) their genomes
c) their past, current and future environment
d) their past environment
e) their current environment
-thanks-
tennisgurl729
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:41 pm

Postby canalon » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:20 pm

I know. But I won't tell because i'd rather you find the solution.
So let's think a bit for A,C,D and E:
Is there a way for an organism to know what its future environment is going to be?
Does responding to a past event bring any advantage? To a present event?
I must say that b leave me a bit perplex, as I do not really see what is meant by the interaction between the organism and the genome. But if you read the question as does the genome is part of the interaction, I think that the response is quite clear.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby tennisgurl729 » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:23 pm

so i'm thinking it's past environment?
tennisgurl729
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:41 pm


Re: Evolution interactions

Postby canalon » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:35 am

Think of it as to chose your set of clothes for the day without weather forecast (no way to know the future). The organism has a set of clothes (its genome) and must choose among them for the best. What do you think is more important: the weather that you can see today through the windows, or yesterday's weather?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby JorgeLobo » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:59 am

It is the past environment and the genome - one does not evolve in anticipation of future conditions and one has not had the opportuntity to evovle to the current environment (unless it's the same as the past).

Really, canalon. That quote from Montague is fatuous. and pretty lame.
JorgeLobo
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:14 am

*grabs popcorn and watches feathers fly*
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby JorgeLobo » Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:27 pm

Sorry - not very entertaining. Probably too many scientists and folks who actually understand evolution/
JorgeLobo
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:12 am

Re:

Postby AstusAleator » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:41 pm

The question is poorly thought out and worded
...evolution is the response to interactions between organisms and:
a) their future environment
b) their genomes
c) their past, current and future environment
d) their past environment
e) their current environment


Since they say "Evolution is" then I will take this as an attempt to define evolution.
-Evolution is not a response to anything. It is a process. I would go so far as to say that there is no "response" at all in evolution, only cause and effect.
-Evolution has no limitation of time-frame built into its definition. So to attempt to define evolution differentially according to past, current, or future environmental factors is illogical.

Furthermore, the differentiation between past, current, and future environment is dubious. Does "past environment" mean the environmental conditions occurring at any time before the present, or does it mean previous environmental conditions that were distinctly different from current conditions in one or more ways? The same logic can be applied to "future environment". Does "current environment" mean real-time at a given moment, or just the general conditions that typify an ecological state that existed in the near past and will likely exist in the near future?
For the sake of argument, I will assume that past, current, and future environment are eras of indeterminable length marked by distinctly different environmental conditions.

Perhaps the person who created the question intended a meaning more along the lines of:

At any point in time, adaptation occurs as the result of interactions between organisms and:
a) their future environment
b) their genomes
c) their past, current and future environment
d) their past environment
e) their current environment

In which case I would say that the answer is clearly E.

JorgeLobo wrote:It is the past environment and the genome - one does not evolve in anticipation of future conditions and one has not had the opportuntity to evovle to the current environment (unless it's the same as the past).


At the most basic level, evolution is change in allele frequency. If a new disease kills off all RR, Rr, and rR individuals of a species, leaving only rr; that would be evolution resulting from current conditions (presence of the pathogen within the population). Past conditions (absence of the pathogen within the population) could in no way have prepared the population for what was to come. Future environment (volcano erupts? global warming? new pathogen?) is irrelevant to current evolutionary process.

Organisms can't really interact with their genome...
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron