Printable View
hmm.. but what about genetic algorithms now i have little to no understanding of them
but from what i could tell (I had thought of doing an extra project on it but then shifted to hueristics) they do utilise the same type of merging of code via data structures and all as is done by the DNA in mutating.
Like Alleycat said great job with the no flames yet this thread. Now I have noticed in the last few posts that it seems people are interposing evolution and natural selection. Keep in mind these are two different concepts intirely. Natural selection is the idea that the enviromental conditions cause certain 'weaker' elements of a species to die off, or not propogate. Evolution is the organisms moleculare change due to the enviromental stimuli over time.
I'm not sure you can separate Natural Selection and Evolution so readily....
If natural selection "weeds out" the weakest of a species they are not, logically, identical to the rest of the species. Say, for example, redheads were being "weeded out" because the predator can see them more easily. They are redheads because, even though they are the same species, their DNA differs from the blond and dark haired people. In a way they are already a "sub-species". Should the environment remain the same, (the predators remain), then, eventually, the redhead's genetic material would be removed from the species DNA - thus the extinction of the "sub-species". The DNA of the species as a whole has changed - no redheads - thus the species has evolved. But it was achieved by natural selection.
Evolution produced the "error" in the code that threw redheads. Natural selection threw out the redheads because the "code" was not a successful branch. The code has been re-altered. It would be quite possible that, at some time in the future, the "code" errors again and begins throwing redheads and, if the predators have gone, (because they can't catch enough food now the redheads have gone), that the redheads could succeed.
Or am I completely nuts?
Oh Hush... ;)
The redhead analogy sounds rather accurate. I guess natural selection then would be a means by which evolution works.
Humans evolve a green haired gene. By natural selection the greenheads survive better than the rest since the predators don't eat thier greens, looks like thumper isn't alone on this, instead prefering the flower that is redheads thereby the human race evolves towards a green haired people.
or is this just the lack of sleep talking.
That's pretty much the way I see it working.... by chance... If you evolve one way, (there's no conciousness to the change in the code), you might be evolving towards extinction. This is why I believe there to be millions of bits of broken code littering evolution.
This would only remove a characteristic from the gene pool of that species.Quote:
Should the environment remain the same, (the predators remain), then, eventually, the redhead's genetic material would be removed from the species DNA - thus the extinction of the "sub-species".
The tough part is assuming that mutation could add a new characteristic.
That's why I remain a skeptic. Beyond that is another, larger hurdle. Different
species have different numbers of chromosomes and cannot interbreed.
How would an altogether new species evolve gradually from an existing one?
A spontaneous mutation that changed the number of chromosomes in one
individual would render him unable to reproduce (because he is genetically
incompatible with everyone else). So, this mutation would have to happen
simultaneously in at least two individuals, one male and one female. It would
need to, by coincidence, be the same exact mutation, so that these two
individuals could mate. Needless to say, they would have to live near each other
and just happen (by sheer luck) to meet, mate and reproduce. Then, natural selection
would determine if the mutation was conducive to survival.
Wishful thinking. People want evolution to be true because they hate God,
and fear that he would punish them for their sins. Better to pretend the
bogeyman isn't there, and invent a way that life and intelligence could
emerge from nothing plus time and a little luck.
:cool:
keep in mind the human race has been dealing with mutations that leave us with an extra chromosome for a long time now, people with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome. Im not sure and will google after this post to find the answer, but im pretty sure that someone with Down syndrome can reproduce with someone that doesn't have it.
Edit: ok i can't find anything on reproduction between a normal human and a down sundrome human due to my lack of free time here at work. But i did find that it is possible for animals with different chromosome numbers to reproduce.
Horse (64 chromosomes) + Donkey (62 Chromosomes) = Mule (63 chromosomes)
Now keep in mind that the horse has 64 chromosomes but only 32 pair, and the donkey has 31 pair. The mule, however, has 31.5 pairs due to the extra chromosome. This extra chromosome is the 'odd man out' during reproduction. Since it has no pair, during meiosis , I or II i can't remember, the dividing cell can't pair up the extra and therefore dies, and is the reason mules are sterile.
SO
We can infer from this that yes it is possible for animals with different chromosome numbers to reproduce, but thier offspring are more often than not sterile, there have been a few documented cases of a mule bieng able to reproduce, and therefore will be one of the first genetic traits to be eliminated fromt he evolutionary line via natural selection.
http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/ar.../downssyn.htmlQuote:
Trisomy 21 is when the cells have 22 normal pairs of chromosomes but 3 chromosomes of the number 21.
They have the same number of chromosome pairs, but one pair is anomalous,
being a "triple". Different species have different numbers of pairs.
:cool:
Just like the horse and donkey? :DQuote:
Different species have different numbers of pairs.
Exactly. When they mate, one horse chromosome remainsQuote:
Just like the horse and donkey?
unpaired, so the mule is sterile.
:cool: