Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon From: gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Where the Deer and the Cantaloupe Play Message-ID: <71@uw-june> Date: Mon, 13-May-85 20:30:27 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-june.71 Posted: Mon May 13 20:30:27 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:13:37 EDT References: <999@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 75 >>>[rck@iham1.UUCP] >>> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE >>> >>> 6. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having >>> both greater complexity and greater viability [a,b] than >>> any of its ancestors [c-f]. >> [Stanley Friesen] >> Incorrect, mainly because increased viability is a function of >> envitonment. A mutant that is disadvantagous in one enviromnment may >> be advantageous or even necessary in another. For instance the >> vestigial-wing mutant in fruit flies. This form cannot fly, and under >> standard lab conditions it does not breed well, since "normal" fruit >> flies prefer to mate with other "normal" flies. *But*, when a styeady, >> high wind is present "normal" flies are blown away by the wind; the >> vestigial-wing, flightless flies are *not*, thus they are the *only* >> ones to breed. This is *clearly* greater viability in this environment. > [Paul DuBois] > You give an example of a mutation which leads to loss of a > morphological character. If evolution proceeds on the basis of loss > of function, I would not wish to place much confidence in it. Where > are the new and useful characteristics? Patience, patience. The vestigial-wing mutation is just one of the possible mutations which are advantageous in the new environment. Since it is a reasonably common mutation, one would expect it to happen soon, and then spread through the population. Other, less common, newly advantageous mutations are likely to take longer to occur. Let me try to generalize this: if a reasonably homogenous population is subjected to an environment somewhat different from the one if is adapted for, it will evolve in 2 ways: by loosing newly disadvantageous traits, and by gaining newly advantageous traits. (this is an oversimplification, but bear with me) I would expect that, in general, loosing a particular trait is more likely than gaining a particular new trait, because there is a fixed supply of old traits to loose, and an unlimited supply of new traits to choose from. (is this actually true? References, anyone?) Since adaptations tend to happen in order of likelyhood (simple probability here), the population will first loose complexity, then gain it back, but differently. Complexity, in this context, will have to stay fuzzily defined until we (I) learn more about genetic coding. Has anyone else proposed the above, or is it original (or wrong)? Your comments are solicited. > Also, it would appear that a mutation such as the example given is not > really a serious entry for consideration. If it was really more > greatly viable, natural selection would result in it being found in > wild form, right? (Otherwise natural selection doesn't work.) Read what he said, Paul. "Increased viability is a function of environment. A mutant that is disadvantagous in one enviromnment may be advantageous or even necessary in another." The vestigial-wing mutant is more viable under the experimental conditions, but less viable under most/all "natural" conditions. No contradiction here. > Is it > found? I suppose it might be, but since you talk about "standard lab > conditions", I am led to think otherwise... I would expect it to be found, but very rarely. (You see, they aren't very reproductively successful, and they die off just as fast as they mutate in) -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W Reality?: An unimportant member of an unimportant species residing in an unimportant area of an unimportant planet circling an unimportant star partway out one arm of an unimportant galaxy in an Einsteinian, but otherwise unimportant universe.