Mcnugget or the omelette - a profound evolutionary dilemma (Jul/31/2007 )

The change of taste by mutation hypothesis looks interesting, but there's no need of a mutation for that, just a change in the diet will do it. There are some catterpilars that eat some nasty things that give their flesh a not tasty flavor so birds don't eat them also they are very colorful so othe animals are warn to not touch them. South America poison frogs are like that because of the diet when they are in a zoo they are not as poison. as in the forest.

---

Don't forget that there are non-specialised and specialised predators, the latter does not care about taste or mutation, these predators hunt on every prey that is available (if the effort pays off). The specialised one on the other side may be affected my small prey mutations.

@casandra et al: The meme concept is just an idea to have a further approach to investigate/to explain e.g. cultural evolution better, to get new ideas and understanding. It is not meant as a object that exists in reality. And with this constraint (if it is one), in my opinion it is a good concept, similar to mathematics where in modeling approaches reality is "reproduced" in very much simplified models, and this works (at least often, remember weather forecast, global warming models, collapsible zone design in car construction). And in cultural/social science some simplification is necessary, in order not to sink in the swamps of this type of science . Modeling would be also an approach for dpos idea for the planet devastation experiment (with some insect species (also ants) and rodents (imo rather rats than mice) as candiates.

@casandra alone: Nice idea to decribe beliefers as victims and not culprits, thats the catholic approach to cover the criminal history of churchism...
I think the problem of most religions is that everyone can interpret and use it as he wants and this opens the floodgates to any kind of misuse. If the god (or whatever you call him/he/it) is such a perfect entity/being/idea, why should he/she create such a susceptible concept/intrument as religion? If you argue that this is the ways human beings are, then religion is presumably useless, as it does not improve behaviour and helps "to respect life, live in peace and goodwill, build a better world".

PS If you subdivide your sentences as single posts, then 500 limit is easily to realize

---

Don't rub it in Dominic . It ain't easy but we're trying. However, my goal is also quite ambitious...to have the most number of nontechnical posts in a technical forum . Let's see if you can beat that (or Fred for that matter).

cheers,

casandra

---

I was PREACHING tolerance you godless, pope-bashing, postmodern heathen…take your materialistic, nihilistic culture of death back to the pits of hell and suffer the fate of the eternally damned ….like I said (and as confirmed by dpo) the key word is tolerance. And we both got plenty of it. I’m gonna follow your advice and post in series (but only my replies to you) so you’d stop nagging me about the length of my posts.

PS
I could see that the R & R didn’t improve your disposition one bit instead you’re back with a blow torch….I’m tanned enough as it is from the summer sun but I can take more toasting….just go easy on our pope or else

missed ya,

casandra

---

I would like to think that Fred’s the one who’s out of our league…the Bad News Bears (the original) . And you claim you never goof around, eh? You’re replying to my posts, aren’t you?

Hell hath no fury like a hungry human with herbs….



Now back to “not so goofing around”, if your assertion that one mutation=new species were true, then this mutation would’ve to be very specific and highly strategic (almost....I'm gonna use the D word... "directed") to produce such a divergence. Where’s the randomness here? Do we have a lot of documented examples which prove that a mutation
in a gene can cause major changes in the offsprings resulting in morphological differences, precluded breeding with their ancestors, change in the flavour and texture etc. Its regulation is so tight and complex and therefore selectively favored. Is there such a thing as “intentional” or “preprogrammed” mutation as a response to environmental pressure ?

As an aside, how about a gene whose product would induce/increase mutation rates within the genome (I read this somewhere)? Many think that gradualism couldn’t account for the Cambrian explosion. After a cataclysmic event when most life forms are wiped out, there will be a lot of open niches. Do you think random mutations will drive the evolutionary development of organisms which will eventually fill in these niches? Or is the initial information already present within the genome and only needs to be turned on when need arises? Which leads me to species irreversibility.....

Questions, questions and more questions (and more posts for me )

cheers,

casandra

---

Hi Casandra,

Just wondering...
Are you trying to reach veteran? or reach your 1000posts?

You have posted 19 posts so far...

I think chicken is your favorite dish, am I right??

---

Hi Minnie,

Yep I'm trying to reach veteran status. My current motto is Post 100 or Die...I did the math and you're probably right about me chucking out 19 posts from the time Fred reached his 3000. I still can't figure out how you guys (esp him) do it. I posted 19 and almost have a burnout plus I had to sort out all the usual chaos and confusion I leave in my wake (I already apologised!!!) ..and I prefer fish for food but as a topic, chicken is far more superior.


cheers,

casandra

---

This would be a nice mutation: Chicken feeding on toxic seeds, not perishing but accumulating the toxin in the delicious white chicken meat. But this needs some more mutations to work.

This needs just sufficient time, to prevail from generation to generation or not (and become extinct). Its a process that works or not, if the muation(s) helps e.g., with fitness or not. Directed evolution does not exist in nature, it would be a event by chance .



One shortcut would be to write "veteran" in your 'Custom member title'

---

And you’re absolutely certain of this (bet your PhD hat on this)? I suppose that the mere idea is preposterous (to you) considering that in the lab the “directed evolution” of enzymes and microbes are effected by outside forces/agents i.e. the men and women in white coats with star trek technology… if we apply the same inferential logic to what happens in nature <gasps> that would be completely unbearable….blind chance I guess is more preferable.



Is that what you did? Teaching me the tricks of the trade? You should change yours to “heckler” which is more appropriate… but wait…that could also be mine! Hmmm… is this your devious way of telling me to stop posting?

---

where do you think the poodle came from?
or the rotweiler?
(or the chicken?)

dom

---