Evolutions: Natural VS Forced (GE/GM)
15180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Alhambra, CA
Offline
Posted 2/26/14
Is there such a thing as natural evolution? That question came to my mind after one of the deans asked the group regarding the fallacy of "natural".
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 2/27/14
What fallacy?
I don't get it. If evolution is not natural, what would it be?
852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/27/14
I don't think evolution can happen by force. Maybe it can be controlled to an extent, but not forced.
2080 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 2/27/14 , edited 2/27/14
Yes, further research into GE products needs to be done. Also, you could consider dogs to be a product of unnatural/genetic modification to a species of animal. It can also prove that a species can change over time. It's just that the selective breeding process that can produce new breeds is evolution at high speed, IMO.

As for an example of natural evolution, ask how a town filled with white cats can eventually become an town filled with black cats supposing if there is no animal control regulations over skitty kats. That is probably the most basic example of evolution I have.
15180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Alhambra, CA
Offline
Posted 3/1/14 , edited 3/1/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:

What fallacy?
I don't get it. If evolution is not natural, what would it be?





spinningtoehold0 wrote:

I don't think evolution can happen by force. Maybe it can be controlled to an extent, but not forced.


When I think about it, organisms change because of the environment changes. One example might come from Darwinism. In order for an organism to cope to the environment changes, it needs to change or "evolve". How can we not say that it is not a forced evolution? When the environment changes, then an organism needs to change with the environment to avoid death.

The difference I see here is that the evolution that happens in nature is forced and uncontrolled due to environment influences while in the laboratory it is controlled environment.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/1/14

thomascgty wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

What fallacy?
I don't get it. If evolution is not natural, what would it be?





spinningtoehold0 wrote:

I don't think evolution can happen by force. Maybe it can be controlled to an extent, but not forced.


When I think about it, organisms change because of the environment changes. One example might come from Darwinism. In order for an organism to cope to the environment changes, it needs to change or "evolve". How can we not say that it is not a forced evolution? When the environment changes, then an organism needs to change with the environment to avoid death.

The difference I see here is that the evolution that happens in nature is forced and uncontrolled due to environment influences while in the laboratory it is controlled environment.


Because it's not an consciously forced change with a motive behind it, which is implied by the use of the word "forced".

And it doesn't necessarily have to change in order to not die. Sometimes, it just comes down to whether or not it has traits that the opposing gender is attracted to, which gives it more chances to mate, and thus spreads its genes more than less attractive specimins.
Easy example: the Peacock.
852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 3/2/14

thomascgty wrote:

When I think about it, organisms change because of the environment changes. One example might come from Darwinism. In order for an organism to cope to the environment changes, it needs to change or "evolve". How can we not say that it is not a forced evolution? When the environment changes, then an organism needs to change with the environment to avoid death.

The difference I see here is that the evolution that happens in nature is forced and uncontrolled due to environment influences while in the laboratory it is controlled environment.


I had also assumed you meant a consciously forced change with a motive behind it.

So by forced you mean that we are constantly changing to adapt to the forces of the environment, right? But isn't that natural? Isn't force natural too?
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/2/14

thomascgty wrote:

When I think about it, organisms change because of the environment changes.


It might be useful perhaps to start by defining your terms. What do you consider 'the environment'? For example, when trees first evolved, they would die and not decompose because no organisms existed to break down the plant matter. So for thousands of years you had pile up of dead trees, until eventually fungi and the like evolved to be able to metabolize cellulose.

Nothing really 'forced' that change to happen, which is why it was so slow, but once genetic drift allowed some organisms to be able to metabolize cellulose and reproduce quickly, the 'environment' changed quite a bit. I'm not sure how once says this is 'forced', but rather, a perfectly 'natural' mechanism.

Hell, I'm not so willing to argue anything humans do isn't inherently a product of nature.


One example might come from Darwinism. In order for an organism to cope to the environment changes, it needs to change or "evolve".


That doesn't mean evolution requires environments to change. Genetic diversity proliferates without strong selective pressures, and strong selective pressures create bottlenecks which cause rather striking features. Cheetah are fast, but they are also highly susceptible to disease because of their lack of genetic diversity. Assuming they don't have another major bottle neck event, like a pandemic, they might be able to proliferate enough to have some genetic diversity to allow them to weather other dangers. However this might also mean that the average speed of cheetah might vary far more widely. Evolution occurs with or without strong selection because it is ALWAYS occurring.


How can we not say that it is not a forced evolution? When the environment changes, then an organism needs to change with the environment to avoid death.


This sounds a lot like Lamarckism, which was a reasonable theory, but not 'descent with modification' like Darwin proposed. Organisms don't need to change to avoid death, enough organisms must be able to survive in the new conditions to avoid extinction. Evolution is 'survival of the barely adequate', not 'survival of the fittest' as is so often the phrase.


The difference I see here is that the evolution that happens in nature is forced and uncontrolled due to environment influences while in the laboratory it is controlled environment.


This is actually my biggest fear... humans are products of nature, and we're trying to learn about it. Genetic engineering is just that, engineering, and I don't think humans are nearly capable of engineering faster than the rest of nature can. I can easily see ourselves creating a genetic monoculture and finding ourselves open to major famines when some blight can easily infect our crops. I don't think we can develop pesticides faster than nature can.... because most of our pesticides are already derived from products found in nature. We always seem to be playing catch-up.

We aren't as good at controlling ecosystems as we'd like to believe.
Wihl 
24276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Lagrangian Librat...
Offline
Posted 3/7/14
The biggest problem is GM products do not have to survive or compete in a natural environment, they only thrive in a chemically altered, artificial, environment bypassing the selection process that weeds out harmful mutations over time.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 3/7/14

Wihl wrote:

The biggest problem is GM products do not have to survive or compete in a natural environment, they only thrive in a chemically altered, artificial, environment bypassing the selection process that weeds out harmful mutations over time.


Why is that the biggest problem...?!
It's the biggest advantage it have over natural...

GMO are engineered to be as good as they can be...
Resistance to insect, higher nutrition value, faster growth...
8515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Illinois
Offline
Posted 3/7/14

Wihl wrote:

The biggest problem is GM products do not have to survive or compete in a natural environment, they only thrive in a chemically altered, artificial, environment bypassing the selection process that weeds out harmful mutations over time.


GMO food can be grown in any type of environment the non gmo food can. Chemicals are used because it gives you more food per acre. We don't need nature to weed out anything. If there is an issue mankind can fix it themselves.



Sailor Candy Moderator
200577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 12/28/15
"Year-end cleanup. Closing threads with no activity since 2014."
You must be logged in to post.