Hi guys, i have just started reading a book on darwinism ( Title : Uncommon Dissent ). I do not understand the differential element of the neo-darwinism theory which states " the probability of occurence of any mutation is unrelated to its prospective contribution to the functionality of any structure, present or future. Contributions to function affect only the chances of the mutation's successful propagation, not its original appearance." To be specific, i don't understand the phrase "prospective contribution", "mutation's successful propagation" Any views or interpretation of this is greatly appreciated =)
In this case, "prospective contribution" would refer to the mutation's potential to benefit the individual with it. "Mutation's successful propagation" refers to how likely that mutation is to be passed down to the individual's offspring.
thank you for the help. Hmm so what the phrase is trying to say is that the potential to benefit does not affect the chances of that mutation occuring. And the potential benefit if happens will affect only the chances of it being passed down to its offspring and not affect its original appearance. Though i am not clear of what this "original appearance" now represents. Physical? Biological? Genetical?
I haven't read that exact book, but the beneficial mutation will affect the original individual's chances of survival. If the individual has a better chance to survive, they have more chance to produce offspring and pass down the mutation.
I guess it means that mutations occur randomly. Only if the mutation is of help to the creature (and thus increase its chances of survival) it will likely be passed down to new generations. So... nature doesn't hand out mutations where they are needed, but at random, an extra pair of wings here, an extra pair of eyes there.. And then in the struggle for survival these freakish attributes will be put to the test. If it's succesful (that is, if it produces offspring), then it will reproduce and thus be passed down to new generations, which will ultimately push aside the old less well-equiped animals.
It is basically saying that mutations are neither progressive or regressive, it is only when combined with survival of the fittest do the mutations "evolve".
Why would you rely on a book propounding the 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis to help you discern the vanguard facts of biological evolution? I would recommend that you take "Uncommon Dissent" and deposit it in the nearest trash bin.
Oh thanks guys. I think i have understood most of the parts there. I will say my thanks again. ------ I will be the judge to that whether i want to throw it or not. Thank you for the advice though.
