Curious about Neo-Darwinian theory
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:38 pm
So as many of us agree on, the Cambrian explosion was when most of the body forms we see today existed.
I guess my question is, how does it suppose that the supporting brain functions for the body functions simultaneously evolved.
If Neo-Darwinian theory is true, does this imply that were there a bunch of organisms with floppy appendages that didn't do anything? Or perhaps nervous systems that were linked to nothing? Is this wrong, and why? If it instead happened more incrementally, would these give enough selective advantage at each step to keep progressing, and why is this mathematically the most plausible answer?
I mean, if you need a series of mutations to get from A to B and C to D (probably way more than these in actuality), with C and D being required for the new organism there would be many more with only a B or only a D than both a B and a D.
If you get one mutation "out of sync" with the others, do they still work together enough to cohesively provide a benefit? Is there enough survival advantage from the one trait to actually be survival of the fittest? Or is there just some kind of genetic drift, and why would this be?
Maybe this would be better phrased, why do Neo-Darwinian theorists think that their mechanism is the best one to explain this phenomena?
Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to necessarily have the best answers to explain arrival of the fittest.
My personal viewpoint is that when God made a new organism, he made them from something already existing, and "rigged" the dice, so to speak.
Trying to think of what Neo-Darwinian theory has as it's strongest supports as opposed to any other form of evolution...
Convergence
Some transitional forms
Microevolution
Vestigial parts (Does this get close to being anti-Lamarck theory? Neutral selective pressure vs negative selective pressure?)
Looking forward to hearing
.
I guess my question is, how does it suppose that the supporting brain functions for the body functions simultaneously evolved.
If Neo-Darwinian theory is true, does this imply that were there a bunch of organisms with floppy appendages that didn't do anything? Or perhaps nervous systems that were linked to nothing? Is this wrong, and why? If it instead happened more incrementally, would these give enough selective advantage at each step to keep progressing, and why is this mathematically the most plausible answer?
I mean, if you need a series of mutations to get from A to B and C to D (probably way more than these in actuality), with C and D being required for the new organism there would be many more with only a B or only a D than both a B and a D.
If you get one mutation "out of sync" with the others, do they still work together enough to cohesively provide a benefit? Is there enough survival advantage from the one trait to actually be survival of the fittest? Or is there just some kind of genetic drift, and why would this be?
Maybe this would be better phrased, why do Neo-Darwinian theorists think that their mechanism is the best one to explain this phenomena?
Survival of the fittest doesn't seem to necessarily have the best answers to explain arrival of the fittest.
My personal viewpoint is that when God made a new organism, he made them from something already existing, and "rigged" the dice, so to speak.
Trying to think of what Neo-Darwinian theory has as it's strongest supports as opposed to any other form of evolution...
Convergence
Some transitional forms
Microevolution
Vestigial parts (Does this get close to being anti-Lamarck theory? Neutral selective pressure vs negative selective pressure?)
Looking forward to hearing
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)