2 Long replys
"ok, so I just finished a book by Robin Brande and it's made me think a lot"
Hey Cinnamon, so what was the book about? I can't imagine you read a book about evolution, and if it was a novel how did the author incorporate it into the story to actually give the reader a good concept of what evolution is? I'd really like to know your opinion on how the idea was conveyed and why it made you think a lot.
"and hopefully soon we'll see if last post was mistake or not"
Why do you keep thinking that acting like yourself will bring on criticism and degrading comments from your friends. I think your thing that tells you what people will think after you say something needs some adjusting. Or perhaps you're not actually saying what you think you're saying :P
There is a simple set of 3 rules for a system which necessarily improves itself over time
a. The properties of an object allow it to influence the production of other objects to have the same or similar properties (this is needed so that the information of the makeup of one object can be replicated and carry on after the destruction of the original)
b. Random changes can occur to the makeup of objects that change their properties.(This is required to have a changing system)
c. From the random changes that can occur there exist some which still allow an object to have the previous two properties.(This is required for the random changes to have an effect on the future of the system)
In a system governed by those three rules, it is necessarily the case that at least the properties if the objects(rather than the objects themselves) that are better at producing more objects with the same properties will be more present in the system than the properties that are worse.
This concept is so simple that people have made many fun programs that work off of these simple rules.
One that I found recently is http://www.boxcar2d.com/
The reason why this is such an system takes a bit of prep before actually explaining each point, so I hope you're up for it and find it interesting.
It has a 2D physics environment where the makeup of an object is a polygon with wheels placed at the vertices. The programmer chose a method of "sex" between objects
The properties of the object(which really have no obvious correlation with the makeup) are things like being able move quickly, being able to keep running after flipping over and some objects with changes in the makeup keep these properties(it's hard to explain why, but they do).
Rule a. comes in because the choices the programmer made in the way things work allows properties like "going far" or "climbing steep inclines" to produce similar properties in future objects
Randomness is introduced into the system through "sex" by randomly switching the values pertaining to the makeup of the objects to produce new but similar objects. This along with random mutations occurring to the variables of the makeup are all the randomness that is needed. which are completely random values are assigned to Through randomly
Rule b. comes in not only because the makeup is able to change randomly, but because they affect the objects properties(unlike colour)
Rule c. is not as interesting as it is a guarantee in this example. No matter what changes occur to an object, the program will still use it for producing now objects(if it performs well). In real life, however, if there are no changes that still allow a set of objects to produce similar objects, like in the film "Children of Men" where all women have become infertile, then the system is no longer evolutionary. The same is true if no random changes are made and each object is exactly the same as the one preceeding it.
Things to note:
Mating in most cases is not used to produce objects with similar properties, but as a way to mix up and combine properties under the assumption that having two useful properties will be even more useful! Eating green eggs and eating ham is all well and good but nothing beats eating green eggs AND ham!!
There are some changes to the makeup which completely change the properties of an object. It is almost guaranteed in any physics-based programs that small changes can have large effects(for example, were you to be two feet lower than you are right now, you would most likely have two feet stuck in the floor ;-P ), but as long as not all changes are like that the system can keep producing objects with similar properties to preceeding ones.
In the example I gave, the properties of "going far" and "not breaking" are the ones that are best at producing more of themselves because the programmer picks the best at doing these and disregards the others. Kinda like how people have been able to make lapdogs from breeding. But without such an intentional hand at work, this kind of "deciding" is done by whether or not it lasts long enough to produce itself.
The properties of an object are the high-level outcomes that are easy to describe but have many complicating factors not only present in the makeup but also in the environment, and the interactions with other objects. So an environment can change and even though an object stays the same, the properties it had could have changed.
There are other rules that do similar things, but if, in a system, you can identify those three (and they are the main driving forces) In that
Also,
Hey ZB, the english moth changing colour is a great example of selection of traits over time. It is simple enough to understand and it can readily be argued why the overall population of moths' colour darkened.
So I like your thought on the male and female needing to evolve at the same time in order to produce a new species and I really get where it is coming from. I can try express both your idea and how I think it would work.
So firstly, you are concerned with mating. Two different genders still need to be able to mate in order to produce offspring. Basic 4th grade stuff.
Real life has many variables to work with that determine whether a species can mate. You are definitely right in thinking that in species with males and females, if a particular offspring was born with traits that were very useful and could help produce a new species but could not reproduce or had no one to mate with then the poor little guy, one of a kind, would quickly die out.
Instead what would need to happen is for a change to be made that still allows two things: the offspring to be made and for the offspring to reproduce with others of its kind.
That way any change between consecutive generations allow for viable reproduction, but changes between distant generations are significant.
As a crude and unrealistic example that still illustrates the point.
Say you only have at most 2 different characters to be be able to mate words.(and some letters randomly change)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
abcdeM abceeM abbeeM dbbeeM dbbecM
abceeF abbdeF abbeeF abbecF aebecF
No single generation's changes prevent it from mating with others of the same generation, but the last generation could be very different form the first.
Things to note:
A male that has a different trait could pass the trait on to either a male or a female unless it was autosomal.
This explains differences in terms of a continuum. If an animal's species were an immutable property of the animal, then there would be no possible way for it to have a continuum of small changes where close relatives are of the same species and distant relatives are of a different species. Continuums are very different from categories. For categories you have male is not= female and that's the end of it, but for continuums you can say red~=maroon~=burgundy~=purple but still have red be not= purple depending on your criteria for what you label as the same/different.
Many different species have a different number of chromosomes than other species, and that definitely is something obvious that prevents species from cross breeding, but it is not a rule that if two parents have a different number of chromosomes that a sperm and egg won't combine and divide and grow into an offspring that can reproduce. The only rule is that it tends to screw things up something awful.
Hey Cinnamon, so what was the book about? I can't imagine you read a book about evolution, and if it was a novel how did the author incorporate it into the story to actually give the reader a good concept of what evolution is? I'd really like to know your opinion on how the idea was conveyed and why it made you think a lot.
"and hopefully soon we'll see if last post was mistake or not"
Why do you keep thinking that acting like yourself will bring on criticism and degrading comments from your friends. I think your thing that tells you what people will think after you say something needs some adjusting. Or perhaps you're not actually saying what you think you're saying :P
There is a simple set of 3 rules for a system which necessarily improves itself over time
a. The properties of an object allow it to influence the production of other objects to have the same or similar properties (this is needed so that the information of the makeup of one object can be replicated and carry on after the destruction of the original)
b. Random changes can occur to the makeup of objects that change their properties.(This is required to have a changing system)
c. From the random changes that can occur there exist some which still allow an object to have the previous two properties.(This is required for the random changes to have an effect on the future of the system)
In a system governed by those three rules, it is necessarily the case that at least the properties if the objects(rather than the objects themselves) that are better at producing more objects with the same properties will be more present in the system than the properties that are worse.
This concept is so simple that people have made many fun programs that work off of these simple rules.
One that I found recently is http://www.boxcar2d.com/
The reason why this is such an system takes a bit of prep before actually explaining each point, so I hope you're up for it and find it interesting.
It has a 2D physics environment where the makeup of an object is a polygon with wheels placed at the vertices. The programmer chose a method of "sex" between objects
The properties of the object(which really have no obvious correlation with the makeup) are things like being able move quickly, being able to keep running after flipping over and some objects with changes in the makeup keep these properties(it's hard to explain why, but they do).
Rule a. comes in because the choices the programmer made in the way things work allows properties like "going far" or "climbing steep inclines" to produce similar properties in future objects
Randomness is introduced into the system through "sex" by randomly switching the values pertaining to the makeup of the objects to produce new but similar objects. This along with random mutations occurring to the variables of the makeup are all the randomness that is needed. which are completely random values are assigned to Through randomly
Rule b. comes in not only because the makeup is able to change randomly, but because they affect the objects properties(unlike colour)
Rule c. is not as interesting as it is a guarantee in this example. No matter what changes occur to an object, the program will still use it for producing now objects(if it performs well). In real life, however, if there are no changes that still allow a set of objects to produce similar objects, like in the film "Children of Men" where all women have become infertile, then the system is no longer evolutionary. The same is true if no random changes are made and each object is exactly the same as the one preceeding it.
Things to note:
Mating in most cases is not used to produce objects with similar properties, but as a way to mix up and combine properties under the assumption that having two useful properties will be even more useful! Eating green eggs and eating ham is all well and good but nothing beats eating green eggs AND ham!!
There are some changes to the makeup which completely change the properties of an object. It is almost guaranteed in any physics-based programs that small changes can have large effects(for example, were you to be two feet lower than you are right now, you would most likely have two feet stuck in the floor ;-P ), but as long as not all changes are like that the system can keep producing objects with similar properties to preceeding ones.
In the example I gave, the properties of "going far" and "not breaking" are the ones that are best at producing more of themselves because the programmer picks the best at doing these and disregards the others. Kinda like how people have been able to make lapdogs from breeding. But without such an intentional hand at work, this kind of "deciding" is done by whether or not it lasts long enough to produce itself.
The properties of an object are the high-level outcomes that are easy to describe but have many complicating factors not only present in the makeup but also in the environment, and the interactions with other objects. So an environment can change and even though an object stays the same, the properties it had could have changed.
There are other rules that do similar things, but if, in a system, you can identify those three (and they are the main driving forces) In that
Also,
Hey ZB, the english moth changing colour is a great example of selection of traits over time. It is simple enough to understand and it can readily be argued why the overall population of moths' colour darkened.
So I like your thought on the male and female needing to evolve at the same time in order to produce a new species and I really get where it is coming from. I can try express both your idea and how I think it would work.
So firstly, you are concerned with mating. Two different genders still need to be able to mate in order to produce offspring. Basic 4th grade stuff.
Real life has many variables to work with that determine whether a species can mate. You are definitely right in thinking that in species with males and females, if a particular offspring was born with traits that were very useful and could help produce a new species but could not reproduce or had no one to mate with then the poor little guy, one of a kind, would quickly die out.
Instead what would need to happen is for a change to be made that still allows two things: the offspring to be made and for the offspring to reproduce with others of its kind.
That way any change between consecutive generations allow for viable reproduction, but changes between distant generations are significant.
As a crude and unrealistic example that still illustrates the point.
Say you only have at most 2 different characters to be be able to mate words.(and some letters randomly change)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
abcdeM abceeM abbeeM dbbeeM dbbecM
abceeF abbdeF abbeeF abbecF aebecF
No single generation's changes prevent it from mating with others of the same generation, but the last generation could be very different form the first.
Things to note:
A male that has a different trait could pass the trait on to either a male or a female unless it was autosomal.
This explains differences in terms of a continuum. If an animal's species were an immutable property of the animal, then there would be no possible way for it to have a continuum of small changes where close relatives are of the same species and distant relatives are of a different species. Continuums are very different from categories. For categories you have male is not= female and that's the end of it, but for continuums you can say red~=maroon~=burgundy~=purple but still have red be not= purple depending on your criteria for what you label as the same/different.
Many different species have a different number of chromosomes than other species, and that definitely is something obvious that prevents species from cross breeding, but it is not a rule that if two parents have a different number of chromosomes that a sperm and egg won't combine and divide and grow into an offspring that can reproduce. The only rule is that it tends to screw things up something awful.