How long does it take to evolve a com...

How long does it take to evolve a complex trait?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Peter

Macclesfield, UK

#1 Apr 29, 2013
Hi there - first post! I think the mechanism of evolving a simple heritable trait which is subject to natural selection seems fairly obvious to me. What I find hard to understand, and I'm hoping that there might be a few people out there who study this kind of thing, is how long does it take to evolve a new trait with no foundation to evolve from?

I thinking specifically the acquisition of motility that early animals developed way back. Presumably this required the acquisition and differentiation of specialised contractile cells? This to my simple thinking would require very many mutations, none of which would be selectable until they were all in place to effect some form of locomotion? Evolution works well on selectable traits, but how would it work if 10 proteins were required to produce a trait, none of which would confer a selection advantage until the full trait was acquired?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Apr 29, 2013
Here is one article on how motility may have evolved:

http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/145/2/279....

It was a series of steps, each that had a positive evolutionary effect. I know I have seen a video that describes this too. Be right back.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#3 Apr 29, 2013
Here you go, the music is awful, the video explains how the flagellum probably evolved. Of course there is no fossil record of how this occurred, many of these steps have been reproduced in laboratory induced evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Apr 29, 2013
For say, the human brain, from LUCA till now - about 4 billion years. For creationists, difficult to say. It could take another 4 billion.

But then since evolution is not goal-directed it's not even certain that would happen at all.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#5 Apr 29, 2013
Peter wrote:
Hi there - first post! I think the mechanism of evolving a simple heritable trait which is subject to natural selection seems fairly obvious to me. What I find hard to understand, and I'm hoping that there might be a few people out there who study this kind of thing, is how long does it take to evolve a new trait with no foundation to evolve from?
I thinking specifically the acquisition of motility that early animals developed way back. Presumably this required the acquisition and differentiation of specialised contractile cells? This to my simple thinking would require very many mutations, none of which would be selectable until they were all in place to effect some form of locomotion? Evolution works well on selectable traits, but how would it work if 10 proteins were required to produce a trait, none of which would confer a selection advantage until the full trait was acquired?
When you say there is no foundation for the trait to evolve, then I would say it won't evolve. Your stated question regarding how much time is a different question than the one you are asking in your example. You are asking how a complex trait like motility would evolve. Each of the proteins in your example would require that they evolve under their own selection pressure. The original function and the pressures selecting some or even all these individual proteins may no longer exist. Mutations that coupled some of the proteins for new functions would have to occur. If you were to view this in snapshots as it occurred each snapshot would likely show intermediate functioning traits that provided selective advantages for the organism expressing the trait or traits conveyed by the proteins. Eventually, if mutations occur that co-opt these individual proteins into a structure providing motility and a selective advantage to organisms with this phenotype, you would have your complex structure. It does not logically follow that the individual proteins or smaller complexes of these proteins would not convey a selective advantage in an organism. You may wish to review some of the literature on the many examples of irreducible complexity that have been debunked since that term was coined to see how a complex trait would not simply spring into existence. Bear in mind that some of the original functions of these proteins individually or as complexes may no longer exist and the selective pressure resulting in their presence may not be readily apparent.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#6 May 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>When you say there is no foundation for the trait to evolve, then I would say it won't evolve. Your stated question regarding how much time is a different question than the one you are asking in your example. You are asking how a complex trait like motility would evolve. Each of the proteins in your example would require that they evolve under their own selection pressure. The original function and the pressures selecting some or even all these individual proteins may no longer exist. Mutations that coupled some of the proteins for new functions would have to occur. If you were to view this in snapshots as it occurred each snapshot would likely show intermediate functioning traits that provided selective advantages for the organism expressing the trait or traits conveyed by the proteins. Eventually, if mutations occur that co-opt these individual proteins into a structure providing motility and a selective advantage to organisms with this phenotype, you would have your complex structure. It does not logically follow that the individual proteins or smaller complexes of these proteins would not convey a selective advantage in an organism. You may wish to review some of the literature on the many examples of irreducible complexity that have been debunked since that term was coined to see how a complex trait would not simply spring into existence. Bear in mind that some of the original functions of these proteins individually or as complexes may no longer exist and the selective pressure resulting in their presence may not be readily apparent.
I read this and all I see is "blah blah blah" same thing you say in every forum you post in. You are a topix troll with nothing to say but the crap you spew!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 May 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read this and all I see is "blah blah blah" same thing you say in every forum you post in. You are a topix troll with nothing to say but the crap you spew!!!!!!!!!!
The world thanks you for this most fine and constructive contribution.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#8 May 10, 2013
Peter wrote:
Hi there - first post! I think the mechanism of evolving a simple heritable trait which is subject to natural selection seems fairly obvious to me. What I find hard to understand, and I'm hoping that there might be a few people out there who study this kind of thing, is how long does it take to evolve a new trait with no foundation to evolve from?
I thinking specifically the acquisition of motility that early animals developed way back. Presumably this required the acquisition and differentiation of specialised contractile cells? This to my simple thinking would require very many mutations, none of which would be selectable until they were all in place to effect some form of locomotion? Evolution works well on selectable traits, but how would it work if 10 proteins were required to produce a trait, none of which would confer a selection advantage until the full trait was acquired?
There is the problem, evolution for the most part is driven by environmental factors with therefore your question “how long does it take to evolve a new trait with no foundation to evolve from” is invalid

As to basic change, it can take just one generation. On average each human being has around 60 or more genetic mutations. It only takes one of these to be beneficial in some way for it to be carried to the next generation

As a visible example take blue eyes. Up to around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago no one had blue eyes. The foetus of one woman in what is now northern turkey close to the black sea produced a single mutation in the gene next to the OCA2 gene that caused that OCA2 gene to partially switch thus reducing the amount of melanin produced. Just one birth and blue eyes are here to stay.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#9 May 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There is the problem, evolution for the most part is driven by environmental factors with therefore your question “how long does it take to evolve a new trait with no foundation to evolve from” is invalid
As to basic change, it can take just one generation. On average each human being has around 60 or more genetic mutations. It only takes one of these to be beneficial in some way for it to be carried to the next generation
As a visible example take blue eyes. Up to around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago no one had blue eyes. The foetus of one woman in what is now northern turkey close to the black sea produced a single mutation in the gene next to the OCA2 gene that caused that OCA2 gene to partially switch thus reducing the amount of melanin produced. Just one birth and blue eyes are here to stay.
What about the entire population of Neanderthals that had red hair, BLUE EYES, and fair skin.

Don't you guys say they were here millions of years ago???

Something just doesn't add up here.

Plus, if they are supposed to be extinct, why do most people on earth have the same DNA, excluding Sub Saharan Africans?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#10 May 19, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
What about the entire population of Neanderthals that had red hair, BLUE EYES, and fair skin.
What about them?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/03...

Of course some white supremacists pillocks think this is proof of white Aryan superiority or some such BS, but it has nothing to do with science.
imagine2011 wrote:
Don't you guys say they were here millions of years ago???
Something just doesn't add up here.
Yup. You suck at math. Earliest Neanderthal traits found are 5-600,000 years ago tops.
imagine2011 wrote:
Plus, if they are supposed to be extinct, why do most people on earth have the same DNA, excluding Sub Saharan Africans?
Mankind originated in Africa. A group left and started colonizing Eurasia. Much later another group left and came into contact with what were now Neanderthals. They fought and shagged. The newer group out-competed and out-bred their Neanderthal cousins who eventually went extinct - almost. Their legacy is still left in the DNA of those whose genetic routes trace back through the second Eurasia colonisation. That is why blacks and whites whose ancestry goes back there have Neanderthal DNA and blacks in Africa whose ancestry remains with that continent do not have Neanderthal DNA.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#11 May 29, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the entire population of Neanderthals that had red hair, BLUE EYES, and fair skin.
Don't you guys say they were here millions of years ago???
Something just doesn't add up here.
Plus, if they are supposed to be extinct, why do most people on earth have the same DNA, excluding Sub Saharan Africans?
Who said Neanderthals had blue eyes? Can hair or eye colour be determined by fossilised bone fragments? Or perhaps you can point me to some peer reviewed academic article on the subject that I can educate myself with, but no creatuion.com cr/\p please, it does not count as real.

Fact DNA traces ALL blue eyed people back to ONE ancestor. There are several peer reviewed articles available on the internet to validate this.

This is genetics we are talking about, DNA you know the stuff I mean? It’s the stuff that you are quite happy to see some convict executed on DNA evidence alone. But of course when it comes to something you don’t like you only want to deny the mathematics and its very existence? How very strange!

Why do you have about 4% Neanderthal DNA?

What makes you think all human DNA is the same? Every single human born has around 70 to 150 genetic anomalies compared to mother and father.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min blacklagoon 3 87,347
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr Simon 166,311
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 18 knows 1,824
What's your religion? Feb 17 Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Feb 17 superwilly 5,811
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web