BASC_201_-_Lecture_16_(Mar_6_-_Prof._Bell)_-_UNEDITED

BASC_201_Lecture_1 - 8 16 Thursday March 6 2008(BASC 201 Lecture 16 Prof Bell MARCH 6 2008 Prof Bell 1 Thursday March 6 2008(BASC 201 Lecture 16

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Thursday, March 6, 2008 (BASC 201: Lecture 16) Prof. Bell 1 8 MARCH 6, 2008 – Prof. Bell 16
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Thursday, March 6, 2008 (BASC 201: Lecture 16) Prof. Bell *Note : THIS IS AN UNEDITED VERSION OF THE NTC. The NTC is currently under review by the editor, and so the edited version will be posted shortly . General Darwinism The principles applied to organic evolution can be applied to many other things. This lecture has been divided into: Part 1: Evolutionary Principles, and Part 2: Evolutionary Applications. Part 1: Evolutionary Principles: The Polanyi Urn problem is well known for its deceitful simplicity. The problem is as follows: Imagine there are two balls in an urn, one red and one blue. You pick a ball at random, and then replace the ball with a second ball of the same colour (e.g. if you pick red, you put the original back in plus another red ball). If you repeat this process indefinitely, what is the expected value or the distribution of the frequency of blue? For example, is it a 50-50 frequency, or two-thirds of one colour (maybe the colour that was picked first)? We can use a computer program to solve this problem, which can give us either the frequency of the blue balls when the frequency has settled at a constant, or the frequency of the red balls. The computer simulation shows that the relative numbers do tend towards a definite limiting value. What is interesting is that this limiting value is different every time the simulation is run. The value cannot be predicted and the answer never recurs. This is a good example to show that even simple problems sometimes do not have predictable answers. But we’re usually interested in more complex structures, like trees and animals. Thus, we want to know how complex and highly integrated structures come into being. There have been three classic answers to this problem: a supernatural power, Lamarckian evolution, and Darwinian evolution. The idea of a supernatural power was prevalent in almost all societies until about 200 years ago. This idea is that there must be a power that plans and executes plans to come up with complex and integrated structures. Lamarckian evolution, although plausible, doesn’t seem to be the system that occurs in genes. Lamarckian evolution posits that natural principles provide guidance, and organisms change to become better at what they do. Therefore, adaptation is guided by nature, and these adaptations are transferred through inheritance (directed variation + inheritance adaptation). As stated, although this is plausible, things just don’t seem to work this way. Darwinian evolution, then, is the last possibility. Darwinian evolution states that variation is random, some is inheritable, and selection favours those that happen to be better than others. The variation is not directed by nature, but once a variation occurs, if it happens to be superior to
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/29/2008 for the course BASC 201 taught by Professor Lefebvre during the Winter '08 term at McGill.

Page1 / 9

BASC_201_Lecture_1 - 8 16 Thursday March 6 2008(BASC 201 Lecture 16 Prof Bell MARCH 6 2008 Prof Bell 1 Thursday March 6 2008(BASC 201 Lecture 16

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online