• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

My attempt at an Evolution thread! OhgodwhatamIdoing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ianp622 said:
Are you unable to grasp the concept of evolution or do you believe there isn't sufficient evidence for it?

I can help with the latter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Firstly, I'm not gonna pretend like I knew everything he was talking about. But simply, apes have 2 more chromosomes than humans. Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them. I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.

Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.
 

Jasup

Member
Mael said:
Actually that's because most of them grow in a liquid environment while in the womb or something to that effect.
Kinda like how baby fresh out of the womb can swim but kids need to relearn it after a few years.
We're talking about reflexes that are hardwired in us. Stimulus can cause us to react in certain way without the signal being processed in the brain first. If we put our hand on hot surface, we retract it immediately - our muscles react before we even realise what's happening. These reflexes are genetic and they've developed over vast evolutionary time.

Children eventually learn how to control many of the reflexes such as sucking, gripping, holding breath and so on. But during the first months of a childs life, they are essential for the child's survival.

These reflexes also provide a glimpse on human evolution. Newborn babies grip on everything they touch and hold on tight. It's an useless reflex on a human baby, but if you consider that all the other apes have the same reflex as infants and use it to grip on their mothers fur, it provides the context of why we have it. Although we don't need the trait anymore, it still survives - just like swimming reflex in dogs, it was probably needed at one time in evolutionary history...
 
Kylehimself said:
Firstly, I'm not gonna pretend like I knew everything he was talking about. But simply, apes have 2 more chromosomes than humans. Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them.I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.

Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.
Ok now your just tolling.
 

Pandaman

Everything is moe to me
Kylehimself said:
Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them. I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.
HLAw8.png
 
Kylehimself said:
Firstly, I'm not gonna pretend like I knew everything he was talking about. But simply, apes have 2 more chromosomes than humans. Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them. I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.

Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.
Chromosomal fusions are a natural phenomenon of damaged cells. That the product of two simian chromosomes fusing just so happens to resemble a human chromosome was a discovery made long after the supposition that we arose from a common ancestor. In the argument "If X, then Y" , Y continually sides with evolution, no matter how many tests are put to it.

I've actually seen Miller's lecture at my school once, and bumped into him once at a cell biology meeting in San Diego. Really nice guy, and a much better liason between science and religion than say, Dawkins.
 

Mael

Member
Jasup said:
We're talking about reflexes that are hardwired in us. Stimulus can cause us to react in certain way without the signal being processed in the brain first. If we put our hand on hot surface, we retract it immediately - our muscles react before we even realise what's happening. These reflexes are genetic and they've developed over vast evolutionary time.

Children eventually learn how to control many of the reflexes such as sucking, gripping, holding breath and so on. But during the first months of a childs life, they are essential for the child's survival.

These reflexes also provide a glimpse on human evolution. Newborn babies grip on everything they touch and hold on tight. It's an useless reflex on a human baby, but if you consider that all the other apes have the same reflex as infants and use it to grip on their mothers fur, it provides the context of why we have it. Although we don't need the trait anymore, it still survives - just like swimming reflex in dogs, it was probably needed at one time in evolutionary history...

Actually the reflex of human baby knowing how to swim is something that I find hard to believe were worth anything since before the first primate ever came about (seriously that would mean that newborn would have needed to swim....which is a bit farfetched for a primate).
I'd argue that the reflex of the human baby grippin on everything coming close is not exactly useless as it after create a connection the parent form with the newborn (after all affection is something that is somehow vital....*).
I wouldn't be so sure to put everything a baby fresh out of the womb does as a result of evolution more than the environemennt he lived on before his birth.

* or so was I led to believe after the experiment done where they deprived babies of any attention....can't find any trace online right now which might prove me wrong but heh

Kylehimself said:
Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.

Since when did we stop being animals too?
 
rockyleavingthread.gif


Dear god! Why would you create a thread like this?! People who can't accept it will continue to believe in the magic jew zombie (or any Deity. They're all based off of the same thing) whom created us-- who wants us to cannibalize his flesh and drink of his blood. A man who is his own father that told him(self) that he must be hung on a cross to symbolically cleanse man of sin, BUT, if that wasn't enough, we must close our eyes and telepathically accept him as the one and only....lest we burn in a place of eternal fire and damnation.

All kidding aside, evolution is a beautifully written theory that guides us to a better understanding of our world and where we come from on earth (going further back, we're all just really star dust). Evolution was not without its faults, but it has since been refined to such a degree that even arguing with it is an act of sheer ignorance and stubbornness.

kottila said:
Don't you know we used to be aquatic monkeys!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)

We're just highly evolved fish.
 

daviyoung

Banned
Mael said:
Actually the reflex of human baby knowing how to swim is something that I find hard to believe were worth anything since before the first primate ever came about (seriously that would mean that newborn would have needed to swim....which is a bit farfetched for a primate).

Maybe water births were the thing for our ancestors?
 

Mael

Member
kottila said:
Don't you know we used to be (according to one hypothesis) aquatic monkeys!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)

images


Learn something new everyday!

daviyoung said:
Maybe water births were the thing for our ancestors?

That would mean we'd have to have a pahse where every single of our ancestor would use this method AND there would be plenty of legends about that in some forms.
I mean every sngle of our babies can do that so it's pretty entrenched at this point
 

Jasup

Member
Mael said:
Actually the reflex of human baby knowing how to swim is something that I find hard to believe were worth anything since before the first primate ever came about (seriously that would mean that newborn would have needed to swim....which is a bit farfetched for a primate).
I'd argue that the reflex of the human baby grippin on everything coming close is not exactly useless as it after create a connection the parent form with the newborn (after all affection is something that is somehow vital....*).
I wouldn't be so sure to put everything a baby fresh out of the womb does as a result of evolution more than the environemennt he lived on before his birth.

* or so was I led to believe after the experiment done where they deprived babies of any attention....can't find any trace online right now which might prove me wrong but heh
Swimming part, I suppose, comes from developing near water - the individuals who don't get out of the water fast enough, die and don't reproduce. The thing is, it could have very well been adults for whom the swimming reflex was important to. Many adult animals still have the reflex, humans just learn to control it.

Gripping reflex can be used in bonding, it certainly forms a bond on chimps. But more important is the smiling reflex infants have when they see a human face. As is the sucking reflex.

Also a baby's voice and form causes adults to react too which improves bonding. We talk about maternal (and paternal) insticts, but really it is too a reflex that causes us to react a certain way to certain stimuli. This is quite evident when looking at interspecies parenting within mammals. There are certain traits in baby mammals (big eyes, big heads, high pitch cries...) that causes us to react affectionally and making us try to nurture them and vice versa. Human children raised by Wolves are known, cheetahs raised a baby antelope for a while (it was a thread on GAF), tiger nurturing baby pigs and so on, there are many examples like this.

Why do we love puppies and kittens so much? EVOLUTION!

kottila said:
Don't you know we used to be (according to one hypothesis) aquatic monkeys!? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)
Oh wow, interesting read.
 
Sometimes evolution doesn't need millions of years:

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to a New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.” Results of the study were published March 25 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.
 

LCfiner

Member
Kylehimself said:
Firstly, I'm not gonna pretend like I knew everything he was talking about. But simply, apes have 2 more chromosomes than humans. Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them. I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.

Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.


So much said with so few words. This really explains the attitudes of almost everyone who doubts evolution.

Putting the Person on a pedestal, man.


We are animals.
 

Mael

Member
Jasup said:
Swimming part, I suppose, comes from developing near water - the individuals who don't get out of the water fast enough, die and don't reproduce. The thing is, it could have very well been adults for whom the swimming reflex was important to. Many adult animals still have the reflex, humans just learn to control it.

This seems much more far fetched than the embryo being in a liquid element for the whole time of pregnancy would know how to react when put back into water element just instants after leaving another liquid environment.
Heck in the case of the human baby, the newborn is totally dependant of the parent for his survival (and doesn't even know how to walk or even crawl or anything). But that's to be expected since if the newborn spent anymore time in the womb he couldn't get out anyway.

Jasup said:
Gripping reflex can be used in bonding, it certainly forms a bond on chimps. But more important is the smiling reflex infants have when they see a human face. As is the sucking reflex.

The baby is even training before leaving the womb (cue shots of foetuses sucking their thumbs)

Jasup said:
Also a baby's voice and form causes adults to react too which improves bonding. We talk about maternal (and paternal) insticts, but really it is too a reflex that causes us to react a certain way to certain stimuli. This is quite evident when looking at interspecies parenting within mammals. There are certain traits in baby mammals (big eyes, big heads, high pitch cries...) that causes us to react affectionally and making us try to nurture them and vice versa. Human children raised by Wolves are known, cheetahs raised a baby antelope for a while (it was a thread on GAF), tiger nurturing baby pigs and so on, there are many examples like this.

To be fair most animals (us included) are hardwired to have the same kind of response in the presence of newborns, which is actually advantageous for all parties involved anyway.

Jasup said:
Why do we love puppies and kittens so much? EVOLUTION!

Actually we know that some cats can reproduce the same pitch as a crying baby in order to get the attention of a nearby human to get fed or something.
At this point it's more like puppies and kittens have evolved to be better integrated with us as its beneficial to them.
That doesn't stop making them cute, though.
 

Jasup

Member
Mael said:
This seems much more far fetched than the embryo being in a liquid element for the whole time of pregnancy would know how to react when put back into water element just instants after leaving another liquid environment.
Heck in the case of the human baby, the newborn is totally dependant of the parent for his survival (and doesn't even know how to walk or even crawl or anything). But that's to be expected since if the newborn spent anymore time in the womb he couldn't get out anyway.
Maybe, maybe, I don't know. I suppose swimming is a reflex and a result of an evolutionary process as it's evidently inherent with many larger mammals who have never seen water and really have no space to train in the womb. Elks and elephants are great swimmers for example, as are dogs.

Mael said:
The baby is even training before leaving the womb (cue shots of foetuses sucking their thumbs)
There's a reason pacifiers work.

Mael said:
To be fair most animals (us included) are hardwired to have the same kind of response in the presence of newborns, which is actually advantageous for all parties involved anyway.

Actually we know that some cats can reproduce the same pitch as a crying baby in order to get the attention of a nearby human to get fed or something.
At this point it's more like puppies and kittens have evolved to be better integrated with us as its beneficial to them.
That doesn't stop making them cute, though.
Yeah, isn't nature great?
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
I'm awake! Glad I didn't miss any more of Vizio's reply to my thread. But it seems there is someone in here who has some problems understanding Evolution, I think I know what is bothering him. I am going to paint a scenario - it wont be 100% accurate (in fact, I'll probably make it super improbable), but it'll be close enough to explain the essential function. First let me start off by saying - at birth there are mutations with every offspring, most bad or neutral, but rarely, some beneficial. But to be clear, something beneficial is only beneficial if it supports them in their environment.

Okay, I am going to make up an animal. Lets say it looks kind of like an otter, but it lives on land. It eats mostly plants and some insects. It's all happy and cute and furry. One day, my awesome god hand grabs a couple thousand of them, and dumps them into a special area of my making.

This area is essentially a beach front area. It is cut off from the rest of the world, surrounded by sheer cliffs on 3 sides, and a large body of water on the other. The supply of food is minimal - there is a little stream in the area, and around it grows some of the fruits that my little creature is known to eat, but not very many, just enough to sustain the amount of creatures I plunked here, barely. There are also large birds that fly around, and occasionally scoop up these creatures, because most of the area is sandy and the creatures aren't used to running on sand, they are easy targets. And they can't really swim for too long, or go too deep, so the fish in the water are unattainable to them.

These creatures are fucked right? They should be - but in this 1 in 1,000,000 situation, they survive - and prosper. How you ask? Evolution.

So some of these creatures start to have their regular mutations at birth. One particular dude all of a sudden tries to eat some sea-weed. A lot of his ancestors tried this shit before, but they just barfed it up, or it passed through their system uselessly. They just couldn't break down this plant. But this guy, this guy right here? He had a mutation, a simple mutation that worked off his ability to break down the fruits he loves, now - it can break down sea weed. Well now this guy is set for life. Instead of having to fight for the occasional fruit, he just runs around the beach, grabs seaweed and is done for his day. Giving him plenty of spare time to mack on the honies, and this dude gets laid -a lot- and has like 50 kids. And most of these kids inherent his sea-weed eating genes! Then they continue doing their thing for generations and generations.

Now there is another guy, this guy doesn't luck out with the sea weed gene, but he does get a mutation. What is it? Weird fucking feet. Every once in a while this used to happen with his species, it's a reasonably common mutation, but it usually led to death at a young age, because it made you stumble around a forest and get eaten easy. But now? It makes him run on sand like a mother fucker. No one can catch this dude, I'm talking other otters, birds, no one. Now this guy is set for life, he doesn't have to worry about getting eaten and he can spend more time out and about rather than hiding. He spends this extra time fucking every honey that moves. Spreading his gene, etc etc, generations have this gene etc etc.

Another bro? His fur got all oily. He thought "Oh man, now I gotta be like... on jersey shore or some shit" But no, one day he tries taking a bath, and notices he doesn't get as cold as he normally does. In fact, now he can stay in the water nearly indefinitely - which is great cover from birds! And luckily, this dude is one of Sea-weed eating dudes great great great grand kids! So now, this guy is SET. He can just swim around all day like a boss, eat all the sea weed he wants, and all the honies love a swimmers body, so he does good. He even nails a weird footed chick.

And his kids use this weird foot to swim even better, guess it was good for sand AND water eh?

Eventually all these genes make it around, and after thosands and thousands of years, there are bunch of oily creatures with big flat feet that eat sea weed, spend most of their day in the water and who knows what else in all this time.

If they were to be re-introduced to their ancestors? they would look substantially different, and their chromosomes would be so different, they wouldn't be able to have any sort of viable offspring. So what is this called? Speciation.

Did all that make sense to you? Mind you, it honestly doesn't work exactly like that, I added too many clauses, I sped up the process, made beneficial mutations pop up left right and centre, but it should give you an idea of what could happen.

Also remember, no species is perfect - and species are always changing. What may 'seem' to be perfect now can always be improved, and it may not be perfect in the future, or somewhere else.
 

Mael

Member
Jasup said:
Maybe, maybe, I don't know. I suppose swimming is a reflex and a result of an evolutionary process as it's evidently inherent with many larger mammals who have never seen water and really have no space to train in the womb. Elks and elephants are great swimmers for example, as are dogs.

To be fair their foetuses are also immerged in liquid in the womb anyway, although I wouldn't know if for elephants and other it's learned behaviour or not.

Jasup said:
There's a reason pacifiers work.

Yeah even though there's a school of thought that says it's not the best thing ever for raising children (don't remember but I think I didn't get one anyway :lol)

Jasup said:
Yeah, isn't nature great?

Actually I'd argue that cats and dogs (especially dogs) are the very best example of what evolution can do.
I mean we've got a carnivorous animal with great hunting tools that decided hunting was good and all but taking scraps from us was more beneficial while helping in our daily lives.
It's mastery of adaptation is so great that it actually react with the best outcome to the stimuli we send.
It's really, really impressive.

jay said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/9401945.stm

Has this been discussed this yet?

Macaques apparently show self doubt, which means they are capable of some sort of introspection or awareness of their own mental state, which has typically been thought only a human characteristic.

It's kind of awesome.
that's some high level stuffs right there! Great discovery

At some point we'll learn that what make us human is really the fact that we can't reproduce with other animals that are not human.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Mael said:
that's some high level stuffs right there! Great discovery

At some point we'll learn that what make us human is really the fact that we can't reproduce with other animals that are not human.

It was amazing, I loved seeing the monkey just be like "You know what? Fuck it, I don't know, next!"
 

KJTB

Member
I'll never understand why people are so upset about being animals and not some superior member of a different kingdom.

We are multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes with internal digestion. We belong in the kingdom Animalia. The kingdom we are most closely related to are fungi.

Deal with it.


What does it matter anyway? It's a little conceited that we are somehow better than other animals.
 

Boozeroony

Member
Dipindots said:
What does it matter anyway? It's a little conceited that we are somehow better than other animals.

Put 1 person and 1 silverback in a cage. See which one is better. ;)

I see that almost every question asked by evolution-critists is answered by polite and understanding members. Asking questions is a good way in order to get a grasp on matter that is hard to understand due to the fact that evolution happens on a scale that is almost impossible for the human brain to understand: millions of years.

I still have to see a single fact or argument that abolishes the whole theory. All I see are people that do not fully understand the mechanisms, genetics and cellular chemistry behind evolution and still claim that evolution can not be true. DNA, RNA, proteins, genotype, fenotype etc etc and their interconnectivity all contribute to the wonderful world of nature.
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
Dipindots said:
I'll never understand why people are so upset about being animals and not some superior member of a different kingdom.

We are multicellular, heterotrophic eukaryotes with internal digestion. We belong in the kingdom Animalia. The kingdom we are most closely related to are fungi.

Deal with it.

What does it matter anyway? It's a little conceited that we are somehow better than other animals.

Maybe it's because some of those people are used to having the words "made in the image of God" drilled into them.

I enjoy the thought that as multicellular beings, we are essentially colonies... We're not actually a whole, but rather a living city of descendant bacterium stacked high enough to be seen by other colonies. The fact that we have consciousness and consider ourselves individual, rather than multiplicitous is merely a by product of having an enlarged ganglion at one end of our colony's nervous system.
 

KJTB

Member
Extollere said:
Maybe it's because some of those people are used to having the words "made in the image of God" drilled into them.

I enjoy the thought that as multicellular beings, we are essentially colonies... We're not actually a whole, but rather a living city of descendant bacterium stacked high enough to be seen by other colonies. The fact that we have consciousness and consider ourselves individual, rather than multiplicitous is merely a by product of having an enlarged ganglion at one end of our colony's nervous system.


Dude, I think about that stuff all the time! It's true, our brains are essentially thousands of cerebral ganglions working in unison... crazy.

Also what trips me out sometimes is how things that we perceive as "solid", like the desk that my computer is resting on, is really trillions of atoms bonded together. It's mind blowing, really.
 

jaxword

Member
SmokyDave said:
I don't understand the Evolution 'debate'. There's nothing to debate. It's like arguing over whether the earth is carried on the back of a turtle or not.

It's 2011. We ought to be making lifelike robots or perpetual motion machines or exploring Mars or something.

Aren't you British? It's a different world over here.

Here in America, we refuse to allow change if there's a chance religion is involved.

I mean this literally. It's as if there's a checkmark box in people's minds when it comes to new ideas, technology, concepts, progress.

Does my church like it?
[Y] Allow it completely and support it, maybe make profit.
[N] Use any methods, from honesty to flat out deceit, to stop it.
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
Dipindots said:
Dude, I think about that stuff all the time! It's true, our brains are essentially thousands of cerebral ganglions working in unison... crazy.

Also what trips me out sometimes is how things that we perceive as "solid", like the desk that my computer is resting on, is really trillions of atoms bonded together. It's mind blowing, really.

Not to get terribly off-topic, but you've probably seen this before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

There's a bit in there about solid objects being mostly empty space, and it's just our scale that decides how we perceive it.

But seriously, I'm endlessly saddened by the idea that there are so many people out there who are not entirely inspired by evolution. Within is we carry genetic code that dates back some 2 to 3 billions of years. Before we were born, billions of years of tireless, ongoing, organic evolution had to take place before it was even possible we could have the life we do. I look at other people, creatures, and life and realize that we're all the same shit. We're all the same organic compound, made from the same stuff, just modified and molded by evolution into different shapes. I think we're taking a whole lot for granted when we play around with silly fantasies that there was no physical process, whatsoever, that was necessary for us to be here.
 

danwarb

Member
I think more needs to be made of populations evolving. Just seeing the ancestry of a species, like in the whale diagram, could make it difficult for some to grasp the processes of evolution.

Evolution is not implausible. It's obvious and can't be helped.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Not to detract from the general mood of the thread now, but is there anyone else who has doubts, or just in general has questions?

I know it might feel like this is way out of your league, or way over your head, but me personally - I've only really read into Evolution for about a year or so, and I keep learning every day. If I can understand this shit, honestly, you can too.

Something I want to emphasize. New information in the genome happens, gene duplication is a clear indication of this, if you have a problem with that, please explain why, we can discuss this civily.
 

NekoFever

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.
If you have the means to watch it, the episode of the BBC's Horizon that airs on Tuesday is about human evolution. How it's still happening and where it's going.
 

Korey

Member
jay said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9401000/9401945.stm

Has this been discussed this yet?

Macaques apparently show self doubt, which means they are capable of some sort of introspection or awareness of their own mental state, which has typically been thought only a human characteristic.

It's kind of awesome.
BowieZ said:
Good god these are so awesome. Thanks for sharing.
 
Ben Pierce said:
Dear god! Why would you create a thread like this?! People who can't accept it will continue to believe in the magic jew zombie (or any Deity. They're all based off of the same thing) whom created us-- who wants us to cannibalize his flesh and drink of his blood. A man who is his own father that told him(self) that he must be hung on a cross to symbolically cleanse man of sin, BUT, if that wasn't enough, we must close our eyes and telepathically accept him as the one and only....lest we burn in a place of eternal fire and damnation.

People like you who sum up all of faith into something like this, really give Atheists and the like a really bad name, and you come off like a child. Attacking strict biblical faith and all religions are two different things. And continuing to believe that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive is ignorant, and missing the point of why a lot of people choose to believe in a god.

fyi
 
Kinitari said:
Not to detract from the general mood of the thread now, but is there anyone else who has doubts, or just in general has questions?

I know it might feel like this is way out of your league, or way over your head, but me personally - I've only really read into Evolution for about a year or so, and I keep learning every day. If I can understand this shit, honestly, you can too.

Something I want to emphasize. New information in the genome happens, gene duplication is a clear indication of this, if you have a problem with that, please explain why, we can discuss this civily.

Yeah, I have one. I've always been curious as to how venomous animals evolved. Things like those brightly coloured poisonous frogs, or even more complex systems like a snake that can inject it's venom. Are there studies on this specific traits lineage?

It's like that "Irreducible Complexity" thing that has been talked about many times. I know so far it hasn't been shown to be true. I watched that lecture where the guy broke down various aspects of that flagellum. However, before the first poison gland was found in a species (I'm not sure what species that was, could be interesting) what was that particular part of the body used for? Obviously it had some purpose, or IC would be proven, which it most certainly has not been.
 

Boozeroony

Member
ShadyLurker said:
Yeah, I have one. I've always been curious as to how venomous animals evolved. Things like those brightly coloured poisonous frogs, or even more complex systems like a snake that can inject it's venom. Are there studies on this specific traits lineage?

It's like that "Irreducible Complexity" thing that has been talked about many times. I know so far it hasn't been shown to be true. I watched that lecture where the guy broke down various aspects of that flagellum. However, before the first poison gland was found in a species (I'm not sure what species that was, could be interesting) what was that particular part of the body used for? Obviously it had some purpose, or IC would be proven, which it most certainly has not been.

I cannot access the whole paper, but this Nature article might answer some of your questions. I can download it on my other PC, so if you want it, PM me.

edit:

This may be a good read, although it is a bit dated.
 
Boozeroony said:
I cannot access the whole paper, but this Nature article might answer some of your questions. I can download it on my other PC, so if you want it, PM me.

edit:

This may be a good read, although it is a bit dated.

For anyone who's interested, last one describes snakes that have a Duvernoy gland. While it does hold toxic fluid, it's not injected into prey. It may be used for "lubrication" of prey (because snakes swallow things whole) and also to improve digestion. The theory proposed in that paper is that venomous snakes developed a more efficient delivery system, fangs that can inject the fluid directly. Which also gave them the ability to kill things pretty efficiently because of that fluid's toxicity.

Thanks for the link, interesting.
 

I_D

Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

The easiest way to prove evolution is dogs.
We breed them every day to get specific results, and evolution can be easily seen within just a few generations.


Even more compelling evidence is the fact that dogs unquestionably came from wolves (and even if you do want to question it, you definitely can't question the results of silver foxes. We know this for a fact, and there's simply no way around it. If dogs = wolves, yet do not equal wolves, surely something has happened. This something is obviously evolution.
 

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Kylehimself said:
Firstly, I'm not gonna pretend like I knew everything he was talking about. But simply, apes have 2 more chromosomes than humans. Humans have a fused chromosome. Therefore, ours must have fused, coming originally from them. I can understand how that sounds great, but that could as easily be cherry picked information.

Being similar to animals doesn't make me think we came from them.
I don't think people realize how astounding it is that we can generally classify species. Immediately it establishes relationships, which points to evolution. If species change over time, then the "newest" species will be based upon and similar to previous species. Darwin recognized that homology is a powerful argument for evolution. My favorite example is the whale. Evolution is the best theory that can explain why the whale, which comes after the first derivation of mammals in the fossil record, has both physiological and genetic remnants from its land mammal ancestors. The fur that it grows as an embryo and the barely perceptible leg bones show that it was once a land mammal.

If we were simply cherry picking data, then we should be awash in evidence that is well beyond evolution's ability to explain. But I think that it's intuitive to grasp, for example, that the very first single-celled organisms which evolved upon the earth eventually formed small colonies together and then began specializing tasks and then formed large multi-celled organisms. The fact that we can clearly see the relatedness between us and them is amazing in and of itself.

If anything, I think that it's disingenuous to dismiss evolution because the fossil evidence isn't perfect (which, due to the way in fossilization works, it shouldn't be). For example, many creationists use the example of the bat. Yes, the fossil evidence for bat evolution is scarce. But a bat is a mammal. Its wings contain most of the same bones that are found in your arm. From the fossil record of birds, we are beginning to understand the evolution of flight. We can even identify the exact genes needed to evolve the bat wing, and the way in which they evolved. These are remarkable facts that cannot merely be dismissed.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Immortal_Daemon said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

The easiest way to prove evolution is dogs.
We breed them every day to get specific results, and evolution can be easily seen within just a few generations.


Even more compelling evidence is the fact that dogs unquestionably came from wolves (and even if you do want to question it, you definitely can't question the results of silver foxes. We know this for a fact, and there's simply no way around it. If dogs = wolves, yet do not equal wolves, surely something has happened. This something is obviously evolution.

Generally speaking, those who have troubles with Evolution don't have trouble with this aspect - they just refer to it as micro-evolution. Honestly most of the time, it probably isn't worth the effort, but the main arguments are usually along the lines of:

All known codes are made by an intelligent mind, DNA is code, thus is must be made by an intelligent mind - also, no new information can be added to a genome

We can't reproduce the effects of speciation in a lab (We can) - or, we can't recreate the effects of speciation in a lab to a significant degree (major phenotype changes, fish to air breather for example) - thus it can never be proven

irreducible complexity


- All bullshit, and with a little effort, can easily be refuted, but usually when people use these arguments, they are not in a position to be swayed with facts, as they have to circumvent many of them to get to these points. In the end, I argue not to change the mind of the person, but to protect the minds of people who just aren't as aware of the mechanics of evolution, and might be confused by the bunk that is spewed by it's opponents.
 

Cronox

Banned
I think humans are an evolutionary anomaly. We are so much more advanced than other animals. Opposable thumbs, large brains... The anomaly factor is where one could say God comes in.

Without reading the last 18 pages yet, I just wanted to ask if real evolutionary exceptions have been discussed. I mean the type of thing where they'll find a fish that hasn't changed at all in thousands and thousands of years. Basically, what is the explanation for these exceptions? Thats the only part of evolution that doesn't completely work for me.
 
Cronox said:
I think humans are an evolutionary anomaly. We are so much more advanced than other animals. Opposable thumbs, large brains... The anomaly factor is where one could say God comes in.

Without reading the last 18 pages yet, I just wanted to ask if real evolutionary exceptions have been discussed. I mean the type of thing where they'll find a fish that hasn't changed at all in thousands and thousands of years. Basically, what is the explanation for these exceptions? Thats the only part of evolution that doesn't completely work for me.

Cockroaches have been around for millions, virtually unchanging.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Cronox said:
Without reading the last 18 pages yet, I just wanted to ask if real evolutionary exceptions have been discussed. I mean the type of thing where they'll find a fish that hasn't changed at all in thousands and thousands of years. Basically, what is the explanation for these exceptions? Thats the only part of evolution that doesn't completely work for me.

That wouldn't be an exception at all. If environmental and other selection pressures remain constant there's no reason a population couldn't remain largely unchanged for long periods of time, as far as I know.
 

Dead Man

Member
Cronox said:
I think humans are an evolutionary anomaly. We are so much more advanced than other animals. Opposable thumbs, large brains... The anomaly factor is where one could say God comes in.

Without reading the last 18 pages yet, I just wanted to ask if real evolutionary exceptions have been discussed. I mean the type of thing where they'll find a fish that hasn't changed at all in thousands and thousands of years. Basically, what is the explanation for these exceptions? Thats the only part of evolution that doesn't completely work for me.
Coelocanths, and crocodiles, and sharks all say hi. In the words of Attenborough "the organism, seeing no change, sees no need to change'

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon#Reappearing_fossil_taxa This is a partial list of organisms that were thought to be extinct and were only known as fossils until recently rediscovered. Some of them are millions of years old in fossil form.
 

danwarb

Member
Dead Man said:
Coelocanths, and crocodiles, and sharks all say hi. In the words of Attenborough "the organism, seeing no change, sees no need to change'

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon#Reappearing_fossil_taxa This is a partial list of organisms that were thought to be extinct and were only known as fossils until recently rediscovered. Some of them are millions of years old in fossil form.
There's been a selective pressure for them to remain as they are anatomically. They've found a good shape.

They've still evolved though. They'd be gone had they not adapted to any environmental changes, new parasites, diseases and whatever else over that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom