Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Dude. Stop with the creationism bullshit already. I want to see more diagrams and pictures, less shitting-up-the-thread please.

Yeah it's me causing the ruckus!:lol

Actually, since I never talked about creationism, I guess you could be talking about someone else...

 

[grumble]

Yeah it's me causing the ruckus!:lol

Actually, since I never talked about creationism, I guess you could be talking about someone else...

People are going to believe that you are a creationist if you make the arguments you've been making. They don't usually come from someone who has a rational viewpoint.

People aren't saying that we have abiogenesis exactly right, but we're trying to figure out how it actually happened, and this is an idea that we've come up with that seems after initial testing to work.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

A few months ago, someone linked to a BCC Horizon episode called "The Secret Life of the Dog". Doco on the domestication/evolution of dogs, and their relationship with humans.

The full program was removed from Youtube, but here are some snippets:

• Human evolution aided by dogs
• How Humans understand dog barks as a language
• Silver fox experiment

 

[Kinitari]

Fucking awesome! MOAR OF THEEZ PLEEZ


Btw, I wonder how far off Hippos and pigs really are?

Actually, around 1985 they found out that it's Hippos and whales that are closely related, not pigs.

 

[JGS]

People are going to believe that you are a creationist if you make the arguments you've been making. They don't usually come from someone who has a rational viewpoint.

People aren't saying that we have abiogenesis exactly right, but we're trying to figure out how it actually happened, and this is an idea that we've come up with that seems after initial testing to work.

All I'm saying is you haven't gotten abiogenesis exactly right yet some are getting bent out of shape over it. Why are you allowed to say it's not right and I'm not?

 

[Mgoblue201]

BTW, we've had 7 pages and I've not seen anyone tackle this

I considered tackling the topic but thought that it would be kind of difficult. For sexual reproduction alone the Wikipedia page offers far more information than I ever possibly could. Part of the problem is that there is a lot we don't know about the nascent stages of many basic organs and functions because most of these developed from a time when life lacked the necessary components that fossilize, therefore we can't actually test any one theory. For instance, sexual reproduction can be found in eukaryotic protists, which can be either unicellular or multicellular, but those types of organisms rarely fossilize. It is usually posited that sexual reproduction arose as some form of genetic transfer from one organism to the other, either willingly or by force. There are also multiple theories for the evolution of multicellular organisms:

"One hypothesis is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit. Another hypothesis is that a primitive cell underwent nucleus division, thereby becoming a syncytium. A membrane would then form around each nucleus (and the cellular space and organelles occupied in the space), thereby resulting in a group of connected and specialized cells in one organism (this mechanism is observable in Drosophila). A third theory is that, as a unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism, which could later develop specialized tissues."

It would be an interesting discussion to have though.

It doesn't necessarily need to happen on every level simultaneously. It seems likely catalytic RNA (also known as Ribozyme or RNA enzyme) was formed before proteins or DNA. And as you already know, scientists have successfully demonstrated that amino acids can spontaneously form small peptides. Is it really that far fetched, even if there are missing puzzle pieces?

My biology is fuzzy. Are those peptide the ones that form things like primary structures of proteins by linking amino acids together?

Fucking awesome! MOAR OF THEEZ PLEEZ


Btw, I wonder how far off Hippos and pigs really are?

They are part of the same order but of different suborders. They probably split off at least 40 to 50 million years ago.

 

[PantherLotus]

1. I'd love to see a scale of relative genetic time-distance. I mean, how far and how long is 50 million years really?

2. I sometimes wonder if our Animal Kingdom definitions (kingdom/family/phylum/species etc) make it harder to teach evolution? Perhaps we should go to a decimal system, like old school computer program releases? Maybe todays humans are Hominid 2.01.09? Maybe my cat is Feline 26.88.01? That would be fucking sweet.

 

[archnemesis]

My biology is fuzzy. Are those peptide the ones that form things like primary structures of proteins by linking amino acids together?

That's right. Amino acids are joined together through peptide bonds and form proteins or peptides (same chemical structure as proteins, only shorter in length).

 

[Lesath]

All I'm saying is you haven't gotten abiogenesis exactly right yet some are getting bent out of shape over it. Why are you allowed to say it's not right and I'm not?

You've already admitted to trying to get a rise out of certain people with your choice of language, so why are you so surprised that others would be upset?

Science defaults to the null hypothesis, making the fewest assumptions possible. While it may certainly be possible that life did not rise independently, it certainly would not be the logical position.

 

[JGS]

You've already admitted to trying to get a rise out of certain people with your choice of language, so why are you so surprised that others would be upset?

Science defaults to the null hypothesis, making the fewest assumptions possible. While it may certainly be possible that life did not rise independently, it certainly would not be the logical position.

You're leaving out a big chunk of why I derive pleasure from that. Trust me, I in no way feel a victim in this as I do bring it on myself.

I'm just noticing the hypocrisy (Not necessarily grumble btw).

 

[Mumei]

You're leaving out a big chunk of why I derive pleasure from that. Trust me, I in no way feel a victim in this as I do bring it on myself.

I'm just noticing the hypocrisy (Not necessarily grumble btw).

You haven't pointed out any hypocrisy, though.

 

[Lesath]

You're leaving out a big chunk of why I derive pleasure from that. Trust me, I in no way feel a victim in this as I do bring it on myself.

I'm just noticing the hypocrisy (Not necessarily grumble btw).

Really, if you feel some sort of vindication from blasting back incendiary comments, all the more power to you. You just have to realize that saying stuff like calling abiogenesis a "crackpot" theory, and the like, would only draw the ire of those who had not been initially at all hostile to your initial position.

You try to attack abiogenesis because it is a flawed hypothesis, but it is in fact the only hypothesis that scientists can default to. Alternative hypotheses, such as your own, come with more assumptions that require data and testing.

 

[JGS]

Please spare me the rightous indignation.

Before I even entered the thread religion was characterized as a whole lot more than crackpot. This tells me that the higher minds can dish it bit can't take it. To get bent out of shape by a guy announced as a creationist from the get go strikes me as odd. But few on this thread have the righ to be offended by my flippant remark.

EDIT: For Iphone spell check

 

[danwarb]

There is no scientific evidence to abiogensis. That's the flaw!:lol

We don't have all the specifics nailed down, but there's no denying it happened.

Various models listed on the Wiki page.

 

[Stinkles]

Thinking about intelligence as an evolutionary solution makes it seem incredibly likely that it will fill an evolutionary niche anywhere multicellular life arises. There are lots of different types of intelligence too - from simple spatial craftiness (Octopi opening jars) all the way up to homo sapiens 'wide-ranging "collection" of types of intelligence.

If you have multiple organisms competing for resources on an alien world, the likelihood of intelligence emerging alongside say, large jaws or powerful seeing organs, seems almost unavoidable.

 

[genjiZERO]

This is cool and all, but there is no PROOF. The only possible explanation is that someone created us and this world.

Besides, how could an african american person evolve into a white person?

I'm not sure if you're serious or not... but in case no one answered your question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

in short: pigmentation is controlled by a number of genes, and is not simple dominant/recessive. Consequently, there will be a natural range of pigmentation based on the interaction of these genes. When our ancestors moved out of Africa those individuals with lighter skin were "selected for" because they were able to absorb vitamin D more efficiently. "Selected for" is a term of art meaning that a 'greater number of individuals with a particular trait, through natural selection, were able to leave a disproportionate amount of off-spring (in comparison to those with a different trait), and, as a result, that particular trait becomes the most common feature after a span of time.

In terms of "proof" I'm not sure what you or anyone else who says this is looking for exactly. Would you like to see a time lapse video of two populations of organisms become two distinct species? That may not be realistic with multicellular organisms, but I bet it could work with bacteria of some sort.

 

[DragonGirl]

Ooo! Evolutionary biology is an enthusiast passion of mine. So is finding ever clearer ways to describe it to people who don't understand it but also don't have an agenda to purposely misunderstand it. I'd like to post some descriptions of my own but they'll have to wait for when I get off work. Please critique the clarity of my explanations and if you like them, feel free to use them.

For truth, justice, and science!

Also: http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~tsoule/ladybug/index.html

 

[PantherLotus]

Please spare me the figurine indignation.

Before I even enter the thread religion was characterized as a whole lot more than crackpot. This tells me that the higher minds can dish it bit can't take it. To get bent out of shape by a guy announced as a creationist from the get go strokes me as odd. But few on this thread have the righ to b offended by my flippant remark.

Why are you continually trolling this thread?

 

[PantherLotus]

Thinking about intelligence as an evolutionary solution makes it seem incredibly likely that it will fill an evolutionary niche anywhere multicellular life arises. There are lots of different types of intelligence too - from simple spatial craftiness (Octopi opening jars) all the way up to homo sapiens 'wide-ranging "collection" of types of intelligence.

If you have multiple organisms competing for resources on an alien world, the likelihood of intelligence emerging alongside say, large jaws or powerful seeing organs, seems almost unavoidable.

Awesome post, but it makes me wonder if the conclusion is as obvious as it appears. Seems to me like this planet had millions of species without some type of higher-order thinking (human intelligence) before any appeared. It's just as likely intelligence is the very last thing that would evolve.

 

[Lesath]

Please spare me the figurine indignation.

Before I even enter the thread religion was characterized as a whole lot more than crackpot. This tells me that the higher minds can dish it bit can't take it. To get bent out of shape by a guy announced as a creationist from the get go strokes me as odd. But few on this thread have the righ to b offended by my flippant remark.

Figurine indignation? Don't misunderstand; I merely tried to explain what should have been obvious to you. I think many people have demonstrated an interest in having a debate with you. I don't think that reflects an inability to "take it" on their part, and just because they are hostile in tone does not mean that they have no argument.

Correct me if I am wrong: From your comments, you feel that creation is as valid, if not mroe so, than abiogenesis, because there is so little data to support the latter.

Pardon my repetition, but it is precisely that there is little data that we default to abiogenesis. That does not mean the idea is infallible, but merely that it is the most logical position to take.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Someone with more knowledge than I, please do cetacean evolution.

It's hilariously ironic how whales were originally held up as "debunking" evolution because the idea of a mammal becoming purely aquatic was so absurd to people, only for the fossil record to eventually reveal one of the best examples of easily observable change over time ever.

 

[jiien]

So are evolution and adaptation basically the same thing? Because if so, adaptation would be a much less inflammatory word to use.

Though in all likelihood, if it did grow popular in use, it would eventually carry the same connotation for creationists. :T

 

[JesseZao]

I think the real discussion can only be about carbon dating. Everything else is just conjecture.
Is there any other way for scientists to date something, that existed before historical records were able to verify the calculated age?

 

[Count Dookkake]

So are evolution and adaptation basically the same thing? Because if so, adaptation would be a much less inflammatory word to use.

Though in all likelihood, if it did grow popular in use, it would eventually carry the same connotation for creationists. :T

The opposition already tried that strategy with creationism becoming intelligent design.

 

[Mgoblue201]

1. I'd love to see a scale of relative genetic time-distance. I mean, how far and how long is 50 million years really?

2. I sometimes wonder if our Animal Kingdom definitions (kingdom/family/phylum/species etc) make it harder to teach evolution? Perhaps we should go to a decimal system, like old school computer program releases? Maybe todays humans are Hominid 2.01.09? Maybe my cat is Feline 26.88.01? That would be fucking sweet.

Do you mean the amount of genetic information that changes over those 50 million years? I once saw a chart showing the amount of genetic change between apes and humans. I really wish that I could find it again.

That's right. Amino acids are joined together through peptide bonds and form proteins or peptides (same chemical structure as proteins, only shorter in length).

Was Miller-Urey the experiment where amino acids spontaneously joined together? And when they do, what is the function of these peptides?

Thinking about intelligence as an evolutionary solution makes it seem incredibly likely that it will fill an evolutionary niche anywhere multicellular life arises. There are lots of different types of intelligence too - from simple spatial craftiness (Octopi opening jars) all the way up to homo sapiens 'wide-ranging "collection" of types of intelligence.

If you have multiple organisms competing for resources on an alien world, the likelihood of intelligence emerging alongside say, large jaws or powerful seeing organs, seems almost unavoidable.

I'm of the opinion that intelligence is somewhat of a fluke, yet over time may be likely. Animals are the only organisms with brains. Is that because it's a fluke of chance or because animals quickly filled that niche, obviating the need for other brain-based organisms? And for the most part animals have shown over time a propensity for evolution toward greater intelligence. Is social behavior the main reason for the great leap forward in mammals, or do octupi show that you don't necessary need social behavior for intelligence? Lastly, is humanity a fluke? For instance, if a random change hadn't come along, diminishing our jaws and making room for a larger cranium, would we have become more intelligent? Can the cetaceans become incrementally more intelligent over time, or are they somehow going to hit an evolutionary dead end because of some physiological road block?

Ooo! Evolutionary biology is an enthusiast passion of mine. So is finding ever clearer ways to describe it to people who don't understand it but also don't have an agenda to purposely misunderstand it. I'd like to post some descriptions of my own but they'll have to wait for when I get off work. Please critique the clarity of my explanations and if you like them, feel free to use them.

For truth, justice, and science!

Also: http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~tsoule/ladybug/index.html

That's a very cool way to demonstrate the same thing as the rabbit picture in the first post. It's like a digital version of Darwin's finches.

So are evolution and adaptation basically the same thing? Because if so, adaptation would be a much less inflammatory word to use.

Though in all likelihood, if it did grow popular in use, it would eventually carry the same connotation for creationists. :T

Adaptations usually refer to the process by which a population through natural selection becomes better acclimated to an environment. However, there are other processes of evolution like genetic drift, which does not result in adaptations.

 

[jiien]

Adaptations usually refer to the process by which a population through natural selection becomes better acclimated to an environment. However, there are other processes of evolution like genetic drift, which does not result in adaptations.

Makes sense, didn't think about evolution that way. Thanks!

The opposition already tried that strategy with creationism becoming intelligent design.

Haha, oh yeah.

 

[danwarb]

Thinking about intelligence as an evolutionary solution makes it seem incredibly likely that it will fill an evolutionary niche anywhere multicellular life arises. There are lots of different types of intelligence too - from simple spatial craftiness (Octopi opening jars) all the way up to homo sapiens 'wide-ranging "collection" of types of intelligence.

If you have multiple organisms competing for resources on an alien world, the likelihood of intelligence emerging alongside say, large jaws or powerful seeing organs, seems almost unavoidable.

Found this article on a study of encephalization in dolphins over the past 47m years: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027112550.htm

Their work produced the first description and statistical tests of the pattern of change in brain size relative to body size in cetaceans over 47 million years. They found that encephalization level increased significantly in two critical phases in the evolution of odontocetes.

The first increase occurred with the origin of odontocetes from the ancestral group Archaeoceti nearly 39 million years ago, and was accompanied by both an increase in brain size and a decrease in body size. This change in encephalization occurred with the emergence of the first cetaceans to possess echolocation - the processing of high frequency acoustic information within a perceptual-communicative system used by modern dolphins and other odontocetes, Marino says. The second major change occurred in the origin of the superfamily Delphinoidea (oceanic dolphins, porpoises, belugas and narwhals) by about 15 million years ago. Both increases probably relate to changes in social ecology (the animals' social lifestyle) as well, Marino says.

In addition to their large brains, odontocetes have demonstrated behavioral faculties previously only ascribed to humans and, to some extent, other great apes. These abilities include mirror self-recognition, the comprehension of artificial, symbol-based communication systems and abstract concepts, and the learning and intergenerational transmission of behaviors that have been described as cultural.

Despite cognitive commonalities, the odontocete evolutionary pathway has proceeded under a very different set of independent circumstances from that of primates, Marino explains. The highly expanded brain size and behavioral abilities of odontocetes are, in a sense, convergently shared with humans, she says.

"Dolphin brains are four to five times larger for their body size when compared to another animal of similar size. In humans, the measure is seven times larger -- not a huge difference. Essentially, the brains of primates and cetaceans arrived at the same cognitive space while evolving along quite different paths" Marino says. "What the data say to me is that we, as humans, are not that special. Although we are highly encephalized, it's not by much or for that long compared with odontocetes."

Marino and her colleagues add that the observation that there is a single remaining human lineage "pruned down from a bushier tree" has led to a popular view that several species of highly encephalized animals cannot co-exist at the same time. "However, our results show that not only do multiple highly encephalized delphinoids coexist in similar and overlapping environments today, but this situation arose as early as 20 million years ago, and has persisted for at least 15 million years."

 

[jiien]

Found this article on a study of encephalization in dolphins over the past 47m years: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027112550.htm

That is some really awesome stuff. If we, as a species, could help the development of another species to higher intelligence as we have, that would be freaking awesome.

 

[Raist]

I think the real discussion can only be about carbon dating. Everything else is just conjecture.
Is there any other way for scientists to date something, that existed before historical records were able to verify the calculated age?

14C is only one of many radioisotopes that are used for dating, and all are useful because they not only cover different periods of time but also overlap.
Dendrochronology (tree rings) does not go back far enough in time to be directly useful in the context of evolution, but it is used to "calibrate" 14C.

 

[Madman]

Shame. It's rather an interesting one, not at all like the threads that gradually devolve into religion threads.

But I am here to discuss logic, not faith. So why would I go to the religion thread, which is all about faith?

I see this said a lot on GAF, but I guess that people forget that there were a few early scientists that noted that God was their inspiration to learn more about the world and universe. Some people that believe in a creator actually want to understand the nature of the creation. There are even scientists today that are religious.

On to another point, while this thread is full of good information it displays some of the reasons that many people have with learning more of the subject. Many people can't stomach the constant religious bashing. There have even been atheists that have a hard time reading a book or watching a TV program on the subject.

If you are going to talk about science then talk about science. I can understand that some theist can bring up religion on a forum or maybe the scientist is asked a question behind the camera. Even then it should be ignored and people should remain on topic. What is the point of bringing up or bashing religion in a book on science though? Maybe more people will take time to learn more about the subject if all that is kept out. I have seen many just turn away from it because of it.

Evolution does not prove that a deity does not exist. So there is no reason to even bring it up. It is as foolish as saying that a religious text can be read to figure out the age of the Earth.

Ok, not sure what this has to do with God being the answer for everything. In the past and into the present, people fill gaps in knowledge with God. I am curious about how everything works, and immediately answering God will not get me or anyone else where we want to go. We want to know how things work through nature. Answering God gets in the way of that.

Religious folks don't like threads like this or the facts presented in them because it tells them that their beliefs are wrong or that their religious text of choice was wrong. Pretty simple.

Sorry, but science and religion don't mix well. Hence why I don't belong in the religion thread bringing up abiogenesis, and others don't belong here bringing up creationism. But if they want to try to push their argument here, I will gladly give them a debate and let them know how I feel. That is until they stop responding to my responses and try to change the argument.

What evolution and the issues surrounding it does do is question what many of the major religions claim is fact. I didn't bring up religion. I am agnostic and don't want to attack religion. Hence why when I was offered to discuss abiogenesis in a religion thread, I declined.

 

[DragonGirl]

Someone with more knowledge than I, please do cetacean evolution.

It's hilariously ironic how whales were originally held up as "debunking" evolution because the idea of a mammal becoming purely aquatic was so absurd to people, only for the fossil record to eventually reveal one of the best examples of easily observable change over time ever.

This is some of the best you'll find:

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/everyone-back-in-the-pool-from-artiodactyl-to-cetacean/

 

[Ri'Orius]

I think the real discussion can only be about carbon dating. Everything else is just conjecture.
Is there any other way for scientists to date something, that existed before historical records were able to verify the calculated age?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594787/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Pick it up and read it, if you really want to hear about the evidence for evolution.

Dawkins devotes a chapter, IIRC, to dating methods. C14 is only one isotope used; various other isotopes (I recall Argon off the top of my head, but there were others as well) are used to date things at different time intervals. Other dating methods include tree rings (for the last thousandish years), etc. And the best part about these various dating methods? They agree with each other.

Read the book; it's got occasional snarks against Christianity, but it mostly sticks to the evidence supporting Evolution. And there is plenty of evidence. Everything else is by no means "just conjecture."

 

[JGS]

Figurine indignation? Don't misunderstand; I merely tried to explain what should have been obvious to you. I think many people have demonstrated an interest in having a debate with you. I don't think that reflects an inability to "take it" on their part, and just because they are hostile in tone does not mean that they have no argument.

Correct me if I am wrong: From your comments, you feel that creation is as valid, if not mroe so, than abiogenesis, because there is so little data to support the latter.

Pardon my repetition, but it is precisely that there is little data that we default to abiogenesis. That does not mean the idea is infallible, but merely that it is the most logical position to take.

typo, Iphone auto checked and I hit the post button too late.

Just to be sure, you reason that you default to abiogenesis even though there is little evidence for it as well?

I get that what you're saying is there is NO evidence for creation which is fine. I'm just not clear on why abiogenesis is the default when it is simply conjecture by scientist instead of conjecture by holy men.

It goes back to what I said before:

At the end of the day, it is completely irrelevant what someone believes regarding how life started except in regards to what makes them feel better.

Forget religion altogether. THAT is my real belief. I'm skeptical of a lot of things - politics, religion, the entertainment value of 3-D, etc...

As far as my religious beliefs are concerned, how I got here is one of the least important aspects of that. Even if I believed in abiogenesis, my focus would never be on it considering it's issues - whether you view them as minor or major they are there.

 

[PkunkFury]

Also: http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~tsoule/ladybug/index.html

This game's horrible. I killed all the enemies and there wasn't even an end screen

 

[jiien]

This game's horrible. I killed all the enemies and there wasn't even an end screen

Haha, I made the same mistake, so the second time around (yes, I actually played it twice...) I made sure to leave some alive that I liked >.>

 

[JesseZao]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594787/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Pick it up and read it, if you really want to hear about the evidence for evolution.

Dawkins devotes a chapter, IIRC, to dating methods. C14 is only one isotope used; various other isotopes (I recall Argon off the top of my head, but there were others as well) are used to date things at different time intervals. Other dating methods include tree rings (for the last thousandish years), etc. And the best part about these various dating methods? They agree with each other.

Read the book; it's got occasional snarks against Christianity, but it mostly sticks to the evidence supporting Evolution. And there is plenty of evidence. Everything else is by no means "just conjecture."

I was just curious, because evolution relies on the "large amounts of time" did it, similar to how creationists depend on "God did it." Take either one out and the conclusions crumble. Next time I'm at the library I'll see if they have that one.

I don't think either viewpoint will ever be satisfied in our species lifetime in this universe as there are just too many impossible to prove unknowns. I like to try and see what every side says about different issues, as I'm a hard skeptic and don't accept things immediately at face value.

 

[Trojita]

I've had no problem with Evolution. I find it to be an interesting topic especially adaptation. Have you seen how Portuguese Water Dogs developed webbed toes for swimming? Amazing!

Now what I have a problem with is the origin of matter. I've yet to hear a convincing argument. But this is an evolution thread of life not a thread about cosmology.

 

[PantherLotus]

That is some really awesome stuff. If we, as a species, could help the development of another species to higher intelligence as we have, that would be freaking awesome.

All sorts of Prime Directive-type of philosophical issues with that, but agreed.

 

[jiien]

I was just curious, because evolution relies on the "large amounts of time" did it, similar to how creationists depend on "God did it." Take either one out and the conclusions crumble. Next time I'm at the library I'll see if they have that one.

But time and God are not equatable. One we can actually observe in motion, and we can measure it. The other is claimed to exist, but it cannot be measured, and is not observable.

 

[PantherLotus]

I've had no problem with Evolution. I find it to be an interesting topic especially adaptation. Have you seen how Portuguese Water Dogs developed webbed toes for swimming? Amazing!

Now what I have a problem with is the origin of matter. I've yet to hear a convincing argument. But this is an evolution thread of life not a thread about cosmology.

I assume you mean the origin of life? Or do you literally mean the "origin of matter?"

 

[Tntnnbltn]

Someone with more knowledge than I, please do cetacean evolution.

Check out http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/. Has a really big collection of information, with some great pictures too.

Some excerpts:

Whales Closest Living Relative and Ancestors
Back To The Sea
The earliest known representatives of whales walked on land and were carnivores with fur and hooves. Their successors in the Eocene, likely evolved into squat and heavy-headed species, pursued an amphibious life in shallow water. Within ten million years these species' bodies were adapted to life in the ocean.
Which animals were the ancestors of whales?
Past discoveries of whale fossils have lent to the belief that long-extinct ungulates, called mesonychids, were ancestors or relatives of whales. Molecular data from DNA samples, indicate whales arose from artiodactyls, which include hippos, not mesonychids, and that hippos are in fact the closest living relatives to whales. Discoveries of ankle bones on early whales, lend credibility to the artiodactyl link. There now is also morphological support for the hippo link.

Paraphrased from National Geographic, November 2001, The Evolution of Whales

Nasal Drift in Early Whales
Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. Blowholes help to distinguish modern forms of whales. While toothed whales generally have one hole, baleens are split into two.
Fig 1. Pakicetus
Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales.
Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and resubmerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.

Ambulocetus

Basilosaurus with well developed hind limbs, though reduced in size.

Sperm whales retain hind limb atavisms.

Losing their Legs
Pakicetus walked on land and waded in water, but Ambulocetus was more aquatic. It's pelvis was fused to its backbone, which allowed it to support its weight on land, while webbed feet gave it additional power underwater when it would swim, perhaps undulating its spine like an otter. Basilosaurus, snakelike and possessing shrunken legs, emerged on the scene some ten million years later. Some evidence indicates the reduced limbs may have been used in copulation. Today, hind rudiments are small and internal, acting as an anchor for genitalia muscles. The animals still retain genetic codes, for longer limbs. On occasion a whale may be born with a limb or two sprouted, known as an atavism.

Also, on the topic of blowholes, fetal whales start off with nostrils in the same position as other mammals. The nose opening (indicated with arrow below) moves from the tip of the snout to the top of the skull during fetal development.

 

[JesseZao]

But time and God are not equatable. One we can actually observe in motion, and we can measure it. The other is claimed to exist, but it cannot be measured, and is not observable.

No doubt about "microevolution" I've worked with single-cell organisms in classes and a lab I worked in. It happens. I haven't observed a species shift, though. All my work in labs was screening for mutants/phenotypes and then finding the defective gene. It's the unobservable macroevolution that will never be "proven."

 

[Trojita]

I assume you mean the origin of life? Or do you literally mean the "origin of matter?"

Literally "origin of matter". Origin of life is intriguing as well and I'd like to see where we get into the subject into the next century.

 

[DragonGirl]

Haha, I made the same mistake, so the second time around (yes, I actually played it twice...) I made sure to leave some alive that I liked >.>

Yes, if you understand evolution even a little you can game the system and breed easy bugs to hunt. I did that a few times after playing the game the way it was supposed to be played. Then I worked at breeding different colors and behaviors.

 

[danwarb]

I get that what you're saying is there is NO evidence for creation which is fine. I'm just not clear on why abiogenesis is the default when it is simply conjecture by scientist instead of conjecture by holy men.

It's the default because there's life where there was none, life on Earth started very simple, and the components for life were already present.

The alternatives are biogenesis and no genesis? We can probably rule out those. Even if 'god did it', I think it's still abiogenesis, unless he somehow physically gave birth to the first simple life-form.

No doubt about "microevolution" I've worked with single-cell organisms in classes and a lab I worked in. It happens. I haven't observed a species shift, though. All my work in labs was screening for mutants/phenotypes and then finding the defective gene. It's the unobservable macroevolution that will never be "proven."

It's already proven. Individuals can't observe it on a large scale, because we don't live for millions of years, if that's what you mean?

 

[archnemesis]

Was Miller-Urey the experiment where amino acids spontaneously joined together? And when they do, what is the function of these peptides?

No, I was thinking of Sidney W. Fox's work on thermal proteins. The famous Miller-Uray experiment was creating amino acids from water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Most of the thermal proteins Fox created were without counterparts in the biological world, but he also successfully produced Flavin, a naturally-occurring protein.

 

[Escape Goat]

 

[JesseZao]

It's the default because there's life where there was none, life on Earth started very simple, and the components for life were already present.

The alternatives are biogenesis and no genesis? We can probably rule out those. Even if 'god did it', I think it's still abiogenesis, unless he somehow physically gave birth to the first simple life-form.

I think it would be better to just say I/we don't know. It just sounds like fishing for a way to say of course God didn't do it, it was X.

It's already proven. Individuals can't observe it on a large scale, because we don't live for millions of years, if that's what you mean?

By proven I mean by Scientific Method. So no it will never be "proven."

 

[jiien]

I think it would be better to just say I/we don't know. It just sounds like fishing for a way to say of course God didn't do it, it was X.

Maybe it is better to describe Evolution as an educated guess with some vague/general evidence backing it, proposed by leading scientific minds, versus a catch-all, unprovable (and un-disprovable, by its very nature) force which has absolutely no evidence backing it whatsoever.

 

[JesseZao]

Maybe it is better to describe Evolution as an educated guess with some vague/general evidence backing it, proposed by leading scientific minds, versus a catch-all, unprovable (and un-disprovable, by its very nature) force which has absolutely no evidence backing it whatsoever.

Sounds good. Not sure what you personally would consider evidence that God did it anyway, so evolution must be true!