|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:24 am
divineseraph Artto divineseraph Those experiments don't lead me to that conclusion. What's your explanation for the double slit experiment then? I've heard of it before and I came to a different conclusion based on the results that didn't equate to us altering the fabric of the universe every time we look at something. However, I forgot the specifics of the experiment. If you could explain it again for me, I could remember and tell you what it meant to me. Ok, here goes, please feel free to correct anything: smile If you shine a light (or a stream of electrons, for example) through two slits, you get an interference pattern, which is characteristic of waves, like so, suggesting light is actually a wave:  For regular particles, you would only get two lines. Now, if you try and shoot electrons through the slits one at a time, you still get the same pattern, although the waves couldn't be interfering with each other [ pic]. This suggests that the particle actually goes through both slits at once and interferes with itself. If you measure which slit it actually went through, the interference pattern disappears and you get the two strips, which are characteristic of particles. This does not suggest that we somehow alter the universe with our minds (which some try to claim, specially in the realms of pseudo-science, like the "documentary" The Secret. That, of course, is a load of bullshit.). But it does show a curious thing about subatomic particles: when information about the location of a particle is present, it starts acting like a normal particle. If it's not, it acts like a wave. Even more interesting is the Quantum Eraser experiment, which shows that if you determine the location of a particle, but then erase that information, it goes back to acting like a wave (I suggest you read about it on the wiki link I posted earlier, if you're interested). Quantum mechanics just shows that the universe is not as intuitive as it seems on the macro scale. And the interesting thing is, that these things are demonstrable by experiment. P.S.: I'd rather that we stuck to the topic of evolution in this thread, cause this doesn't really have to do anything with it smile
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:40 pm
Artto divineseraph Artto divineseraph Those experiments don't lead me to that conclusion. What's your explanation for the double slit experiment then? I've heard of it before and I came to a different conclusion based on the results that didn't equate to us altering the fabric of the universe every time we look at something. However, I forgot the specifics of the experiment. If you could explain it again for me, I could remember and tell you what it meant to me. Ok, here goes, please feel free to correct anything: smile If you shine a light (or a stream of electrons, for example) through two slits, you get an interference pattern, which is characteristic of waves, like so, suggesting light is actually a wave: For regular particles, you would only get two lines. Now, if you try and shoot electrons through the slits one at a time, you still get the same pattern, although the waves couldn't be interfering with each other [ pic]. This suggests that the particle actually goes through both slits at once and interferes with itself. If you measure which slit it actually went through, the interference pattern disappears and you get the two strips, which are characteristic of particles. This does not suggest that we somehow alter the universe with our minds (which some try to claim, specially in the realms of pseudo-science, like the "documentary" The Secret. That, of course, is a load of bullshit.). But it does show a curious thing about subatomic particles: when information about the location of a particle is present, it starts acting like a normal particle. If it's not, it acts like a wave. Even more interesting is the Quantum Eraser experiment, which shows that if you determine the location of a particle, but then erase that information, it goes back to acting like a wave (I suggest you read about it on the wiki link I posted earlier, if you're interested). Quantum mechanics just shows that the universe is not as intuitive as it seems on the macro scale. And the interesting thing is, that these things are demonstrable by experiment. P.S.: I'd rather that we stuck to the topic of evolution in this thread, cause this doesn't really have to do anything with it smile That has more to do with the nature of light- It is currently believed to be some anomaly that has the properties of both a wave and a particle. I say bullshit. I believe it travels as a wave ON a particle. So if, through observation, I.E bombrading it with other particles/light, we can remove the energy wave and leave it as a particle, we would see that result. If you fire one photon, does it make two dots? If so, we may come to this conclusion, or come closer to it. However, light acting as a wave under one circumstance and a particle under another doesn't mean, to me, that our observation changes the particle's reality, but that we are changing something about the way light works. Like if we have a stream full of balloons passing through those slits, it will be much more random when they hit the wall on the other side than if we removed the water and threw them at the slits. Since the water is the wave-form, and the balloons are the particles, it makes sense that if we somehow interrupt the way it travels, namely by altering it's current (With a single photon, for example, to observe it we would need to hit it with another photon, at least, of light.)- My idea is this. If light is both a photon and an attached energy, our bombardment may transfer it's energy current to the other photon and leave it as a "balloon".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:49 pm
keiaixiongmao wouldn't you think global pollution, or such like problems, are evolvutional? Like, Glacier Ices are melting.. now it is turning into a sea.. What?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:39 pm
divineseraph (With a single photon, for example, to observe it we would need to hit it with another photon, at least, of light.) That's not true. Here you're considering just visual detection. An electron or a photon has other influences on the matter around it, which we can detect (like a change in the electro-magnetic field). Oh and I agree with that "What?". I have no idea what she's getting at there. P.S.: Oh and again, I'd like to stick to evolution in this topic. Maybe we should open a new one on QM, or just have a conversation over PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:50 pm
RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku Well, as for who created the universes, we can't prove that anyone created it, but we have theories on how they were created. as for the second question, every possibility exists in one parallel universe, no matter the odds against it. Its believed that the laws of physics could be different in any of these universes. Or you just know the guy who did it. ^_^ But why should other universes exist, who or what created them, and what proof do we have of them? The "proof' we have of parallel worlds, is that they have been proven true through the laws of physics. Though their is no way to experimentally prove that they exist, it's believed that we will within a few centuries. A reason for the sprouting of a new universe has been defined as when a different possibility occurred in anything that happens in our or any other universe. Though the chances of a creator are incalculable at this time, we have no proof that anything creates the universes, but that comes back to what brought about our universe. Anything possible makes a new universe? I've heard the idea before (Small Eternities), but it looked like the stuff of fantasy. I don't see why it should be that way, though it is an interesting idea. All that is material has a beginning. That goes for universes too. Do parallel universes exist? In 1954, a young Princeton University doctoral candidate named Hugh Everett III came up with a radical idea: That there exist parallel universes, exactly like our universe. These universes are all related to ours; indeed, they branch off from ours, and our universe is branched off of others. Within these parallel universes, our wars have had different outcomes than the ones we know. Species that are extinct in our universe have evolved and adapted in others. In other universes, we humans may have become extinct. This thought boggles the mind and yet, it is still comprehensible. Notions of parallel universes or dimensions that resemble our own have appeared in works of science fiction and have been used as explanations for metaphysics. But why would a young up-and-coming physicist possibly risk his future career by posing a theory about parallel universes? With his Many-Worlds theory, Everett was attempting to answer a rather sticky question related to quantum physics: Why does quantum matter behave erratically? The quantum level is the smallest one science has detected so far. The study of quantum physics began in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck first introduced the concept to the scientific world. Planck's study of radiation yielded some unusual findings that contradicted classical physical laws. These findings suggested that there are other laws at work in the universe, operating on a deeper level than the one we know. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle In fairly short order, physicists studying the quantum level noticed some peculiar things about this tiny world. For one, the particles that exist on this level have a way of taking different forms arbitrarily. For example, scientists have observed photons -- tiny packets of light -- acting as particles and waves. Even a single photon exhibits this shape-shifting [source: Brown University]. Imagine if you looked and acted like a solid human being when a friend glanced at you, but when he looked back again, you'd taken a gaseous form. This has come to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The physicist Werner Heisenberg suggested that just by observing quantum matter, we affect the behavior of that matter. Thus, we can never be fully certain of the nature of a quantum object or its attributes, like velocity and location. This idea is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Posed by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this interpretation says that all quantum particles don't exist in one state or the other, but in all of its possible states at once. The sum total of possible states of a quantum object is called its wave function. The state of an object existing in all of its possible states at once is called its superposition. According to Bohr, when we observe a quantum object, we affect its behavior. Observation breaks an object's superposition and essentially forces the object to choose one state from its wave function. This theory accounts for why physicists have taken opposite measurements from the same quantum object: The object "chose" different states during different measurements. Bohr's interpretation was widely accepted, and still is by much of the quantum community. But lately, Everett's Many-Worlds theory has been getting some serious attention. Read the next page to find out how the Many-Worlds interpretation works. Many Worlds Theory Young Hugh Everett agreed with much of what the highly respected physicist Niels Bohr had suggested about the quantum world. He agreed with the idea of superposition, as well as with the notion of wave functions. But Everett disagreed with Bohr in one vital respect. To Everett, measuring a quantum object does not force it into one comprehensible state or another. Instead, a measurement taken of a quantum object causes an actual split in the universe. The universe is literally duplicated, splitting into one universe for each possible outcome from the measurement. For example, say an object's wave function is both a particle and a wave. When a physicist measures the particle, there are two possible outcomes: It will either be measured as a particle or a wave. This distinction makes Everett's Many-Worlds theory a competitor of the Copenhagen interpretation as an explanation for quantum mechanics. When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state. As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action. This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing. Another disturbing aspect of the Many-Worlds interpretation is that it undermines our concept of time as linear. Imagine a time line showing the history of the Vietnam War. Rather than a straight line showing noteworthy events progressing onward, a time line based on the Many-Worlds interpretation would show each possible outcome of each action taken. From there, each possible outcome of the actions taken (as a result of the original outcome) would be further chronicled. But a person cannot be aware of his other selves -- or even his death -- that exist in parallel universes. So how could we ever know if the Many-Worlds theory is correct? Assurance that the interpretation is theoretically possible came in the late 1990s from a thought experiment -- an imagined experiment used to theoretically prove or disprove an idea -- called quantum suicide. (You can learn more about it in How Quantum Suicide Works.) This thought experiment renewed interest in Everett's theory, which was for many years considered rubbish. Since Many-Worlds was proven possible, physicists and mathematicians have aimed to investigate the implications of the theory in depth. But the Many-Worlds interpretation is not the only theory that seeks to explain the universe. Nor is it the only one that suggests there are universes parallel to our own. Read the next page to lean about string theory. These three three articles should help you understand the theory a bit more. Just because it needs a beginning doesn't mean that it needs a creator. So our proof is little tiny particles that behave strangely? Well that's not enough. It's mind-blowing if it's true, but it needs more support, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:53 pm
xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx RurouniZakku xxEternallyBluexx Or you just know the guy who did it. ^_^ But why should other universes exist, who or what created them, and what proof do we have of them? The "proof' we have of parallel worlds, is that they have been proven true through the laws of physics. Though their is no way to experimentally prove that they exist, it's believed that we will within a few centuries. A reason for the sprouting of a new universe has been defined as when a different possibility occurred in anything that happens in our or any other universe. Though the chances of a creator are incalculable at this time, we have no proof that anything creates the universes, but that comes back to what brought about our universe. Anything possible makes a new universe? I've heard the idea before (Small Eternities), but it looked like the stuff of fantasy. I don't see why it should be that way, though it is an interesting idea. All that is material has a beginning. That goes for universes too. Do parallel universes exist? In 1954, a young Princeton University doctoral candidate named Hugh Everett III came up with a radical idea: That there exist parallel universes, exactly like our universe. These universes are all related to ours; indeed, they branch off from ours, and our universe is branched off of others. Within these parallel universes, our wars have had different outcomes than the ones we know. Species that are extinct in our universe have evolved and adapted in others. In other universes, we humans may have become extinct. This thought boggles the mind and yet, it is still comprehensible. Notions of parallel universes or dimensions that resemble our own have appeared in works of science fiction and have been used as explanations for metaphysics. But why would a young up-and-coming physicist possibly risk his future career by posing a theory about parallel universes? With his Many-Worlds theory, Everett was attempting to answer a rather sticky question related to quantum physics: Why does quantum matter behave erratically? The quantum level is the smallest one science has detected so far. The study of quantum physics began in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck first introduced the concept to the scientific world. Planck's study of radiation yielded some unusual findings that contradicted classical physical laws. These findings suggested that there are other laws at work in the universe, operating on a deeper level than the one we know. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle In fairly short order, physicists studying the quantum level noticed some peculiar things about this tiny world. For one, the particles that exist on this level have a way of taking different forms arbitrarily. For example, scientists have observed photons -- tiny packets of light -- acting as particles and waves. Even a single photon exhibits this shape-shifting [source: Brown University]. Imagine if you looked and acted like a solid human being when a friend glanced at you, but when he looked back again, you'd taken a gaseous form. This has come to be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The physicist Werner Heisenberg suggested that just by observing quantum matter, we affect the behavior of that matter. Thus, we can never be fully certain of the nature of a quantum object or its attributes, like velocity and location. This idea is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Posed by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, this interpretation says that all quantum particles don't exist in one state or the other, but in all of its possible states at once. The sum total of possible states of a quantum object is called its wave function. The state of an object existing in all of its possible states at once is called its superposition. According to Bohr, when we observe a quantum object, we affect its behavior. Observation breaks an object's superposition and essentially forces the object to choose one state from its wave function. This theory accounts for why physicists have taken opposite measurements from the same quantum object: The object "chose" different states during different measurements. Bohr's interpretation was widely accepted, and still is by much of the quantum community. But lately, Everett's Many-Worlds theory has been getting some serious attention. Read the next page to find out how the Many-Worlds interpretation works. Many Worlds Theory Young Hugh Everett agreed with much of what the highly respected physicist Niels Bohr had suggested about the quantum world. He agreed with the idea of superposition, as well as with the notion of wave functions. But Everett disagreed with Bohr in one vital respect. To Everett, measuring a quantum object does not force it into one comprehensible state or another. Instead, a measurement taken of a quantum object causes an actual split in the universe. The universe is literally duplicated, splitting into one universe for each possible outcome from the measurement. For example, say an object's wave function is both a particle and a wave. When a physicist measures the particle, there are two possible outcomes: It will either be measured as a particle or a wave. This distinction makes Everett's Many-Worlds theory a competitor of the Copenhagen interpretation as an explanation for quantum mechanics. When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state. As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action. This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing. Another disturbing aspect of the Many-Worlds interpretation is that it undermines our concept of time as linear. Imagine a time line showing the history of the Vietnam War. Rather than a straight line showing noteworthy events progressing onward, a time line based on the Many-Worlds interpretation would show each possible outcome of each action taken. From there, each possible outcome of the actions taken (as a result of the original outcome) would be further chronicled. But a person cannot be aware of his other selves -- or even his death -- that exist in parallel universes. So how could we ever know if the Many-Worlds theory is correct? Assurance that the interpretation is theoretically possible came in the late 1990s from a thought experiment -- an imagined experiment used to theoretically prove or disprove an idea -- called quantum suicide. (You can learn more about it in How Quantum Suicide Works.) This thought experiment renewed interest in Everett's theory, which was for many years considered rubbish. Since Many-Worlds was proven possible, physicists and mathematicians have aimed to investigate the implications of the theory in depth. But the Many-Worlds interpretation is not the only theory that seeks to explain the universe. Nor is it the only one that suggests there are universes parallel to our own. Read the next page to lean about string theory. These three three articles should help you understand the theory a bit more. Just because it needs a beginning doesn't mean that it needs a creator. So our proof is little tiny particles that behave strangely? Well that's not enough. It's mind-blowing if it's true, but it needs more support, in my opinion. That is why we haven't proved that they exist, though thats the problem with the quantum theory, everything is uncertain. Even if we prove that it exists, the chance of us showing experimental proof isn't as likely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:57 pm
RurouniZakku That is why we haven't proved that they exist, though thats the problem with the quantum theory, everything is uncertain. Even if we prove that it exists, the chance of us showing experimental proof isn't as likely. There is currently no way you could actually prove (there's not even any evidence) parallel universes. Now back to the topic of evolution please! biggrin Just open a new topic about QM, if you want to argue about that. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:59 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Blue, think of it like this- Breeding is like a copying machine. You're printing out a paper 10 million times a day. Every once in a while, a letter gets changed. One letter. A small glitch in the system. These papers are then put onto their own copiers and are copied millions of times each. Again, once in a while, there's a different letter. Given a year, you may expect 20 or so new words. Given ten million years, do you think you'll even recognize the paper anymore? Or do it with a song- Once out of every five million downloads, a song changes by one note by mistake. This song is copied and downloaded millions of times a day and is updated daily by the newer version. Given a few hundred years, will it be the same song? Are there that many copies being made though? Plus the piling up theory doesn't work because how do you develop something complex like an eye? Do you develop it cell by cell? You have to start somewhere and it has to help the organism survive within the first generation that develops it. Note: If anyone can go on and outline how an eye, or a heart or any other complex system develops, step-by-step, I'll be very impressed. :3 We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages? If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait. The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:03 pm
xxEternallyBluexx The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. You're not really understanding the process. Every "in-between" stage has its purpose. A "half-wing" may have a purpose in mating or camouflage. Parts get reused and reshaped, but they always have a purpose in every organism. And there's no exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton, because these are two completely separate branches. One did not develop into the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:24 pm
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Blue, think of it like this- Breeding is like a copying machine. You're printing out a paper 10 million times a day. Every once in a while, a letter gets changed. One letter. A small glitch in the system. These papers are then put onto their own copiers and are copied millions of times each. Again, once in a while, there's a different letter. Given a year, you may expect 20 or so new words. Given ten million years, do you think you'll even recognize the paper anymore? Or do it with a song- Once out of every five million downloads, a song changes by one note by mistake. This song is copied and downloaded millions of times a day and is updated daily by the newer version. Given a few hundred years, will it be the same song? Are there that many copies being made though? Plus the piling up theory doesn't work because how do you develop something complex like an eye? Do you develop it cell by cell? You have to start somewhere and it has to help the organism survive within the first generation that develops it. Note: If anyone can go on and outline how an eye, or a heart or any other complex system develops, step-by-step, I'll be very impressed. :3 We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages? If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait. The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. Flying squirrels. Between an arm and a wing is an arm with skin flaps. Extend the "fingers" and change the shoulderblades just a little bit, and you have a full-on wing. As for skeletons, anything with scales has an "exoskeleton" of sorts- turtles have an outward bone structure. And remember, it's not that the bones are intentionally developing in the direction of a full skeletal system. The bone structures that exist do so because they did not hinder, or even helped, the creature in survival. It's not like creature A, which is Creature Z's great x 5,000,000 grandfather, is developing a knee or a heart with the intent of it becoming that later- If it allows the creature to survive, and it's subsequent changes allow those creatures to survive, it will. A blood pump is not a heart in the making, but it can become one by chance. It's a hard concept to explain. I'm not saying that knees are bad, but that in comparison to our other joints, it's a weak design. We don't consider it such because we are used to it. But it's really not as efficient as it could be, which is an example of a "negative" mutation, in that our knees are not as strong as our other joints. And see above- They are not predestined to change to what they will be. A blood pump doesn't start changing into a heart with the intent of becoming a heart. It just gets slightly more complex. and then slightly more complex. And them slightly different. And then slightly larger. and then slightly more complex, until eventually it is what we know as a heart. That wasn't it's original goal, but as you were hitting on, the changes allowed the creature to survive to pass on that trait of "sligthly more complex" or "slightly more whatever".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:54 pm
Artto xxEternallyBluexx The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. You're not really understanding the process. Every "in-between" stage has its purpose. A "half-wing" may have a purpose in mating or camouflage. Parts get reused and reshaped, but they always have a purpose in every organism. And there's no exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton, because these are two completely separate branches. One did not develop into the other. If there's one step that is harmful before anything complex develops, then my point is that it doesn't work then because one way or another the creature would've died. Well, what did mammals originally evolve from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:00 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages? If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait. The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. Flying squirrels. Between an arm and a wing is an arm with skin flaps. Extend the "fingers" and change the shoulderblades just a little bit, and you have a full-on wing. As for skeletons, anything with scales has an "exoskeleton" of sorts- turtles have an outward bone structure. And remember, it's not that the bones are intentionally developing in the direction of a full skeletal system. The bone structures that exist do so because they did not hinder, or even helped, the creature in survival. It's not like creature A, which is Creature Z's great x 5,000,000 grandfather, is developing a knee or a heart with the intent of it becoming that later- If it allows the creature to survive, and it's subsequent changes allow those creatures to survive, it will. A blood pump is not a heart in the making, but it can become one by chance. It's a hard concept to explain. I'm not saying that knees are bad, but that in comparison to our other joints, it's a weak design. We don't consider it such because we are used to it. But it's really not as efficient as it could be, which is an example of a "negative" mutation, in that our knees are not as strong as our other joints. And see above- They are not predestined to change to what they will be. A blood pump doesn't start changing into a heart with the intent of becoming a heart. It just gets slightly more complex. and then slightly more complex. And them slightly different. And then slightly larger. and then slightly more complex, until eventually it is what we know as a heart. That wasn't it's original goal, but as you were hitting on, the changes allowed the creature to survive to pass on that trait of "sligthly more complex" or "slightly more whatever". It is difficult. You have a lot of complex developments, and they don't all start out with the intent of ending on some sort of complete part? You have many organisms that share different features like eyes, and lungs, and digestive features. Did they all come from the same common ancestor? I think 'not efficient' might be a better term. A negative mutation would be something like a hole in the heart, or a man born with no eyes. But then every add-on has to be positive or neutral. If a significant amount of the add-ons aren't, what does that say about evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:02 pm
The eye was just an example. Plus I don't really have time to watch an hour long documentary unless it's on while I'm on the net. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:33 pm
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph We see this in light-sensitive membranes. Many aquatic creatures have them- They detect light but little else. It takes only a little bit more development to get a refined eye, namely seeing shapes- then depth, and then color. Being able to sense light helps the creature detect motion around it, such as incoming predators. However, the idea that the change must benefit the organism is a fallacy- The change must simply survive. If it is a negative change, such as being born on fire, the creature obviously isn't going to pass it on. If it's a neutral change, like a slight variation in color, it could very well pass it on. If it's a beneficial change such as being able to detect light, it is most likely to be passed on, as the creature will survive to do so. It's not so much that the creatures change to survive, it's the opposite- Whatever survives makes up the change, as it survived to do so. Okay, I'm impressed...but does it work with other complex organs? What about stages inbetween where the mutations may be harmful? Do organisms exist that demonstrate the inbetween stages? If it's harmful, the creature dies and the trait is not passed on. Likely. Keep in mind, under the right circumstances, such as a safe habitat, the creature COULD survive with harmful or pointless mutations. It's just less likely. Name an instance where this might be the case, though. As for other complex organs, it works in the same way- first scales and exoskeletons to protect the body, then mutations to bones on the inside for improved organ support, for example. Or small blood pumps growing more complex as they mutate in more efficient ways and becoming hearts. An example of a "negative" mutation in humans would be, as mentioned, tonsils, the appendix, and the knee. The knee is a very weak bone structure and is not well crafted- It's easy to dislocate and isn't held down well. Compared to other joints, it's a mutation "downwards", and in more dangerous conditions, or conditions where humans weren't smart enough to make weapons, we'd be more or less screwed because of it. As for in between stages, they have been mentioned here often- Whales have back leg bones but no back legs. Humans have appendixes, manatees apparently have toenails. The in-between for complex organs are creatures that see light and shape but not depth or color- I would guess aquatic creatures of some sort, likely deeper in the water as seeing depth is pointless when you only get a glimpse of light down there. Dogs and cats don't see in color either, so their eyes are between those fish and us and hawks. All vestigial organs are either half-way mutations that lost their purpose or ones that don't yet have a purpose. Again, mind you, when I say "purpose", they are not yet meant to. They are simply changes that haven't hurt the creature's ability to live enough to keep it from breeding and passing on the trait. The inbetween stages, like stage three in Artto's image, or when a limb is developing into a wing. Are there any animals that have something like an exoskeleton developing into an internal skeleton? If this is true, we should have a lot of creatures in an inbetween stage that doesn't help them, because chances are most of them wouldn't be completely developed by now. Without it we couldn't sit or jump. I think it's an asset even for it's weakness. But the inbetween stage can't be too harmful, or else the organism won't continue developing it. Most of the inbetweens would probably be too harmful. Flying squirrels. Between an arm and a wing is an arm with skin flaps. Extend the "fingers" and change the shoulderblades just a little bit, and you have a full-on wing. As for skeletons, anything with scales has an "exoskeleton" of sorts- turtles have an outward bone structure. And remember, it's not that the bones are intentionally developing in the direction of a full skeletal system. The bone structures that exist do so because they did not hinder, or even helped, the creature in survival. It's not like creature A, which is Creature Z's great x 5,000,000 grandfather, is developing a knee or a heart with the intent of it becoming that later- If it allows the creature to survive, and it's subsequent changes allow those creatures to survive, it will. A blood pump is not a heart in the making, but it can become one by chance. It's a hard concept to explain. I'm not saying that knees are bad, but that in comparison to our other joints, it's a weak design. We don't consider it such because we are used to it. But it's really not as efficient as it could be, which is an example of a "negative" mutation, in that our knees are not as strong as our other joints. And see above- They are not predestined to change to what they will be. A blood pump doesn't start changing into a heart with the intent of becoming a heart. It just gets slightly more complex. and then slightly more complex. And them slightly different. And then slightly larger. and then slightly more complex, until eventually it is what we know as a heart. That wasn't it's original goal, but as you were hitting on, the changes allowed the creature to survive to pass on that trait of "sligthly more complex" or "slightly more whatever". It is difficult. You have a lot of complex developments, and they don't all start out with the intent of ending on some sort of complete part? You have many organisms that share different features like eyes, and lungs, and digestive features. Did they all come from the same common ancestor? I think 'not efficient' might be a better term. A negative mutation would be something like a hole in the heart, or a man born with no eyes. But then every add-on has to be positive or neutral. If a significant amount of the add-ons aren't, what does that say about evolution? The changes aren't that large, generally. They will be tiny changes, like in your heart scenario, thinner heart lining by a cell's width, if that. Or a decrease in the vision range of an eye by a tiny bit. The ones that AREN'T beneficial die. That's why we don't see them anymore. It's not that the evolution always makes them better- again, you're thinking in the opposite direction. Evolution means that the ones that don't die pass on the trait, probably because the surviving trait is "better" than the one that died off. You have to shift your emphasis here. It's like this- Birds like red berries. Almost all berries are red, very few are blue. The blue berries survive because they are not eaten. So, we see more blue berries. Eventually, when there is no more information for red berries, all that's left is blue berries. That is evolution. The berries don't change to not get eaten, they change because they WEREN'T eaten. Actually, there was something a lot like this cited in a lot of science textbooks about moths in a city. The moths were dark brown, and there was a rare trait that made a few of them white. The white ones were often eaten by animals because they were more visible on the dark brown trees. However, the city's pollution turned the trees white. So now, the brown moths were very visible and the white moths were camoflaged. The birds were able to see the dark moths and ate many of them, and the white moths bred. Their trait was passed on more often, and now the white moths are more common. That is evolution, on a fast scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
