|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:03 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph 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. My point here is that every layer it takes to get to where we are now would have to be beneficial, or at least not kill the organism. If we found that the majority of the add-ons would've been harmful at one or more points, then evolution doesn't work.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:03 pm
Artto xxEternallyBluexx Well, what did mammals originally evolve from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:57 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Artto xxEternallyBluexx Well, what did mammals originally evolve from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
However, if you scroll down like I did, it came up with an understandable and sensible pack of reasons as to how mammals came from reptiles and even had a nice but long explanation. From just a glance, it talked of how hair and skin even formed.
Read a little more on that page first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:06 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Artto xxEternallyBluexx Well, what did mammals originally evolve from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
However, if you scroll down like I did, it came up with an understandable and sensible pack of reasons as to how mammals came from reptiles and even had a nice but long explanation. From just a glance, it talked of how hair and skin even formed.
Read a little more on that page first.From a glance yes, but it doesn't really go into it. If you check out 'Evolution of hair' it barely says anything on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:55 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Artto xxEternallyBluexx Well, what did mammals originally evolve from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
However, if you scroll down like I did, it came up with an understandable and sensible pack of reasons as to how mammals came from reptiles and even had a nice but long explanation. From just a glance, it talked of how hair and skin even formed.
Read a little more on that page first.From a glance yes, but it doesn't really go into it. If you check out 'Evolution of hair' it barely says anything on the subject.
If there is something there that isn't, there is a possibility that it is there but wasn't found or the author never added it in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:46 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Artto xxEternallyBluexx Well, what did mammals originally evolve from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
However, if you scroll down like I did, it came up with an understandable and sensible pack of reasons as to how mammals came from reptiles and even had a nice but long explanation. From just a glance, it talked of how hair and skin even formed.
Read a little more on that page first.From a glance yes, but it doesn't really go into it. If you check out 'Evolution of hair' it barely says anything on the subject.
If there is something there that isn't, there is a possibility that it is there but wasn't found or the author never added it in.It's not enough detail for me. That's why I asked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:54 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx If they came from reptiles, then wouldn't they have had to come from fish? And if they came from fish, they had scales and gills, and other fishy adaptations at some point. What happened to those? Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish?
However, if you scroll down like I did, it came up with an understandable and sensible pack of reasons as to how mammals came from reptiles and even had a nice but long explanation. From just a glance, it talked of how hair and skin even formed.
Read a little more on that page first.From a glance yes, but it doesn't really go into it. If you check out 'Evolution of hair' it barely says anything on the subject.
If there is something there that isn't, there is a possibility that it is there but wasn't found or the author never added it in.It's not enough detail for me. That's why I asked.
The general definition along with the aspects located on the page explain enough on how it is possible mammals came from reptiles.
Now, on how the fur and hair came to be, that is easily explained from the slow process evolution is.
It isn't going to say "The hair and fur came by...."
but in a more complex manner and in more detail.
I can't be the one to explain this to you because the details in evolution is not my strong point due to lack of study on it.
However, I think I have enough basic understanding to explain this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:27 pm
I think that the evolution of hair isn't yet very well understood.
But you can't expect everything to be known down to the slightest detail. That's like saying that despite having a ton of evidence, you can't convict a murderer until you know what socks he was wearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:33 pm
Artto I think that the evolution of hair isn't yet very well understood. But you can't expect everything to be known down to the slightest detail. That's like saying that despite having a ton of evidence, you can't convict a murderer until you know what socks he was wearing.
If your a humanist, you don't believe that science can prove everything and anything, you believe science has the POTENTIAL.
In other words, Science currently can't prove everything but when it advances, it has the possibility of being able to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:36 pm
Seraph and Blue, would you mind terribly if I added my two cents into your discussion?
Last year in biology, we did a little activity to help us understand evolution. More specifically, micro-evolution. We learned about peppered moth evolution. Peppered moths were white so they could blend into birch trees and make it harder for birds to eat them. Every now and then, a black or grey offspring would be born by mutation; obviously, most of them died. However, when the industrial revolution happened, the birch trees were stained black. Which moths survived? The black ones, of course.
Evolution is about mutation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:26 pm
Taerinn Seraph and Blue, would you mind terribly if I added my two cents into your discussion? Last year in biology, we did a little activity to help us understand evolution. More specifically, micro-evolution. We learned about peppered moth evolution. Peppered moths were white so they could blend into birch trees and make it harder for birds to eat them. Every now and then, a black or grey offspring would be born by mutation; obviously, most of them died. However, when the industrial revolution happened, the birch trees were stained black. Which moths survived? The black ones, of course. Evolution is about mutation. I completely understand micro-evolution, and I have no problems with it. What I disagree with is that those little adaptations can add up into something complex and beautifully made, like the eye. I want to know, part by part, mutation by mutation, how everything formed. @Artto and Shinzo: And I do think it's important. The bits between help tell the story of how everything came to be as it is. Anyone can create a story to explain things, and it can even make sense (like if you read Percy Jackson then you can see how it'd make sense for the Greek gods to exist), but when you see the cracks in a story, you can tell whether it's really false. Plus asking about the details gives me a better understanding of the theory, which still seems too vague.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:37 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Taerinn Seraph and Blue, would you mind terribly if I added my two cents into your discussion? Last year in biology, we did a little activity to help us understand evolution. More specifically, micro-evolution. We learned about peppered moth evolution. Peppered moths were white so they could blend into birch trees and make it harder for birds to eat them. Every now and then, a black or grey offspring would be born by mutation; obviously, most of them died. However, when the industrial revolution happened, the birch trees were stained black. Which moths survived? The black ones, of course. Evolution is about mutation. I completely understand micro-evolution, and I have no problems with it. What I disagree with is that those little adaptations can add up into something complex and beautifully made, like the eye. I want to know, part by part, mutation by mutation, how everything formed. @Artto and Shinzo: And I do think it's important. The bits between help tell the story of how everything came to be as it is. Anyone can create a story to explain things, and it can even make sense (like if you read Percy Jackson then you can see how it'd make sense for the Greek gods to exist), but when you see the cracks in a story, you can tell whether it's really false. Plus asking about the details gives me a better understanding of the theory, which still seems too vague.
That is the problem, then.
Your comparing story to science.
In the Percy Jackson tales, he makes a case from plain nothing and builds onto it using anything he can to make it seem real as possible like what someone would do if they were making a religion.
If something possible was discovered, you research into it and add on facts and little details you find once you discover it.
I wouldn't expect evolution to be fully made and found out in a day and would think it to be impossible for such a complex scientific theory to be discovered fully so quickly.
As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:45 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Taerinn Seraph and Blue, would you mind terribly if I added my two cents into your discussion? Last year in biology, we did a little activity to help us understand evolution. More specifically, micro-evolution. We learned about peppered moth evolution. Peppered moths were white so they could blend into birch trees and make it harder for birds to eat them. Every now and then, a black or grey offspring would be born by mutation; obviously, most of them died. However, when the industrial revolution happened, the birch trees were stained black. Which moths survived? The black ones, of course. Evolution is about mutation. I completely understand micro-evolution, and I have no problems with it. What I disagree with is that those little adaptations can add up into something complex and beautifully made, like the eye. I want to know, part by part, mutation by mutation, how everything formed. @Artto and Shinzo: And I do think it's important. The bits between help tell the story of how everything came to be as it is. Anyone can create a story to explain things, and it can even make sense (like if you read Percy Jackson then you can see how it'd make sense for the Greek gods to exist), but when you see the cracks in a story, you can tell whether it's really false. Plus asking about the details gives me a better understanding of the theory, which still seems too vague.
That is the problem, then.
Your comparing story to science.
In the Percy Jackson tales, he makes a case from plain nothing and builds onto it using anything he can to make it seem real as possible like what someone would do if they were making a religion.
If something possible was discovered, you research into it and add on facts and little details you find once you discover it.
I wouldn't expect evolution to be fully made and found out in a day and would think it to be impossible for such a complex scientific theory to be discovered fully so quickly.
As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.We're trying to figure out the story of our origins, so yes, I am comparing science to a story, but only the unobservable bits like a large part of the evolution theory. Actually the theory was presented without too much evidence backing it, I think. When Darwin thought it up, there were a lot of scientific advances to be made to both back it up, and disprove it. And considering the effort science puts into making evolution make sense, I disagree. If the same efforts were put into seeing if the Biblical stories were true, then I'd go along with science on it. At the rate progress is going, that's not as true as it once was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:57 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Taerinn Seraph and Blue, would you mind terribly if I added my two cents into your discussion? Last year in biology, we did a little activity to help us understand evolution. More specifically, micro-evolution. We learned about peppered moth evolution. Peppered moths were white so they could blend into birch trees and make it harder for birds to eat them. Every now and then, a black or grey offspring would be born by mutation; obviously, most of them died. However, when the industrial revolution happened, the birch trees were stained black. Which moths survived? The black ones, of course. Evolution is about mutation. I completely understand micro-evolution, and I have no problems with it. What I disagree with is that those little adaptations can add up into something complex and beautifully made, like the eye. I want to know, part by part, mutation by mutation, how everything formed. @Artto and Shinzo: And I do think it's important. The bits between help tell the story of how everything came to be as it is. Anyone can create a story to explain things, and it can even make sense (like if you read Percy Jackson then you can see how it'd make sense for the Greek gods to exist), but when you see the cracks in a story, you can tell whether it's really false. Plus asking about the details gives me a better understanding of the theory, which still seems too vague.
That is the problem, then.
Your comparing story to science.
In the Percy Jackson tales, he makes a case from plain nothing and builds onto it using anything he can to make it seem real as possible like what someone would do if they were making a religion.
If something possible was discovered, you research into it and add on facts and little details you find once you discover it.
I wouldn't expect evolution to be fully made and found out in a day and would think it to be impossible for such a complex scientific theory to be discovered fully so quickly.
As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.We're trying to figure out the story of our origins, so yes, I am comparing science to a story, but only the unobservable bits like a large part of the evolution theory. Actually the theory was presented without too much evidence backing it, I think. When Darwin thought it up, there were a lot of scientific advances to be made to both back it up, and disprove it. And considering the effort science puts into making evolution make sense, I disagree. If the same efforts were put into seeing if the Biblical stories were true, then I'd go along with science on it. At the rate progress is going, that's not as true as it once was.
Just like the 'Bloop' from 1997, this small part of the topic has not been fully researched enough to give a firm and definite answer. This doesn't mean that the missing section of the puzzle is evidence of it being false.
Again, I don't know quite enough of the evolution between reptile to mammal. I'm sure there is something out there talking of the formation of the organs which take in light that can form. Wasn't there a topic talking about cave fish growing eyes?
Anyway, I'm just stating that this whole evolution idea is making a lot of sense right now, but we shouldn't toss it out because we are clueless on a few topics at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:14 am
@Blue: On one hand you demand extraordinary detail from evolutionary theory, but on the other hand ID and creationism have no detail to them at all. Hard to find "cracks in a story" that basically consists of "God did it." Further more, if evolutionary theory was just a story, you would expect there to be more detail. However, since it's not, you can't just make stuff up (how hair evolved, for example), you have to have evidence for it. Oh and Quote: Besides, does our DNA even point to an original connection with reptiles and fish? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
