It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: peter vlar




Then how exactly did flowering plants survive for a minimum of 40MA before bees split off from wasps?



God.






Why MUST they have evolved simultaneously?


God.

For all questions - God is the answer.


You must be trolling, hilarious!


edit on fSunday1521112f213702 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




I rather have civility over a presumptuous and pompous attitude.
Apparently that cannot be achieved by your side of the argument, as has been shown by a number of people in this thread that agree with you. What is the purpose of puffing up your chest in a debate and shouting "I am a winner, all you have said are lies".


I am sorry the statement came off that way to you. I meant it as a compliment. Lots of people have to large of an ego to admit when they cannot explain something. Sorry you were offended by it.




However, a 'slow' development does actually explain this. As explained further down in my post, Sexual Reproduction isn't simply based off of what we see in human anatomy.


I never assumed it was based of human anatomy, both you and barcs, are interpreting the word parts as human anatomy but that is not what I mean. What I mean by parts are the most basic things needed for sexual reproduction to occur. I think maybe this will help you better understand where are question is coming from.

Walter Remine argues that sexual reproduction is not as advantageous as you claim it would be.

Interview with Remine

Abstract:
"For over a century, the paradigm has been that sex invariably increases genetic variation, despite many renowned biologists asserting that sex decreases most genetic variation. Sex is usually perceived as the source of additive genetic variance that drives eukaryotic evolution vis-`a-vis adaptation and Fisher’s fundamental theorem. However, evidence for sex decreasing genetic variation appears in ecology, paleontology, population genetics, and cancer biology. The common thread among many of these disciplines is that sex acts like a coarse filter, weeding out major changes, such as chromosomal rearrangements (that are almost always deleterious), but letting minor variation, such as changes at the nucleotide or gene level (that are often neutral), flow through the sexual sieve. Sex acts as a constraint on genomic and epigenetic variation, thereby limiting adaptive evolution. The diverse reasons for sex reducing genetic variation (especially at the genome level) and slowing down evolution may provide a sufficient benefit to offset the famed costs of sex."

Paper that agrees with Remine



Abstract:
"The pronounced and elaborate displays that often differ between closely related animal species have led to the common assumption that sexual selection is important in speciation, especially in geographically separated populations. We use population genetic models to examine the ability of Fisherian sexual selection to contribute to lasting species differentiation by isolating its effect after the onset of gene flow between allopatric populations. We show that when sexually selected traits are under ecologically divergent selection, the situation most favorable to speciation, mating preferences tend to introgress faster than trait alleles, causing sexual selection to counter the effects of local adaptation. As a consequence, the net amount of trait divergence often drops with stronger Fisherian sexual selection. Furthermore, alleles for progressively weaker preferences spread in this context until sexual selection is removed. The effects of pure Fisherian sexual selection on species maintenance are thus much more inhibitory than previously assumed."

Excerpt:
"Excerpt: Speculation on the role of sexual selection in driving speciation and species maintenance traces back to the beginning of the explosion in sexual selection research seen in the past few decades (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 22, and 28). The more that this putative relationship is explored, however, the more tenuous it appears to be (e.g., refs. 10 and 11). Here we show that when sexual selection is isolated in a pure Fisherian form, it inhibits species maintenance in one of the situations in which its role seemed clearest, when the trait under sexual selection is also locally adapted. Furthermore, sexual selection is lost in this Fisherian system if preference strengths themselves are allowed to evolve."


Paper that explains why sexual selection is not a major force in speciation

Not only is it not as advantageous as you may think, but after that you have to get past the fact that asexual cells do not have the goods to reproduce sexually. They have to slowly evolve those parts overtime and in order for natural selection to occur those parts at each step must be advantageous in some way. To me it would seem that sexual reproduction is not a benefit until it is complete. Not only that but the parts required for egg and sperm transition would either have to evolve in multiple organisms of the same population in which each evolved organism is getting both the male and female parts or the population would have to simultaneously be evolving into male and female. Neither of which have empirical evidence showing that such a thing can occur to say that we know it can is stepping outside of the realm of science.




We simply do not have a direct way to study how it actually did arise. However, that does not mean we do not have evidence that suggests how it could have arose. And that is what the graph suggests.


Notice what you just said. One of the requirements of a Science are that the ideas need to be testable in a lab. You just admitted that you see we don't have a direct way to observe these ideas in a lab we can only speculate and science does not deal in untestable speculations.




Are you saying that Evolution does not occur at all, or do you mean to simply claim that our understanding of how it functions is inaccurate?


I am saying body morphogenesis cannot happen by random mutation and natural selection. Davidsons paper on dGRN's shows you could mutate DNA indefinitely and you wouldn't get a new morphological feature because the organism needs a new dGRN in order for that to happen. So no I am not saying it is not a possibility, what I am saying is that the theory as it currently stands needs to go back to the drawing board because it is relying on mechanisms we have shown in labs to be incapable of causing body morphogenesis which is what macro-evolution is meant to attempt and explain. So i guess my claim would be closer to the second option.




These drawings are based on actual things and are drawn in a way so we can easily determine what is actually being expressed and depicted in what we have observed outside of those drawings.


It was just to make drive home the point that the drawings are not actually evidence of anything. What I would be interested in is the data that is supposed to be behind those drawings not the drawing itself. The drawing does not prove anything, nor can I tell what experiments that data was supposedly pulled from. I am always skeptical of renditions not so skeptical of an experiment.


And yes, how does a new protein structure arise. Refer back to that 10^390th paper before you respond it may make more sense.
edit on 29-11-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Is somebody going to answer my questions?


A2D



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I have nothing at stake in this debate and am willing to change my mind. I just like to learn. But I do think logically for myself.

In the words of those I currently disagree with : mutations stick as evolutions if they provide advantage.
BEFORE bees evolved to like bright color
What advantage did the ONE single mutant plant that was the very FIRST to be more colorful have?

edit on 29-11-2015 by BOTAL because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2015 by BOTAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Is somebody going to answer my questions?


Sorry A2D, got a bit sidetracked


originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
myofascial tissue and the evolutionary development at cellular levels.

Just as an example question...how did sperm come to be the only cell with a flagellum? (In humans)


Well, sperm wasn't developed separately per species, it was a mutation that arose while Sexual Reproduction was diverging from Asexual reproduction. So, the gene responsible for sperm in all sexual creatures dates to the beginning of animal evolution. That gene is the Boule gene.

Sperm cells are also not the only cell with a flagellum. A Sperm cell is just a type of eukaryote cell, and there are many eukaryote cells that have flagella.


originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Or where and when fascial thixotrophy first became apparent...?


I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with this particular subject to comment on it with any certainty. Perhaps another member will be able to address this.


originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
What about the origin of muscle tissue...I know jellyfish were linked with an ancient type of muscle but where did that muscle tissue come from and how did it form?


The origin of cells is still widely debated, so your concern is very valid. To clarify, it's not debated because 'it formed differently than from other mutations', it's debated because some scientists believe it was monophyletic trait, others believe it's origins are that of a polyphyletic trait, and another argument stems from new data from Gene Regulatory Networks (which concludes a single, common origin as well). In other words, some believe the origin of muscles formed once in evolutionary history, and others believe it could have formed more than once and then developed similarly to each other due to convergent evolution.

The arguments for each are quite extensive, so I'll give you the link to the actual articles for more detailed information. For now, here is the basic concept surrounding each argument:

Monophyletic argument: Molecular and morphological similarities between the muscles cells in cnidaria and ctenophora are similar enough to those of bilaterians that there would be one ancestor in metazoans from which muscle cells derive.

Polyphyletic Argument
molecular markers such as the myosin II protein used to determine this single origin of striated muscle actually predate the formation of muscle cells.

Gene Regulatory Networks Argument: To truly understand the evolution of muscle cells the function of transcriptional regulators must be understood in the context of other external and internal interactions. The analysis found that there were conserved orthologues of the gene regulatory network in both invertebrate bilaterians and in cnidarians. They argue that having this common, general regulatory circuit allowed for a high degree of divergence from a single well functioning network.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I am sorry the statement came off that way to you. I meant it as a compliment. Lots of people have to large of an ego to admit when they cannot explain something. Sorry you were offended by it.


Perhaps I perceived it wrong, then.

However, there have been other responses (in the page before) where you seem to agree with a comment made by another when you stated: They simply want to debate. Maybe later in their own time when they have time to reflect they will see.

Again, text is a poor indicator of emotion, I could simply be misinterpreting its intentions.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I never assumed it was based of human anatomy, both you and barcs, are interpreting the word parts as human anatomy but that is not what I mean. What I mean by parts are the most basic things needed for sexual reproduction to occur. I think maybe this will help you better understand where are question is coming from.

Walter Remine argues that sexual reproduction is not as advantageous as you claim it would be.

Interview with Remine
….
Paper that agrees with Remine
….
Paper that explains why sexual selection is not a major force in speciation

….
Servantofthelamb, we recognize that the information that we have provided is highly speculative. We also recognize that there could be discoveries that we do not personally know about that make similar speculative information that counter the information we provided.

When we look into the distant past of biology, it is difficult to study what we know occurred, directly. In order to form a hypothesis on how the origin of [insert] trait formed, when it precisely formed, and what specific steps it took in order to form, we tend to have a very small sample size (or none at all) of the remains of organisms that lived that long ago, and so have to resort to living, modern organisms and seeing how the traits they have could suggest how that trait formed way back then.

Furthermore, the arguments you presented do not suggest sexual reproduction is not as advantageous in general, he is arguing that the advantages in sexual reproduction may not account for genetic variability. However, Sexual reproduction does take advantage of many other things. Such as combining two beneficial mutation into a single individual, which does not occur in Asexual reproduction. So it can aid in the spreading of advantageous traits.

Sexual Reproduction can also bring together currently deleterious mutations and create unfit individuals who will then be eliminated from the population. so it aids in the removal of deleterious genes, which Asexual Reproduction has a difficult time achieving.

There’s also a large benefit of removing DNA damage by recombining dan repair during meiosis.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Not only is it not as advantageous as you may think


Again, I am open to the fact that advantages in Sexual Reproduction may not be as dominant as previously claimed. Science makes suggestions (not claims that are absolute) based off of the evidence we currently have. New evidence can arise at any moment to suggest other things, and if that evidence is confirmed through additional experimentation, then it will be accepted. (Just to clarify, i’m not saying that the information you have has not been confirmed)


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
…but after that you have to get past the fact that asexual cells do not have the goods to reproduce sexually.


The information you gave doesn’t claim that Sexual Reproduction did not durive from Asexual reproduction. The only argument it presents is that Sexual Reproduction may not be as important to variation as was previously claimed.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
They have to slowly evolve those parts overtime and in order for natural selection to occur those parts at each step must be advantageous in some way. To me it would seem that sexual reproduction is not a benefit until it is complete. Not only that but the parts required for egg and sperm transition would either have to evolve in multiple organisms of the same population in which each evolved organism is getting both the male and female parts or the population would have to simultaneously be evolving into male and female. Neither of which have empirical evidence showing that such a thing can occur to say that we know it can is stepping outside of the realm of science.


The bolded is a false premise. You’re assuming that the trait of sexual reproduction requires complex traits in order to function properly, even at the primitive form, and assuming there are no transitions in between, then also claiming that the claim we’re making is from asexual to Sexual reproduction with complex mutations. Which we are not claiming.

Claiming that ‘sexual reproduction is not a benefit until it is complete’ is to deny the existence of species that diverged from organisms that reproduced through Sexual reproduction, and have evolved to lose the Sexual reproductive trait. The entire class of Bdelloidea consists exclusively of females. There were once male and female genders, but now the females reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis. Some Insect, Flatworm, Snail, Crustacean, Rotifers, Squamata, Amphibian, shark, Bird, and mammal species have an exclusively female population. Some individuals of these species even have paired gonads.

(Continued in next post)
edit on 30/11/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Notice what you just said. One of the requirements of a Science are that the ideas need to be testable in a lab. You just admitted that you see we don't have a direct way to observe these ideas in a lab we can only speculate and science does not deal in untestable speculations.


Here is the “gotcha” argument.

We do not need to directly observe a phenomena occurring in order to form an accurate portrayal of how it could have occurred.

Here is a direct quote from berkley explaining what Observation means in science:

“We typically think of observations as having been seen "with our own eyes," but in science, observations can take many forms. Of course, we can make observations directly by seeing, feeling, hearing, and smelling, but we can also extend and refine our basic senses with tools: thermometers, microscopes, telescopes, radar, radiation sensors, X-ray crystallography, mass spectroscopy, etc. And these tools do a better job of observing than we can! Further, humans cannot directly sense many of the phenomena that science investigates (no amount of staring at this computer screen will ever let you see the atoms that make it up or the UV radiation that it emits), and in such cases, we must rely on indirect observations facilitated by tools. Through these tools, we can make many more observations much more precisely than those our basic senses are equipped to handle.”
Link



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I am saying body morphogenesis cannot happen by random mutation and natural selection. Davidsons paper on dGRN's shows you could mutate DNA indefinitely and you wouldn't get a new morphological feature because the organism needs a new dGRN in order for that to happen.


I’ve been looking deeper into GRNs ever since you mentioned it earlier, but I’m not quite sure where you’re seeing an issue that’s being caused by them. From what I can tell, the architecture of GRNs is dependent on DNA sequences, and when these change in evolution, the GRN structure changes and the developmental process then also changes, resulting in a great or small change in the outcome of development.

When cells replicate, DNA doesn’t always create an identical version of itself. and this variation accounts for variation in the structure of GRNs.

Article Link


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
It was just to make drive home the point that the drawings are not actually evidence of anything. What I would be interested in is the data that is supposed to be behind those drawings not the drawing itself. The drawing does not prove anything, nor can I tell what experiments that data was supposedly pulled from. I am always skeptical of renditions not so skeptical of an experiment.


Fair enough, I’ll be sure to cite all information more commonly from now on.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
And yes, how does a new protein structure arise. Refer back to that 10^390th paper before you respond it may make more sense.


Well, you know how proteins are formed, and you know that cell replication doesn’t always form identical DNA from cell to cell, and if the process of creating proteins relies on copying sections of DNA, then the very existence of non-identical DNA replication is the cause of new proteins.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: BOTAL
mutations stick as evolutions if they provide advantage.
BEFORE bees evolved to like bright color
What advantage did the ONE single mutant plant that was the very FIRST to be more colorful have?


Color in all forms of life can represent a number of different things (danger, imitation, poison, for example). It's not always about attraction. After all, Feces is attractive to many bugs, but it usually isn't particularly colorful.

Furthermore, Color doesn't necessarily need to arise because it's at all beneficial, in some cases it could be a byproduct of another mutation that coincidentally affects color. One reason some humans have darker skin coloration is because dark colors helps block UV rays.

On an end note, coloration can benefit an organism for a number of reasons, and it's incredibly subjective to what kind of environment the organism lives in, as that has the greatest effect as to why particular colors arise.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Is somebody going to answer my questions?


Sorry A2D, got a bit sidetracked


originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
myofascial tissue and the evolutionary development at cellular levels.

Just as an example question...how did sperm come to be the only cell with a flagellum? (In humans)


Well, sperm wasn't developed separately per species, it was a mutation that arose while Sexual Reproduction was diverging from Asexual reproduction. So, the gene responsible for sperm in all sexual creatures dates to the beginning of animal evolution. That gene is the Boule gene.

Sperm cells are also not the only cell with a flagellum. A Sperm cell is just a type of eukaryote cell, and there are many eukaryote cells that have flagella.



So sperm cells developed flagella before (or during) the time that sexual reproduction was diverging from asexual reproduction...so what exactly drove its development?

Also it's okay to get busy. I know we all have lives...i was just a bit concerned that a whole page went by with my questions seemingly ignored...thank you for the reply though

A2D



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

fascinating, thank you



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree



So sperm cells developed flagella before (or during) the time that sexual reproduction was diverging from asexual reproduction...so what exactly drove its development?


Not quite. As Ghost points out, the Boule gene can be traced back to the dawn of sexual reproduction, not all sperm have flagella. There are two types, the uniflageller and motile spermatozoa such as is found in humans (and all other mammals for that matter) and the non motile spermatium which is seen in more archaic life such as algae and lichens. There are differences between the non motile spermatium and the gametes in flowering plants and then obviously, per your question, a big leap from spermatia to spermatozoa. The impetus for these adaptive differences appears to be in the method of disseminating the gametes as well as genetic competition and importantly for this discussion, the medium in which reproduction occurs.

In flowering plants for example, you have pollination via bird, insect and wind. In the example of humans, each of the 10's of thousands of sperm are racing each other to reach the egg first. The flagella confers the benefit of making motility in a fluid environment easier as well as giving the sperm a more competitive edge because as we all know, to the victor goes the spoils!

Here is a little further reading if you're interested in the Boule gene- news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here is some more info on sperm competition
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Amd a paper on sperm evolution - www.pnas.org...

Obviously, there is a lot more to learn and this is by no means 100% definitive but I hope it is at least a starting point I'm answering your query.
edit on 30-11-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


I am watching sport

What's the score?


Your question leads me further down the road of realization how different we are to animals

How come?


Great question

Then I'm sure you won't object to a couple more...



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Rather, you should be asking yourself what the benefit of the traits that lead to art and religion (creativity and faith) are.

Well, all right then, what are they?

Don't keep us guessing.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion argues that the traits found in non-human species, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, traits that include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity, could be traits that could lead to both art and religion as a sort of byproduct from them.

Sorry, Ghost. That won't do. It's an account of how art or religion might have been assembled from various components of primate behaviour. It doesn't explain why we evolved them.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I said them in brackets. Creativity is a wonderful thing for survival. Traps, tools, it would also arguably help with the social aspect of ancient human life. Pack animals, and all. The least creative wouldn't find any innovative, more effective means of survival. They would also find it harder to adapt, though not in the evolutionary term.

Faith, I would say, came from believing your fellow tribesmen when they told you that there was a tiger or some other predator nearby trying to eat you and you should run away. Those who refused to believe and investigated for themselves were most likely killed.

Something else you should understand that in small populations evolution tends towards extremism.

However, I'd like Ghost's input.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147
Sorry, Ghost. That won't do. It's an account of how art or religion might have been assembled from various components of primate behaviour. It doesn't explain why we evolved them.


I think you may be asking this from a false premise. Art and religion seemed to have stemmed from the traits we previously mentioned, so in that sense, we never really 'evolved' art and religion in the first place; similar to saying that vehicles are also a product of many of the similar traits.

Do you perhaps mean to ask why we evolved the traits that Art and Religion are the unintentional byproduct of?
edit on 30/11/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Maybe this came up but..... define evolution and adaptation.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Maybe this came up but..... define evolution and adaptation.


It sort of came up indirectly. But I can address these now


Evolution merely describes biological changes in populations through reproduction. There are specific mechanisms within Evolution (such as Natural Selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift) that really drive Evolution to occur.

Adaptation would be the mutations that are common within populations. They are common because the mutation serves some kind of functional purpose to the population at hand. The level at which these mutations occur throughout a population is driven by natural selection.

Natural Selection can be a slightly misleading term, as it almost seems to be implying something is selecting 'this or that' trait. However, it simply describes how mutations that increase or decrease the fitness level of population are weeded out through external factors. Things like Predation, Disease, or simply an environmental factor. For instance, if we were to have a bunch of baby crocodiles hatch, and one of these hatchlings was albino, it would greatly stand out in it's native habitat, and therefore be an easy target for predators. So it has a much lower chance of reproducing and passing on the gene that produces albinism. So that gene is deleted (or lowered) in the gene pool of the population, and weeded out through natural selection.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

In other words they are the same. I mean you can call a certain bird an "Anatidae" but it's still pretty much a duck.


I love you atheists as much as the theists. Both wasting time on something unprovable. I think I'll consider another beer. Then discuss string theory with Sheldon. Bwahahahahahaha......



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Would you take a stab at explaining transgenerational epigenetic inheritance ?

Cheers Ghost147



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join