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.

 

SCI/TECH: 'Ressurrected' Eggs Support 'Red Queen' Evolution

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
.
Evolution is just a filter system. With occasional random characteristics added, enlarging the number of randomly available ways a species can persist through the filter. It would tend to numerically favor the specieses with more genetic possibilities.

a 4 sided die only has four possible ways for success and failure.
a 20 sided die has 20 possible outcomes. 16 additional plus the 4 original.
It increases the probability of having successful faces on the die.
successful outcomes allow a particular succeeding type of die to re-create itself, each subsequent new die gets a chance to be rolled.

I guess if you have occasional re-created die that are lacking a face that confers mostly failure anyway there would a filtering effect favoring this new 19 sided die, because it improved the odds of the favorable outcomes coming up.

So the die with higher(est) proportion of successful faces is favored for reproduction.

If the rules never changed the die with a small number of the most certain of success faces would be favored. some bacterial forms, especially isolated forms have persisted for i believe billions of years.

Where the game (environment) is constantly changing the rules for successful outcomes the die with more faces would be favored i believe. I think this is kind of what the Red Queen theory is about. maximum options.

[stray thought: imagine when one entire evolution comes up against another. Maybe in a sense that is what is happening with humans on the planet. They/we are playing such a different game other species are having a hard time keeping in the game] [now imagine we meet aliens and/or alien biology, there will be some jackpot winners and some species may lose the game altogether]

Were it not for external forces on a species none would evolve beyond some basic level (bacteria?).
Climate/geological, predators (pathogens) and competitors are the things that act as the filter that creates survival characteristics differentiation.

In a sense each species is a record of the successful genetic responses it had to external forces both past and current.

Evolution is generally efficient/lazy [brain-dead]. It is like firing buckshot through trees. Where there are trees the buckshot is blocked, where the buckshot finds its way between the trees it continues. It is however magic buckshot that multiplies at some stage if it manages to continue on its path.

When the pressures of the environment subsided this species slid back to some more general/traditional form. Is that because the exagerated features carried some amount of energy overhead? Or is it just the numerical preponderance in the genenome of this species for the traditional form?

DNA makes a light, not-too-energy expensive, gene response storage system.
Sort of like money in the bank.

Retro viruses that enter the germline have the potential to alter/add DNA code that while it may have no immediate use to the host organism are still code to produce some kind of cogent protein.
.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by slank]




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Or in other words someone had to start the process Evoulution does not get us here without design...i like the quote "the odds are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully functional 747.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Rren]


Ive heard this quote many times, and each time ive heard it ive thought to myself 'now thats a ludicrous thing to say'. Evolution doesnt try one thing at a time, in a linear order, it tries many things at the same time, in a random method. It may be astronomical odds for a tornado to leave behind a functional 747, but take a billion tornadoes going through a billion junkyards and the odds drop drastically. The main place that this quote falls down is that a failed construction by the tornado doesnt affect the next tornados attempt in any way, whereas in evolution, the failed adaptions die off, leaving the successful adaptions to breed. In your quote, the entire 747 has to come together in one fell swoop - thats not evolution, thats creationism.

THe odds of me winning the UK National Lottery is 14.7million to one, but theres usually 1 or 2 winners for each draw that takes place. Evolution is the same concept, with both vastly larger odds and a vastly larger number of entries into the lottery.

Evolution has many times created dead end biological lines - marsupials are one, the genome for a marsupial has hardly changed in a million years, it cant adapt and is being overcome by better genetic lines. There are many branches of the Homo (no jokes please) genome that never made it, the most recent being that of Homo sapiens neandertalensis which branched off the Homo Sapiens genome around 200,000 years ago, and lived in conjunction with the Homo Sapiens Sapiens genome which eventually survived to become modern man. Even tho neandertalensis lived in the same environment, ate the same food, and lived the same way as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it couldnt adapt to changes in its environment so it ceased to exist around 32,000 years ago.

Evolution isnt 'one chance', its 'every chance, all the time'.


Oh, and Im not at all exposing my religious beliefs in this post, if you guess then you are probably going to be wrong


[edit on 15/4/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

slank posted

Explain a 4-sided dice to me. I can not imagine one except a trianlgular sided dice?

Other than that, I think I follow your analaogy.



[edit on 16-4-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Slank, put me on Hard 8 for 10 bucks.

The 747 analogy is flawed because the function of a twister simply does not have what it takes to build one. You'd NEVER get one, no matter how many twisters you had. Unlike the twister, evolution IS capable of assembling its "747" (life). However astronomical the odds may seem, it is hypothetically possible, therefore the twister in a junkyard analogy is fundementally flawed. I prefer the monkeys on typewriters analogy.

Now we answer the analogy as a discussion of probability and not an illustration of absurdity. Probability does not govern what will happen or when it will happen. It describes the relative likelihood of possibilities. When the event occurs, it does not violate probability, no matter how quickly it happened. Just because the odds are a billion billion billion google to one doesn't mean that it wont happen on the very first try. In fact, it could happen AGAIN on the second try without violating probability. If I roll a dice the odds are 1 in 36 that it will come up 12. If 12 comes up, that doesn't shake the foundations of our math now does it? And what are the odds of it happening on the next roll? The odds remain 1 in 36. This is because the "law" of probability is not enforced- it's more like guidelines than actual rules.
Sometimes the seemingly astronomical odds are deceptive as well, because some things are logically inevitable. What are the odds of life developing on this planet? Well, only a living being could ask the question, and whatever planet they are one will be "this planet" so in truth there was a 100% chance that life would develop on "this planet", from a certain point of view. People only talk about the time that the odds paid off- they never talk, and may not even know, how many failures their were before, or how many failures there could have been.


The thust of this analogy, in my humble opinion, misses the point anyway. I say this because as has already been said (by myself and others) that evolution only describes breeding statistics. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The real issue is with the origin of the universe. If you want a religous fight, that's the place to have it.

NOBODY, religious or scientific, has an explanation for existence that humans can realy get their minds around. Everyone says "this did that and created everything." then they are inevitably asked "what created this?" So ultimately the initial violation of thermodynamics that gave birth to this world (getting something from nothing) stumps everyone; to the best of our understanding something was just always there, and created everything else.
This is where design really comes in. This is where the real evolution begins. Either a system was designed or order just randomly happened to take shape. Either way, from there on out, the universe is pretty self explanatory, which poses no problem for me as a Christian (yes, that's a recent development- actually a recent reoccurance) because the bible itself says that God is made evident in nature. To some this means that you just look around and say "wow there must be a god" but to me this means that the study of the world (science) reveals a system and a consistency which demonstrates God's design far more convincingly than just the sheer majesty of the universe itself.


Anyway, in so many words, I believe in Jesus and evolution. The first of those two can be difficult to see and I've gone back and forth on it- the second speaks plainly for itself and is not contradicted by any higher law, scientific or religous. I don't know why we need a million cute little illustrations about 747s in the junkyard and such to resist something that simply isn't a threat.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
I know you well enough to know you read the article- based ON the article this is adaptation pure and simple. As soon as the 'spines' weren't needed they 'devolved.'

That is what evolution is tho.

It is part of the genius of that particular species to be able to adapt in order to SURVIVE.

I don't see how its genius. Its that the members with the full spines weren't benefiting from them, and the ones that had reduced spines were benefiting from that reduction. So in each successive generation the population came to have more 'reduced spine types' and less 'spine types' until there was no spine. Adaptation = evolution and a demonstration of natural selection.

This is like the argument that dinosaurs became birds- show me a Tyrannosaurus Robin!






And here's a pretty one for fun
www.luisrey.ndtilda.co.uk...



it is Piltdown Man #2.

How? Piltdown man was a fraud, this isn't a fraud. I agree, they're making perhaps a big thing out of nothing, since there are 'primitive' and 'advcanced' forms alive today, but effectively here we have a 'primitive' ancestral form that was literally revived from the fossil record, and the living descendants.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
.
4 sided die = tetrahedron; (triangle based pyramid)

3 sided die = short squat cylinder (I had to think about this one, you would have to figure out the proportion of surface area to give all three sides equal probability)

2 sided die = coin

1 sided die = sphere
.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I think in this discussion its important to make the following distinction:


macroevolution

n : evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.


This thread was an example of micro-evolution(new subspecies) not a new species, what has been shown here is not proof that you can go from pre-biotic molecules to life as we know it today. through the process of evolution.

It explains how dogs(all the countless varieties) and wolves are related, only adapted to there different environments(or breeding habits) but IMO, shows no evidence for how this same process would produce the myriad of different species we have here on earth today, from one common source.

You guys may have taken this as a given here, i wasnt sure, so i thought i'd get my two cents in.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
.
I think of it like a lava lamp.

This environment teased this species to variant charateristics, then the environment subsided and it reverted to its base form.

Evolution just means teasing a species to a variant form, and fixing it there for a sufficient period of time so that new center of mass, genetically speaking, is the variant form.

This species was allow to revert to its traditional form. I would guess this may have happened countless times. So like the specie of big-small beaked finches it becomes a two tracked genetic line. Able to change back and forth as the environment dictates between two historically successful options.

speciation only happens with the environment makes an essentially permanent change that leaves the species no other avenue of survival. Since that change only happens once it is probably much rarer to see than a species oscillating between forms.

It shows a species that regularly is transitioning between two different forms.

I saw them pointing the gun at something
I turned my head away
I heard a 'BANG'!
When i looked back something had a hole in it
I smelled gunpowder
But I don't know if they fired the gun.

Those darn aliens again.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join