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.
This applies to all scientific theories.
There are several theories for zebra stripe evolution. Confusing predators, sexual selection, temperature regulation etc. I don't think any theory would expect there to be one step from all black/brown to stripes. The Quagga was a good example of what may have happened (half stripes-half brown).
Environmental changes are one of the driving forces of natural selection/extinction.
Yes you're right. But check this out.
Isn't the probem due to increase in certain algae and reduction in the algae they actually eat?
Yes, but if the trait is selected by sexual selection, predation, environment, then it will eventually be the norm.
Applies to all scientific theories. But ToE does have evidence, 150yrs later the theory still exists, the only controversy is in the minds of those who wish there to be. Strict YEC Creationism is falsified. Evolution is both a theory and fact. Evolution does occur, given enough time there is no reason to doubt that something will evolve into something distinctively different - the fossil record, genetics, and morphology suggest they do.
You said you're Christian, if you're Christian you support Creationism, imo. That does not mean you support the young earth idea or any of the other BS out there.
It's how the zebra got its stripes. They're saying how it lost it's stripes to be a pun from an African Story. The Zebra is not evolving. Because if it were losing it's stripes it would MAKE SENSE, and it would support evolution. But it doesn't MAKE SENSE. It would make sense because it looks so different in color compared to it's enviornment and community, but it's not happening.
FYI, Zerbras are losing their stripes, Evolution is not always a fast process.
How a Zebra lost it's stripes
Yale.edu
www.eurekalert.org/
ScienceDaily
Google - How a zebra lost it's stripes
You right. Sometimes evolution speeds up and sometimes it's slow as dial-up....slow to the point to where entire species' become extinct.
Example: Humans (genus - Homo) have been around for about 8 million years (that's when we branched of from apes) and ever since humans have survived ice ages, droughts and many other climate changes. Migration is not limited to Humans.
That happend to humans. At one point after one of the ice ages there were only an estimated 10,000 humans remaining, and that's homo sapiens, modern man....now that's on the verge of extinction.
That's happened many times, and many times species become extinct or they migrate, or maybe evolution speeds up.
In the past 50 million years there has not really been a "huge" climatic change....at least not huge enough that the change produced conditions that we do not already have on earth today. It's been the same climate for a long time....
Note: The ice ages did not cover the entire earth, only a good portion of the hemispheres.
There is no definitive point that an evolutionary change takes over. It's a process.
And maybe it's just time for the species to become extinct. Ofcourse, that's gonna be hard with human intervention.
Panda bears would have long been extinct. There are only 1000 left today. Sometimes there is no current explanation for why evolution does what it does.
A panda cub is no larger than a new born kitten, no hair, eyes are closed....way under developed unlike most bear cubs. With or without evolution it's a mystery why they lasted this long.
what do you mean?
Wait a second dude, come on. You don't think the whole climate would change on half of the earth and the other half not be effected?
Originally posted by undo
A few random and very simple thoughts of my own:
1. Why did different sexes evolve and what came first, the female or the male?
If the female, then how did she give birth to a male without a male? If hermaphroditic, then why the need for separation of the hermaphrodite into 2 distinct donors of one set of information, when the the higher form of evolution would be that both sets of information are maintained hermaphroditically and different sexes are not necessary as they waste energy?
2. DNA is a program. What are the odds, given enough time, that a program will evolve from nothing? If we all go sit in a hangar, and stare at a blank space on the floor, will a fully functional airplane eventually evolve on the spot, without the interference of some outside source of intelligent intent?
3. Why didn't the better evolutionary traits stick with the more advanced evolutionary models? For example, regenerating appendages and other body parts? Redundant systems? Wings? Night vision? Hermaphroditic replication? Underwater breathing? Superior balance? Superior speed and agility? Wouldn't the natural outcome of advancing evolutionary models, include the best of the best from each species along the evolutionary trail?
Originally posted by RDouglas
But that's just it. There are laws and theories. To say it is a fact would be wrong. Like the Cell theory (Which is true to an extent). We all know almost all living things are made up of cells which is almost completely true. And denying that virii exist is lying to yourself. Because if something moves on it's own and has DNA that's enough proof for me. Because it doesn't go along with the cell theory doesn't mean it isn't living. It's just not always true. That's why it's just a theory. and not a Law
There isn't any mass evolution because it takes so long. It will slowly evolve, yes, but when it finally reaches a state of a zebra, while the other animals are not zebras, it will be just a target. And denying it is a lie to yourself and your own knowledge. But that is a great theory that it is sexual selection that I cannot question or disprove yet.
If evolution does exist, it should be passive, not active. So nothing is the driving force. It just wouldn't make sense. Because if something could force it self to evolve, it constantly would, I mean who doesn't want to be better, faster, stronger, more ellusive, and attract more women? That is why it has to be passive. I'm saying that if things did evolve, their climate would dramatically change and probably ckill them. Or they wouldn't be superior to the other.
Yes you're right. But check this out.
www.biosbcc.net...
There was an algae that wasn't suseptable to el nino, but they could not digest it. Shouldn't one have evolved to stop this from happening? And then be naturally selected into the population to stop this from happening again. El Nino happens every 3 to 5. And in terms of the age old earth very frequently. This also supports my hypothetical situation #3.
It doesn't matter to nature if he was guaranteed to live and guaranteed to mate. There is still less than or equal to 50% of a chance that his kid will carry the trait. Assuming the offsprign lives.
Okay it is possible for things to mutate, and then be naturally selected, but it would be so rare for it to be passed into the existing species that it could not be the origin of species. And YEC is irrelevant because I believe the earth is over 700 years old.
Originally posted by undo
I wasn't referring to the junkyard analogy. It was a legitimate and original question that popped into my head. Even if one piece of an aircraft fell into the hangar at a time (which is still requiring intelligent design for the pieces), how long would it take to arrive at a complete and fully functional aircraft? But since you mentioned it doesn't work on the principle of whole parts tossed willy nilly, but rudimentary particles, let's start with the basic building blocks of an airplane. If, over the course of millions of years, oil, chunks of iron, and the various basic elementary components that the parts of an airplane are composed of, were to somehow accidentally fall out of the sky in just such a place as an airplane hangar, would we end up with a fully functional airplane? Or any working parts at all? Let's say we just want to end up with a working tire? possible? Or how about a working altimeter? No? How about a nut and bolt? Carpeting fibers? Curved sheets of glass? Anything?
As regards two sexes being better suited for this environment, genetically: Well then, that's pretty cool. Sounds kinda pre-planned.
As regards evolution providing only for what is needed
Why then didn't people who lived on islands surrounded by water, keep their ability to breathe under water? Obviously they would subsist off the life in the water, and being able to breathe while under the water, would naturally be the better evolutionary step, make their life expectancy greater, as would wings, regenerating body parts, superior agility and balance, redundant systems and for gads sakes, night vision.. Why would these features be bred out by evolution? Every single one of those features would be handy for any species that lived on land or by the water. To be fair, a dolphin wouldn't need wings. But everything on the land could surely use a pair. The survivability of a species with wings, would go up immensely. That seems almost mandatory as a keeper, as would a few of the others I've mentioned.
Originally posted by undo
Why would the gill need to go at all, and why not wings AND arms with hands and opposable thumbs? My sugar glider (marsupial), has opposable thumbs and arms and flaps of skin he glides up to 200 ft in the air on.
Originally posted by undo
Why not something that does both jobs interchangably? Afterall, that would be the best possible scenario for survivability.
Yes, why not? Why not flaps of skin or wings? Why not night vision? Why not regenerating appendages? Why such soft skin? Did it help our survival to be so fleshy?
And Bees. Don't get me started on bees! Bees flip me out.
Originally posted by undo
Yes, why not? Why not flaps of skin or wings? Why not night vision? Why not regenerating appendages? Why such soft skin? Did it help our survival to be so fleshy?
Originally posted by undo
Have you ever studied bees? They have brains the size of a few grains of sand, but have a highly complex social structure and communications network. It's bizarro!
Originally posted by undo
Guys, you're moving the bar all over yonder. That horizon is infinitely receeding!
On the one hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to "only what's needed", on the other hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to randomness or high order or high disorder or, whatever the bar needs to be in order to keep that baby in the corral!
Originally posted by Nygdan
Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists
Originally posted by melatonin
But, of course, for ToE mutations are random...
[edit on 26-3-2006 by melatonin]
Introduction
"The phenomenon of directed (adaptive) mutations has kept the attention of biologists for several years. It contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology. According to the phenomena, directed mutations arise not as a result of a blind variation on the genetical level and consequent selection (as the paradigm insists), but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole. However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified."
--Vasily V. Ogryzko, NIH Bethesda Maryland
[....]
Summary
There is no hard evidence yet that directed mutation is definitely happening. In fact, the evidence against directed mutation is just as substantial as that for it. As for what the field has to work with now, the models (specifically those proposed by Hall and Cairns) are a combination of directed mutation and random spontaneous mutation. It appears more like directed mutation via high intensity spontaneous mutations. All of the mechanistic theories provide some insight into the situation. They all might contribute in one way or another also. There may be different modes of indecued mutation depending on the organism and the circumstances. There is nothing here to say that the mechanism must be consistant through all of the findings. There may be an example of reverse transcription in a species of E. Coli that signals a useful change in the DNA by a new protein. The biggest thing to keep in mind through all of this is that there are no hard theories or facts in this area. Speculation is the basis of most hypothesis, but it has to start somehow.
Much more work has to be done in the field to substantiate the claims of directed mutation and evolution in order to displace our present theories and paradigms of evolution.
Masciarelli
I'm curious about "their non-random operations." Does 'non-random' suggest that the very instructions for all possible morphological changes are front loaded or pre-programmed into living things, needing only a given catalyst to get things going?
James Shapiro
No. Non-random means that they operate under certain conditions (e.g. after genome damage or viral infection) and that these systems make characteristic kinds of changes. When a retrovirus-like element inserts in a new genomic location, it carries with it a defined set of regulatory signals that can affect the reading of nearby DNA sequences in very particular ways. This is an example of non-randomness. In addition, some changes (such as those in the immune system) can be targeted to specific locations by the presence of particular signals in the DNA or by activation of transcription. These phenomena show us that cells are capable of altering their genomes in non-random but not rigidly specified or pre-determined ways
....
Yaakov
When the major genome restructuring occur in maize plants occur, are they random restructuring or non-random. Additionally, are the chromosome rearangements, mutations and spread of transosable elements observed in drosophila random or non-random producing more advanced offspring?
James Shapiro
The changes occur non-randomly in the sense that they follow certain predilections (e.g. some mobile elements insert near the start sites of transcription, others prefer to insert in protein coding sequences). Often these changes have major effects on phenotype. If we set up the situation properly, we can often see quite high frequencies of changes that are advantageous to the organism, as in my own work on adaptive mutation in bacteria. Most of this experimental work has been done with microbes, and there we know for certain that important adaptive traits (e.g. antibiotic resistance) have evolved by natural genetic engineering processes.