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.

 

New discovery... problematic for evolution?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

...Due to the remarkable preservative power of being embalmed in amber, the tiny foot of this ancient lizard still shows the tiny “lamellae,” or sticky toe hairs, that to this day give modern geckos their unusual ability to cling to surfaces or run across a ceiling. Research programs around the world have tried to mimic this bizarre adhesive capability, with limited success....

It’s not known exactly how old this group of animals is, and when they evolved their adhesive toe pads. However, the new study makes it clear that this ability was in place at least 100 million years ago, in nature. Modern research programs still have not been able to completely duplicate it.

Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley reported earlier this year that they have developed a new “anti-sliding” adhesive that they said was the closest man-made material yet to mimic the ability of geckos – they think it might help a robot climb up the side of walls. A research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology this year created a waterproof adhesive bandage inspired by geckos, that may some day be used in surgery. And of course, geckos have become an advertising icon for the insurance company Geico


[edit on 10-9-2008 by mhc_70]

[edit on 10-9-2008 by mhc_70]




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Here is the source



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Ok ... I may be a bit slow ... but why is this discovery problematic for evolution?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
Ok ... I may be a bit slow ... but why is this discovery problematic for evolution?


Because this supposed evolved trait was in place 100 Million years before it should have been.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Why do you think this is 'problematic for evolution'?

Is it because subdigital lamellae evolved more than 100 million years ago? That's not a problem. As long as something works well and promotes an organism's survival, natural selection will work to fix it in place, not change it.

The first eukaryotes turned up some 1.3 billion years ago. The familiar endosymbiotic cellular mechanisms had all evolved by then. All living creatures still use them today.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Crocodiles haven't changed much either and there were giant versions of them during the jurassic period. scary kangaroos too.

The answer to your question is no. Obviously the little suction caps were advantagious so evolution didn't need to get rid of them.

if it aint broke no need to fix it.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by riley]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher

Originally posted by Horza
Ok ... I may be a bit slow ... but why is this discovery problematic for evolution?


Because this supposed evolved trait was in place 100 Million years before it should have been.


So that means that the evolution of these critters happened 100 million years earlier than we thought ... cool ...

Hey ... Hang on there ... are you trying to say because it happened 100 million years before scientist previously thought, that these geckos were put on earth, just like they are now, by God?

edit - spelling

[edit on 10/9/08 by Horza]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
If you think that makes a problem for evolution, then eyes, lungs, toes, claws, legs, fins, scales, skin, feathers, ect. must really throw you, eh?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, except to improve it. Geckos don't need to chang,e so they don't. Doesn't matter if they're hinding on a tree fromm a compy or raptor, or hiding under overhang from that annoying little kid with the water hose. Sticky feet are useful.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   


Hey ... Hang on there ... are you trying to say because it happened 100 million years before scientist previously thought, that these geckos were put on earth, just like they are now, by God?


Hmm... I'm not sure if geckos were adapted from another form of lizzard, so I can't say that they were put here exactly as they are now. But! I can say they are one of God's creatures.

The reason I phrased my answer like I did is because I don't want to say something like "Chickens were put here by God exactly as there are now!" and then someone come along and post about how chickens are actually a more domesticated bird and were NOT created as they are now.

Because I'm pretty sure chickens were domesticated, and bread to be what we know them to be today... that is how it is, right? (I gotta go research chickens.)

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
I gotta go research chickens.


Yes you do. They evolved from jungle fowl, if memory serves.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Religious beliefs aside, evolution does not insist that all things must constantly change, only that the potential for change, is always there. Changes happen often by fluke occurance. Usualy it can be attributed to environmental conditions and aimed at increased survival likelyhoods.

Being able to walk up things that are completely vertical, or even inverted is a great trait to have if you (a lizard in this example), happen to be an excellent source of food, for things that can't follow vertical and inverted paths. This ability would then allow you to escape the reach of your hungry predator, who would then have to find something else to eat. Thus, you get to live and (possibly) spread your amazing genetic traits to your offspring.

Sharks have hardly changed at all in 50 million years! This doesn't mean they've grown immune to evolving. It rather suggests that for thier environment, and thier needs to survive, they're a near perfect design. Any shark 'pups' born with diferent traits, like an extra fin or seperated tail fin, or scaly skin, would most certainly represent a disadventagous change. This lowers such a creatures chances of survival and even desirabilty to potential mates. Therefor, such a new trait would not at all be likely to be passed on.

I'd bet everything I've ever known (risking total dumbness, here), that gecko's have been born without the ability to stick to walls, too. It stands to reason they were less successfull than 'normal' geckos and therefor did not pass on this trait. At least, if they did, it didn't last very long.

Lets suppose 'non-sticky' geckos did find a way to scrape by in a way and pass their traits on to evergrowing numbers of subsequant generations of 'non-sticky' geckos. Lets suppose they survive in a marshy area with plenty of places to hide. Eventually, one will be born that is maybe much faster than the others. Or one gets the advantage of having a freakishly long tongue allowing it to eat bugs from a greater distance and with less movement. Or maybe a batch of amazing swimmers is born....These are adventagous traits that increase likelyhood of survival and thus, likelyhood of being passed on.

Another million years or so, and you've got 3 new lizard species branched off of the initial 'sticky-type' gecko source, but no longer resembling 'sticky' geckos at all. Though 'sticky' geckos still exist, too. This is how evolution works. It sais nothing about older species having to be extinct for newer species to replace them.

So no, this is in no way, shape or form problematic for evolution. In fact, I think it proves how well evolution works. Be well.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by Static Sky]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Looks to me like this is more problematic to your limited grasp of evolution rather than actual evolution itself...



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Really annoys me when members of this forum make some thread and don't even contribute to it in the form of posting after the initial post. It just creates junk forums and members should be penalized in my opinion.

And yes, you don't understand evolution, if you want to discuss it, learn it first.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
You have a valid point, my apologies.

After reading some of the intial posts, I guess it would be a stretch to not believe it possible for a gecko to evolve to that extent, the little pads on their feet that allow them to run on walls and ceilings, in the time-frame of the Earths existance according to evolution.

I am not sure what is the accepted evolutionary theory regarding when living organisms began to evolve, this was offered a few posts up...

"The first eukaryotes turned up some 1.3 billion years ago. The familiar endosymbiotic cellular mechanisms had all evolved by then. All living creatures still use them today."

Lets say that is fact...that means the gecko has evolved over the last 1200million years, but not the last 100million years. I guess to me that is a stretch.

The only other arguement is after decades of attempts to this day, science cannot replicate it.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
MHC, you did the right thing -- you asked a question. Predominantly one view of the answer to that question has been posed to you -- I also agree that this discovery is more supportive of the nuances of evolution theory than challenges it.

Many variables are thought to influence the selection of traits, and sometimes they are selected only to be a failed species. That, to me is one of the staggarring ideas of evolution -- that species can evolve that, through changing environment or other variables, can ultimately fail and become extinct.

Static Sky, you said this better than I could have, and your easy manner of linking ideas was a treat to read.

Good thread, OP



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 

if it aint broke no need to fix it eh? I agree. So, why do we need to be this smart again? why have we been getting smarter and smarter did we really need to be more intelligent than neanderthals to survive in nature? monkeys seem to do fine with their intelligence, so... why do I need this pc again? Now don't assume I'm against adaptation, i'm not but I thought things occured on a need to basis. I can't just say I want a thicker coat of body hair cuz it would look cool and voila I have one. If circumstances in nature made this trait necessary then it would happen. Is adaptation/macro evolution not reactionary?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
As someone said earlier, some species are so well adjusted and functional that they haven't changed a very very long time. The crocodile and the shark are good examples.

Another example that I'd put forward is the Tuatara. Mainly because I'm a patriotic Kiwi.


The tuatara is a reptile of the family Sphenodontidae, endemic to New Zealand. The two species of tuatara are the only surviving members of the Sphenodontians which flourished around 200 million years ago, and are in the genus Sphenodon. Tuatara resemble lizards, but are equally related to lizards and snakes, both of which are classified as Squamata, the closest living relatives of tuatara. For this reason, tuatara are of great interest in the study of the evolution of lizards and snakes, and for the reconstruction of the appearance and habits of the earliest diapsids (the group that additionally includes birds and crocodiles)...

...Their dentition, in which two rows of teeth in the upper jaw overlap one row on the lower jaw, is unique among living species. They are further unusual in having a pronounced parietal eye, dubbed the "third eye", whose current function is a subject of ongoing research. They are able to hear although no external ear is present, and have a number of unique features in their skeleton, some of them apparently evolutionarily retained from fish.

Wikipedia.

Note the last sentence. "Retained from fish." Some things just don't need to change over large amounts of time.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


No you're right, It's more saying those who have a better chance of reproducing, make their favourable traits more common. So those who have a thicker coat would reproduce more than those without in a really cold region.

Environmental pressures.


But our intelligence is the effect of natural selection on our ancestors. In an ironic twist of fate, natural selection seems to have given us the ability to live above natural selection- we change our environment rather than be sahped by it.

[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
Static Sky, you said this better than I could have, and your easy manner of linking ideas was a treat to read.

Good thread, OP


Thank you for your kind words. Cheers. And to the OP, this is a massive issue with just as many differing answers as questions. Don't get discouraged. Just keep reading everything you can on it and keep an open mind. Be well.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I admit my knowledge in this area is limited at best and I do appreciate the kind words of wisdom and advice, thanks.

There is a sense of obligation to contribute to this thread, however, I realised from the first few initial post the the problems posed by this discovery are small.


Originally posted by Good Wolf


But our intelligence is the effect of natural selection on our ancestors. In an ironic twist of fate, natural selection seems to have given us the ability to live above natural selection- we change our environment rather than be sahped by it.



I guess this leap of faith is larger than I can rationalize.

I know that creation is also a leap of faith, but the evidence that I have seen, for me, it is a much more reasonable speculation.

I am open to hearing ideas of how our conscience and the intelligence to change the environment rather than be changed by it was a result of natural selection, but this is all OT. Not sure if the moderators would allow it.

Just for the record....I do believe that things evolve based on the potential to survive longer and the theory of evolution, but I also believe that a creator set all this in motion.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join