It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by noobfun
Originally posted by outsider13
its like saying you have to know how clay was formed befoire it an baked into bricks
it doesnt matter where it came from its what its doing now that evolution cares about
evolution doesnt care where life came from, how it came to be, when it came to be... it only cares and deals with what happens to it once its replicating and subject to enviromental pressure
Evolution is a behavior that applies to life, yes? Well what is life? It seems that it would be of some importance for scientists to define the term if they are going to attach certain properties or behaviors such as evolution to it. It also seems to me, that it would be very difficult to define without drawing a line between living and non-living, and the best place to start would probably be with the first "non-organic" compound that somehow changed structure to become "organic" and thus develop the capacity to evolve. What would you call that step, besides evolution?
gravity cant explain where the helium/hydrogen comes from it uses to make stars ... it doesnt have to it only cares about what happens to it once its there ... or are you going to claim that invalidates gravity too?
Of course not, and I never claimed claimed evolution was invalidated. I merely pointed out the extreme low probability of developing an evolutionarily viable trait through random mutation, and how this has caused me to question the claim that random gene mutation is solely responsible for the complexity of life as we see it today.
and well if you think evolution got it right time after time after time .. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct .. it gets it very wrong most of the time, birth defects just another way to get it wrong
Where did you get this statistic? By extinct do you mean that these species simply do not exist anymore? Some species may go extinct, like the dodo, while others simply evolve into new forms that we identify as a new species. The distinction is important, because only a species whose genetic line is completely terminated would be an instance of "nature getting it wrong." So, what percentage of animals actually go extinct, and what percentage evolve into something new?
lamarkism i wrong it so absurdly wrong its unbelievable, as mentioned above neo-neo lamarkism also refered to as evo devo has popped up and is showing some signs of progress, but rather then lamarkism and neo lamarkism they are not an alternative explenation evo devo fits within the frame work of evolution and this time it actually uses evidence for its statements
Would you mind taking the time to explain why its so absurdly wrong? And what is evo devo?
Also, some people argue that certain traits, wings for example, are difficult to explain by random mutation and natural selection. They argue that it seems highly unlikely that an animal could evolve a wing, because they would have to have gone through many steps, or proto-wings, before reaching the fully functioning form that is capable of flight. These proto-wings, it is argued, have no evolutionary benefit, because a half a wing is useless. So, the question is, how did these animals go through generation after generation of having a useless appendage that resembled a wing more and more and more, until finally it was a wing? I'm sure you have an explanation for this, and I'd enjoy hearing what it is. I'm here to learn, afterall.
Apologies for the format, still trying to figure out how to do the nifty quotes thing.
I merely pointed out the extreme low probability of developing an evolutionarily viable trait through random mutation, and how this has caused me to question the claim that random gene mutation is solely responsible for the complexity of life as we see it today.
So, the question is, how did these animals go through generation after generation of having a useless appendage that resembled a wing more and more and more, until finally it was a wing?
Extremely low probability does not equal zero. Over the course of 4+ billion years that's plenty of time for these things to work themselves out. The timescale is something that's impossible to wrap your head around. Sure we can say the number 4 billion but it's an almost infinite amount of time as far as humans are concerned.
Also you're assuming that the appendage or whatever would be useless until it evolved into a wing (just to use your example). That isn't how it would work. It would provide the organism some benefit as the evolutionary process continued. If said benefit played out then the organism would most likely not continue on that path...but if it did the end result would be (for example purposes) a wing or whatever.
My issue with divine intervention is that there is no room for these kinds of discussions or the additon of new data into the theory. Evolution is a theory that is still studied and areas are still up for proof or disproof. It only makes more logical sense to me than to think that man just "appeared".
Given a long enough time scale, highly improbable events will indeed happen. The question is, is 4 billion years a long enough time to explain the compexity of life as we see it today. Keep in mind that improbability multiplies with each successive event. So, if the chances of a mutation occuring to create the beginning of a wing (elongated fingers on a bat) are 1/1,000,000; then another mutation occurs (webbed skin between the fingers) which is also 1/1,000,000; then the chances of both of these things occuring is 1/1,000,000 x 1,000,000; or 1/1,000,000,000,000; an incredibly small probability, even given earths 4+ billion year lifespan. Those are just two mutations - consider the number of mutations necessary then for a single cellular organism to eventually evolve into a bat, and you have a an astromically low probability of occurance.
yes by a healthy margin
Originally posted by outsider13
Given a long enough time scale, highly improbable events will indeed happen. The question is, is 4 billion years a long enough time to explain the compexity of life as we see it today.
why would that need 2 seperate mutations?
Keep in mind that improbability multiplies with each successive event. So, if the chances of a mutation occuring to create the beginning of a wing (elongated fingers on a bat) are 1/1,000,000; then another mutation occurs (webbed skin between the fingers) which is also 1/1,000,000;
the increase of the human brain size is down to flexing of one single small bone in the skull
and you have a an astromically low probability of occurance.
The human brain, I've heard, has made gigantic evolutionary leaps within remarkably short amounts of time, say a couple million years, a much shorter timespan than seems possible due to random mutation, which would have required a much longer timespan. I've heard this called the "brain explosion."
fall out a tree with 1/2 a wing and your gonna fare better then your buddy without it when you hit the ground
And your assuming that it would be useful, without an explanation as to why you would make that assumption, other than the fact that the theory requires it. But what would be advantageous about having half a wing?
in humans an average of 75 mutations per haployd genome each generation ... so say 20 years thats 3.75 a year
how many years at 8.75 mutations a year(chimps 5 + our 3,75) will 40 million mutations take?
now take that answer and work out what percentage that is of the 1,200,000,000,000 years multicellular life has been around ..that we know of
i will freely admit though the calculation above was the all thing going well calculation, it took a couple more million years so using the top end figure for how long ago the split occured we actually took up at most
no we dont asume anything its called testing to confirm results
Originally posted by outsider13
Do we assume that these 3.75 mutations a year are all traits that will be passed down,
no becasue they wouldnt be worth counting now would they when your working out important things for the genetic clock calculation within a species
or are some of them birth defects that will not be passed down?
no the number would still be accruate as were excluding mutations that have negative effects on breeding potential
If we aren't assuming that, then the number would have to be significantly smaller than 3.75. Where did this number come from?
The average mutation rate was estimated to be 2.5 x 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation
direct estimates range from 0.5–3.7 × 10−8 and show the combined rate
of all mutations to be on average 1.8 × 10−8 per nucleotide per generation5.
This average direct estimate agrees remarkably well with the indirect
estimates of 2.5 × 10−8 determined by comparing pseudogenes in humans
The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation,
eastimates for divergance range somewhere between 5-7.5 my from our last common ancestor, as i say that equation a best view it cant take into account deaths before breeding and population flux
4,571,428.6 years. This would make sense, I just looked at an evolutionary timeline and this is about the age of the oldest known hominid.
Where did you get 1,200,000,000,000 years? 1.2 trillion years? I'm guessing you added three extra zeros on accident. With 1.2 billion years, which is close to when we estimate the first multicellular organisms, we get .0038.
didnt double it, its 5-7.5 my for the realistic divergance figures
.0076 according to my calculations, if I double the amount of time as you did, nearly 1 percent. This leaves significantly less time for evolution from multicells to apes.
sorry only the 4.5 million is the all going well
Now, the fact that this is the "all going well" calculation is also problematic. What are the chances of all going well, especially in terms of random mutations which are usually not beneficial.
becasue they are diverging from one another ... its not 1 sat there doing nothing and the other mutating away
This goes back to that first figure of 8.75 mutations a year between man and chimps (why do we add them together, by the way?).
most of those mutations do nothing at all benign mutations are far more common then negative or posative mutations
Here is another thing that perplexes me - if there are 75 mutations on average a generation, why would you think that all 75 of these mutations that occurred in one generation should be included in our genetic history? Why would 75 seperate, simulataneously occuring mutations all be of the same sort that lead to the evolution of man?
Any variation of the 75 mutations/generation figure would greatly disrupt the rest of our calculations, and extend the time needed for chimp to man evolution.
not neccesarily if the mutation in some way lowers its survival chances then yes, if it increases its survival chances then thats really not going to be a problem
One more thing - what are chances that an animal with a novel mutation, such as webbed wing flaps, is actually going to find a mate to pass on the trait, as you assume in the bat example? It seems to me, having a mutation of any kind would make an animal far less likely to find a mate,
yes having hands 3 mm longer then the average is extremly freakish!! how ever would they get to mate .. especially if that 3 mm had advantage meaning they were better fed and healthier then the average male without that extra freaky 3 mm
as the mutation would most likely be viewed as a birthdefect and undesireable for reproduction by the rest of the species. Instead, the mutations were somehow deemed desireable, another amazing stroke of luck for evolution!
Originally posted by outsider13
What I propose, is that we take luck out of it and start looking at the possibility that besides random mutation and natural selection, there is a third force behind evolution that is as yet unknown.
Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by outsider13
Now remember this is just my opinion....but that still seems like a mystical or divine intervention type situation. With all the negative feelings that humans generate we could have "thought" ourselves out of existence eons ago.
I'm afraid Darwin was wrong...
There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.
Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.