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.

 

Some questions of evolution that hopefully some of you can clear up.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


LMAO, I can care less to go on the internet and pretend to be an evolutionist, maybe you like to play games but that is not what I do. I just wanted a few questions. And in your response it just shows your ignorance towards posts that go out of your comfort zone. But seriously thank you for the info, it did help




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 




I'd like the aquatic ape theorie in here.


I love the AAH, and Elane Morgan is a sweetheart. I really think she is on to something. The problem is, there's just no real solid evidence to suggest that AAH is a serious contender to Savannah theory. Most of the evidence presented in favor of AAH is "just so" circumstantial evidence which can be just as satisfactorily explained (if not better) by the current theory without having to contradict so much established evidence.

I... don't think the human genome project has shed any favorable evidence AAH's way either. Though, honestly, I haven't really followed up on it lately. My attention has drifted to since nothing really new or useful has come out of the camp in a while. Last one I read was....

ScienceDaily: (2006) Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human kidneys.

However, the paper was published in a non-peer-review journal of hypothetical submissions which are intended to stimulate discussion and thought provoking ideas... but not to actually establish findings or establish results.

From the publisher's description/author guide:

Journal of Medical Hypotheses:



The purpose of Medical Hypotheses is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed.

Medical Hypotheses is not, however, a journal for publishing workaday reviews of the literature, nor is it a journal for primary data (except when preliminary data is used to lend support to the main hypothesis presented). Many of the articles submitted do not clearly identify the hypothesis and simply read like reviews.



So... aside from a disappointing TEDtalk by Elane Morgan wherein she basically says they have nothing new and strings together logical fallacies and appeals authority (against authority)... AAH has been quiet as far as I know.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Lasheic]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
I have several animal questions.

can some one explain the evolutional history of a star fish?


Starfish have radial symmetry while people have Bilateral symmetry. On us our left mimics our right, more or less, but with starfish their symmetry radiates out from the center like the spokes on a wheel. Other animals and even plants show this type of development. You can learn more here: Echinoderms


Can someone explain a semiaquatic mammal that lays eggs ?
You must mean the Platypus. They are odd indeed. They are monotremes, survivors of a very early branch of the mammal family tree. Their genetic code contains some reptilian and bird genes although it shares 80% of it's genes with other mammals. This is why it is an egg laying mammal. Most monotremes are long extinct but you can learn more about how they evolved here: platypus


One more, can someone explain a cheetah ? Is it really half dog and half cat ? The facts say yes.
Nope, Cheetahs are feline, cats, and not dogs. Their ability to run fast is the same type of mechanism that makes greyhounds such good runners, but it is not due to any shared genetic material. Their long sleek form and back structure allows them to use their back like a spring and help propel themselves at a high rate of speed for short distances. They are not good at running long distances however. Cheetahs have evolved alongside antelopes, and both are better runners because of this. As the Cheetah got faster, so did the surviving antelopes, as the slower ones became dinner, and the faster ones lived to breed. The slower cheetahs had less success hunting and thus had fewer surviving offspring. It is in effect an evolutionary arms race.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Terapin
 


As I recal the dominant land animals who walked the earth before a staggering mass extinction wiped 95 % of all life from the planet. Which made room for the dinosour era. Were more mammal like then any dinosaur. Survivors of that mass extinction grew up to be the first real mammals.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Why does a giraffe have a huge neck to grab food when animals that lived in the same area that don’t have big necks get food fine?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Maddogkull]


This thread is only 4 pages long so I will help it along.

Now about those giraffes. Did you know that a mouse ,a human, and a giraffe have the exact same number of vertebrae in their necks?

The most logical explanation for that is we all evolved from the same ancestor or God hates giraffes.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Like i said why though. Why would they get a long neck, when they coul just get food from the ground. It just dosen't seem logical.


Because they're leaf eaters, not grass eaters.

Not all herbivores will -- or CAN eat the same plants. I know grass looks like grass to you, but there are thousands of varieties and many are inedible to certain animals. The ecological food niche for giraffes has few competitors because few can reach the branches that they use for food.

They occasionally graze on grasses but branches are more nutritious:
en.wikipedia.org...

There's a lot of competition for grass. Throughout millions of years their diet (originally including twigs) put them in competition with other animals. The taller ones (and long necked ones) survived when times were bad because they could reach food that others couldn't.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Kinda Kurious,men have nipples so we can blend into the herd enough to be able to get close enough to breed a female,or possibly to lure a predator away from our mate and towards us.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by one4all
Kinda Kurious,men have nipples so we can blend into the herd enough to be able to get close enough to breed a female,or possibly to lure a predator away from our mate and towards us.

Or, more realistic, the developmental 'program' that is active during our fetal days, is so complex that it would require major mutations to get around it properly, and hence, it is still here. And since there is no negative point in a male having nibbles, there is no point in evolution getting rid of it. Ie. there is no selective pressure against males with nibbles.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Hey there. You might be a young guy who didnt get informed about this at school perhaps. Fear not. First of all we didnt evolve from apes but a common ancestor for about 6 million years ago. When it comes to giraffe evolution it is very well documented, and you can easy find it here on the internett, i would recommend google.

Have a nice day.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Why do men have nipples?

Genes that code for nipple formation exist in all mammals, both male and female. We all start out female in the womb. During the course of male embryonic development, the expression of other genes carried on the Y chromosome (which only men have) builds a penis, testicles and so on out of the very same raw materials that in girl babies result in a vagina, ovaries, etc. If men were not to have nipples, they would probably disappear at this point--but making them disappear would incur an energy cost since they are already there. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense to let them stay, and use the energy involved in getting rid of them for a more useful developmental purpose.

In adolescence, when further development takes place as a result of gene expression, girls' nipples bud into breasts (along with many other changes), while in men, the nipples stay the same but testicles descend and swell, etc.

*


OP, your giraffe question isn't so hard. Once upon a time, the ancestors of giraffes were animals with necks as short as those of the other grazing creatures they lived among. One day a mutant proto-giraffe was born with a slightly longer neck than its parents and siblings and cousins. It used this longer neck to get at leaves on tree branches that other animals couldn't reach because their necks were shorter. Because it could get access to more food, the proto-giraffe grew up bigger and stronger and had more offspring. Some of these also had long necks, and thus inherited their parent's ability to get more and better food, so they grew up big and srong and had still more babies with long necks. Soon there were so many long-necked proto-giraffes that the short-necked ones didn't have any food left to eat, and they died out.

Of course, now everyone was back to square one, but in the fullness of time another baby was born with an even longer neck, and the whole process was repeated again.

And it kept on happening--again, and again, and again.

Eventually, the result was the first true giraffe. It didn't just have a long neck, it had the muscles and skeletal development necessary to hold the neck up and move it about, and lots of other features besides. All these features evolved in exactly the same way I have described above.

To understand evolution, you have to understand natural selection. It isn't really that hard--as you can see by my description. Once you have that down, the world suddenly makes sense at last.

If you have any further questions, I shall be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Just ask.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I was told that Darwin was disproved by his own words. He said to disprove evolution all you had to do was find an irreduceably complex system in nature.(like a mousetrap- if any one piece is missing it does nothing). he was looking at the eyes as a possible irreduceably complex systems, but theorized that they evolved from single light sensitive cells. Later not only were parts or the eyes found to be part of an irreduceably complex system,but also the flaggela of sperm cells too.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Again what about the whole giraffe thing. Why are there necks long, when animals around them dont have long necks. And they got food just fine.


Food for thought:

The giraffe has got a problem when he bends his head down to get a drink of water. With all that blood the heart squeezes, well, the blood goes zoom and blows his brains out through his ears. He is now dead. And, so, he must be thinking, "I've got a problem. When I get a drink of water I blow my brains out. Okay, I better evolve something here to fix this." Well, of course, dead animals don't evolve. But anyway, it doesn't blow his brains out. Why? Because, as the blood comes down there is like little spigot — little valves — in the artery that goes up the neck which close. When the giraffe's head is down, there is also a sponge under the brain and it gently expands to protect the brain so it doesn't blow out. Now, the giraffe is getting his drink of water and he sees a lion coming up. "I've got to get
out of here, he is going to eat me." The giraffe jumps up, runs about three steps, and passes out — not enough oxygen to the brain. The lion eats him. He says, "I have another problem. I pass out when I get up too fast and so the lion eats me." Well, dead animals don't evolve. They can't fix it. But, the giraffe doesn't pass out, because as he raises his
head up our Creator the Lord Jesus has made it so those valves open up and the sponge under the brain gently squeezes that last pump of oxygenated blood up into his brain and he is doing just fine. Only God could create that.

The textbooks still say that the giraffe got his long neck because all the food had run out and he was trying to eat up there in the trees. And I am saying, "Okay, good, but what about Mrs. Giraffe? She is two feet shorter. What about baby giraffe? If all the food is gone and he's got to stretch up there to eat out of the top of the tree, what is baby giraffe going
to eat after they are weaned from their mama?" It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe Millions of years between meals?!


--taken from an article by Dr Jobe Martin



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Wrong about Giraffes.

The informed scientific concensus on a Giraffes neck is nothing to do with "reaching the highest leaves"


A recent study showed that territorial disputes amongst Giraffes are very common with the best fighter "occupying" the best grazing territory.
Because the best fighter occupies the best grazing territory ,this male Giraffe is more desirable to the female Giraffes.

Giraffes fight with their necks and in 8/10 fights; the giraffe with the longest neck wins.


Yes, reaching tall leaves might have been a benefit when competition was high amongst other herbivores during the giraffes evolution but there was every variation of height during this period and it just so happens Giraffes are still around.

( All the other variants are extinct and this is the case for most living mamals; they are the succesfull reprasentitives of a massive family who didnt all make it) .


So a Giraffe has a long neck because it's partner finds it more attractive for reproduction and this is in fact the casue of most of the confusing diversity of life on Earth.

Modern studies show what the vast array of evolutional traits we see today are in fact routed in the Pre-Cambrian explosion which signified the transition away from cell abiogenosis (making a clone of yourself with your own DNA) towards reproductive sex (combing two sets of DNA).

In this model the female chooses the appropriate partner based on it's capabiltiy to cope with the present environment and hey presto; you have a way of adapting life to a changing environment...

Dont get me started on Monkeys but I suggest anyone interested reads the new molecular biology study which shows that the Primate ancestor did not originate on a modern day landmass known as Africa and was in fact spread around the world during the break up of Pangea.

Thats why you have monkeys in South Amercia that seem to share features with monkeys in Africa but there is no explanation of how they got there as the current theory suggests the common ancestor didnt evolve until AFTER the break up of Pangea..

Unfortunately common confusion amongst pro evolutionists on incomplete topics of study such as Moneys and Giraffes leaves the door open for mystical explanations

Monkey source: www.sciencedaily.com...

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Jukiodone]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Jukiodone]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Jukiodone]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Jukiodone]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




During the course of male embryonic development, the expression of other genes carried on the Y chromosome (which only men have) builds a penis, testicles and so on out of the very same raw materials that in girl babies result in a vagina, ovaries, etc.


Well, they start as undifferenciated gonads which develop into ovaries unless the SRY transcription factor on the male Y chromosome is activated. As it turns out, apparently, they can still turn into testes even without a male chromosome present. Suppression of the FOXL2 gene on the X chromosome both genders have automatically causes the activation of the SOX9 gene. Tests in mice have shown that even adult ovaries can be induced to transdifferenciate into testes when FOXL2 is suppressed.

Kind of like an on-off male/female gender switch... partially, anyhow. Still, last I heard they were going to investigate any potential role it has in causing Gender Identity Disorder, or if it can be used generate new therapies for GID sufferers to supplement or replace the need for expensive hormone regiments and genital butchery (aka SRS).

Somatic Sex Reprogramming of Adult Ovaries to Testes by FOXL2 Ablation


It will be interesting, seeing how far they can take it's application... even perhaps to the point where gender is optional. I wonder if anybody here has considered the implications of a post-gender/gender optional culture?

At the very least, it throws a hell of a wrench into the anti-gay marriage arguments of "it being between one man and one woman."



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theyrout2getus
Later not only were parts or the eyes found to be part of an irreduceably complex system,but also the flaggela of sperm cells too.

No? Why on earth should they be irreducible?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Giraffes likely have long necks not because of food, but because of mating. Males compete with each other for mating by swinging their heads at each other. The longer and more massive the neck, the better the chance of winning the contest. Hence, males with long necks mate more. Repeat that over a million years and you have a recipe for a species that has long necks in general.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
As my screen name suggests, I do believe in a creator.

However, I also believe that this creator does use evolution to create an ordered and patterned universe.

One evolutionary development which has always intrigued me is the lifecycle of the butterfly--it essentially breaks into a soup inside its coccoon and becomes an entirely new creature, breaking radically from the traditional pattern of successive mutations.



Any thoughts on this?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparkofdivine
One evolutionary development which has always intrigued me is the lifecycle of the butterfly--it essentially breaks into a soup inside its coccoon and becomes an entirely new creature, breaking radically from the traditional pattern of successive mutations.

It doesn't break into a 'soup'. It goes through metamorphosis which is quite normal. It has absolutely nothing to do with mutations.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Again what about the whole giraffe thing. Why are there necks long, when animals around them dont have long necks. And they got food just fine.


Specialization. Some animals adapt to eat the food at the top, some at the middle, and some at the bottom.

Where's the mystery?

A problem here is that you are assuming that the long neck evolved as a food gathering adaptation. It's more likely a secondary sexual characteristic. Male giraffes engage in "necking" contests to establish dominance and in necking, size does matter. Oh yeah, and giraffes are gay.Coe, M.J. (1967). "Necking" behavior in the giraffe." Journal of Zoology, London 151: 313-321. So if you're going to neck with your male giraffe lover, it helps to have a big one. Neck, that is. Lesbian giraffes, though, are rare.Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; pp.391-393. Or maybe the intelligent designer designed perverted giraffes?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
Giraffes likely have long necks not because of food, but because of mating. Males compete with each other for mating by swinging their heads at each other. The longer and more massive the neck, the better the chance of winning the contest. Hence, males with long necks mate more. Repeat that over a million years and you have a recipe for a species that has long necks in general.


Aha. I stand corrected. Serves me right for not doublechecking that fact on giraffe evolution.

Still, they also have the dietary advantage.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join