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.

 

Ask me any questions you have about evolution

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Oops. My questions were under Abiogenesis scope. I didn't realize it. Sorry.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It's only explain the changes. Therefore, evolution must go along with creation or evolution could not work alone. Am I right?


[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ACTS 2:38
 


Facts:

1. mutations in the DNA happen e. g. each offspring is slightly different from the parent (mutations supplement variation to population)
2. natural selection promotes positive changes and supresses negative changes in a population, according to environment
3. if two populations of the same species became separated by some reproductive barrier (rivers, mountains..), there is NO mechanism to synchronize inevitable changes in both populations, and over time they will inevitably diverge to the point that they wont be able to interbreed anymore - speciation

This three FACTS alone are enough to deduce that evolution happens. And proof by deduction is also a valid way to obtain scientific knowledge. So even if we didnt have paleontology, developmental biology etc., just biochemistry (the 1st point) and population genetics (2nd and third points) is enough to prove evolution, even macroevolution - speciation.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Maslo]


Understandable.

We'll take Carl Sagan evolution's clock to approximate the process of evolution from Homo erectus to modern human.

According to Carl Sagan in his book, "In the Dragon of Eden"


The time scale for evolutionary or genetic change is very long. A characteristic period for the emergence of one advanced species from another is perhaps a hundred thousand years; and very often the difference in behavior between closely related species -- say, lions and tigers -- does not seem very great.


Homo erectus appear 2 million years ago. Their brain size was on the order of 800 or 900 cubic centimeters (CCs). Modern human brain size averages about 1,500 CCs or so. In other words, in about 2 million years, evolution roughly doubled the size of the Homo erectus brain to create the human brain that we have today.

Our brains contain approximately 100 billion neurons today, so in 2 million years, evolution added 50 billion neurons to the Homo erectus brain (while at the same time redesigning the skull to accommodate all of those neurons and redesigning the female pelvis to let the larger skull through during birth, etc.).

Let's assume that Homo erectus was able to reproduce every 10 years. That means that, in 2 million years, there were 200,000 generations of Homo erectus possible. There are four possible explanations for where the 50 billion new neurons came from in 200,000 generations:

1. Every generation, 250,000 new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (250,000 * 200,000 = 50 billion).
2. Every 100,000 years, 2.5 billion new neurons were added to the Homo erectus brain (2,500,000,000 * 20 = 50 billion).
3. Perhaps 500,000 years ago, there was a spurt of 20 or so closely-spaced generations that added 2.5 billion neurons per generation.
4. One day, spontaneously, 50 billion new neurons were added to the
Homo erectus brain to create the Homo sapiens brain.

We see no evidence that evolution is randomly adding 250,000 neurons to each child born today, so that explanation is hard to swallow. The thought of adding a large package of something like 2.5 billion neurons in one step is difficult to imagine, because there is no way to explain how the neurons would wire themselves in. What sort of point mutation would occur in a DNA molecule that would suddenly create billions of new neurons and wire them correctly?


[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EasternShadow
Oops. My questions were under Abiogenesis scope. I didn't realize it. Sorry.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It's only explain the changes. Therefore, evolution must go along with creation or evolution could not work alone. Am I right?


[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]


Yup, I'm simultaneously a creationist and evolutionist. Evolution only exlplains what happened after life began. It makes no claims as to what happened before. That's the thing people misunderstand the most about evolution.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EasternShadow
 


Why is it that the human species searches in vein to find LIFE IN the Species ???

A Cell is NOT LIFE but instead, Cells are Driven by a Non-dimensional Component called LIFE...

Because LIFE is "Non Dimensional", explains why the Component of LIFE can't be found IN a cell, or any Species.

When the Connection between LIFE and the cell is disconnected, the Cell is said to be Dead ???

This is why we see the "Species" die...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Because of DNA ....
Its a Chemical Program which is the blue print of "Biological Robotics".... NOT LIFE...

But is Produced by LIFE...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Why is it that the human species searches in vein to find LIFE IN the Species ???

Because we are lacking information. Our current evolution and origin of life theories such abiogenesis and autogenesis are still incomplete and require further investigation. Much of what we have now is just theory and hypothesis supported by known facts from various field of studies.


Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
A Cell is NOT LIFE but instead, Cells are Driven by a Non-dimensional Component called LIFE...

Our model of evolution start from the very basic form of life which is cell. (Actually small organic molecules called polypeptides and polynucleotides ) Anyway, In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication, and metabolism. Scientist, with limited understanding, thought the first living things on Earth is a single cell prokaryotes. Note that, I say limited understanding.


Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Because LIFE is "Non Dimensional", explains why the Component of LIFE can't be found IN a cell, or any Species.

When the Connection between LIFE and the cell is disconnected, the Cell is said to be Dead ???

This is why we see the "Species" die...

Sorry, I don't get you. Are you discussing abiogenesis theory or evolution?
Perhaps this will help you.
The cell is the functional basic unit of life



[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EasternShadow
 


You are looking at the result i.e "Biological Robotics" and not the driving force or in the case of the Species the operator or entity experiencing the "Biological Robotics".

I guess it comes down to what we as individuals are "aware" of.... involving our true entity...

Galvani was convinced that he was seeing the effects of what he called animal electricity, the life force within the muscles of the frog.

And many others around that time believed electricity was "the spark of Life",
later found to be incorrect...

The human species has always searched for the beginnings of LIFE or understand what drives the activity of cells and the species…

But what actually is LIFE ???

The result i.e. the cells or that which causes the cell to be active i.e. a degree of "Awareness", or "Consciousness" often involving "Response" (can't find a suitable word to use)

It was recently thought that it was to be found in DNA, and again found not to be the case.

Today experimentation is being done involving the control of things by thought i.e. by interfacing with computers.

www.sciencedaily.com...

But this still did not show that Elusive entity some call LIFE.

Today some are involved with R&D in other areas, i.e. interfacing with the "Mind".

So officially the human "Species" is still looking for that Elusive “force” called LIFE and I guess when the human species finds the Source, driving force or motivated Component, underlying the acitivity of "Biological Robotics", the meaning of the word “LIFE” will be reassessed or re-defined…

[edit on 1-9-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 

I'm afraid we don't share common view of life definition. To me, life is a process that involves cellular systems in a series of activities.
Life from Biology Perspective.
According to Chris P Mackay,

A simpler definition is that life is a material system that undergoes reproduction, mutation, and natural selection (McKay 1991). Cleland and Chyba (2002) have suggested that life might be like water, hard to define phenomenologically, but easy to define at the fundamental level. But life is like fire, not water—it is a process, not a pure substance. Such definitions are grist for philosophical discussion, but they neither inform biological research nor provide a basis for the search for life on other worlds

Life as we know it

I'm aware that you are viewing life meaning from philosophy and/or religion perspective but that's not my main point of discussion. My main subject is biology evolution and I'm interested with abiogenesis theory.

Thanks


[edit on 2-9-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by EasternShadow
 


That is one view....


I'm aware that you are viewing life meaning from philosophy and/or religion perspective but that's not my main point of discussion. My main subject is biology evolution and I'm interested with abiogenesis theory.


No I was NOT referring to "philosophy and/or religion" but rather Mechanics...

I am NOT religious nor do I regard myself as a philosopher...

But I guess some are "aware" of being ALIVE while others are Not "Aware" of LIFE...

It depends on "Who" we are....

a. LIFE. (Experiencing the "Species" and "environment")
or...
b. Only the "Biological Robotics". (Not "Aware" of LIFE)

But thank you anyway for sharing your thoughts....


[edit on 2-9-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Ok... You're probably right but it's difficult to define life in terms of consciousness. There are many organisms which are alive but probably not conscious (or as you term as 'Biological Robotics'). Apart from biology life, there're other concept of life such carbon based life, cellular life, organic life, Non-cellular life, Silicone based life and Artificial life. Another problem is, what is consciousness? Consciousness has many different definitions given by modern scientists, psychologists and philosophers.

Now, let's look at death perspective itself. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.

Today, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being clinically dead. But even now, "brain death" category is problematic. According to Dr Franklin Miller, senior faculty member at the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health,

By the late 1990s, however, the equation of brain death with death of the human being was increasingly challenged by scholars, based on evidence regarding the array of biological functioning displayed by patients correctly diagnosed as having this condition who were maintained on mechanical ventilation for substantial periods of time. These patients maintained the ability to sustain circulation and respiration, control temperature, excrete wastes, heal wounds, fight infections and, most dramatically, to gestate fetuses (in the case of pregnant "brain-dead" women).

Source: FG Miller "Death and organ donation: back to the future" Journal of Medical Ethics 2009;35:616-620

As you can see it's difficult to define life and death in term of consciousness. I'm not familiar with philosophy and religion conception of life which relate to soul or mechanical conception of "non-dimensional", as you put it. As there's no solid and general acceptance to the definition of life and death, and to avoid confusion with other conception of life, I have to clarify that my definition of life is of biological life and my model of first life form is a cell for evolution purpose.

Thanks for sharing your thought.

EDIT: Does anyone know, why I can't use bb-codes size and color?



[edit on 2-9-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EasternShadow
 


Thank you for your response...

Yes you have outlined my thoughts precisely and I agree 100% with what you have written...

Putting aside religion and philosophy you have a good grasp of what I am saying...

It is not a simple area of "technology" as most would presume, leaving many questions to be answered by the human species.

As for the question of religion.... religion is a very poor attempt to answer questions about the definition of "Awareness", "Consciousness" or LIFE, where most is simply swept under the carpet in an attempt to obtain self justification and perhaps peace through belief.

i.e. we can have faith in "truth" or "ignorance".... So faith alone is useless...

But this as I said this does Not answer the questions for the human Species.

_________________________


If we want to discover the truth regarding LIFE, we first have to accept the Species are different examples of "Biological Robotics" motivated or controlled by LIFE in two different ways...

a. Automatic systems produced through the content (programs) of DNA.
b. What we call the Mind.... "decoding" or translating our "desires" into response...

and that "Cellular" activity is perhaps Chemical or "Cellular Robotics" or mechanics.

So this is where the dilemma lays How do we define “Awareness” or “Consciousness” as we can't see "Consciousness" and can only see the effects of Response...

But “Response” is Not “Consciousness”.

So putting “Response” aside, we still can't detect “Consciousness” as it is Non Dimensional...

i.e. what is the Shape or size etc of this "Consciousness" ???

Up until recently, it is only our individual "Awareness" which is aware of our real selves i.e. the LIFE entity.... which is "experiencing"...

But we can now, both see and study, the workings of a “transfer media” which responds to a display (correct format) of "Geometric Language" on Screen.

This "transfer media" also reacts to mechanical type systems, involving the same geometric process.

We can also see this "transfer media" (Complex Granular "Texture") if we relax with our eyes lightly closed in a well lit environment, (taking careful notice of the "texture" we see while the eyes are closed) as well as the use of a Light "Strobe" at low frequencies.

In the past “Strobes” (at certain Frequencies) have been used to detect the presence of epilepsy and other neurological disorders.

But in all fairness words such as “Consciousness” or “Awareness” are probably the wrong "words" to use..... but so far I haven't found more suitable words to use, within the English language...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I have a question.

I was just watching a documentary on vanishing wildlife in the UK and a thought occurred to me.

Why do we not see other species (or sub species) evolving to take advantage of the evolutionary niches left behind by extinct animals. I'm not talking about large mammals or things like that, but in species that have a very fast breeding cycle and could go through enough generations (say within the last 100 years) to adapt to the new condition created by humans.

The example I though of was Bees. As far as I understand Bees have been in decline for the last century or so to the point where some crops aren't pollinated at all any more. Why in that time have we not seen any new species of insect evolve to fill the gap left by the Bees and taking over the pollination of flowers.

I can think of a small example of something like this happening with the color of a certain kind of moth getting darker to accommodate changes in the type of trees that they live on. But why isn't this happening on a larger scale.

I thought a rapid change in environment creating new niches to be filled was exactly the kind of time that rapid evolutionary changed occurred.

I hope this isn't a dumb question.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


The truth is that this already is happening. Evolution just takes a really really long time. Stick around another hundred thousand years and you'll see the difference.


Sorry my answer wasn't more scientific, it's late
.



Edit to add that it's not a stupid question.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Nosred]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I'm still looking for answer from my previous post.

As shown by my calculation above; in 2 million years, evolution added 50 billion neurons to the Homo erectus brain (while at the same time redesigning the skull to accommodate all of those neurons and redesigning the female pelvis to let the larger skull through during birth, etc.).

What sort of point mutation would occur in a DNA molecule that would suddenly create billions of new neurons and wire them correctly?

How could this happen?

Any evolution experts out there to help me solve this problem?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I've got a supplementary question to that.

What is the "Newest" species or sub species that we know of apart from animals that have been purposely bred by humans i.e fruit flys.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


I have a question. Does human spirit evolve?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Nosred
 


I have a question. Does human spirit evolve?



YES...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Nosred
 


I have a question. Does human spirit evolve?


That's not really a question about evolution. If you're religious the answer would probably be no.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Still no evolution expert can solve my problem with Homo erectus to human evolution?

Than that's something we have to study. Don't you agree, OP?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EasternShadow
I'm still looking for answer from my previous post.

As shown by my calculation above; in 2 million years, evolution added 50 billion neurons to the Homo erectus brain (while at the same time redesigning the skull to accommodate all of those neurons and redesigning the female pelvis to let the larger skull through during birth, etc.).

What sort of point mutation would occur in a DNA molecule that would suddenly create billions of new neurons and wire them correctly?

How could this happen?

Any evolution experts out there to help me solve this problem?


Your calculations, Excuse me ?
This is all copied and pasted from the HowStuffWorks.com page.

You know that dude creationist always like to misquote, Stephen Jay Gould ? Well he had a pretty big part in the punctuated equilibrium model.

Anyway the moral of my story is, I believe the answer to your question can be found if you follow the links.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.pbs.org...
www.newscientist.com...

DonEx does a good job giving a quick explanation at the beginning of this video. I am to kind to you people.


[

[edit on 6-9-2010 by nophun]




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join