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.
Originally posted by slip2break
Personally, I don't believe in intelligent design-- but at the same time, there is no indication it didn't happen.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
The moth doesn't know what eyes look like. It doesn't know it has eye patterns in its wings. Its DNA certainly isn't aware of it. The moths that happened to have something that resembled eyes on their wings were less likely to have been weeded out by predators. There's natural variation in their progeny. Repeat this selection over and over and you end up with a pattern that looks more and more realistic.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by rhinoceros
The moth doesn't know what eyes look like. It doesn't know it has eye patterns in its wings. Its DNA certainly isn't aware of it. The moths that happened to have something that resembled eyes on their wings were less likely to have been weeded out by predators. There's natural variation in their progeny. Repeat this selection over and over and you end up with a pattern that looks more and more realistic.
I can't argue this point. My main focus on evolutionary anomalies is when evolution breaks away from the mold and creates the abilities found in lightning bugs, electric eels, smelly skunks... These abilities are far from the usual fight or flight evolutionary tactics found in all other species.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by slip2break
Personally, I don't believe in intelligent design-- but at the same time, there is no indication it didn't happen.
Personally, I don't believe in the great spaghetti monster, but at the same time, there is no indication that his holy noodliness doesn't exist.
p.s. I think there's a mountain of indication that life on Earth was not intelligently designed but evolved by the natural force of evolution. Here's some traits my intelligently designed human would possess: immune system of a crocodile, regenerative limbs, bigger birth canal (giving birth is the riskiest thing most females do in their life), ability to breath and eat at the same time (you'd be surprised how common cause of death choking is), photosynthesis (for making our own energy), no "junk" DNA (e.g. all that retroviral stuff in our DNA is totally useless), etc. But yeah, maybe I'm just more intelligent than the postulated designer..edit on 3-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by jiggerj
The reason most of these traits stay in the gene-pool is because they are the most efficient traits for survival.
Those organisms and species (an estimated 99% of all species who have have ever lived have become extinct) who didn't mutate or inherit these advantageous traits would have died out before they could reproduce, on average, at a greater rate than those who did.
Originally posted by windsorblue
Fair point, but it doesnt explain those species that change colour or resemble leafs and plants. I'm not saying that this was a grand design, i'm just interested in why certain animals learn to mimic the environment to hunt or hide so well and what drives these changes in thier DNA. For example Tigers, they have the perfect patterns and colours to blend into the Jungle, so how did those colours originate? why did they evolve the patterns on their fur to start with? I understand that these patterns would have given them an advantage over others of thier species, but what bothers me is how it all started in the first place.
Originally posted by jiggerj
But the traits I speak of were not in the gene pool.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Prey evolved stronger legs to run faster than predators. That's in the gene pool.
Originally posted by jiggerj
And then from way out in left field evolution gave a creature the ability to administer electric shock to those that would eat it, when every other living thing in the sea developed fins and teeth and size. Boy, if anything would ensure the survival of a species it's generating electricity. Sure seems to me that EVERY creature would have developed this ability.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Originally posted by jiggerj
But the traits I speak of were not in the gene pool.
No current ''traits'' - with the exception of reproduction and, probably, survival instinct - were in the gene-pool when life started.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Prey evolved stronger legs to run faster than predators. That's in the gene pool.
No. That was the result of a series of genetic mutations which aided survival for those organisms which benefited from them and, consequently, ended up in the gene-pool.
Originally posted by jiggerj
And then from way out in left field evolution gave a creature the ability to administer electric shock to those that would eat it, when every other living thing in the sea developed fins and teeth and size. Boy, if anything would ensure the survival of a species it's generating electricity. Sure seems to me that EVERY creature would have developed this ability.
Any species who are isolated for millions of years will develop random mutations which will differ from others; some of these will be beneficial to survival, and stay in the species' gene-pool.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by jiggerj
I agree that electric eel makes a rather fascinating case. Apparently it has specialized organs for the energy production, although the electricity generating mechanism itself just borrows from regular cell function (ion channels and such). It's obviously something that didn't happen over night but slowly evolved into its current efficiency. Nowadays, I assume the shock thing is mainly for stunning prey. However, there must have been some other advantages that also a weaker punch provided. Maybe something akin to feeling how the electricity bounces and situational awareness? Just a guess. As I recall, the platypus also has some electricity related sensor organ..edit on 3-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jiggerj
Of course if evolution were only a matter of survival of the fittest then life would never have progressed beyond the splitting of cells. This splitting of cells would have been the most successful reproduction method. To change into the need for male and female participation jeopardized all life on the planet. If females contract a disease preventing them from giving birth, then all life dies. Same with males. The splitting of cells was a perfect method of proliferation and shouldn't have changed. Something drove these cells to evolve away from this process. I don't know what that something was, but if unthinking natural selection ruled evolution, then the splitting of cells would not have changed. Just my opinion.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Yes, but how does evolution or natural selection (or whatever you want to call it) design this ability?
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by jiggerj
Of course if evolution were only a matter of survival of the fittest then life would never have progressed beyond the splitting of cells. This splitting of cells would have been the most successful reproduction method. To change into the need for male and female participation jeopardized all life on the planet. If females contract a disease preventing them from giving birth, then all life dies. Same with males. The splitting of cells was a perfect method of proliferation and shouldn't have changed. Something drove these cells to evolve away from this process. I don't know what that something was, but if unthinking natural selection ruled evolution, then the splitting of cells would not have changed. Just my opinion.
1. You don't understand what fitness is to natural selection.
2. First multicellular life was without a doubt asexual.
3. Sex (mixing of genetic material of gametes) provides massive advantages over asexual reproduction.
Your opinions are so childish. For example this: "If females contract a disease preventing them from giving birth, then all life dies". In which scenario do all females contract a disease? Is that likely to happen? Why would that lead to the death of ALL life? If you want to have a serious conversation about such things, at least acquire better understanding life and how it works first..edit on 4-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by winotka
reply to post by jiggerj
I don't think intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive.
I've heard of other bugs that use webbing as a function. I've heard of flora and fauna using "stink" as defense mechanisms.
What I think is amazing is having so many unique characteristics among billions of species.