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.

 

Evolutionary anomalies, I think?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Evolution does not preclude intelligent design. A creator could not only have set all of this into motion but created the rules of the universe which allowed for evolution to be possible. It isn't an either or proposition.

Personally, I don't believe in intelligent design-- but at the same time, there is no indication it didn't happen.
edit on 3-6-2012 by slip2break because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

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)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Exactly my point. If you believe that is what set all of this into motion, who am I to say otherwise? What we can agree on is the Billions of years it took us to get where we are... the specific steps... the fine details. The who and the why are really not too essential to the discussion.

..... and though I don't believe in intelligent design-- I see no evidence that a creator couldn't have set the rules in place to allow for all of it. There is no evidence that states otherwise. Taking a hard stance on it just for principle sake is just as misguided as saying that the world was created in 7 days and is only 4000 years old.
edit on 3-6-2012 by slip2break because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

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.


They are more rare, yes- but not exactly unique. Plenty of animals use glands to mark areas with scents. Skunks going a step further and using it for defense is just a different use of the same basic scent gland design. The same would apply to all the other examples.

Virus' are a bit trickier as last time I did research on this, the prominent thinking was that they evolved from RNA or even DNA that developed a way to survive outside the cell body. This probably happened very early on-- and probably should be considered to be another form of life entirely outside our basic thinking of cellular life, which all other things are part of.
edit on 3-6-2012 by slip2break because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2012 by slip2break because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

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)


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.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

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.


But the traits I speak of were not in the gene pool. Prey evolved stronger legs to run faster than predators. That's in the gene pool. Predators evolve even stronger legs to catch the prey. Then the prey evolved even stronger legs, and so on and so on... That's why I say that evolution was all about the improvement of legs, claws, teeth, size, speed...

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.
edit on 6/3/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

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.




Yeah, and why only the tigers? They hunt the same way as lions. Panthers are all black. Why do zebras need stripes while horses don't?

Lightning bugs confuse the hell out of me. When they light up in the dark, isn't that like waving to bats and birds for them to come get em?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

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.


You call the ability to generate electricity, IN the water, a random mutation? I know if I'm standing in water and touch electricity I'm going bye-bye. Yet, the random mutation randomly solved this problem? lol



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
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)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

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)


Yes, but how does evolution or natural selection (or whatever you want to call it) design this ability? The first creatures just before evolving into electric shockers had to have been attacked, and instead of developing fins to help it swim faster, or more muscle to turn it also into a predator, the DNA decides on electricity? I don't see how any environment would inspire DNA to do this.



It makes no sense. There is no logical connection.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Eels are not the only animal who can create an electric charge. There are also Electric rays and knifefish. With knifefish, it's interesting because their electric charge is not intense enough to kill other fish, but instead used for signaling their own kind and for navigation. This was probably the original advantage that the electric charge provided. So it's not as if the high intensity electric charge developed from day one. The original mutation which provided a charge of any kind, was less intense then even in knife fish. These types of rare traits develop in small steps over millions and millions of years (possibly billions in this case).



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

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)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Yes, but how does evolution or natural selection (or whatever you want to call it) design this ability?

Like I already said, things start from something far less, and then over millions of years natural selection "tunes" it more efficient.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

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)


Wow, I didn't realize you were being childishly antagonistic. Who said I wanted a 'serious' conversation? I just want conversation. If you had knowledge that others didn't have you could have had so much to offer. Now you're just pitiful. Go stand in the corner.

Don't you know that you can agree with an idea, or disagree. You can hate the idea. You can call the idea absurd, or just downright stupid. This is conversation. This is debate. But, when you insult the person you're just showing how extremely insecure you are, and that you are out to win a contest when there's no contest to win.
In short - GROW UP.

Hey, I didn't tell you to come out of the corner yet.
edit on 6/4/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

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.


Other bugs use webbing? Interesting. I've never heard of any.

As for the stink of vegetation, do you think this was planned on the DNA level? Isn't it odd how flowers produce nectar to attract bugs, while other plants use methods to repel them.

When we get right down to it, be it evolution or intelligent design, isn't everything on earth just amazing!?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join