Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution 101

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymousman
 


It seems you are interested in the HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENSIS. That will give you current ideas of how simple atoms under right circumstances for RNA > Protein > Organelles > Cell.

Link: Abiogenesis

But if you are looking for SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That's a whole different thing.




posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Anonymousman
 


It seems you are interested in the HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENSIS. That will give you current ideas of how simple atoms under right circumstances for RNA > Protein > Organelles > Cell.

Link: Abiogenesis

But if you are looking for SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That's a whole different thing.

Thanks luciddream. Do you have answers to any of my questions ?
edit on 22-3-2013 by Anonymousman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ah, dang it! You beat me to it lol. I was planning on making a thread just like this.

Great introductory thread on evolution, though. Some people on ATS have a serious lack of understanding about evolution and how it works. I have a feeling this thread is going to be overrun by anti-evolutionists :/



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I don't understand how mutation can cause a creature to become a new species. From what I understand a mutation is a defect, for instance an extra useless limb. The DNA if we use a type writer example is missing some keys when a mutation occurs It is still attempting to write the same info though. How would it create new info or DNA on which to produce a new species? The pig with an extra limb still has an extra pig limb and not a bat wing.

How also is that mutation passed on if the mutation does not occur in the reproductive organs/dna of the animal. The mutations we observe have not been useful to my knowledge unless artificially produced which lends to the idea that any evolution would have to be induced by a designer.

Mutations are random and don't seem to be of any benefit to me so the theory falls apart. What about the pleiotropic effect?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 

You have made very interesting points above.

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple phenotypic traits. Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. This can become a problem when selection on one trait favours one specific version of the gene (allele), while the selection on the other trait favors another allele. The underlying mechanism of pleiotropy in most cases is the effect of a gene on metabolic pathways which contribute toward different phenotypes.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeramie
It's funny how over the years mutations and adaptations have become the two main points for "proving" evolution.

And come on. If a Christian used a Christian equivalent of Bill Nye the Science Guy, they would get laughed out of the forum!


It is adaptation by mutation. But not all mutation is beneficial. Bill Nye is a well respected scientist. This show was geared towards kids, but he has many lectures that are in depth and show his proficiency on the subject. I highly recomend watching some and learning the processes they go through to read and understand the genome.

Bill nye doesnt have any equivelant in the christian camp.

The info is out there. They know how to effect pretty much any structure in any animal. And can tweek the genome of any animal to get many possible outcomes in form. The saying goes a fin is an arm is a wing. There is a really nice vid on the TED channel Which walks you through the process of changing the body structure of a chicken into something that would appear more like a small velocoraptor. They can tweak the genetic code to give it scales instead of feathers, teeth instead of beak, and a longer tail. My point is, it is well understood how and why these small changes occur.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I think you are mistaking the word mutation with something that is bad. It simply means change. If that change is more beneficial to its survival than those animals who have not made a beneficial change, you will see more of that trait by way of passing it on to their offspring.

The enviroment has a lot to do with how an organism changes. But animals change to adapt to the enviroment or they die off. Some enviroments are becoming more and more toxic. The organisms dna is altered by radiation or chemicals that it is not used too. These changes cause mutations that are often not beneficial to the animal. If that mutation allows that animal to survive in that inviroment then its offspring will likely become even better suited for it.
edit on 22-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-3-2013 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Tennessee77
 


If mutations are random how does the environment play a part? How is the mutation if it is established to be beneficial then transmitted to the offspring? Do the offspring create a new species if they mate with the old species being as they are the only member or do we get a sterile hybrid or revert back to the first species? excluding asexual reproduction of course.

You mention how scientist can alter the genes but while that would be a form of evolution it is not natural selection or natural at all and really is just engineering.
edit on 22-3-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Mutations are beneficial if they help the organism to survive and reproduce, the environment dictates what this might be. For example, something that lives in the mountains would benefit from something like larger legs to help it climb, something that swims to find food and/or get away from predators would benefit from something that makes it swim faster, like webbed feet. Beneficial mutations are more likely to become dominant because the ones with the mutation are better at surviving, for the opposite reason harmful mutations will die out.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Nice thread with lots of info.

Do you have any ideas on why we collapse the wave function and how that might fit into evolution?
edit on 3/22/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
I don't understand how mutation can cause a creature to become a new species. From what I understand a mutation is a defect, for instance an extra useless limb. The DNA if we use a type writer example is missing some keys when a mutation occurs It is still attempting to write the same info though. How would it create new info or DNA on which to produce a new species? The pig with an extra limb still has an extra pig limb and not a bat wing.

How also is that mutation passed on if the mutation does not occur in the reproductive organs/dna of the animal. The mutations we observe have not been useful to my knowledge unless artificially produced
The genetic variation we see in dogs occurred more or less naturally, but man helped it differentiate more rapidly through selective breeding of physical and even non-physical traits.

The vast majority of mutations are probably NOT beneficial and it's only those which are beneficial that cause greater success of the organism and spreading of that type of mutation. When some pig-like whale ancestors went into the water to catch food, the better swimmers were more successful, so they bred more than those that didn't swim and catch food as well. Over time, those small beneficial mutations added up. But your question is a good one, because most mutations are probably NOT beneficial.


Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Do you have any ideas on why we collapse the wave function and how that might fit into evolution?
The question seems irrelevant to the topic, unless you can explain its relevance.

Also see my thread on the topic of wave function collapse, since you seem to be my target audience:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
It is utter insanity to entertain evolution as the source for the creation of our lifeforms.

I for one have never seen a fully formed ipad when walking down the beach. After all the beach is filled with silicon sand, why wouldn't an ipad have evolved? Yet a mere insect is infinitely more complex and capable than an ipad.

So you want me to believe that you have discovered a mechanism, whereby an insanely complicated, self replicating, bio organism, with more compute power than all the worlds microprocessors, just appeared by random chance!

An organism that has complex software encoded in the form of dna? An organism that has billions of self-replicating nano-chemical plants in the form of cells?

Preposterous!

All I see with your transitional forms is wishful thinking, and boy have you guys been horribly wrong with this wishful thinking in the past. Ever hear of the fraud Piltdown man? How about that ancient extinct hybrid land walking fish the coelacanth ?
www.darwinismrefuted.com...

Woops! Could it be wishful thinking trumps logic here?

I have another explanation for the commonality of various animal and plant structures. It's quite common in the engineering world. It's called design reuse. You are probably familiar with it. Notice that all cars have wheels for example.

Now I actually believe in natural selection. It is God's way of putting a little closed loop adaptation into the system. Most good engineers use such techniques for robustness. However going from four feet to two wings or from inert organic material to a single celled organism and then to a multi-celled organism is ridiculous. That design complexity does not happen by accident, sorry.

It's just wishful thinking for those desperate to conclude that they are not accountable to a creator.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Hey Everyone! Thanks for the replies. I'm currently at my friend's home, but I'll reply to everyones comments soon. Sorry for being busy.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 

why wouldn't an ipad have evolved?
Why would it? This is nothing more than a strawman argument.


So you want me to believe that you have discovered a mechanism, whereby an insanely complicated, self replicating, bio organism, with more compute power than all the worlds microprocessors, just appeared by random chance!

What is your understanding of the phrase "random chance"?


Ever hear of the fraud Piltdown man?

You mean the fraud that was immediately met with skepticism by the scientific community and eventually exposed as a not-so-clever forgery by scientists? Science is self-correcting.


It's just wishful thinking for those desperate to conclude that they are not accountable to a creator.

This is a non sequitur -- not all proponents of evolution are atheists, not all atheists are proponents of evolution.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
No one has answered my question about the mutations being passed to offspring. What happens also when the new species , which is formed through a mutation ends up mating. Does it mate with the parent species and if so do you get a sterile hybrid or the parent species or the new species? Also where does the new information in the DNA come from to cause new traits to appear?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Sorry for the late reply! I have been busy helping my friend with his disabled father. Anyway I would imagine myself and others answered your question. Since I didn't read all the replies from others I post this snippet from my first post.

The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called "mutations." Mutations can be caused by chemical or radiation damage or errors in DNA replication. Mutations can even be deliberately induced in order to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism. If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population. In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones.


Reading this and looking at your question I can imagine the species mating with the same species; but the mutations can effect in ways that can be harmful like animals that are born as albinos. Which their skin will stand out and not be protective against the sun; as well their vision would be good. But if it did play a key role in survival then they would mate and produce more offspring with similar genes. So you can imagine seeing more animals that are albino that can survive. I do not know if they can be sterile. I would have to look that up. But I believe they'll mate with the same species and as future generations come into the world we would have to see if they can mate with one another. Like different breeds of cats or dogs being able mate with one another. Hopefully this answers your question.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Ok thanks for the reply. Still trying to get the info right here. One problem though is different dog breeds are still the same species. Now if cats and dogs could breed then I could see a new species but so far dogs even the vast differences in breeds are still the same species. Seems like mutts seem to show that no matter how much special breeding is applied, the characteristics of breed can be wiped out and you get back to more of a baseline breed. Trying to understand how a new species happens here even if at the genetic level changes are taking place once they mate with the parent species those mutations end up becoming corrected more or less.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Well, a good example would be archaeopteryx. Which is a genus of early bird that shows the transition of feathered dinosaurs to modern birds. This a great example of a species evolving into a different species. Pakicetus is another good example of transitional forms. The early ancestors of modern day whales.
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by SevenThunders
 

why wouldn't an ipad have evolved?
Why would it? This is nothing more than a strawman argument.

No, it points out the absurdity of the evolution argument, when viewed in totality. You actually believe that something infinitely more complex than an Ipad appeared by accident, yet any third grader would be able to tell you that an Ipad was manufactured. Complexity, form and function to an end are evident in the Ipad, yet we are to suspend our logic and believe that life and humans in particular all happened by sheer accident. What an amazing accident it truly was.



What is your understanding of the phrase "random chance"?

In this context, it means a mechanism that runs autonomously, without a designer, due to whatever forces or chaotic structure the universe may bring to bear.


Ever hear of the fraud Piltdown man?
You mean the fraud that was immediately met with skepticism by the scientific community and eventually exposed as a not-so-clever forgery by scientists? Science is self-correcting.

Seriously? It was not exposed as a fraud for over 40 years. It is still in many textbooks and was received quite enthusiastically by some evolutionists such as, Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. For those 40 years it was considered scientific fact. Again this is a bias brought on by wishful thinking, not true science.



It's just wishful thinking for those desperate to conclude that they are not accountable to a creator.
This is a non sequitur -- not all proponents of evolution are atheists, not all atheists are proponents of evolution.

True but it is my personal observation that those who most desperately want to believe in evolution, seem to be those who are some of the most anti-god atheists.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Well, a good example would be archaeopteryx. Which is a genus of early bird that shows the transition of feathered dinosaurs to modern birds. This a great example of a species evolving into a different species. Pakicetus is another good example of transitional forms. The early ancestors of modern day whales.
Archaeopteryx
Pakicetus


Oops! The archaeopteryx is only a bird, not a true transitional form.
creation.com...

Of course you should also mention the fabled archaeorapter transitional form, which was yet another hoax.
creation.com...

It is two fossils that have been glued together. It seems a lot of hoaxes arise in the overwhelming desire to prove transitional forms. Not that a transitional form proves anything, if they even exist. It rather is something like Apophenia, seeing patterns in random data. In this case the patterns are due to design reuse.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join