For Evolutionary Theorists, A Challenge from the Ocean Depths

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
This is very strange. Pelagic squid, which are distributed across the world's oceans, are big, relatively slow-moving creatures and quite common. They tend to hang out at depths between 300m and 1000m, in the region of submarine canyons and other seabed features that promote the upwelling of sediment-laden water on which plankton feed.

Pictures

Their worldwide distribution would suggest a scenario of isolated populations and genetic drift, leading, eventually, to speciation. This hasn't happened. Instead, all the world's giant squid are members of the same species, with negligible genetic differentiation between them.


The mitochondrial genome, a ring of more than 20,000 base pairs, differed in only 181 places over all 43 specimens. Source

As many members of this forum are aware, human beings are also unusually closely related. This is believed to be the result of a 'genetic bottleneck' some tens of thousands of years ago, when the human population fell to just a handful of individuals.

It may be that something similar happened to the squid, but it's hard to imagine what kind of cataclysm could have affected them alone, leaving other life in the world's oceans unaffected. One possible culprit, the rise of the whaling industry (sperm whales, which eat squid, were hunted almost to extinction by whalers), has been eliminated—if there was indeed a squid population bottleneck, it occurred too long ago for humans to have had anything to do with it.

This finding represents an interesting challenge for evolutionary biologists. It will not be easy to learn how and why this unusual genetic uniformity among giant squid originated.

edit on 29/3/13 by Astyanax because: of punctuation errors.




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



As many members of this forum are aware, human beings are also unusually closely related.

Let me ask, is it just squid, humans and a few other species which have a small genetic difference among the population? If all species are like this I would assume it's because those individuals with DNA which is too far from the norm simply cannot breed with anyone in the general population.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Why bother with the ocean depths. No one has come up with anything convincing on land yet!



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
edit on 29-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Interesting read. I wonder if the squids leaving their nautilus shells were the ones to father today's species.

en.wikipedia.org...

The ocean depths are incredibly vast and full of biological surprises.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Simple Evolution only takes you to the top once there and no prey nothing changes much. Look at all the genetic problems with humans that would have been weeded out if we didnt get to the top off the food chain. Ie poor sight, ms. retardation, and such.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
The evolution theory has so many challenges now, it's a complete joke that it's still presented as the default perspective. The theory will fall, sooner than most people think. *puts flameshield on*
In any case, it's still an interesting creature.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Usually species that are TOO good at surviving reach a population where bacteria and viruses can mutate rapidly enough to become fatal to a large portion of the genetic variations in the species. Seeing as how amazingly complex and intelligent cephalopods are I would guess that they reached such a point.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



The evolution theory has so many challenges now, it's a complete joke that it's still presented as the default perspective.

Challenges are not flaws. What would be a complete joke is if creationism was taught as the default perspective.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Interesting thread OP. AS one person said disease could attribute to such a bottleneck.

I have been fascinated by squid they are one the more intelligent creatures in this world and have been tested to have an excellent memory.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by vasaga
 



The evolution theory has so many challenges now, it's a complete joke that it's still presented as the default perspective.

Challenges are not flaws. What would be a complete joke is if creationism was taught as the default perspective.
It's always funny how when someone challenges evolution, the only other possibility people see is creationism. Shows how attached people are to the current system..



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
I have often thought that on other planets squid like creatures could evolve to the dominate species. Opposable thumbs set us apart along with intellect but they have some amazing traits themselves.

Just think if evolution had taken a different turn here what the world could be like. Unfortunate how we act more like a parasite than any other animal.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by vasaga
 



The evolution theory has so many challenges now, it's a complete joke that it's still presented as the default perspective.

Challenges are not flaws. What would be a complete joke is if creationism was taught as the default perspective.
It's always funny how when someone challenges evolution, the only other possibility people see is creationism. Shows how attached people are to the current system..

What else is there besides creationism and evolution? Do you have a better alternative in mind?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I have been fascinated by squid they are one the more intelligent creatures in this world and have been tested to have an excellent memory.

They're pretty smart—for invertebrates. But it's worth pointing out that the squid that have been observed and experimented upon are not members of the giant species.

There are a few hundred different known species of squid, most of which live at fairly shallow depths and tend to be about two feet long. Giant squid are different: they inhabit the lightless depths of the ocean and had never been seen, until recently, in their natural habitat. The first link in my opening post connects to a page showing the first photographs ever taken of a living giant squid in the wild. Here's one of the photos:


Not pretty, I admit. There is a close-up, too, at the link.

These are mysterious creatures. They are mostly known to us from stranded or floating dead specimens, and from remains found inside the stomachs of sperm whales. We don't even know how big they grow; a common estimate is 'up to' 43 feet, though the largest ever measured was ten feet shorter than this. The larger size was estimated from sucker-scars found on sperm whales' heads, but the scars may well have grown along with the whales. Wikipedia has some story about sucker marks on a rubber fender, which you may or may not choose to believe.

In any case, living as they do in the zero-gravity environment of the deep ocean, with no bony skeletons to constrain them, they could theoretically grow to just about any size you like.

edit on 30/3/13 by Astyanax because: of an unqualified integer.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I am not sure but isn’t their closest relative the octopus? They all fascinate me. Reading this makes me want to go back to panama and finish my dive masters.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Reading this makes me want to go back to panama and finish my dive masters.

You should.

One of my greatest regrets is that I never put on a scuba apparatus until I was in my forties.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I'm sure only unthinking idiots believe in evolution, those who are told that it is true and accept it blindly. For those who have studied the subject, like myself, it is possibly the biggest bare faced deception currently in circulation. To add further insult, it is treated as science by mainstream media.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
What else is there besides creationism and evolution? Do you have a better alternative in mind?
Well, before I say anything, if something is obviously falling to the ground, do we really need to have an alternative before acknowledging that it's no longer supporting us? We should be capable of dismissing something on its own grounds when it fails, not just when some alternative arises. If you're hungry and all there is is poo, you're not gonna eat it just because there's no better food around, right? You leave the poo behind and search for something edible.

Before I go on to the alternatives, when people say creationism, they automatically assume the religious version of creationism, with an bearded man in the sky sending commands and stuff. So in that sense, creationism is definitely not the way to go, but, there are other alternatives, that some would immediately accuse as being the same as creationism while they are not. Intelligent design is the main one, but, I'm not going to talk about that here, since I know how that goes. On to the alternatives.

There is the idea that the universe itself contains intelligence in some shape or form and/or is alive in and of itself, and we are part of it. As a proper example, say your body is the universe. The anaerobic bacteria in your gut are us. The bacteria would not be aware of our bodies being alive, just like we would be clueless if the universe is alive. And the universe appears hostile to us, just like oxygen appears hostile to the bacteria. This perspective comes from the idea of fractals. Essentially, we are fractals of the universe. Acknowledging this would give us a better understanding regarding our connection to nature.

Another alternative is the idea of the biocentric universe. It's the idea that life creates the universe, rather than the other way around. I know you're wtf-ing right now... Rather than trying to explain it to you, I'll just give you a few links below. Essentially, it arrives from the combination of multiple concepts and fundamental problems in modern science, including the idea that the universe is a hologram.

www.biocentricity.net...
Robert Lanza - What are space and time?


What both alternatives do, is add consciousness in the mix. That's the only way forward. Nowadays people love to dismiss it as some deterministic chemical process, but it's not working out. The evolution theory probably would become complete, if consciousness was added to it, and maybe the two alternatives above will no longer be needed. I obviously don't know which one is right or isn't right, but, that's why we should have the right to question. If we stay in the evolution vs creationism paradigm, we'll keep going in circles forever.
edit on 30-3-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Evolution is the only theory supported by the evidence.

It would be nice if you did more than assert that evolution is false and it would be nice if you went and talked to experts so you cant weasel your way out of a discussion.

Predicting baseless assertions that evolution is false in 3.....2....1....



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Really? And what about all the evidence, like the one in this particular thread and multiple others, that contradicts it? Oh right, we dismiss those, because evolution must be true!
edit on 30-3-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join