Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

For Evolutionary Theorists, A Challenge from the Ocean Depths

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


So take this non-existent magic information that disproves evolutionary theory and go have some discussions with real evolutionary biologists. You do realize you would be famous overnight for providing the nail in evolutions coffin. right?

Although it sure is nice to come talk to people on ATS, and based upon their lack of desire, or inability, to bring rationality into an irrational mind as proof your pet theories are valid.

edit on 30-3-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


If materialism fails, the current model of evolution also fails. It's that simple, and, there are more than enough indications of materialism losing ground.

Always funny, how evolutionists get just as hostile when challenging the theory, as when someone challenges a christian's belief in Jesus.. Ironically, they are both blinded that they share the same attitude...

Once again I feel ashamed to be human.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


All I asked you to do was take your magic non-existent information that you think disproves evolutionary theory and discuss it with a real evolutionary biologist.

You are making baseless assertions and then refuse to challenge them. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over you make baseless assertions.

Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread you make baseless assertions.

Lucky for you this is ATS where half the staff agrees with you and the website profits from misinformation and delusion.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
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)


The only evidence in this thread is that we dont know. There is nothing that contradicts evolution except in the mind of someone deluded into thinking they already know the answer. I read the article and I believe it said a bottleneck would had to have occurred between 30k and 700k years ago. During the last glaciation the sea level dropped about 400 feet. In the last 420k years there have been 4 such glaciations all with probably relatively equal sea level drops. These would most likely reduce the habitat of the squid and lead to some bottlenecking. Or maybe it didnt. Either way, not knowing how or why is just that, not knowing. it's not evidence for anything else. Besides one species which has the ability to travel around the world and mate with others of its kind doesnt negate evidence of species which have been isolated and then evolved like the numerous species that inhabit the Galapagos. To sit there and spout off about this being evidence against evolution just shows how ignorant you are, and in keeping with the theme of this place I have just denied you.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
i see no challange at all to evolution, this is the way this squid is, at this particular time, in the evolutionary time frame.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by vasaga
 


All I asked you to do was take your magic non-existent information that you think disproves evolutionary theory and discuss it with a real evolutionary biologist.
Yeah, let's give someone else impossible criteria that I could never even do myself, so that I can win the argument!


Originally posted by Wertdagf
You are making baseless assertions and then refuse to challenge them. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over you make baseless assertions.
So? All you people do is make the baseless assertion that there's evidence all over the place,over and over and over and over, and yet you never post it. And what insightful information have you actually provided? You didn't give any reasonable argument regarding anything I posted. All you said is "THERE IS EVIDENCE!!!". Pot kettle much.


Originally posted by Wertdagf
Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread you make baseless assertions.
Yeah because the crusading evolutionists like you don't do the same thing at all....


Originally posted by Wertdagf
Lucky for you this is ATS where half the staff agrees with you and the website profits from misinformation and delusion.
Lol.. Rarely anyone ever agrees with me. You people are like a flock of goats that go around telling everyone how great and awesome evolution is. The misinformation and delusion is on you.


I'll leave a few links for you people. Then I'll be ignoring you. I don't discuss with hypocrites.

www.sciencedaily.com...
h t t p : / / web.archive.org/web/20060309162645/ h t t p : / / w w w . the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1/ (remove the spaces)

I have more, but it's not my job to do your homework for you. If you're open-minded, you'll look further for yourself. If you're not, you'll just deny everything anyway, like you people always do. Have fun.
edit on 30-3-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by winnar
 

Thank you, most sincerely, for trying to bring the thread back on topic. The people arguing evolution vs. whatever-it-is in general terms are the usual suspects, the same self-righteous folk who pile on to every thread in this forum and rehash the same, dull, tired, inconclusive arguments. Any hope of an intelligent discussion based on the thread topic is shattered as soon as they arrive.

I am interested in reading possible explanations for the phenomenon discussed in this thread. An explanation worth considering would be one that fits with what we already know about giant squid, about the ecology of the pelagic depths, about the geological history of Earth and many subjects besides.

One of those subjects is most certainly evolutionary theory. Any scientifically literate explanation of the lack of genetic variation among giant squid must surely be in line with evolutionary theory—or else it must upend that theory altogether. I suppose there are some who think the latter is possible. If there are, let them put forward their explanation of how, taking all the relevant factors into account, squid come to be so closely related. I should be interested to read such an explanation.

What I do not wish to read—what I am sick and tired of reading—are same stinking splatters of verbal diarrhoea excreted on this thread by the usual incontinent idiots.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by vasaga
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)


The only evidence in this thread is that we dont know. There is nothing that contradicts evolution except in the mind of someone deluded into thinking they already know the answer.
Ok. So.. This is not a challenge to..

- Inbreeding causing major birth defects and degeneration in a species (Lack of genetic variety means they're basically all inbreeding constantly. Why are they still here then, and how does that go hand in hand with a population boom?)
- Random mutations driving evolution forward through natural selection (Why so little variation in the genes if they evolved for thousands/millions/gazillions of years?)
- Environmental factors driving evolution (why so little variation in so many different environments?)

I must be deluded for asking those questions. I wouldn't be surprised to get an answer now, telling me how 'that's not what evolution is'. But yeah, when the word evolution suffers from equivocation, what else can we expect?


Originally posted by winnar
I read the article and I believe it said a bottleneck would had to have occurred between 30k and 700k years ago. During the last glaciation the sea level dropped about 400 feet. In the last 420k years there have been 4 such glaciations all with probably relatively equal sea level drops. These would most likely reduce the habitat of the squid and lead to some bottlenecking. Or maybe it didnt. Either way, not knowing how or why is just that, not knowing. it's not evidence for anything else. Besides one species which has the ability to travel around the world and mate with others of its kind doesnt negate evidence of species which have been isolated and then evolved like the numerous species that inhabit the Galapagos. To sit there and spout off about this being evidence against evolution just shows how ignorant you are, and in keeping with the theme of this place I have just denied you.
That's the whole point. One can come up with any BS explanation with so-called natural selection, and ignore criteria that scientists demand are critical when looking at other species. Only the 'rules' that will support the evolutionary theory are looked at. The ones that contradict it are completely ignored, because they don't fit the current paradigm. They start throwing time periods around like crazy, while they can't even figure out what's happening in the here and now. When there's so much emphasis on time, a red flag definitely goes up. What happened to fossil evidence? Oh, we suddenly don't need those, do we? It's not science anymore. It's a complete joke. And that so many people blindly follow the theory is very sad. But whatever.

Here's another example of another enigma. Identical species found at north and south poles, but only on the poles, and they have no idea how that's the case. Note how they start throwing time periods around in here too.. They start throwing out a bunch of reasons as to why, but they must all be within the evolutionary paradigm. No one dares come up with an explanation that falls outside of that, even if it would be more simple or straightforward.

Same Species, Polar Opposites: The Mystery of Identical Creatures Found in both Arctic and Antarctic Waters

Am I still off-topic?
edit on 31-3-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Well . . . after reading this thread and all of the links posted to this point, I'm a little disappointed that there was nothing of substance offered. Although, that is fairly common for this forum and those that challenge the fact of evolution. However, the article in the OP is interesting in it's own right, as giant/colossal squid are such a new field of intense study.

First, the OP offers no challenge to existing Evolutionary Theory, as others have stated. The fact that the authors have found that all specimens tested confirm one species, despite worldwide distribution means nothing really. In the same way that humans are the same species and also have world wide distribution, doesn't throw Evolutionary Theory into question. Morphology is a red herring in this case, although pointed out by the researchers, also in the same way it doesn't point to speciation among humans. Darwins observations on speciation took place over 150yrs ago and we have advanced past that, thanks to genetic verification of species, so they don't come into play. DNA analysis confirms a single species . . . nothing odd about that. The evidence about mutation rate in the DNA evidence is intriguing and should be studied further. The researchers hypothesize a answer to this evidence, i.e. bottleneck, however there are other possiblities. The thing to remember here is we have only been able to really study this species of squid over the last decade, or so, as we have only now begun to identify their habitat and study accordingly. It's quite possible that "years of folklore" were based on a now extinct relative and today's giant squid are relatively new, as a species. Contridictions to previous hypotheses don't bring down an entire field of study . . . only modify based on new evidence.

As for the other links provided . . . all I see is selective association and confirmation bias to support a preconceived opinion that Evolutionary Theory is "a farce". And again, opinion pieces and "contridictions" to current hypotheses don't challenge the fact of evolution, which has 165yrs of evidence to support it. Furthermore, the claims that those have made to their "studies" of evolution are not backed whatsoever by anything except argumentum ad ignorantiam and ad hominem opinions. The one's making the claim have the onus probandi, as they are asserting to Evolutionary Theory being "a farce". There are mountains of evidence that support Evolutionary Theory from a wide range of disciplines and it is up to those who disagree with that evidence to show why that evidence is not supportive. To claim their postion is right and it is up to supporters of Evolutionary Theory to "provide editional evidence" because of findings that contridict curreny beliefs is childish and shows a great ignorance of science, in general, and how it advances.

The link about the enzymes starts with a opinion for a premise to begin with. That evolutionary processes always tend towards economy cannot be found anywhere other than the first line of this article. I'm not sure if that was implied by the researchers to give "sexiness" to their findings or by the author of the article. A simple google search of this "principle" would have shown this, so to give this as evidence of the "unraveling of Evolutionary Theory" is intellectually dishonest. I'm assuming this notion comes from the work of Dawkins, who once stated "genetic replication makes use of energy and substrates that are supplied by the metabolic economy in much greater quantities than would be possible without a genetic division of labour". However, this does not support the article's assumptions. Also, no other mention can be found of this "principle" that isn't in reference to this article and come from a ID/Creationist website. While interesting and worthy of further research this is, again, simply new findings that must be studied further to figure out exactly what the researchers claim "what is the evolutionary advantage of more complex RNA" . . . if there even is an advantage. More confirmation bias and childish clinging by the ID/Creationist crowd.

The second link is pure opinion and not uncommon amongst scientists with competing claims. They are human and have egos, like the rest of us. It's also more of a criticism on modern biology and it experimental (or lack there of) nature than saying "evolution does not happen", as stated here:

None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

To take this article as the latter is a misinterpretation of the opinion piece and, again, confirmation bias of one's "disbelief" in Evolutionary Theory.

I get a chuckle at the "open mind" and "thinking" comments . . . very ironic



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


More to the point of the OP and what caused the bottleneck . . .

Climate change, as others have pointed out, which would include avg temps of deeper water. Virus, as others have pointed out. Food sources or lack of predation . . . Maybe, a more recent mutation that allows them to survive in a more varied environment. Relatively new species, on the geologic timescale, as I pointed to above.

But, as others have said . . . we just don't know yet. Now that we can at least find them more readily in the wild and can study to a larger degree . . . maybe an answer will be found. If not . . . it would be interesting to see if any subsequent genetic drift can be detected in years to come.

I also disagree that if an immediate answer to the lack of genetic variation is not found is "upends" modern Evolutionary Theory. It's not as absolute as you state. There is too much evidence to support to have one anamoly (if it even is) "upend" a whole field of study. Quantum Mechanics and modern Atomic Theory doesn't discount the order of Newton or Einstein . . . modifications to modern DNA transcription theory wouldn't discount the entire umbrella of Evolutionary Theory.
edit on 3/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
To claim their postion is right and it is up to supporters of Evolutionary Theory to "provide editional evidence" because of findings that contridict curreny beliefs is childish and shows a great ignorance of science, in general, and how it advances.


I know more than enough about science and its methods. I simply don't idealize it as this perfect infallible system like most of you people. You yourself do admit that people have egos, including scientists. The scientific method is still executed by those same kind of people, and is highly susceptible to fraud, and even dogmas, and evolution is one of those dogmas. You'll probably call him a crackpot or a pseudoscientist, but Bruce Lipton explains a lot of the limits of the mainstream understanding that evolution portrays.

As for the 'ignorant' part, one does not need to know the details of how the engine of a car works, to understand that it doesn't go forward without gasoline. At the very least, evolution is incomplete, not only in the sense of lacking explanation for certain things, but also lacking the ability to ever explain certain things that it should be able to explain. That you don't see the implications this squid has on key parts of the theory is not my fault.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


So . . . present your evidence then.

Implications? They don't know. They have hypothesized, but they don't know. When they find out, if the evidence goes against Evolutionary Theory, we can talk. Even then, one finding doesn't discount the mountain of other findings in support of the fact of evolution. Until then "implications" don't make for support to an alternative.

As always, ID/Creation proponents rely on "flaws" or "contridictions" to claim backing for their beliefs/hypotheses, even though gaps are not "flaws" or "contridictions". So, where is the evidence to show intelligence, whether by supernatural or extra-worldly catalyst?

All evidence is up for peer review . . . where is the research showing why the findings are wrong? Don't show me what we don't know yet . . . show me why findings are wrong . . . show me research to prove your postition

Science builds models on best available evidence and modifies as new evidence comes to light. If you are so well versed in science and its methods, this should be second nature to you. You wouldn't be so quick to blindly follow hypotheses that can't provide objective evidence? Where is your evidence? Or, are you going to stick to red herrings and logically fallacious analogies? Asking for the "why" to be explained before verified predictions can be accepted is not enough to deem facts hollow. Things happen. This can be tested and verified. The "why" is inconsequential to the fact of the mechanism and doesn't discount the fact that it happens. The "why" is philosophy; the "how" is science.

As far as Lipton, he is not a psuedo-scientist, but he is assuming casuality that cannot be quantitatively verified. He has conflated different fields of science in order to back up his new agey beliefs. He makes the assumption that there is a "spiritual" connection to epigenetics, yet can't produce a repeatable/testable experiment to back up his assumptions, which again, are based on "spiritual" beliefs. When he can and isn't just throwing out feel good hypotheses . . . he will be taken seriously. Until then, he is just like the scientists at the Discovery Institute . . . feel good "god of the gaps" explanations for items that should be labled "we don't know yet". Science is about evidence that can be quantified objectively.

So again, do you have any? Saying we don't know is not the same as saying 165yrs of actual evidence is all wrong. Dogma comes into play when you assume based on belief . . . not when you model based on available evidence. The ID argument relies on comingling philosophy with objectivity . . . without out any evidence to back the philosopjy.
edit on 3/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 

Thank you for your contribution, SP. Giant squid are really unusually close relatives. Did you read the OP article? Only one difference per 400 base pairs among the mitochondrial genomes of the individuals studied, if I recall correctly. I'm not an expert, but that sounds like a very small number.

Some of the explanations you advance for the hypothesised bottleneck sound very likely. I wonder what kind of knowledge, if any, would allow us to decide amongst these explanations. Could a search for viral relics in the squid genome help eliminate a suspect? Maybe one of our resident biology experts could help us with this?


I also disagree that if an immediate answer to the lack of genetic variation is not found it "upends" modern Evolutionary Theory. It's not as absolute as you state.

Perhaps you need to read the post you're quoting from a little more carefully. I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying in it. As for the other poster you are arguing with, I suggest ignoring him. He has, in my experience, nothing of substance to bring to a discussion of this kind.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by vasaga
 


So . . . present your evidence then.
You people are always so eager for evidence when something contradicts your view, and in my experience, even when presented, it will be ignored anyway. But you never ask for evidence for things that support your view already.


Originally posted by solomons path
As always, ID/Creation proponents rely on "flaws" or "contridictions" to claim backing for their beliefs/hypotheses, even though gaps are not "flaws" or "contridictions". So, where is the evidence to show intelligence, whether by supernatural or extra-worldly catalyst?
Typical, putting me in the creationist/ID crowd. It's the typical black vs white paradigm. I guess you completely missed the post where I want to step out of that. You're just another one that's addicted to the current 'us vs them' system. I am not part of any crowd.


Originally posted by solomons path
All evidence is up for peer review . . . where is the research showing why the findings are wrong? Don't show me what we don't know yet . . . show me why findings are wrong . . . show me research to prove your postition
If I tell you to read the book Forbidden Archaelogy, all I'm gonna get is dismissal of the evidence, or it's be put in the 'creationist' argument to be dismissed.


Originally posted by solomons path
Science builds models on best available evidence and modifies as new evidence comes to light.
That's how it SHOULD work, but that's not reality. Remember the time when plate tectonics was considered pseudoscience? And germ theory, and endosymbiosis, and quite a few others. And you're forgetting that evidence needs to be interpreted, and the same evidence can give different interpretations. But whatever..


Originally posted by solomons path
If you are so well versed in science and its methods, this should be second nature to you. You wouldn't be so quick to blindly follow hypotheses that can't provide objective evidence? Where is your evidence? Or, are you going to stick to red herrings and logically fallacious analogies? Asking for the "why" to be explained before verified predictions can be accepted is not enough to deem facts hollow. Things happen. This can be tested and verified. The "why" is inconsequential to the fact of the mechanism and doesn't discount the fact that it happens. The "why" is philosophy; the "how" is science.
Every time one interprets evidence, one is using philosophy. Science is highly dependent on philosophy. I guess you just expressed why science has its limits and can not account for everything. Just because you know how something works doesn't mean you know the why.


Originally posted by solomons path
As far as Lipton, he is not a psuedo-scientist, but he is assuming casuality that cannot be quantitatively verified. He has conflated different fields of science in order to back up his new agey beliefs. He makes the assumption that there is a "spiritual" connection to epigenetics, yet can't produce a repeatable/testable experiment to back up his assumptions, which again, are based on "spiritual" beliefs. When he can and isn't just throwing out feel good hypotheses . . . he will be taken seriously. Until then, he is just like the scientists at the Discovery Institute . . . feel good "god of the gaps" explanations for items that should be labled "we don't know yet". Science is about evidence that can be quantified objectively.
The 'we don't know yet' translates to 'we have no idea how to fit these things in the materialistic deterministic paradigm'.


Originally posted by solomons path
So again, do you have any? Saying we don't know is not the same as saying 165yrs of actual evidence is all wrong. Dogma comes into play when you assume based on belief . . . not when you model based on available evidence. The ID argument relies on comingling philosophy with objectivity . . . without out any evidence to back the philosopjy.
I'll throw you a curve ball. What happened to the one making the positive claim needing to prove it? You're the one with the positive claim, I have the negative claim, and we know one can not prove a negative. You're constantly assuming that the evolution theory is modeled based on years of evidence. That's a very blunt assumption. Do you have any evidence that that is the case, other than endless repetition? Present me with that evidence then, since that's the whole basis of your argument.


I'm out of here. I've derailed this thread enough, and obviously people are still gladly spoonfed information without thinking for themselves.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Sorry Astyanax . . . I did misunderstand what you meant by stating this:

Any scientifically literate explanation of the lack of genetic variation among giant squid must surely be in line with evolutionary theory—or else it must upend that theory altogether. I suppose there are some who think the latter is possible.


It is definitely an intriguing find and I'd be interested know what is shown when they sequence the whole genome.

I'm certainly no expert in genetic drift or cephlopods, but I wonder why this anamoly must be limited to cataclysmic or predatory events that led to a bottleneck. I would be more inclined to think it was a very recent population explosion and migration, since there is so little variation. Is it possible, as I stated above, that in the past there were other species of giant squid that have since died out? Were these other species responsible for the past tales of these creatures? Is it possible that these past creatures gave rise to this newer species, but also kept them from multiplying and migrating throughout the oceans through predation or territorial isolation? Since this possiblity wasn't mentioned by the researchers, I wonder if it has no basis or if they just haven't thought that the current species could be relatively new?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





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.


I think it has a lot to do with the animals life cycle, the evidence suggests the adults remain in relatively restricted geographic regions, but the young live on the ocean's surfaces drifting in the currents being distributed globally thus removing isolation from the equation.
We still lack a huge amount of knowledge about these creatures. What is the adult range? Have they been threatened by climate change? Whats the populations of their natural enemies? How old do they get?
Does any of this discount evolution?... Not even close.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I know in the pacific of the coasts of the Americas overfishing of sharks specifically hammerhead sharks has had a huge impact on their population in recent history. Hammerheads were there natural predators but since they are rare to the areas now the squid population has exploded. They are now taking a huge toll on the other fish populations. It is a major concern to those who once depended on fishing. Ceviche has dropped in price though.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You said the following:

"Their worldwide distribution would suggest a scenario of isolated populations and genetic drift, leading, eventually, to speciation."

Do you have any experts who share your view here? Am I supposed to take the basic premise of your whole op on faith?

Then you wrote "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, ..."

Again, any sources or are you just making stuff up now?

"This finding represents an interesting challenge for evolutionary biologists."

Maybe for you it does.

I am not saying that we know everything already, but we shouldn´t make up theories based on guesswork. We should take facts as a basis.

I surely am no authority on marine biology, and maybe you were stating well known facts in that world. But it didn´t sound like it.

So I am sure you can share your sources, right?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


You said the following:

"Their worldwide distribution would suggest a scenario of isolated populations and genetic drift, leading, eventually, to speciation."

Do you have any experts who share your view here? Am I supposed to take the basic premise of your whole op on faith?

You want a source for the idea of widely-distributed and/or isolated populations speciating? Try Charles Darwin. You'll find his classic work on speciation among isolated populations of Galapagos finches in The Origin of Species. Here's a snippet from that book:


Although I do not doubt that isolation is of considerable importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is of more importance, more especially in the production of new species, which will prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely...

Genetic drift is now understood, as it wasn't in Darwin's day, as a cause of increasing differentiation leading to speciation. You'll find the subject discussed in any basic primer on evolution, such as this one: Causes of Speciation.

*



Then you wrote "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..."

Again, any sources or are you just making stuff up now?

This is practically common knowledge, but try for example, this link:


The DNA sequence of any two people is 99.5 percent identical.

and this one:


Global genetic analyses have argued for one single origin, placed somewhere in Africa. This scenario implies a rapid expansion, with a series of bottlenecks of small amplitude, which would have led to the observed smooth loss of genetic diversity with increasing distance from Africa.

The idea of a single recent bottleneck, caused by the explosion of Mt. Toba in Indonesia around 70,000 years ago, has also been advanced by some experts. As I said earlier, this is only a hypothetical explanation for our genetic similarity. Research is still ongoing. Still, the idea of a recent bottleneck has quite a wide public distribution due to articles such as, for example, this one: Bottlenecks Made Humans Less Diverse

*



"This finding represents an interesting challenge for evolutionary biologists."

Maybe for you it does.

I am not saying that we know everything already, but we shouldn´t make up theories based on guesswork. We should take facts as a basis.

I surely am no authority on marine biology, and maybe you were stating well known facts in that world. But it didn´t sound like it.

So I am sure you can share your sources, right?

Shared. And now let me say that, while you have every right to ask for sources, you could have done it a great deal more politely, without suggesting that I am a liar 'making things up'. Nobody is 'making up theories based on guesswork'.

The subject under discussion here is not marine biology but evolutionary biology. By your own admission you are no authority on the first. The questions you ask show that you are no authority on the second. Shouldn't you, then, adopt a more polite attitude when seeking information on these subjects? In your shoes, I certainly would.

edit on 1/4/13 by Astyanax because: it isn't worth a quarrel.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have to apologize, I didn´t even bother to read your source completely.

I get what you are saying now, and it is a neat little mystery. Although I think there are quite a few explanations that leave the already proven evolutionary theory in tact.

Surely a worldwide disaster affecting all the squids is rather unlikely in the time frame they specify.

But they do offer another theory in that same article, don´t they?

Plus our knowledge of the deep sea is relatively limited. I would suspect that more stable environment conditions encourage less genetic change in general. We find antler fish down there who haven´t really changed in quite a while.

Anyway, interesting little story, but not more.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join