- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Evolution: Missing link found. Fish => Tetrapod
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:23 pm to TigerRad
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:23 pm to TigerRad
quote:
Rare? To the contrary - evolution was, and is, inevitable.
Natural selection/adaptation is inevitable. The strongest or most suited to survival tend to pass the traits that make them so to subsequent generations.
However, it is still unavoidable that the information to make these changes in subsequent generations was contained in the parent organism. Some (and let's face it - it's either an engineered switch or an outright flaw - you can't have it both ways) "change" occurs. To generate a new species, would require millions of adaptations over millions of years. So, we're really talking about a large series of radical mutations (for example, to go from a water breathing fish to a flying bird).
Nearly 100% of observed mutations are:
1: Fatal
2: Preclude reproduction
3: Preclude passing the trait to subsequent generations
4: Do not offer an "evolutionary" advantage
or some combination. I'm not arguing that errors in replication are rare, or even that mutations are rare, but the BILLIONS of mutations required to take a simple, proto-organism and result in human beings, lions, whales, mosquitoes, etc., etc., resulting in the creation of all those species is EXTREMELY unlikely (ETA: Without an assumption of intelligent design - either the system or the original proto-organism - or both).
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:26 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
but the BILLIONS of mutations required to take a simple, proto-organism and result in human beings, lions, whales, mosquitoes, etc., etc., resulting in the creation of all those species is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Unlikely to you perhaps
And perhaps it is unlikely and why presumably most planets don't have any advanced civilizations
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:26 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Nearly 100% of observed mutations are:
1: Fatal
2: Preclude reproduction
3: Preclude passing the trait to subsequent generations
4: Do not offer an "evolutionary" advantage
or some combination. I'm not arguing that errors in replication are rare, or even that mutations are rare, but the BILLIONS of mutations required to take a simple, proto-organism and result in human beings, lions, whales, mosquitoes, etc., etc., resulting in the creation of all those species is EXTREMELY unlikely (ETA: Without an assumption of intelligent design - either the system or the original proto-organism - or both).
Sorry, but science disagrees with you.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:27 pm to Powerman
quote:
Unlikely to you perhaps
Where did the genetic information contained in the original proto-organism on Earth come from?
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:30 pm to Powerman
quote:"Most planets"?
And perhaps it is unlikely and why presumably most planets don't have any advanced civilizations
What other planets do you know of that do?
And how can you say "most" when we are only aware of the smallest fraction of planets in existence?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:31 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Sorry, but science disagrees with you.
In what way? They assume these mutations occurred (or that millions upon millions of adaptive changes, simulating mutative change) to answer questions in the fossil records, because they have a preconceived notion of what happened.
I don't. I don't know how or why it happend. I'm still stuck at the beginning and I would just like the answer to that - where did the original batch of genetic information - in otherwords the vital information to pass on to the subsequent generation (remember - organism one popped in out of thin air - no mother, no father, no nothing) - so how did it make Organism 2? And what information did it pass on?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:41 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Nearly 100% of observed mutations are:
1: Fatal
2: Preclude reproduction
3: Preclude passing the trait to subsequent generations
you are basing this on observation of known, extant species
these are not safe assumptions about long extinct organisms
plus, the mutation rate was likely MUCH higher in the very old times before the repair mechanisms came along
quote:
4: Do not offer an "evolutionary" advantage
you cant possibly know this without precise knowledge of every detail of every environment which might effect reproductive success. In other words, never.
quote:
the information to make these changes in subsequent generations
you keep referring to this and I dont know what you mean. There was not a plan or predetermined assessment of future needs. Evolution is spontaneous. What "information" are you referring to?
The "information" needed to produce a wing is contained in the genetic material of the bird. The DNA molecules reproduce themselves, with a consistent rate of variation. Like building blocks that arrange themselves in different ways. If one of those ways produces a wing (or wing-like early version), and it confers some reproductive advantage, then voila. The information didnt COME from anywhere.
Knowing all of these things, and given the scope of time, the complexity of life on Earth is really not a big stretch.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:47 pm to TigerRad
quote:
The information didnt COME from anywhere.
That really does take a leap of faith, doesn't it?
Of course it came from some where - it had to be contained, at the molecular level - in other words the instructions to make the wing bigger, or longer or more "feathery" - HAD to come from somewhere (the parents - either a recessive on one, or the result of some combination) and that means it must have been present, in some form, at the very beginning. This is particularly true if the change itself is going to (ultimately) result in a new species, because this new trait is going to have to get passed down to subsequent generations.
And that is the question I keep asking. The genetic code is exactly that a code - or more precisely a language - at the very least a blueprint/recipe for subsequent cellular production. I do not deny that external forces can cause traits to arise and others to be suppressed - but the genes for those traits are existing in the parent organism - or it is a flaw in the replication that rearranges the information in a new way, generating a new instruction (akin to a mutation).
In our limited scope, we have not witnessed the large changes argued by scientists. However, if you want me to take the leap of faith that all these changes occur - can you not even postulate from whence the information needed to make such changes originated?
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:50 pm to goldennugget
quote:
How the hell do fish "evolve" and "mutate" to where they can go from only breathing underwater to being able to breathe oxygen on land?
It makes no sense.
like Amphibians that can do both?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 3:51 pm to TigerRad
quote: If one of those ways produces a wing (or wing-like early version), and it confers some reproductive advantage
Advantage of a proto-wing? Please elaborate.
What advantage is gained from a foot becoming a proto-wing? I don't think it would increase running speed.
Advantage of a proto-wing? Please elaborate.
What advantage is gained from a foot becoming a proto-wing? I don't think it would increase running speed.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:01 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
In our limited scope, we have not witnessed the large changes argued by scientists.
Well of course not. What are you, 30ish, 40ish? You can't possibly view evolutionary changes that occurred over the course of millions of years over the course of a single person's lifetime.
quote:
can you not even postulate from whence the information needed to make such changes originated?
But there are theories out there. I'm not even sure what angle you're arguing from to be honest. Are you trying to assert a religious argument? An "intelligent design" argument?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:11 pm to Azranod
quote:
What advantage is gained from a foot becoming a proto-wing?
Yeah, that's how it worked.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:19 pm to dcrews
quote:There is nothing "suddenly" about it, and none of it happens because of a need, either.
However, "natural" physical mutations that just suddenly occur based on need, seem much harder to buy in to.
quote:You are not understanding the process from the get-go. There is no "deciding", there are no "needs", and there is no particular path evolution takes. Evolution has no particular goal or end result, it is just the process by which organisms change and adapt.
Why did the alleles and genes of a particular fish decide it needed the body as a hole to have legs and be able to breath out of water? How did it even know what it needed? Can alleles and genes have intelligent thought to even understand what it needs and why it needs it?
quote:Hands are pretty fricking handy.
I could probably be safer if I didn't have to drive everywhere, why don't my gene's/alleles mutate to give me the ability to have wings and fly?
quote:Monkeys did not evolve into humans, monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. And we have found partial skeletons of several of these intermediate forms between the common ancestor and modern humans.
As far as the monkeys evolving into humans, why do we not see a middle ground today?
quote:Why lump all monkeys/chimps/etc into one category? If you do that, you have to lump humans into that, too, since we are all primates.
We can see a baby, watch it grow into a child, then into a young adult, then into a full grown adult. At any given time, I can see any stage of this growth process on our planet for most any species. Why are there ONLY 100% monkeys/chimps and ONLY 100% humans?
quote:Every species that we see today is an "in between" what it once was and what it will become. The evidence is everywhere.
Where's the in between? If evolution was/is occurring, shouldn't there be middle stages evident today?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:22 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You are not understanding the process from the get-go. There is no "deciding", there are no "needs", and there is no particular path evolution takes. Evolution has no particular goal or end result, it is just the process by which organisms change and adapt.
This. I think part of the problem is that some people in this thread (and a lot of people in general) think of evolution as some sort of teleological process, in that it is always moving forward to an ultimate goal and always advancing. That's just not how it works.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:34 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Kind of funny. Until yesterday scientists had a different premise as to origins of tetrapods. One day, and the postulates change. Yet yesterday, according to many here, all aspects of the field were settled. Totally worked out.
You're right. Scientists have never thought of any of this. You got em!
In fact, when I pointed out there were details or oddities of evolution we don't quite have nailed down, one poster retorted "have you submitted these oddities to relevant anthropologist for review or for further scrutiny? If not, why not?" Just find it interesting, that same poster would likely respond to this thread positively without remotely understanding the irony.
Again, the science is great. People drawing their personal extrapolations without factual support, not so much. The news today was a break through. Good stuff!
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Kind of funny. Until yesterday scientists had a different premise as to origins of tetrapods. One day, and the postulates change. Yet yesterday, according to many here, all aspects of the field were settled. Totally worked out.
I love people who think evolution is a final and complete science.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:42 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
"Most planets"?
What other planets do you know of that do?
And how can you say "most" when we are only aware of the smallest fraction of planets in existence?
I would say that it's not a stretch to say that most planets aren't capable of sustaining life
It's just a guess really
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Kind of funny. Until yesterday scientists had a different premise as to origins of tetrapods. One day, and the postulates change. Yet yesterday, according to many here, all aspects of the field were settled. Totally worked out.
There you go being your usual dishonest self
People have only said that the occurrence of evolution was accepted as a fact. We are well aware that something as complex as a scientific theory is constantly changing and adapting as we have more information.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:49 pm to dcrews
quote:To see any sort of "action" on the scale you apparently want to see would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. However, you still have a tailbone, but no tail. Many snakes have vestigial leg and pelvic bones that serve no purpose. Many people have their wisdom teeth removed, which is probably evidence that our jaws were once larger and had room for them. These days our brains are getting larger and jaws smaller, but apparently the number of teeth is taking a little longer to fall out of the gene pool (though many people never get them, myself included).
Are there examples of those mutations happening now? I haven't heard of any. Not saying you're wrong, because what you said makes perfect sense. I was just curious as to why we have all these theories about evolution, mutations (positive as relative to the environment), etc... yet we don't see it in action today. (Reference my baby to adult transformation example).
You keep thinking that it's impossible for a human to one day evolve wings, and that's probably true. But that is not evidence that disproves evolution. You have to think very far back to when and why wings may have been advantageous. Imagine a small animal that had evolved to walk upright (perhaps because being able to see over tall grass gave it an advantage of predators), so over time its front legs began to wither away. We still see evidence of similar bone structure in wings as we see in arms and legs, with "fingers" and "elbows". If the animal had hair, maybe one day some mutant was born with feather-like hair, which may have kept him warmer during winter, or was seen as attractive as all hell to the females and he was able to reproduce like mad. His offspring were likely to have a similar trait, so they kept reproducing at a faster rate than the old hairy version. After a long, long time, these two-legged two-winged animals began to spread and inhabit new areas, perhaps where there were cliffs or hills or something where they could spread out their wings and glide a bit. Well, shite, this is even better for avoiding predators, so the guys with bigger wings and stronger muscles were now fricking like crazy. The bigger the wings and the better you could flap them, the better your odds of survival (and they probably had all the lady creatures creaming their feathers). After another long, long time, these guys could actually just start flapping and get themselves off the ground! Well, frick, now they're untouchable.
After that, there aren't many more advantages to having wings that are much bigger or stronger, so the population would likely "stabilize" on this form for a really, really long time. Those older, hairy creatures were probably around for a long time themselves, and a few of them might have even fossilized, and we might have even found one millions of years later. Fossilization, though, is a very rare event, probably less than one in a million, and our chances of actually finding them are probably similarly slim. It does happen, though, but we will likely only ever find some of the more "stable" forms of creatures. So, there might have been 100 billion of the hairy ones, and 100 billion of the upgraded flying version with big wings instead of small front legs, and smaller, lighter bodies, but maybe there were only a billion or so of those "in-between" guys, and we may never find a fossil of one.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 4:50 pm to dcrews
quote:
However, "natural" physical mutations that just suddenly occur based on need, seem much harder to buy in to.
This isn't evolution. Evolution is that there is natural variation that nature selects for that drives the phenotypes gradually to vastly different uses than their origins.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News