Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Every living animal poops... that is correct.

I am of the thought paths lately that Swine DNA and Primate DNA were combined to farm minerals for some sort of science project that creator(s) could not physically achieve on Earth themselves... possibly not even being a physical entity to begin with. The swine was chosen for it's extreme abilities to adapt, its resilience, and its ability to reproduce swiftly... the primate was chosen due to its abilities to use tools and add emotion to decision making. It's quite possible that the DNA was clipped, allowing full use of a slave race to be in constant question as to what the unknowns are. Welcome to the human race. Maybe a chimp raped a pig one day, and it led to us having this chat?

Why do humans have pig skin and on rare occasions are born with ACTUAL pig tails? Why does burning human flesh smell like bacon? Why do we not see primates on rare occasions give birth to hairless human-like beings... and vice versa... why aren't humans seen to give birth to primate dominant traits? Why does DNA of humans vs. swine indicate such a high level of match of DNA? Why does this same level of DNA match between primates and humans occur?

I find that it is scientifically logical to find resolve in a scenario of which either a male primate impregnated a female swine, a male swine somehow impregnated a female primate, or the DNA was extracted from the 2 to create a super race of intelligent mineral miner.

originally posted by: ttobban

Why does burning human flesh smell like bacon?

Not to pick nits, but no it does not. Anyone unfortunate enough to have experienced it will tell you it smells like nothing else, and once you've smelled it, you'll never forget it.

a reply to: yeahright

Hmmm... I will ask my friend what he thought again. I remember him being shocked at the bacon smell during his partner's C-section. Maybe how it's burned makes a difference, or it was fat that he was smelling, I am not sure? I will hope that my opinions stem from a 3rd party source... I have no plans to want to smell burnt flesh.

Don't mind me... I look for any and all input I can to spark more debate to possibly learn more. It does seem like human skin has many similarities to human skin nonetheless...

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Ghost147
I will look at your past posts, and also request the links you are talking about, in relation to speciation.

Here are several examples of recorded speciation:

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905)
Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda(1912)
Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis (1950)
Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora (1945)
Drosophila melanogaster (1962)
Drosophila pseudoobscura (1966)
Drosophila willistoni (1980)

Here's a scenario you could try to explain to him, when referring to speciation:

Lets say we have a single large population of Grasshoppers. This group of grasshoppers can't jump very far and are indigenous to an island. This island has many types of plants on it that the grasshoppers can eat, and there's also a few predators that keep the grasshopper population stable. Over time on the island, some of the grasshoppers have developed a gene which allows their hooked feet to become slightly more hooked, allowing them to climb better. There isn't any large trees on the island, but there are a few smaller species of trees that are climbable, but only the grasshoppers with this new gene develop the behavior that makes them climb trees in search of food and to escape predation.

One day a massive hurricane comes through and hits the island. A small population of the grasshoppers blown off the island and deposited on another island nearby. This island only has a single insectivorous predator, and it's terrestrial (lives on the ground). The Island has a number of edible plants, but there is also a single, very large tree species on the island that has edible fruit in it's canopy. Because not every single individual of the grasshopper's population developed the gene and behavior that incites them to climb, only a portion of the population that inhabits this new island find that climbing these large tree's is both a source of food, and consequently a way to escape the terrestrial, insectivore predators. So the population on the island that doesn't have this climbing gene are weeded out of the gene pool through predation over time.

Now, the original island where these grasshoppers came from still has the original population. They are still evolving, but they aren't doing so in leaps and bounds because for however long they've been on that island they've remained adapted to it's respective environment, which isn't really changing all that much.

On the New Island we have this population that has entered a new environment, and many of it's individuals are thriving with a lack of predation and an easy access to food. They are evolving with the same mutation rate as the old island's grasshopper species, but more of the new genes that are showing up are being 'selected for' (staying in the gene pool) because they increase the survivability of this population of grasshoppers on this new island, within this new environment.

1000's of generations pass for both the old and new islands respective grasshopper population, each maintaining or increasing mutations and adapting to their separate environments.

One day another large hurricane comes blowing in and deposits more of the original grasshopper population onto the new island. The grasshoppers whom were just deposited on the island were very similar to how they were 1000's of generations ago because on the original island, the environment stayed the same so the grasshopper population never needed to adapt any further, yet the first population of grasshoppers that was deposited on the island that took to the trees have changed dramatically. They've changed so much that they cannot successfully reproduce with the newly deposited grasshoppers.

That would be an example of speciation. The original grasshopper population on the original island maintained their physiological and biological traits, because they were already adapted to that environment, but the population that was blown to the new island with a new environment adapted to that specific environment changing their physiological and biological traits, creating a new species of grasshopper.

Most people who don't really accept the theory of evolution, or don't understand it fully usually tend to think in the term "kind" which they really usually mean "genus". They believe that evolution states that one genus evolves into another genus, which is not what evolution describes. Given enough time, sure, but when they ask for a species becoming another species, the example above shows that perfectly.

What they don't seem to comprehend is that the accumulation of genes that allowed the grasshoppers adapt to that new environment continues to accumulate so long as the population exists. That accumulation of genes means that populations continue to diverge into more and more species, each being more distantly related to that original species on that first island. If we were to take that original population and compared it to it's distant relative, we would likely see changes so great that we wouldn't consider them part of the same taxonomical family anymore. All do to the continued accumulation of genes.

a reply to: ttobban

Maybe the OB in his case just finished a BLT. Dunno, but extraordinary circumstances to the contrary, anyone who compares the stench of burning human flesh to the smell of bacon has had some truly unfortunate bacon experiences. And that's all I have to say about that.

originally posted by: silo13
'Big Bang believers think at first there was nothing, then nothing exploded.'

The Big Bang Theory doesn't try to describe what came before the Big Bang or what caused the big bang. All it does is try to explain how the stuff in the universe expanded (by the way, not "exploded" -- there was no explosion, but a sudden expansion of space) from a singularity into the universe we see today.

Even the description of the singularity may not actually be a dimensionless point of infinite density. The mathematics show it to be infinite density, but in the math of physics, infinity usually denotes an unknown. Physics as we know it cannot describe how something of infinite density; the math breaks down at that point...

...Therefore, the Big bang is not trying to describe what came before the Big Bang, because it cannot.

a reply to: ttobban

I don't think it matters how it happened or who had sex with who. The shared biological structures occur in every level of complexity of vertebrates is the point. We see variations in genetics of animals over time. It does not take a genius to conclude these variations lead to new species.

I think the more interesting question is how did the first single cell living organism come into existence.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ttobban
I think the more interesting question is how did the first single cell living organism come into existence.

That would be Abiogenesis, which is also a very interesting subject. Although if someone were having difficulty understanding Evolution, Abiogenesis would be way over their head.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The genesis affect is in play on all angles... regardless of source in the end. Because a single cell organism is asexual, does not mean the DNA structuring can't reproduce. At some point in time, due to photosynthesis and perfect breeding conditions, the single cell organism became 2, which became 4, which became 8, which became 16, etc.

In my opinions, even our Sun... the center of our universe, is nothing but a tiny speck in the grand scheme of things... its more likely than not, that our Sun is the size of a nucleus of a single atom in relation to the size of the galaxies that are a real thing. Life occurs in things that we all can't even see, or even grasp elementary concepts towards.

Take face spiders for instance. 99 out of 100 humans walk around completely unaware that not only are there are microscopic spiders living on adults faces, to the level that there is an entire even smaller ecosystem of which are giant to even the microscopic spiders themselves.

When it comes to the grand macro and micro scales, we just have to come to terms with the high probabilities that humans don't have a clue as to actual proven source and the paths taken between then and now.

I'm not saying their wrong, but so many religions would not exist if their was a possibility to answer these life riddles. All Gods existed I believe, and likely performed the miracles attested to... but to end all debate to smaller and larger scales because of a single sector religious view point, and push the works of science aside is not a wise path to possibly learning more truths. How can further truths open up if the opinions of religions are the end all answers?

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: ttobban

Why does burning human flesh smell like bacon?

Not to pick nits, but no it does not. Anyone unfortunate enough to have experienced it will tell you it smells like nothing else, and once you've smelled it, you'll never forget it.

Agreed i like the smell of pig however human flesh smells sweet to the point of making you nauseous.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Ah, the old "I have a friend" schtick...

Gotta love ATS man

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. "Scientifically open minded" people don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Not sure why the intelligent folks around here are taking this one hook line and sinker...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ttobban

I don't think it matters how it happened or who had sex with who. The shared biological structures occur in every level of complexity of vertebrates is the point. We see variations in genetics of animals over time. It does not take a genius to conclude these variations lead to new species.

I think the more interesting question is how did the first single cell living organism come into existence.

DNA has taught us all animal life is related. Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos. Of the great apes, humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Humans and gorillas share 98.4 percent of their DNA.Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows and 60% with chickens. What DNA showed is in the past we had common ancestors.

Now how did it start we dont know we have a theory and even created life in a lab based off the theory of abiogenesis. We know that amino acids can be created and in fact still happens today. Through in proteins and we have the building blocks needed. What we dont know is what causedthis soup together to form a cell But playing the odds almost anything can happen i guess.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Here's a scenario you could try to explain to him, when referring to speciation:

Lets say we have a single large population of Grasshoppers.

I love me some good evolution stories...

originally posted by: Ghost147
That would be an example of speciation.

I might add, if the two now separated groups of grasshoppers were still able to mate with each other then they are simply variants of the same species.

originally posted by: Ghost147
What they don't seem to comprehend is that the accumulation of genes that allowed the grasshoppers adapt to that new environment continues to accumulate so long as the population exists. That accumulation of genes means that populations continue to diverge into more and more species, each being more distantly related to that original species on that first island. If we were to take that original population and compared it to it's distant relative, we would likely see changes so great that we wouldn't consider them part of the same taxonomical family anymore. All do to the continued accumulation of genes.

What do you mean about accumulation of genes?

a reply to: deadlyhope

i shall be blunt - your " friend " is a young earth creationist

there is no point in even attempting to discuss biology with it

if it is prepared to discuss the age of the earth - then there is hope

but until then - forget it

originally posted by: deadlyhope
He believes in the 6000 year old earth, etc...

He's an idiot. Tell him I told you so. The oldest known parts of 'the crust' of the Earth are reliably dated back to 4.5B years. I hope to see the date of our Solar System marked back to at least ~14.5B years before my life ends.

One main topic I need help with is he desires proof of species changing, any species really ... ?

Sorry. Speciation takes place in very short order (Snarl's Law). Probably based on some major upheaval. When I say major, I mean something like an orbital shift, an axial tilt, a major change in the sun's energy output, an object colliding with our planet, a moon parking in orbit, a cataclysmic nuclear event, etc.

Google searches are not as helpful as I had hoped, so here I am.

No? I'm sure they're not. You're not talking about Science here. In fact, Science has proven that evolution is a very rare circumstance ... so rare that it cannot be Scientifically proven ... something akin to magic. Mutation? That might be a different story. Apples to oranges though, I'm afraid.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I might add, if the two now separated groups of grasshoppers were still able to mate with each other then they are simply variants of the same species.

In most cases, you're absolutely correct. However, there can be a little more than just an inability to interbreed with another in defining a species. Here's Berkeley's definition of a species, for example: A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.



That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
What do you mean about accumulation of genes?

The mutation rate is essentially the amount of new mutations that occur from one generation to another in any given species. A human genome accumulates around 64 new mutations per generation because each full generation involves a number of cell divisions to generate gametes. Let's say, for the sake of explanation, that of those 64 new mutations 1 of those mutations is significant enough that it is beneficial for our survivability. Those beneficial mutations tend to stick in the gene pool and get passed onto the next generation. Fast forward several generations and the newest generation has compiled many more mutations than their great ancestors had.

If we go further, as in the grasshopper example, the accumulation of those new mutations push them so distantly from the original population that they can no longer successfully interbreed, which brings us to speciation.

originally posted by: Snarl
n fact, Science has proven that evolution is a very rare circumstance ... so rare that it cannot be Scientifically proven ... something akin to magic. Mutation? That might be a different story. Apples to oranges though, I'm afraid.

You are aware that for mutations to occur (short of radiation), one would require the process of evolution to exist....

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Snarl
n fact, Science has proven that evolution is a very rare circumstance ... so rare that it cannot be Scientifically proven ... something akin to magic. Mutation? That might be a different story. Apples to oranges though, I'm afraid.

You are aware that for mutations to occur (short of radiation), one would require the process of evolution to exist....

LOL ... I'll concede that point the day Science says there are five distinct species of humans on the planet and that you can tell them apart from the colors of their skin and their measurable/general levels of intelligence and physical capabilities.

a reply to: Snarl

I don't understand. You believe mutations occur, you believe speciation occurs (at least once some catastrophic event occurs), what drives mutations and speciation from your perspective?

originally posted by: Ghost147
That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition.

This is about all that is true regarding the meaning of a species.

originally posted by: Ghost147
The mutation rate is essentially the amount of new mutations that occur from one generation to another in any given species.

Got it. You had conflated genes with mutations, so just wanted to be clear.