Anyone care to answer this?

As far as im concerned, you can shove your fossil evidence up your ying yang

Its useless piles of bones that allow you to create possible theories of where we came from.

Frankly, I find the idea of being from a monkey somewhat insulting.

The apes are our relatives, not our ancestors.

I have the feeling we are something completely separate from anything else found on this planet.

The reason we have missing links in the evolutionary chain is probably because we havent always been here.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus

I refute darwin to my grave

That's fine. And while you're at it, why not refute Aristotle's view of gravity, deny wandering uterus theory, assert that automobiles will in fact someday replace horses, and refuse to let doctors bleed you with leeches.

Why are we even arguing about this?

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by Mactire

 

You mean, you believe the first organisms did this, this is where the faith comes in,
Bacteria have short lives and reproduce rapidly,yet they still have a dna repair system, surely those “first” organisms, reproducing quickly, were especially vulnerable to dna damage and mutation what with the sheer amount of duplication of dna going on? Sooo, how did they survive this, for surely dna repair did not pop up soon after the original orgamisns, it must how been thousands of years later at the very least, and these organisms would not survive that long waiting for the repair mechanism to be “invented”

Everything from eyes to ears to their placement is a part of natural selection, so I'm sure the enzymes that hold together the DNA that create all living things must be a byproduct of the same evolution, and most definitely one of the first.

you mean you belive that everthing is part of natural selection, adn you infer topoisimerase is part of it based on this first assumption, have you truly studied this remarkable enzyme? and thought of the implications, for surely it would have to bee there from the first time dna repari systems were "stumbled on" otherwise, the dna supercoiling would never be relieved and,,,death,you cant simply wait around for topoisimerase to me "created">

An enzyme may have been present at the time of its birth into existence, it doesn't mean that it was the same sort of enzyme that exists today. The long short is this:
Everything is basically made up of energy, we know that. The same atoms that make you and I make up rocks and trees as well. They're just arranged differently and behave differently. That's all old news. The source of this energy and why its able to form the way it does is the question. Right?
To understand this we have to go beyond genetic evolution and delve deep into atomic and/or molecular evolution. There are more ways that "life" could fail, and yet it succeeds... randomly and widespread, but it succeeds.
Some people buy into the creation story because "life" is a miracle. Yet you wouldn't play the lottery a million times then one day win and call it a miracle. We're talking about billions of years of change. Violent change that eventually got us to here. I'm not saying anything happened overnight. It took more time to get us here than we can even fathom. I can tell you why a Giraffe's neck is long as well as its heart, I can tell you why an octopus would have a higher I.Q. than a human if it lived as long as we did, but I don't think I can answer how that much change and evolution took place from the very beginning. I'm not God

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Gradius Maximus

 

I refute darwin to my grave

That's fine. And while you're at it, why not refute Aristotle's view of gravity, deny wandering uterus theory, assert that automobiles will in fact someday replace horses, and refuse to let doctors bleed you with leeches.

Why are we even arguing about this?

Through the comparison of intelligence, we become more intelligent.

Thank you for helping me, and you are welcome.

reply to post by HUMBLEONE Abso-freaking-lutly!! Your the smartest one on this thread humble!

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
Evolution happens much more quickly than current science theorizes.

Well, current science does theorize rapid mutation in DNA coding. All biochemists agree that certain aspects of evolution occurs rapidly.

Take for example skin colour. The darkness of the skin depends on the ratio of red melanin to black melanin. A higher ratio of black melanin causes darker skin, and means higher resistance to UV, preventing skin cancer. This is found in the tropical countries. A higher ratio of red melanin gives less protection against skin cancer, but allows for more sunlight to pass through the skin - essential for vitamin D production in countries closer to the poles, thus resulting in a fairer skin.

In this day of global travel and emigration to other countries, it is well documented that people with very fair skin who move to tropical countries have children with higher ratios of black melanin (darker skin), even if they (the parents) have only lived there only for a few years. The genetic coding for this ratio is changed in as little as five years of living in a different climate.

On the other hand, there are also certain sequences called genotype DNA sequences which do not normally mutate, such as sexual reproduction. Any mutation of these genes are due to errors in replication, and happen instantly (for example, down syndrome). It is purely a chance mutation. If the mutation is suited to the new environment, the altered offspring will thrive and reproduce, creating new offspring with the altered gene. If it is not suited to the new environment, the offspring dies out.

But then, as the OP suggests, how does a chance mutation create an eye in something that can't see? The fact that it cannot be explained satisfactorily is why, unlike physicists, most chemists and biochemists tend to believe in a creator. It is unfortunate that most people lump "scientists" together as being predominantly atheist, when in fact, it is only physicist who tend to fall into that category. In my experience, chemists and biochemists have a majority of believers in a supreme being.

Evolution is happening all the time, species are beign wiped out, species are being born.
Species are evolving to adapt to their surroundings, the giraffes heart and neck would have evolved together throughout the centuries as a mean to accomplish its tasks. Even us humans are evolving, I think we are losing some toes, i'm certainly losing my hair (dunno if thats evolution though, just mother nature laughing at me), even the humble old appendix is believed to have served a purpose at some point in our evolutionary cycle and is now redundant.

Doesn't mean to say there wasn't some creationism involved, but evolution is definatley playing a part.

In 100 years the human mind will have evolved the ability to farcebook and tweet! lol.

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

- Ms. Garrison

I'm going to suggest a symbiotic relationship between information (it can be stored within the carbon structure as DNA or it can exist as contextual influence - existential precedence, if you will - in direct association with quantum development) and what occurs between sub-atomic and elemental existential units.

When something occurs, that occurrence is reflected as a fact of occurrence (information) which adds to the contextual environment's informational continuum (The Residual Information Mass). This logical impact of activity feeds that mass, The Residual, and as activity becomes more varied and more complex, more and more of this reflecting information feeds with increasing texture and physical substance per associated event fact suite. With survival the existential imperative (featuring a variety of Masculine and Feminine expressions to fit every possible circumstance; Identity, Competition, Association, Symbiosis, etc ) organized activity "works" with information's capacity to layer contextual precedence as channel guides in exchange for increased sophistication of per-event information emergence. Pre-consciousness existential unit-level symbiosis in a nutshell.

With this "relationship" as the basis of progressive development, corporeal organizational variance is possible under a wide range of passive and/or pseudo-dynamic influences, with existing circumstance likely the trajectory-directing agent regardless of what one researcher or another has discovered concerning any of the established routes taken of one course of development or another. The human being has already offered evidence in support of the theory of intra-species evolution with the emergence of distinct and incompatible (between disparate humans, of course) physiological changes associated with the 4 major blood types O, A, B, and AB in response to environmental changes that came with the advancement of forms of civilization. What other forms of progressive corporeal development exist are likely awaiting the researcher who's able to stand back a little farther and take in a larger view of the whole than those who've established the current system of examination.

Just my own notion on this.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Zenithar

 

you have not separatly answered the above questions yet

And you haven't read the links I provided. But I'll humor you anyway.

Oh sorry, I'll get around to them for sure

wouldnt that be sheer fatih to belive mutatinos could occur in those places and acrrue to produce to things that are so dependant on each other?

That depends. If you're assuming that the cause of such "mutations" is exclusively genetic "copy errors" from radiation, then yes that does seem like a leap of faith. But making that assumption is...an assumption. Why would you assume that?

When did i assume that? i know the other routes by which selection can happen, so I dont really know what else to say.

How did the first organisms survive withouth dna repair or blood clotting?

I'm not sure what you're referring to with this question. You were talking about giraffes in the previous sentence, and I'm pretty sure giraffes have both dna repair and blood clotting mechanisms. But if you're talking about "first organisms" then they wouldn't necessarily even have had blood, let alone blood clotting. So the question is unclear.

well, even if the first organisms didnt have blood clotting, for lack of blood, whenever blood "appeared" surely clotting would have to go hand in hand?

for surely they did not "pop" into existence with these mechanisms already functinoal?

Loosely speaking, yes. As described in at least one of my previous links, one generation does not have these systems, the following generation does. And in extreme cases, we get speciation, in which the child organism is an entirely new species.

so what your saying is, you don't belive these mechanisms popped into existence? can you expand that, do you belive they evolved step by step or in one generation?

do you belive that there is specified informatin in the cell?

...again, a vague question. There is genetic information in a cell...but which "specified" information are you referring to?

do you think that topoisimerase was formed through natural selection etc?
surely its just faith to assert this

If you mean "natural selection" in the context of animals breeding and choosing mates based on survivability, then yes it would be "just faith" to assert that it formed in such a way. Possibly even silly. But who exactly is making this assertion? Where did you get the idea that natural selection was the caustive factor?

I said natural selection E.T.C, by which i meant all other darwinian or neo darwinian means, sexual selction etc,
in other words that topoisimerase was created by mutations acted on by a selecting factor, or is there an alternative route i dont know of? would you say that teh first organisms capable of multipling there dna through replication would need a repair mechanims off the bat?

Do you belive that a lizard, displaced from its habitat onto an island adjacent to its own, an island with plants,(which the lizard has never digested before) growing a brand new structure in a mere blink of an eye(30 or 50 years)
this new cecal valve coincidentally allowed this lizard to process vegetal matter,

There's no coincidence about it. It evolved those structures to accomodate to its environment. Just like these bacteria evolved the ability to metabolise citrates, while under laboratory observation. Why did they evolve this ability? Because citrates were available. Kind of like, life on earth evolved to breathe oxygen...because there's oxygen here. It's not a "coincidence" that organisms on earth use oxygen. Had other materials been available, organisms would have developed to use those other materials instead.

I thought you understood evolution? nothing evolves structures TO accomodate for anything, these bacteria did not evolve the abiltiy BECUASE there was citrate avalibale, you are implying a direction, a plan, you know?
nothing in evolution evolves FOR anything, mutations acted on either work or they dont, the process is blind,
there is no inevitability that organisms will adapt, especially in the hypothetical early earth, they could all just die out
because of a lack of adaption ability..and my point is not THAT it evolved a cecal valve, that much is obvous, but do you truly feel that the mechanisms of evolution(pick the onese you think would work) could coincidentlly endow this creature with just the structure it needed, in an evolutionary blink of the eye? its madness

do you evolution proponents out there truly believe this can be accounted for by darwinian means?
surly soemthign else is at work here...

If by "darwinian means" you mean "natural selection," no But like I've said several times now, the idea that natural selection is the primary motivating force behind evolution is hundreds of years out of date. Even Darwin said natural selection was not the whole story.

It's popular in schools to teach natural selection as the motivating force behind evolution, for probably about the same reason that fortran is still a required course for computer science majors. Yes, natural selection is probably a factor. Human breeding programs for animals attest to that. But assuming that it is the only factor requires ignoring as massive amount of data. Here's a list of dozens of observed instances of speciation.

edit on 21-10-2010 by LordBucket because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by woogleuk

Evolution is happening all the time, species are beign wiped out, species are being born. Species are evolving to adapt to their surroundings, the giraffes heart and neck would have evolved together throughout the centuries as a mean to accomplish its tasks. Even us humans are evolving, I think we are losing some toes, i'm certainly losing my hair (dunno if thats evolution though, just mother nature laughing at me), even the humble old appendix is believed to have served a purpose at some point in our evolutionary cycle and is now redundant. Doesn't mean to say there wasn't some creationism involved, but evolution is definatley playing a part. In 100 years the human mind will have evolved the ability to farcebook and tweet! lol.

you dont seem to understand evolution, and you have demonstrated the level of faith i feel is involved..
first species are not evolving TO adapt to anything, the mutations that are acted on either work or dont, there is no plan or inevitablitly about their adaption...you go on to say..."the giraffes heart and neck would have evolved together throughout the centuries as a mean to accomplish its tasks."
this sentence is crazy imo, firstly can you prove this? second, the faith required to assume this co evolution could occur through random mutations etc is just immense, can you give me any case where i can see this effect, I dont mean convergent evolution becuase that is an implication or inference, i mean where 2 organs such as this that truly rely on each other have been observed to evolve by evolutions mechanisms

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

- Ms. Garrison

Originally posted by Mactire

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by Mactire

 

You mean, you believe the first organisms did this, this is where the faith comes in,
Bacteria have short lives and reproduce rapidly,yet they still have a dna repair system, surely those “first” organisms, reproducing quickly, were especially vulnerable to dna damage and mutation what with the sheer amount of duplication of dna going on? Sooo, how did they survive this, for surely dna repair did not pop up soon after the original orgamisns, it must how been thousands of years later at the very least, and these organisms would not survive that long waiting for the repair mechanism to be “invented”

Everything from eyes to ears to their placement is a part of natural selection, so I'm sure the enzymes that hold together the DNA that create all living things must be a byproduct of the same evolution, and most definitely one of the first.

you mean you belive that everthing is part of natural selection, adn you infer topoisimerase is part of it based on this first assumption, have you truly studied this remarkable enzyme? and thought of the implications, for surely it would have to bee there from the first time dna repari systems were "stumbled on" otherwise, the dna supercoiling would never be relieved and,,,death,you cant simply wait around for topoisimerase to me "created">

An enzyme may have been present at the time of its birth into existence, it doesn't mean that it was the same sort of enzyme that exists today. The long short is this: Everything is basically made up of energy, we know that. The same atoms that make you and I make up rocks and trees as well. They're just arranged differently and behave differently. That's all old news. The source of this energy and why its able to form the way it does is the question. Right? To understand this we have to go beyond genetic evolution and delve deep into atomic and/or molecular evolution. There are more ways that "life" could fail, and yet it succeeds... randomly and widespread, but it succeeds. Some people buy into the creation story because "life" is a miracle. Yet you wouldn't play the lottery a million times then one day win and call it a miracle. We're talking about billions of years of change. Violent change that eventually got us to here. I'm not saying anything happened overnight. It took more time to get us here than we can even fathom. I can tell you why a Giraffe's neck is long as well as its heart, I can tell you why an octopus would have a higher I.Q. than a human if it lived as long as we did, but I don't think I can answer how that much change and evolution took place from the very beginning. I'm not God

you have not given me any answres here, which is okay but your basically just giving your opinion, Id like some facts supportign answers to the questions I have asked, specifically about DNA and Topoisimerase,
the way i see it, however we came about,nautral or "unatural means" life is certainly a miracle, just look around you , reserch biology etc. so do you belive that the heart and neck somehow grew along side each other, (check out the amazing mechanisms inside the girrafes head and neck to stop its head blowing up as it bends down for a drink)


just lookj at this very pertanent question by a creationist and look at the crazy answer given by evolutionists..
this is an example of the faith involved...i mean , its pure madness to suggest this could ever happen by random mutations , even when acted on by pressures and selection etc, becuase oen must assuem these 3 structures would have had thousands or million of mutations accruting simultaneously, its fantasy!!

Originally posted by Zenithar
in the case of the girrafe, whose heart is 2 foot long so as to get the blood up its long long neck(excluding the stunning adaptions inside the neck itself), would the neck have to evolve alongside the heart? for if it did not, then surely there would be no girrafe, and if it did, wouldnt that be sheer fatih to belive mutatinos could occur in those places and acrrue to produce to things that are so dependant on each other?

I find it is more helpful to look at evolution holistically, and in context with events in the environment, it starts to make a little more sense then, but I don't think we, by any means, have all the data in yet.

Firstly, diversity, a good example was provided to me by my boss, a professor of plant biology, the typical Irish Catholic family. You get two parents producing 6 plus children and not one of those children will look alike and some of them will look quite drastically different. Then there is radiation, from the Sun, amongst other things, is constantly activating mutations, in genetic material, some of those are successful, others are not. The Earth's magnetic field or magnetism in general, seems to play a part in 'memory', even at the basest level of rock, so I can only assume that it has a role in getting the DNA to programme matter. There are, also, periodic bottlenecks which cause massive depopulations and therefore deplete the lifeforms down to those that can adapt and those that can't. That, in particular, seems the essential factor. So for example, 76,000 years ago, the Toba eruption caused a nuclear winter that brought humans down to about 1000 breeding pairs. The Geminga Super Nova, is estimated to have irradiated the Earth with enough heat to cause fatal burns. Added to that is competition and predatation. The Giraffe, as a herbivore, is in competition with the Elephant mainly, so it needs to be able to get to the leaves that they can't get to. The Elephant is the more powerful animal, by not competing with them for food, or by out reaching them and thereby not being a threat, they succeed. Their size in general, as well as that of all herbivores, is completely reactionary to the predators, which is why you see pygmy hippos, elephants and deer on the mediterranean islands where there were no large cats or dogs.

The other stuff you ask, I have no idea. I shall read the rest of the thread.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Zenithar
in the case of the girrafe, whose heart is 2 foot long so as to get the blood up its long long neck(excluding the stunning adaptions inside the neck itself), would the neck have to evolve alongside the heart? for if it did not, then surely there would be no girrafe, and if it did, wouldnt that be sheer fatih to belive mutatinos could occur in those places and acrrue to produce to things that are so dependant on each other?

I find it is more helpful to look at evolution holistically, and in context with events in the environment, it starts to make a little more sense then, but I don't think we, by any means, have all the data in yet.

Firstly, diversity, a good example was provided to me by my boss, a professor of plant biology, the typical Irish Catholic family. You get two parents producing 6 plus children and not one of those children will look alike and some of them will look quite drastically different. Then there is radiation, from the Sun, amongst other things, is constantly activating mutations, in genetic material, some of those are successful, others are not. The Earth's magnetic field or magnetism in general, seems to play a part in 'memory', even at the basest level of rock, so I can only assume that it has a role in getting the DNA to programme matter. There are, also, periodic bottlenecks which cause massive depopulations and therefore deplete the lifeforms down to those that can adapt and those that can't. That, in particular, seems the essential factor. So for example, 76,000 years ago, the Toba eruption caused a nuclear winter that brought humans down to about 1000 breeding pairs. The Geminga Super Nova, is estimated to have irradiated the Earth with enough heat to cause fatal burns. Added to that is competition and predatation. The Giraffe, as a herbivore, is in competition with the Elephant mainly, so it needs to be able to get to the leaves that they can't get to. The Elephant is the more powerful animal, by not competing with them for food, or by out reaching them and thereby not being a threat, they succeed. Their size in general, as well as that of all herbivores, is completely reactionary to the predators, which is why you see pygmy hippos, elephants and deer on the mediterranean islands where there were no large cats or dogs.

The other stuff you ask, I have no idea. I shall read the rest of the thread.

Firstly, diversity, a good example was provided to me by my boss, a professor of plant biology, the typical Irish Catholic family. You get two parents producing 6 plus children and not one of those children will look alike and some of them will look quite drastically different. Then there is radiation, from the Sun, amongst other things, is constantly activating mutations, in genetic material, some of those are successful, others are not. The Earth's magnetic field or magnetism in general, seems to play a part in 'memory', even at the basest level of rock, so I can only assume that it has a role in getting the DNA to programme matter. There are, also, periodic bottlenecks which cause massive depopulations and therefore deplete the lifeforms down to those that can adapt and those that can't. That, in particular, seems the essential factor. So for example, 76,000 years ago, the Toba eruption caused a nuclear winter that brought humans down to about 1000 breeding pairs. The Geminga Super Nova, is estimated to have irradiated the Earth with enough heat to cause fatal burns. Added to that is competition and predatation. The Giraffe, as a herbivore, is in competition with the Elephant mainly, so it needs to be able to get to the leaves that they can't get to. The Elephant is the more powerful animal, by not competing with them for food, or by out reaching them and thereby not being a threat, they succeed. Their size in general, as well as that of all herbivores, is completely reactionary to the predators, which is why you see pygmy hippos, elephants and deer on the mediterranean islands where there were no large cats or dogs. The other stuff you ask, I have no idea. I shall read the rest of the thread.

I thank you for your thoughts, very interesting with the DNA progamming matter etc...but i wonder could you ansewr my questions posed about the girrafe? Or any of my other...

Originally posted by Zenithar
I thank you for your thoughts, very interesting with the DNA progamming matter etc...but i wonder could you ansewr my questions posed about the girrafe? Or any of my other...

So you asked…

Originally posted by Zenithar
in the case of the girrafe, whose heart is 2 foot long so as to get the blood up its long long neck(excluding the stunning adaptions inside the neck itself), would the neck have to evolve alongside the heart? for if it did not, then surely there would be no girrafe, and if it did, wouldnt that be sheer fatih to belive mutatinos could occur in those places and acrrue to produce to things that are so dependant on each other?

The neck is not a big deal, it is proven. Brachiasaurus, Diplodocus, has incredibly long, flexible necks. But they were cold blooded and very small brained (proportionately), so the heart may not have needed to have been as big, and therefore, they would not have needed the value system in the neck to control the pressure of the blood flow. But either way, without those adaptations, the long neck, combined with a mammalian brain, wouldn’t be feasible without the huge heart and ‘neck’ valves.

Therefore, long necks, large hearts, and valves are all regularly occurring mutations. For those mutations to then succeed and become a ‘feature’ of success, they have to both occur with enough frequency to allow the pairing of the necessary genes, but infrequently enough for it to be given a preference in sexual selection. There must also, most importantly be a ‘drive’, either sexual or dietary, that leads to that trait being passed onto successive generations. That is, it is no accident, it is driven by a desire, in this case, to reach higher, the Giraffe forces it’s own evolution.

The tongue is specially adapted to wrap around a stem, and strip the leaves and young shoots, off the stem. It primarily favours the Acacia erioloba and I wonder if there is a symbiotic relationship, evolutionary wise in that. The roots and bark of the tree were used by humans to treat headaches, it may have blood thinning properties. Giraffes have very good eyesight, the leaves are probably rich in betacarotenes, which the Giraffe then converts into Retinal. In female mammals, betacarotenes as retinol, deposit around the ovaries and serve as a barrier to attacks by toxins and free-radicals. The ability to do this limits mutations. Given the markings of the Giraffe, it is likely that they have a surplus of betacarotenes in their diet that allow for the markings. It also allows them to see the markings, they most likely have three colour vision.

The tree, has very yellow flowers, which have a sweet scent, the Giraffes have good sense of small. Because of the thorns, which are impressive, the tongue has to reach where the eyes can’t see. Hence the co-evolution. The plant produces betacarotenes that help the animal to see Yellow (and orange), I’d bet my bottom dollar, that the Giraffes are the main pollenators too. And it has yellow, scented flowers, that tell the Giraffe where the young leaves it likes so much are, and the Giraffe is ‘tricked’ into rubbing it’s snout in the pollen.

That’d be some ideas anyway.

Originally posted by Zenithar
How did the first organisms survive withouth dna repair or blood clotting? for surely they did not "pop" into existence with these mechanisms already functinoal?

The first organisms, bacteria? Each form of life builds upon the previous. Diversity creates branches, some of those branches stay the same because they have to do nothing other than ‘be’ to succeed, like bacteria. Millions and millions and millions of years, tiny little changes, die backs, population explosions, die backs, climate change, etc, etc. It is all tweaks and adaptations, but all of them created by a thousand different factors all operating at any given time. Take blood, haemoglobin is present in most legumes, it was tried and tested, since we are most closely related to fungi, and not plants, it was most likely even prior to that branch off that the ‘idea’ for blood was conceived.

Originally posted by Zenithar
do you belive that there is specified informatin in the cell?

Yes.

Originally posted by Zenithar
do you think that topoisimerase was formed through natural selection etc?
surely its just faith to assert this

www.youtube.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

I don’t know. I’m not sure I understand where it appears. I know that in Plant Transgenics, they select the gene that they want to ‘meld’ with the ‘host’ plant. Mash it all up and stick it in some Agar solution, and hey presto, all being well, new life is born. Nine times out of ten it goes horribly wrong, probably more than that actually, but sometimes it works. And ask how that happens and no one seems to know. Magic.

I'm wondering if the toposomerase is the principle behind it, I can’t watch the video which may be more explanatory because I’m watching Blade Runner. It's interfere.

Originally posted by Zenithar
Do you belive that a lizard, displaced from its habitat onto an island adjacent to its own, an island with plants,(which the lizard has never digested before) growing a brand new structure in a mere blink of an eye(30 or 50 years)
this new cecal valve coincidentally allowed this lizard to process vegetal matter,
do you evolution proponents out there truly believe this can be accounted for by darwinian means?
surly soemthign else is at work here...

Clearly it is possible otherwise it wouldn’t have happened, whether it is easily explainable... The change is estimated to have happened over 30 generations, and the mutation must have existed in some of the population that were stranded there, or they wouldn’t be there at all if there isn’t anything else to eat. I think it is likely that they had herbivore ancestors at some point, or occasionally ate vegetation prior to displacement. Those without the mutation wouldn’t have succeeded, those with it would. It is a micro example of a bottle neck, but same principle.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Zenithar
I thank you for your thoughts, very interesting with the DNA progamming matter etc...but i wonder could you ansewr my questions posed about the girrafe? Or any of my other...

So you asked…

Originally posted by Zenithar
in the case of the girrafe, whose heart is 2 foot long so as to get the blood up its long long neck(excluding the stunning adaptions inside the neck itself), would the neck have to evolve alongside the heart? for if it did not, then surely there would be no girrafe, and if it did, wouldnt that be sheer fatih to belive mutatinos could occur in those places and acrrue to produce to things that are so dependant on each other?

The neck is not a big deal, it is proven. Brachiasaurus, Diplodocus, has incredibly long, flexible necks. But they were cold blooded and very small brained (proportionately), so the heart may not have needed to have been as big, and therefore, they would not have needed the value system in the neck to control the pressure of the blood flow. But either way, without those adaptations, the long neck, combined with a mammalian brain, wouldn’t be feasible without the huge heart and ‘neck’ valves.

Therefore, long necks, large hearts, and valves are all regularly occurring mutations. For those mutations to then succeed and become a ‘feature’ of success, they have to both occur with enough frequency to allow the pairing of the necessary genes, but infrequently enough for it to be given a preference in sexual selection. There must also, most importantly be a ‘drive’, either sexual or dietary, that leads to that trait being passed onto successive generations. That is, it is no accident, it is driven by a desire, in this case, to reach higher, the Giraffe forces it’s own evolution.

"The neck is not a big deal it is proven." hmmm, firstly however it was formed it is a big deal, Its one of natures most astounding structures. now you have given me alot of good info about the girrafe, wikipedia style but you have demonstrated you huge fatih in those muatations and not really answerd my above question on the girrafe.
whats proven? that the girrafe has a long neck? thats obvious, im simply asking do you feel the heart and neck grew alongside each other and it appears to me that you think so.you say
"Therefore, long necks, large hearts, and valves are all regularly occurring mutations."
there is no. long neck mutation, it doesnt just sring up, in the case of the girrafe it took 6 million years to reach its current height and heart size, to think those mutatinos would co evolve over such a period is ludacris imo..
then you say
For those mutations to then succeed and become a ‘feature’ of success, they have to both occur with enough frequency to allow the pairing of the necessary genes, but infrequently enough for it to be given a preference in sexual selection..
this is all speculation and you are imprinting what "must" happen to fit into evolutions view that it "did" happen in a certain way, when in fact we can only guess, or extrapolate "micro" to "macro" and, do you think the amazing "designs in the neck" evovled alongside the neck and heart?

you then say..

There must also, most importantly be a ‘drive’, either sexual or dietary, that leads to that trait being passed onto successive generations. That is, it is no accident, it is driven by a desire, in this case, to reach higher, the Giraffe forces it’s own evolution.

I think you need to go back and re read the evolutionary textbooks, because there is no desire involved, aer you saying that if an animal craves something, somehwhere down the line its will "get" it, i actaully suspect something close to this but thats another story, but those who buy fully into evolutions mechanisms ther can be no desire, and it IS an accident, thats what evolution is, random chance acted on by blind non random"selection"..






The tongue is specially adapted to wrap around a stem, and strip the leaves and young shoots, off the stem. It primarily favours the Acacia erioloba and I wonder if there is a symbiotic relationship, evolutionary wise in that. The roots and bark of the tree were used by humans to treat headaches, it may have blood thinning properties. Giraffes have very good eyesight, the leaves are probably rich in betacarotenes, which the Giraffe then converts into Retinal. In female mammals, betacarotenes as retinol, deposit around the ovaries and serve as a barrier to attacks by toxins and free-radicals. The ability to do this limits mutations. Given the markings of the Giraffe, it is likely that they have a surplus of betacarotenes in their diet that allow for the markings. It also allows them to see the markings, they most likely have three colour vision.

The tree, has very yellow flowers, which have a sweet scent, the Giraffes have good sense of small. Because of the thorns, which are impressive, the tongue has to reach where the eyes can’t see. Hence the co-evolution. The plant produces betacarotenes that help the animal to see Yellow (and orange), I’d bet my bottom dollar, that the Giraffes are the main pollenators too. And it has yellow, scented flowers, that tell the Giraffe where the young leaves it likes so much are, and the Giraffe is ‘tricked’ into rubbing it’s snout in the pollen.

That’d be some ideas anyway.

Originally posted by Zenithar
How did the first organisms survive withouth dna repair or blood clotting? for surely they did not "pop" into existence with these mechanisms already functinoal?

The first organisms, bacteria? Each form of life builds upon the previous. Diversity creates branches, some of those branches stay the same because they have to do nothing other than ‘be’ to succeed, like bacteria. Millions and millions and millions of years, tiny little changes, die backs, population explosions, die backs, climate change, etc, etc. It is all tweaks and adaptations, but all of them created by a thousand different factors all operating at any given time. Take blood, haemoglobin is present in most legumes, it was tried and tested, since we are most closely related to fungi, and not plants, it was most likely even prior to that branch off that the ‘idea’ for blood was conceived.

care to answer my question? maybe i should rephrase it, How did teh first organisms with circulatory systems survive without blood clotting, and how did those first organisms that had dna repair ever survive if topoisimerase was not in place to begin with?

Originally posted by Zenithar
do you belive that there is specified informatin in the cell?

Yes.

do you know where specified information comes from?
do you know where specified information comes from?

Originally posted by Zenithar
do you think that topoisimerase was formed through natural selection etc?
surely its just faith to assert this

www.youtube.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

I don’t know. I’m not sure I understand where it appears. I know that in Plant Transgenics, they select the gene that they want to ‘meld’ with the ‘host’ plant. Mash it all up and stick it in some Agar solution, and hey presto, all being well, new life is born. Nine times out of ten it goes horribly wrong, probably more than that actually, but sometimes it works. And ask how that happens and no one seems to know. Magic.

I'm wondering if the toposomerase is the principle behind it, I can’t watch the video which may be more explanatory because I’m watching Blade Runner. It's interfere.

Originally posted by Zenithar
Do you belive that a lizard, displaced from its habitat onto an island adjacent to its own, an island with plants,(which the lizard has never digested before) growing a brand new structure in a mere blink of an eye(30 or 50 years)
this new cecal valve coincidentally allowed this lizard to process vegetal matter,
do you evolution proponents out there truly believe this can be accounted for by darwinian means?
surly soemthign else is at work here...

Clearly it is possible otherwise it wouldn’t have happened, whether it is easily explainable... The change is estimated to have happened over 30 generations, and the mutation must have existed in some of the population that were stranded there, or they wouldn’t be there at all if there isn’t anything else to eat. I think it is likely that they had herbivore ancestors at some point, or occasionally ate vegetation prior to displacement. Those without the mutation wouldn’t have succeeded, those with it would. It is a micro example of a bottle neck, but same principle.

clearly it is possible otherwise it would'nt have happend....itsvery obvous that it happend,so of course its possible, the question is do you belive this happend in an evolutionary blink of the eye by natural darwinian means? it just so happend to get mutations in the right place and they acrrued over an insanly short amount of geological tiem to produce a brand new structure in that creature!!! its one step to far for me..

reply to post by Zenithar

How did the first organisms survive withouth dna repair

Well, they did not. It is logical to assume that they died more often than more developed life. But when an organism produces lots of progeny, even when big part of it dies, life goes on.

or blood clotting?

I presume you mean organisms that need blood clotting, because lots early multicellular organisms do not. Well, the answer is suprisingly simple - release of a type of protease that was originaly used for digestion into bloodstream is enough to produce primitive blood clotting. Some links:

www.millerandlevine.com...

www.talkorigins.org...

The thing I've never understood is this.
If a species is so unsuccessful that it needs to change, surely it would die out ?
And if a species is successful, like the crocodile for instance, it won't need to change in the first place.

reply to post by ukmadmax


The result is ultimately that many of the species will die out, and if the creature has nothing that benefits it's environment, it'll die out all together.
However, if somehow it can survive, it'll branch off, and those characteristics will tend to be encouraged.

There are different things that encourage evolution. Change in habitat, change in resources, change in genetics due to genetic drift, even change in behavior (an example being the upside down catfish, or flounder.)
Some species found a niche that's staid pretty unchanged since their appearance, like gators or sharks, with only slight (relatively slight) modifications and adaptions.
(Though the fossil record reveals some of the wild forms they can take, when given the chance. A recent article showed how at one point in time in the world, crocs occupied similar niches to boars and wolves. At one point sharks incredibly diversified as well. )

Genetically speaking, species is a vague term, especially when you include the fossil record and biologic studies, and the presence of "Ring Species".

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Zenithar

 

How did the first organisms survive withouth dna repair

Well, they did not. It is logical to assume that they died more often than more developed life. But when an organism produces lots of progeny, even when big part of it dies, life goes on.

so what your saying is they did not? then how did life "go on", you have not really answere the question, when life "popped up" from non living matter, how did the frist life, or even if it happend a million times, how did that first organism get anywhere without dna repari when it replicats, and if dna repair is there, we have to take that leap to assume the presence of topoisimerase? how could this be, how could those instructions be in the dna so early?

or blood clotting?

I presume you mean organisms that need blood clotting, because lots early multicellular organisms do not. Well, the answer is suprisingly simple - release of a type of protease that was originaly used for digestion into bloodstream is enough to produce primitive blood clotting. Some links:

here he is talkinb about how that proetease would improve the clotting system, in other words its already in place?
how did they survive when it was not "evolved" even to a the slightest degree, for surely it was not "just there" when the organims were?
its speculation at best, and i really think miller made an ass of himself trying to describe how our blood clotting is not irreducibly complex by comparting it to a fishes blood clotting, he was assertgin that this fisth was "missing" something" in his blood when compared to us, yet, he did not reduce anything, he simply implied somethign was missing because we had soemthing extra, it was rather a terrible example

www.millerandlevine.com...

www.talkorigins.org...

edit on 24/10/10 by Maslo because: to add

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Genetically speaking, species is a vague term, especially when you include the fossil record and biologic studies, and the presence of "Ring Species".

edit on 24-10-2010 by RuneSpider because: Oopsie.

I was reading about the evolution of wheat a few months ago and in not one of the books did it mention 'Ring Species', having just followed your link I can't understand why, it explains Wheat evolution, perfectly, in two words. Brilliant!

Thanks for that.