Human evolution: A simple calculation indicates that human evolution may have been turbo charged !

There's an interesting book entitled Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps by Robert Felix that delves into the subject of super-turbo charged evolutionary leaps that have taken place throughout history. I am not encouraging anybody to buy the book or anything, nor am I endorsing it as the end all be all to the explanation of evolution.

However, I will say that his theories do make sense and accounts for the "leaps" of evolution and explains why we have not found more missing link fossils to support slow, orderly evolution. Now, he claims we are ready for another leap and magnetic reversal (more than likely to jump on the 2012-hype since he has already begun to state that it may not happen for another 500 years) and this is where he loses me. However, he could be correct about it happening in the past and happening again, but perhaps simply has no real idea of when (I don't believe anybody does.)

My problem with evolution thus far is the lack of fossils. In order for our tail to fall off for example, there must have been entire generations born with a tail while walking upright as a tail would not have become unnecessary until after upright walking had been perfected (takes a lot of time). So where are all the human with tail fossils? Where are all of the bent (curved) spine fossils? I would think that a process that takes thousands of years to occur would have left more traces behind. But what do I know?

Some quotes about the book and its theories:

"According to Felix," the review begins, "you can forget Darwin's theory of slow, stately, orderly evolution. Rather, he believes that geomagnetic reversals over the course of history have triggered gigantic leaps, which occur according to a predictable, natural cycle...

Source: www.evolutionaryleaps.com...

"New species do not evolve slowly, but arise abruptly; new plants and animals seemingly appear from nowhere, with no intermediate life forms to explain their presence; and geologic records show that this happens immediately after extinctions and in conjunction with geomagnetic reversals time and again. Lowered magnetic field strength allows mutation-causing radiation to strike our planet."

Source: www.evolutionaryleaps.com...

There is also another source to research regarding this topic and seems to support Felix's theory above:

"Charles Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology. In fact, Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic. "

"However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory...

Source: www.evolutionaryleaps.com...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Visitor2012


DNA and RNA does not assimilate off a hot wet rock and then insert itself in a live cell and begin multiplying to become anything . A single cell amoeba has a very complicated DNA structure . Yet there are those that will compile mountains of flawed data and place their faith in folly of man and try to back engineer life and very poorly I might say ..

how about this jump? you are what you eat?
in short RND memory can be transferred!
I am not saying it happens all the time
or is easy.
why did this disappear?
to good to be true?

www.dur.ac.uk...
McConnell interpreted this as evidence that memory in flatworms was not localised in the head but was, rather distributed throughout the animal. In 1962 McConnell performed an experiment which appeared to be even more dramatic demonstration of this. After training some planaria he ground them up an fed them to other planaria. These animals were quicker at learning the light-shock association than controls who were fed ground-up untrained worms.

Given the excitement at the time about the discovery of the chemical basis of genetic information encoding and transfer - the structure and role of DNA was discovered by Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin in March of 1953 - a number of researcher began to investigate whether DNA or RNA were involved in what McConnell had hypothesised was the diffuse chemical encoding of memory in planaria. In 1961 Corning and John showed that the apparent memory of the tail of a bisected planarian could be disrupted by RNAase - an enzyme which destroys RNA, although there was still evidence for a retained association in the head-half even after regeneration in RNAase.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Why couldn't it be possible that you would gain a large number at any one time instead of a slow average like your stating?

If this was true then it would be very easy to prove I would think. Take a dna sample of a person, wait a few years and take it again. It should look different according to your theory. I didn't think our dna changed liked that, but I don't know much about dna

I would assume that most mutations because of their random nature would only occur at a given time in just a very few individuals within a species. I can't see how the very same mutation would occur within the same period of time in say 5, 10, 20 or more individuals of a given species.

So even if the same mutation occured in say 2 individuals and it happened to be a non-lethal mutation, those 2 individuals would have to live long enough to pass on that new mutation. Being a violent world, the odds would be stacked against them. So to ensure that that particular mutation eventually got passed on, nature would have needed to randomly recreate that same mutation in other members ... but this would impose a delay as the same mutation may not occur for many more years.

And yet, it's obvious to see that the rate of acquiring beneficial, or at least non-lethal, mutations had to happen consistently in time periods of much less than a year ... which is very, very difficult to come up with a suitable mechanism to account for it.

edit on 26/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)

I agree, what about outside influences that helpo shape who we are. For example, our galaxy the milky way is now consuming the dwarf galaxy, the resulting energy could have a big impact on how we develope. Thats not all, the variables are endless. The TSA scanners use terahertz which are between microwave and infrared, terahertz destroys your dna. I think we should think bigger, im sure when technology wasnt where it is your theory would work nicley but now a days we have to take everything into consideration.

Buddha,

Could bio-accumulation actually speed up DNA evolution? Or devolve DNA as well?

Humans in America were exposed to Dioxins and Toxins which destroyed their DNA and resulted in Obesity and Diabetes as their body took that poison they were exposed to and stored it in body fat trying to keep it away from organs.

The DNA code book had no resources to use to figure out what to do with the manmade Dioxins and Toxins, thus we ended up destroying our DNA. Watching China right now as they deal with their Dioxin/Toxin epidemic which is destroying THEIR DNA and giving them obesity/diabetes...

It's fairly certain we can assume what we eat, breath, and touch does indeed effect DNA and speed up evolution/ or destruction of DNA. Over the millennia humans have been exposed to many environmental conditions which has altered DNA merely on location of the host. Now we can take that DNA string from a man in China and a women in Argentina....and their offspring would have a DNA string showing evolution from two different locations.

Time is not the only factor to speed up DNA evolution.

I get what you are driving at. The idea of genetic mutation happening one at a time year in and year out is crazy. They would have had to happen in big jumps. So big that the off spring may not even look like its parents. What we today would call deformed. Only by big jumps could the time-line fit.
The whole genetic mutation thing would need as you put it turbo charged. But what did this? what caused the big jumps in the rate of genetic mutation? We all know that radiation can cause genetic mutation. Did a blast of radiation from space do this? The point is it seems that the genetic mutation seems to have had help of some kind or we are all aliens on this planet. That the human race is in fact older than the planet is. Now there is something to think about.

I;ve always felt like this, that we come to a point where something happens and a whole new species is here or a certiant species gets some kind of boots, trusting them into the 'spotlight' and making them at the top of the life chain..

but also more and more i'm starting to feel like techonology is the new supreme species... we already are pretty much reliant on techonology and NEED it to keep things in order. so it will soon be doing its own thing and telling us what to do.

reply to post by Pervius


Locations exchanging dna have been happening a lot longer than previously thought. The coc aine mummies are proof that ancient egyptians had been trading with cultures in the americas, coca and tobacco plants are native to this region. Now we all know the stereotype of sailors This would mean that we all are closer related to each other than we would like to think, despite the difference in appearance. Further proof that makes things like racism silly and ignorant, but thats another thread.

reply to post by Romekje

All that does is move the problem back one step. Where did they come from then? How did they "evolve" or did another set of intelligences influence their design?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Romekje

 

All that does is move the problem back one step. Where did they come from then? How did they "evolve" or did another set of intelligences influence their design?

That is the way it always is. It boils now to the question of" Who created the creators?"
That seems to be the problem. All you seem to ever do is move the problem back one step. IS there a begining or does it just keep going back and back?

reply to post by hautmess

We keep trying to build artificial intelligence. What is to say that an advanced species elsewhere in the universe is past the stage of machine intelligence and builds A.I. organically. If you were a master mason in the building blocks of life you could manipulate any organism. If man were to travel to mars, he would need some sort of robotic machines to help him perform anything the mission required. It doesnt make sense to travel those distances with all that robotic equipment if you just had the tools to use materials on mars to build those machines. If you could build life or even easier manipulate already existing life to suit your needs on the planet, you would. Reprogramming organic machines. Ancient Astronaut theory leads me to this explanation. There is no doubt in my mind that this planet has been visited by other intelligences. Figuring out the end results of those visitations is important, in that lies the key to the mysterious jump in evolution of man. I know, its a far out theory, but a viable one.

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Romekje

 

All that does is move the problem back one step. Where did they come from then? How did they "evolve" or did another set of intelligences influence their design?

That is the way it always is. It boils now to the question of" Who created the creators?"
That seems to be the problem. All you seem to ever do is move the problem back one step. IS there a begining or does it just keep going back and back?

It very well could keep going back and back. Look at the multiverse theory. If life was started in another universe the same as how it started in this one, then it is possible that an intelligence discovered how to travel between these universes and had influences in other universes. If they look at each one of these verses as a bubble that is formed and then eventually "pops", if you had the capability to escape that inevitability, would you not use it?

Originally posted by OptimistPrime

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Romekje

 

All that does is move the problem back one step. Where did they come from then? How did they "evolve" or did another set of intelligences influence their design?

That is the way it always is. It boils now to the question of" Who created the creators?"
That seems to be the problem. All you seem to ever do is move the problem back one step. IS there a begining or does it just keep going back and back?

It very well could keep going back and back. Look at the multiverse theory. If life was started in another universe the same as how it started in this one, then it is possible that an intelligence discovered how to travel between these universes and had influences in other universes. If they look at each one of these verses as a bubble that is formed and then eventually "pops", if you had the capability to escape that inevitability, would you not use it?

edit on 26-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: (no reason given)

Who created the creators that created the creators that created those creators ad infinitum?

en.wikipedia.org...

How about everyone in this thread read something they have obviously never heard of.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Couldnt that be in itself what you refer to as "the creator"? Why does the concept of the creator have to refer to someone rather than something? Everything that is the someone is in fact the something. Think of everything as part of the same organism. Cells in the body have a specific purpose. Why couldnt life that is from a different part of the universe or universes manipulating other "parts of a cell" be part of the evolution of "the creator" that is the infinite.

reply to post by tauristercus


Interesting subject, thinking. Good for you. S&F

imho - evolution is constant, and sometimes exceedingly rapid. Like now - we've altered our environment pretty much beyond recognition over the past couple of hundred years. Evolution is accelerating to catch up and help us adapt.

Originally posted by tauristercus
We have a total of approximately 3.164 billion nucleotide base pairs.
We have a period of approximately 3.8 billion years since the dawn of life.

So, a simple bit of maths shows that to get from that original extremely simple cell to a human, means that random evolution coupled with natural selection pressures had to SUCCESSFULLY add a completely new rung to the ladder on average almost EVERY SINGLE YEAR !!

.

edit on 26/12/10 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)

How accurate are your numbers?

I'll have to assume that the 3.164 billion nucleotide base paris is accurate but has this been verified elsewhere?

But what if the dawn of life is much earier than is thought?

What if life started 5 or 6 billion years ago? Wouldn't this help account for the slow rate of evolution thought now to occur?

Or what if life started a billion or two earlier? What happens to evolution then?

I thought evolution was pretty much set. Well, according to some of the members here, it's untouchable. What you are questioning here can turn evolution on it's head. While I'm excited about that, I need to know how accurate this is.

Wouldn't these jumps be based more on generation rather than yearly cycle?

For example, we know bacteria can duplicate very quickly. Let's say it takes a week or two for 1 to replicate into 1 billion. That gives it one billion chances to mutate in a week, and exponetially more in a year. Obviously it slows down when the organism has a longer life cycle... but you get the idea.


Thoughts?

reply to post by soficrow


Some of the cells of the whole that is existence are sick, and the body will do what it can to fix these broken cells. In order to return the balance there has to be some sort of evolution, whether it sends cells of a different type to destroy the sick cells or make the cells better. I'm pretty sure the ego of existence loves itself too much to simply destroy those cells, so it will do what it can to fix what is wrong with those cells before it deems necessary to destroy them. You have to think of existence as the organism to understand what evolution really is.

The information needed to come to a reasonable/remotley correct conclusion, either doesnt exist(i doubt it) or it simply hasnt been disclosed( more than likley). There are so many other questions that need to be answered before we can continue, we need disclosure. So many possible scenarios have been played out, at this point it doesnt matter. There jsut simply isnt enough information with indefinite validility to further our speculation without it being merely a best educated guess. Has is occured to anyone that there is an opposite side of things? Are we being throttled sort of speak?