Darwin is an idiot.

reply to post by iamaperson


It might be something more akin to proto-life. It might be something as simple as RNA in a lipid bilayer. We don't know, but to assume it fits into modern classification when it would have inevitably been the simplest form of life possible would be ludicrous.

Originally posted by iamaperson
Oh, sorry, I thought Prokaryotes were unicellular organisms, and Eukaryotes multicellular ones. So whats the LUCA then, if not Procatyotic or Eukaryotic?

edit on 10.3.11 by iamaperson because: Spelling

Uni/multicellular divide does not follow the prokaryote/eukaryote divide. The vast majority of eukaryotes (both number of species and number of organisms) are unicellular. Likewise the vast majority of prokaryotes are unicellular, however there are exceptions. As to what LUCA was, nobody knows. If you ask Cavalier-Smith, he'll tell you that it was indeed a bacteria. In more mainstream view such certainty is not shown. We don't even know if LUCA had a DNA or RNA genome. Some things point to the RNA one, but likewise many things (like almost universal code) point to DNA one (thou horizontal gene transfer could explain it too).

@OP: Darwin an idiot? Right (ahem) and who are you, as in what sciene are you a doctor or professor in?

Darwin made an effort to timeline some of the biological evolution.

Think you believe someone had a magic wand, waved with it and whoohaaaa there was man!?

Sry, being a sarcastic here. But calling someone an idiot that has been studing on evolution all his life, is quite foolish, isn't it?

Namsté.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by iamaperson
Oh, sorry, I thought Prokaryotes were unicellular organisms, and Eukaryotes multicellular ones. So whats the LUCA then, if not Procatyotic or Eukaryotic?

edit on 10.3.11 by iamaperson because: Spelling

Uni/multicellular divide does not follow the prokaryote/eukaryote divide. The vast majority of eukaryotes (both number of species and number of organisms) are unicellular. Likewise the vast majority of prokaryotes are unicellular, however there are exceptions. As to what LUCA was, nobody knows. If you ask Cavalier-Smith, he'll tell you that it was indeed a bacteria. In more mainstream view such certainty is not shown. We don't even know if LUCA had a DNA or RNA genome. Some things point to the RNA one, but likewise many things (like almost universal code) point to DNA one (thou horizontal gene transfer could explain it too).

edit on 10-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Indeed, but as I said I did think what I thought. Now after some thinking I am thinking maybe it was whether or not they had organelles, regardless, its off topic. So we don't yet know what the LUCA was, I hope we find out soon, it would be interesting to know! Anyways, thankyou (and madnessinmysoul) for correcting me.

HA HA HA !!!! Thanks to DARWIN for one more thing!!!!!........thanks to him and his postulates.contribution to science,hints to future scientists,WE have this discussion,dont be an idiot.the man is in his grave and still winning,without white horses in 'HEAVEN'.

Originally posted by iamaperson

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Also according to current understanding prokaryotes certainly didn't evolve from eukaryotes (prokaryotes are bacteria and archaea, eukaryotes are everything else). Also eukaryotes didn't (again according to current understanding) evolve from prokaryotes, instead prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor from which both lineages came to be. Bacteriae is the deepest rooting domain, eukarya the 2nd and archaea are the last comer. However, there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer at the time between the domains. Also some bacteria like e.g. species of planctomycetes phylum (maybe deepest branching bacterial phyla) actually have structures (various types in different species) that much resemble the eukaryote nucleus.

Oh, sorry, I thought Prokaryotes were unicellular organisms, and Eukaryotes multicellular ones. So whats the LUCA then, if not Procatyotic or Eukaryotic?

edit on 10.3.11 by iamaperson because: Spelling

LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, was probably a procaryotic (had no nucleus) single cell organism. LUCA is presumed to have exsisted because the DNA-Amino Acid transcription and transfer proccess is identical in all living organisms.

Originally posted by Dendro

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Humans have voluntary breath control, this enables speech. Animals have reflexive breath control.

That is incorrect. Any terrestrial animal that can swim has voluntary breath control i.e. dogs and monkeys. Aquatic mammals like whales have reflexive breath control but even that can be argued to be semi-voluntary.

The animal chooses to swim and the swimming reflex package causes breathing to stop in emergencies, I am assuming. In general, land animals that swim keep their heads above water. No other land mammal (besides man) swims below the surface, needing to hold its breath. Why would any land mammal need to hold its breath?

Do you know that animals can hold their breath?

Except dogs do dive and go under the surface. Beyond "doggie-paddling" this dog swims and fetches underwater.

Elephants Swimming

This monkey is swimming to cool off and for fun.

edit on 7-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)

Edited to add: Another video of a dog swimming underwater

edit on 7-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)

Interesting vids. I'm glad I watched them. BTW, I read somewhere that the whales are decended from a surf-hunting dog.

A large enough difference in degree is a difference in kind. Those animals don't swim like humans do. For instance, the dog doesn't swim under water looking for something to get. Rather it sees something in the water and fetches it. It swims under water like a flying squirrel "flies". Same for the monkey.

My statements were not correct per se, except in the context of the aquatic ape idea. A way to explain many differences that we have from various primates.

Evolution may be proven incomplete in the future. Before Einstien's Relativity, Newton's Physics was thought to be the ultimate description of reality.

Darwin was a pedophile

answers.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Analyze76
Darwin was a pedophile

answers.yahoo.com...

Yahoo answers is definitely a peer reviewed, scholarly, trusted source. This must mean that all of those crazy, nonsensical ramblings I've seen on there are true! /sarcasm

Now, unless you can correlate how someone's sexual preference can refute the mountains of evidence for evolution, your post is useless and intellectually dishonest. It is extremely depressing how this section has turned into a swamp of psychosis, unable to, or unwilling to understand scientific processes.

Kudos to all of the people who continually post empirical evidence (I honestly don't know how you can handle repeating yourselves to people that are clearly brainwashed beyond redemption), it's just sad that people would rather believe in dogmatic nonsense than actual facts of reality.

Originally posted by Analyze76
Darwin was a pedophile

answers.yahoo.com...

Oh yeah, Yahoo answers, great source
Yahoo Answers Wisdom

reply to post by Analyze76


How the hell did this get a star? Seriously, how? Where is the evidence that supports this claim? Oh, wait, there isn't a single shred of evidence to support that claim. The very fact that a single person would star that post makes me sad for ATS.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Slandering Darwin is the closest creationists can come to disproving evolution.

It must be hell for them having to keep putting up arguments for which there is neither factual nor logical support.

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Slandering Darwin is the closest creationists can come to disproving evolution.

It must be hell for them having to keep putting up arguments for which there is neither factual nor logical support.

Most of them are clever enough to realize that they can't prove their claims...so attacking the "other side" seems logical I guess, no matter how ridiculous the arguments are.

I'm not mad at people who generally don't know about stuff like evolution. What I do believe to be surprising is the amount of people who've been presented with objective evidence that debunks their claims, yet still chose to continue to believe in demonstrably wrong things.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
LUCA is presumed to have exsisted because the DNA-Amino Acid transcription and transfer proccess is identical in all living organisms.

DNA-protein process is far from identical between the 3 different domains of life. For example in archaea and bacteria you've got coupled transcription and translation. In eukarya you don't. In eukarya and archae you've got introns. In bacteria you don't (apart from this special self-splicing type that is also present in eukarya). In bacteria and archaea you've got polycistronic mRNA. In eukarya you don't. In bacteria you've got sigma factors. In eukarya you don't. I can't remember how it's for archaea. Ribosomes are far from identical between archaea, bacteria and eukarya. For example in bacteria and archaea you've got the 16S subunit. In eukarya you have the 18S. Even the genetic code (of codons) isn't universal. These are just some examples that come to my mind. AFAIK currently it's assumed that LUCA's genome was probably an RNA one. Also during early days viruses transferred a lot of stuff horizontally between the 3 lineages.

reply to post by CandiceZ


I agree but Darwin was not an idiot.He contributed a lot for his time.It's the modern day scientist that are not using logic that are making it worse.

How can a creature EVOLUTIONARY get an ability to change its skin colour(salamanders).And why dont all the creatures have it.Such feature can only be created by an intelligent being/extraterrestrial.That goes with all the other abilities of other creatures.Our bodies are the perfect machines, and cannot be created by pure evolution.

Originally posted by ThirdEyed
How can a creature EVOLUTIONARY get an ability to change its skin colour(salamanders).

There are several hypotheses for how this occurred in chameleons, the current frontrunner being that it’s to facilitate social signaling and that camouflage is just a secondary benefit. You do know that you can change your skin color as well, just not voluntarily – it’s called “blushing”.

And why dont all the creatures have it.

Because not all creatures experienced an environmental pressure that selected for it. Evolution doesn’t make organisms “better” on some kind of absolute scale. It just makes them more fit for their particular environment.

Such feature can only be created by an intelligent being/extraterrestrial.

Let’s assume that absolutely no research had been done into chromatophores and how some chameleons can changes color. (An aside: not all chameleons can.) The argument your proposing here is commonly referred to as a “God of the gaps” fallacy – “We don’t know how it happened so God or some God-like entity must have done it.” Science works on positive evidence, not inserting God because you don’t know how it happened.

That goes with all the other abilities of other creatures.

Such as? By the reasoning you’re proposing here, all that needs to be shows is how one particular ability evolved to suggest that all of them could have evolved.

Our bodies are the perfect machines, and cannot be created by pure evolution.

Perfect machines… that age pretty poorly and are incredibly susceptible to infection. If we were perfect machines, we would never have evolved the need to use tools. Think we were intelligently designed?

reply to post by ThirdEyed


Perfect machines? How about I take the old creationist staple of the 'perfect' part of people, the eye. Our eyes? They suck. The best eyes in the animal kingdom are not found in humans, they're found on octopuses and their ilk. Our eyes lack the ability to determine the polarity of light, see only a small fraction of the EM spectrum, have a massive blind spot in the middle due to blood vessels clustering, etc.

We're far from perfect, but we're a well-evolved machine. 3 billion years of trial and error gets you places.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
LUCA is presumed to have exsisted because the DNA-Amino Acid transcription and transfer proccess is identical in all living organisms.

DNA-protein process is far from identical between the 3 different domains of life. For example in archaea and bacteria you've got coupled transcription and translation. In eukarya you don't. In eukarya and archae you've got introns. In bacteria you don't (apart from this special self-splicing type that is also present in eukarya). In bacteria and archaea you've got polycistronic mRNA. In eukarya you don't. In bacteria you've got sigma factors. In eukarya you don't. I can't remember how it's for archaea. Ribosomes are far from identical between archaea, bacteria and eukarya. For example in bacteria and archaea you've got the 16S subunit. In eukarya you have the 18S. Even the genetic code (of codons) isn't universal. These are just some examples that come to my mind. AFAIK currently it's assumed that LUCA's genome was probably an RNA one. Also during early days viruses transferred a lot of stuff horizontally between the 3 lineages.

Good call, I was sloppy again.

I meant, specifically, the universality of the genetic code. Tranfer RNA uses the same codons for the various (commonly 22) amino acids in 99.9... % of living organisms.

The transcription process copies the whole gene like video or audio tape and isn't affected by the codon size, although I suspect there are more similarities than differences in the DNA ( or RNA) replication, translation and transfer processes as a whole.

Using evolution as a guide, the oldest genes are in energy production, protien synthesis, and nucleic acid maintenance. Viruses know our nuclei pretty well and could be the basic cause of our nuclei. Mitochondria produce most of our energy and appearently have some differences in their codon spelling, as compared to most organisms. So I would guess that the genes we have in common with LUCA would be protien synthesis genes or cytoplasmic glycolysis genes.

If LUCA was pre Oxygen Extinction Event then maybe we have no genes in common with it at all.

Did the Oxygen Extinction Event cause the change to DNA from RNA?

Interesting difference you site about bacteria. Could you "download" cellulosic enzyme genes into a bacteria? Maybe half of a cellulosic emzyme into each of two different cultures so the bacteria won't digest themselves. Do bacteria have no inert DNA at all, or no inert DNA within each gene?

reply to post by CandiceZ
Evolution is not proven via scientific protocol in re empirical evidence. Nice philosophy but fails. If Darwin had remained he would have observed the Finches' beaks revert back to their original form. Certainly not enough evidence to support a tree showing that all life is related. Dawkins? "Man evolved from bacteria." Really Richard & you came to this theory because one group of the same strain of bacteria changed colors? Perhaps they caught the flu! ROFL!