In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

reply to post by Jaydee055


SK may have the best 'education' system but the most EDUCATED nation in the world is Canada. The US is number 4 and sadly your SK falls to number 6. So your average 70% of atsers are dumber then SK is wrong, in all actuality we're more educated.

finance.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by SoulReaper
reply to post by Barcs

 

take a look at this link to see how the Theory of Evolution is just a bunch of drivel.. Some good quotes from famous evolutionists as well

www.ecclesia.org...

Soul

I asked for specific examples of the science that was bad in the links I provided and for science that backs up your claims. This is not that. This is a BS creationist website that doesn't even know the basics about evolution, and is essentially making up the discrepancies. I'll give you a couple examples but I'm not wasting my time answering questions that are easily found on google, but you are too lazy to look the info up and would rather just blindly believe this website.

In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`.

LIE. Evolution has nothing to do with primordial soup.

1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

Unsubstantiated lie.

2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

Nothing to do with evolution

Skimming through, not a single part of it actually addresses the experiments that prove evolution. It's all just made up guesswork about it and misunderstandings about the theory.

Sorry. You have to do better than that.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Although I do believe evolution plays a major role in nature, I can't find a single case that a species benefited from a gain or lose of a chromosome. A human is born with or without one chromosome and they're birth defected, mentally dull, and lose motor function. That being said there is not a single shred of evidence to prove that this process equals good things, there is although a very large amount of evidence to the contrary. If you could show me a single case of it being otherwise I'll commend you for your efforts, till then scientists are still grasping at straws because they still have no answer for this.

Why change in chromosome structure of species has to result in benefit? If that was the case, wouldn't higher number of chromosomes mean higher level of species? On contrary, some simple organisms have more chromosomes then humans, in fact, some multiple time of those in humans. (see this list for more details). Some of them even over 1000 chromosomes?!

It's not just chromosome that count, but every single gene inside chromosome.

As far as less chromosome, if I remember correctly australian aboriginal people have only 42+2 chromosome (modern humans have 44+2), but less chromosome does not mean that they are mentally dull, or don't have motor functions.

Close to one of my favorite songs... 46+2 (what religion tells us about shadows?)

Originally posted by squiz
The fused chromosome is the ONLY one that lines up. And it's just as equally possible the fusion occured exclusively in the human lineage, ther is no need to invoke an evolutionary connection especially when it is the only one that lines up.

I never invoked an evolutionary connection from the fusion. That was you. It may have nothing to do with evolution. If science doesn't know the exact answer, does that REALLY mean ID is right? Nope. Evolution is still just as valid, regardless of how/why the fusion actually happened.

You also reject the determined mutation rates supplied by the very science you are trying to defend, the environment is limited in how much it can speed the proposed mechanism, as each mutaton must become fixed in the population.

I rejected the rates? When did that happen? All I did was point out that you are drawing your own conclusions from the scientific research, which have nothing to do with the scientists that did the experiment. The experiment you cited isn't a measurement of all mutations or anything like that, it's an ESTIMATE of how long a certain mutation can take. That doesn't question evolution, it confirms it! There would be no mutations at all if evolution was false.

100 million years for two mutations!

Just curious, I'm going to play your logic for a second. How was this 100 million year change observed?

So, what is the significance of the cited paper? Though there are many documented instances of these interstitial telomeric sequences in the genomes of humans and chimps, the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence is the only one which is able to be associated with an evolutionary breakage point or fusion. The other ones do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates at all!

Who cares? The comparison is between humans and chimps, our closet living relative. What does that have to do with the rest of primates?

all the known ITSs, and there are many in the genomes of chimps and humans, as well as mice and rats and cows..., the 2q13 ITS is the only one that can be associated with an evolutionary breakpoint or fusion. The other ITSs, I hasten to add, do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates (Farré M, Ponsà M, Bosch M. 2009. "Interstitial telomeric sequences (ITSs) are not located at the exact evolutionary breakpoints in primates," Cytogenetic and Genome Research 124(2): 128-131.). In brief, to hone in on the 2q13 ITS as being typical of what we see in the human and chimp genomes seems almost like cherry-picking data. Most are not DNA scars in the way they have been portrayed.

I don't see how this goes against evolution.

reply to post by SuperFrog


46 and 2 is a great song, but I'm still not positive of the chromosome count thing, I know we didn't come directly from chimps but chimps have less chromosomes and they're our closest relative today... So I just wonder how we got to our perfect number when other species don't shed or gain chromosome throughout there progression but instead change the code within the DNA like you suggested. I can't find another tree of specimens that has changed it's chromosome count throughout the same amount of evolution as humans. I'm still hitting a wall here and your post just gives me more questions

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

46 and 2 is a great song, but I'm still not positive of the chromosome count thing, I know we didn't come directly from chimps but chimps have less chromosomes and they're our closest relative today... So I just wonder how we got to our perfect number when other species don't shed or gain chromosome throughout there progression but instead change the code within the DNA like you suggested. I can't find another tree of specimens that has changed it's chromosome count throughout the same amount of evolution as humans. I'm still hitting a wall here and your post just gives me more questions

edit on 8-6-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

If you get complete meaning of the song (46 and 2) , you are one of rare who love that song and got the meaning behind 'shadows' mentioned in the song.

As for chromosome, what makes you think that our number is perfect?

As for direct links between us and other humanoids, we just share common ancestors, and using genes we can determine approximate time of divergence. We know that humans lived with 8 different close relatives trough history, and thanks to genes we know that we even mate with some of them. (Like neanderthals on the west, Europe and west part of asia and denisovans on the east part of Asia and Indonesia)

Biggest problem in discovering complete tree is of course finding all possible fossils. Not every bone of dead animal/human is preserved, on the contrary, just a small percentage is preserved, where rest finishes as gasoline in our cars and what not...

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by AliceBlackman

 

I understand everything you said, although could you please post a link to something GOOD that happens to humans that gain or lose a chromosome, Down syndrome only solidifies the claim that gaining or losing a chromosome down the line equals bad news... not good news. Again an apple is always an apple and can't be an orange.

I can't think of a gross chromosomal change in a human that's associated with anything good, however there are example's out there with other species. I think genes are much more important than the scaffolding they are wrapped around, but do not discount that the internal structure in the nucleus is important (which is what the Monsanto scientists have been trying to ignore...however I'll save that rant for later).

Genetic's is a very new area of research compared to other branches of Science, so I expect as time goes on we will learn an awful lot more.

The rose became a "genetic monster" by chromosomal duplication,(double the number expected) , which lead to 10 or more petals instead of 5. This has then the advantage to be better "recognized" by the bees and other flying insects.

Given your interest in the packaging of the DNA on chromosomes and it’s effects on an organism I think you’d like Dr. G. Wesley Hatfield's work. His team is working hard to further define DNA topology-dependent regulatory mechanisms responsible for coordinating the expression of large families of genes. I call it “location, location, location”. It’s not just about having the right “amenities, facilties & tour guides” (gene's and related expression systems), it’s also where they are placed in relation to other gene’s on other chromosomes. I.e hotel, clubs, beach, restaurant and transportation system.
Here's a nice link on variation in chromosome number and structure and it's relation to evolution.
www.life.illinois.edu...

Another area of great interest is “epigenics”, where geneticists are looking at how external influences work on organisms genomes as a constant fluid exchange with the environment. Retro viruses play a big role here as can environmental molecules (think thalidomide), other snippets that need to be researched are how much impact do little pieces of genetic information from the food eaten have on an organism etc, this I think this and the topological work mentioned above is going to be where we see great advances in the life sciences and increase our knowledge on evolutionary processes (just my humble opinion).

Here’s a list of Organism’s that have the same number of chromosomes as humans, but varying %’s of shared gene’s to illustrate my point that gene's play a much bigger role than actual chromosome structure.

-Humans (Homo sapiens)
- Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)
- Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46
- European hare (Lepus europeus)
- Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)
- Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
- Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
- Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
- Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
- Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki)
- Grey vole (Microtus arvalis)
- Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
- Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)
- Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
- Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
- Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

I think that given that organisms have varying numbers of chromosomes shows that any number can work for an organism to be successful, as long as it has the right gene's and right environment.

Bacteria generally have 1 (Cholera has 2), Pigs and Cats get along fine with 38, Dogs have 78, Ophioglossum reticulatum, or Adders-tongue, a species of fern, has 1,262 chromosomes !

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by AliceBlackman

 

Also I've always seen humans as being something unnatural on this planet because how we consume compared to other animals, I've always highly respected and connected with animals more then people, people are dumb, people waste. So with that being said and your backround in BIOCHEM wouldn't you think that's extremely odd that there isn't another being on the planet that wastes as much as humans do? I mean realistically humans are a one off, a paradox that doesn't make sense when compared to other 'mammals'. However little or much we have in common with others.

edit on 7-6-2012 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

Actually I think there are an awful lot of species on this planet that would cause extreme amounts of damage if it were not for predation, I do not think it's just a human trait. Our problem is that we have to manage ourselves because we've got rid of our predator's/competition and have managed to gain the upper hand on bacteria / viruses over the last few hundred years (mainly clean water/sanitation), greatly increasing our lifespan and it was a while from the late 1800 hundred's to the pill in the 1960's !

human population growth
www.globalchange.umich.edu...

locust plague
www.loc.gov...
Deer & Livestock
www.wildlandmanagement.org.uk...


Interestingly the number of bacteria living within the body of the average healthy adult human are estimated to outnumber human cells 10 to 1..... does this mean we're just an overgrown bacterial colony ?
www.sciencedaily.com...

It seems likely that the most dangerous organisms on earth in relation to killing practically all life,are ..BACTERIA.

blue-green algae known as cyanobacteria during the Paleoproterozoic era killed practically everything (Oxygen Catastrophe)
www.damninteresting.com...

Sulfur bacteria may actually have been responsible for killing off 95% of the species on Earth during the end-Permian extinction (hydrogen sulfide - severe ozone depletion - fatal levels of UV - only know mass extinction of insects)
www.sciencedaily.com...

And if we are not careful, we may well recreate the warm / CO2 rich environment that sulpur bacteria "love" ....maybe it's their whole plan ... (ok wild supposition..but I'm going to take the liberty , it's Friday.)

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by Lionhearte

 

Hope you have never taken any anti biotics lion, I'd hate for you to see that changing viruses and bacteria are evolution in action and that the anti biotics have helped people get better. Don't bother debating, just don't bother. If you or ANYBODY you know has ever taken anti biotics and recovered from some bad bacterial infection, and you debate evolution, then imo you are an hypocrite

Yes, Micro-Evolution. I've already debated the subject of bacteria over in this thread, and here is my response. Read the post below it, as well. It's a continuation.

You're sorting of proving that you don't understand the most rudimentary of concepts in evolution. You keep looking for these "missing links" or this one precise split-second moment in time when an amphibian gave birth to a mouse.

That's not how ANY sort of evolution works...be it micro or macro. Evolution occurs in a CONTINUUM. It's incremental by nature.

However...there is ample evidence in the paleo. record of what are called "transitional fossils". Species which to us would appear to be chimeric or "half of one thing and half of another".

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. We can not only see there reptillian heritage in there current physiology but we can also see it in DNA analysis. Indeed...scientists can even "turn on" some of the old dinosaur genes in chicken embryo's to bring out those lost features. It's cutting edge research since the field of modern genetics is less than a half-century old...but the experiments are underway right now. Likewise...if this were really true...then we should be able to find at least a few feathered dinosaurs...right? Yep. That's why we have found dozens and dozens of different species...all of which seem to show a general tendency to have MORE feathers the more recent the specimen. Just as one would expect if evolution were both true and an incremental continuum.

Dino-chicken experiments link: www.wired.com...
List of feathered dino's link: en.wikipedia.org...

It's not a mystery anymore....and hasn't been for well over a hundred years.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lionhearte

To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever.

Thanks for reminding me, LH. A few days ago I wondered why science can't take an insect that lives for a very short period (is there one that lives only a day?) of time and watch it's descendants evolve via the manipulation of its environment.

Just googled shortest living insect and came up with the Mayfly, which lives one hour to 24 hours.

Put some mayflies in a controlled environment (a fish tank) and (I dunno) alter it's food supply, change the humidity... How long would it take for these insects to show clear evolutionary changes? I'm not just talking about changing it's color. I mean I want to see extra limbs grow, maybe a new defense mechanism. Something that clearly shows an evolutionary change.

Why can't this be done, or has it been done?

It has been done. Exhibit A: The common family dog. The dog has more genetic variation between it's "breeds" than any other species on earth, bar none. If the same rules of science were applied to dogs as it is to frogs, jungle cats, insects, oak trees, etc. we would have THOUSANDS of different SPECIES of dogs. Including some that could not physically reproduce with other "dogs"...the ultimate last word of defining a species.

A Mastiff and a Chihuaha BOTH started out as wolves. One evolved into a large working dog with a strong instincts to protect it's owner (even in warfare...Mastiffs were once dressed in full battle armor and fought beside knights)...and the other evolved to forgo all physical defenses whatsoever and rely upon it's own novelty and ability to fit inside Paris Hilton's purse for it's survival.

True...mankind SHAPED it by CHANGING IT'S ENVIRONMENT...but that's pretty much exactly the experiment proposed...right?

Originally posted by NotTooHappy

LOL! I hear THAT! Split Infinity

I can do that:
Natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...infinity
Even numbers 2,4,6,8,10...infinity
The set of even numbers can only ever be half what the set of all natural numbers is.

Half of infinity ....... hmmm, depends on which half someone would want...

Could be ..... infi
Could be ..... nity

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Lionhearte

To the rest of you- Evolution is a theory and has NOT been observed, never, ever, ever.

Thanks for reminding me, LH. A few days ago I wondered why science can't take an insect that lives for a very short period (is there one that lives only a day?) of time and watch it's descendants evolve via the manipulation of its environment.

Just googled shortest living insect and came up with the Mayfly, which lives one hour to 24 hours.

Put some mayflies in a controlled environment (a fish tank) and (I dunno) alter it's food supply, change the humidity... How long would it take for these insects to show clear evolutionary changes? I'm not just talking about changing it's color. I mean I want to see extra limbs grow, maybe a new defense mechanism. Something that clearly shows an evolutionary change.

Why can't this be done, or has it been done?

It has been done. Exhibit A: The common family dog. The dog has more genetic variation between it's "breeds" than any other species on earth, bar none. If the same rules of science were applied to dogs as it is to frogs, jungle cats, insects, oak trees, etc. we would have THOUSANDS of different SPECIES of dogs. Including some that could not physically reproduce with other "dogs"...the ultimate last word of defining a species.

A Mastiff and a Chihuaha BOTH started out as wolves. One evolved into a large working dog with a strong instincts to protect it's owner (even in warfare...Mastiffs were once dressed in full battle armor and fought beside knights)...and the other evolved to forgo all physical defenses whatsoever and rely upon it's own novelty and ability to fit inside Paris Hilton's purse for it's survival.

True...mankind SHAPED it by CHANGING IT'S ENVIRONMENT...but that's pretty much exactly the experiment proposed...right?

Not at all. The dogs were bred by man. I want to see the mayflies ENVIRONMENT manipulated to see if over, say, five years (that would be 1,825 generations) the mayfly evolves on it's own. I'm thinking: put the flies in one half of the fish tank, with a divider full of tiny holes that the flies can't pass through. Then put a sheet of algae (that's one of their foods. Ick!) on the other side of the divider and just out of reach. Would the mayflies mouth extend over time? Would their tongues (do they have tongues?) grow longer?

Originally posted by AliceBlackman

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by AliceBlackman

 

I understand everything you said, although could you please post a link to something GOOD that happens to humans that gain or lose a chromosome, Down syndrome only solidifies the claim that gaining or losing a chromosome down the line equals bad news... not good news. Again an apple is always an apple and can't be an orange.

I can't think of a gross chromosomal change in a human that's associated with anything good, however there are example's out there with other species. I think genes are much more important than the scaffolding they are wrapped around, but do not discount that the internal structure in the nucleus is important (which is what the Monsanto scientists have been trying to ignore...however I'll save that rant for later).

Genetic's is a very new area of research compared to other branches of Science, so I expect as time goes on we will learn an awful lot more.

The rose became a "genetic monster" by chromosomal duplication,(double the number expected) , which lead to 10 or more petals instead of 5. This has then the advantage to be better "recognized" by the bees and other flying insects.

Given your interest in the packaging of the DNA on chromosomes and it’s effects on an organism I think you’d like Dr. G. Wesley Hatfield's work. His team is working hard to further define DNA topology-dependent regulatory mechanisms responsible for coordinating the expression of large families of genes. I call it “location, location, location”. It’s not just about having the right “amenities, facilties & tour guides” (gene's and related expression systems), it’s also where they are placed in relation to other gene’s on other chromosomes. I.e hotel, clubs, beach, restaurant and transportation system.
Here's a nice link on variation in chromosome number and structure and it's relation to evolution.
www.life.illinois.edu...

Another area of great interest is “epigenics”, where geneticists are looking at how external influences work on organisms genomes as a constant fluid exchange with the environment. Retro viruses play a big role here as can environmental molecules (think thalidomide), other snippets that need to be researched are how much impact do little pieces of genetic information from the food eaten have on an organism etc, this I think this and the topological work mentioned above is going to be where we see great advances in the life sciences and increase our knowledge on evolutionary processes (just my humble opinion).

Here’s a list of Organism’s that have the same number of chromosomes as humans, but varying %’s of shared gene’s to illustrate my point that gene's play a much bigger role than actual chromosome structure.

-Humans (Homo sapiens)
- Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)
- Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46
- European hare (Lepus europeus)
- Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)
- Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
- Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
- Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
- Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
- Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki)
- Grey vole (Microtus arvalis)
- Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
- Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)
- Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
- Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
- Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

I think that given that organisms have varying numbers of chromosomes shows that any number can work for an organism to be successful, as long as it has the right gene's and right environment.

Bacteria generally have 1 (Cholera has 2), Pigs and Cats get along fine with 38, Dogs have 78, Ophioglossum reticulatum, or Adders-tongue, a species of fern, has 1,262 chromosomes !

edit on 8-6-2012 by AliceBlackman because: spelling

Thank you for actually supplying some clear thinking, factual information, and a basic knowledge of the natural world to this thread. It is very much appreciated.

It never ceases to amaze me how full-grown adults can rationalize their demonstrably incorrect "Beliefs" about the world around them by continuously applying a bizarre combination of reductionism and willful ignorance.

reply to post by jiggerj


They’ll just die (extinction in the tank ... how could you ).... what you have done to the poor things is a "Catastrophic event” .. not a gradual change they can adapt to...

The Algae thanks you .. (asks to be placed in a sunny spot and requests some lawn fertilizer and some water)

reply to post by blackcube



here's a informative piece of reading:


www.alternet.org...


i myself share the combined aspects of 'positive Athiest'...'Pantheist'...agnostic...Anti-diest


i 'profile myself.... so don't worry about it....
those 46% are romanticising their LiFe & world view, to equivocate all they can... meanwhile they cook burgers on the grill & say pass the ketchup

its all CYA

Originally posted by jiggerj

Not at all. The dogs were bred by man. I want to see the mayflies ENVIRONMENT manipulated to see if over, say, five years (that would be 1,825 generations) the mayfly evolves on it's own. I'm thinking: put the flies in one half of the fish tank, with a divider full of tiny holes that the flies can't pass through. Then put a sheet of algae (that's one of their foods. Ick!) on the other side of the divider and just out of reach. Would the mayflies mouth extend over time? Would their tongues (do they have tongues?) grow longer?

I see your point...but I think we have a bit of a different definition of what constitutes an "environment". Admittedly...there ARE multiple ways of looking at it even within the scientific community.

I take the view that an organism evolves to best ensure it's survival in it's environment...which would of course very much include a dogs longstanding relationship with mankind. Humans are VERY MUCH part of a dogs "natural" environment. All over the world there were certain wolves during the paleolithic that were just a bit more docile/human-friendly than others...and man and canine teamed up in a very NATURAL symbiotic relationship to MUTUALLY help to better ensure their food supply, safety, and companionship.

Once the shift to agrarian lifestyle came about, the dogs who were with man suddenly found an entirely new set of pressures and stimuli upon them. While ALL villages still needed hunting dogs...the PREY BEING HUNTED FOR changed dramatically. Wolves are ideally adapted to hunting large herd animals. Sure...they hunt other things and they will also certainly scavenge...but a wolf's first choice is pretty much always a deer, elk, moose, etc. When humans stopped following the herds...they suddenly found the need for new types of dogs.

Mastiffs and their ancient Molassers lineage were HUGE creatures (larger than todays more "diminutive" Bull Mastiff) and they were used predominantly for pulling carts, filled with crops that hunter & gatherers didn't have and rolling on wheels which previously didn't exist. However...humans quickly found a need for dogs to hunt smaller game which was more consistently available given that we no longer followed the herds. Enter all sorts of dogs who were perfectly adapted to hunting things like waterfowl, upland birds, and scent hounds to track smaller mammals. Yes...we did "help" the dogs along the way...but Neolithic animal husbandry was only just so sophisticated. These dogs certainly weren't put into a controlled lab by any means....and leash laws are very much a modern invention. What really happened is more or less the dogs that were useful and who could procure surplus calories above and beyond what was needed for their own survival got a "favored" status by the humans who benefitted from those calories.

Being the "favored" dog meant that you were more likely to reproduce since the humans were NATURALLY more concerned for the well-being of the dog who had the better nose or whatever. Hence...these dogs were more likely to reproduce. It wasn't until the Classical civilizations rolled around that the first hints of what we would consider anything even APPROACHING modern-day "dog breeding" started occurring. Specifically, I'm thinking of Alexander the Great's Tibetan Mastiff that he picked up in the Far East. For the first thirty thousand years or so the dogs simply adapted to their new environments...which very much included the environment of man. Likewise...it has been said that the environment of a rat is simply the environment of man. Rats follow humans around and scavenge their trash and stores. Rats live in cities, above ground, underground, on ships, in warehouses, in landfills....you name it. Wherever there is evidence of humans...you can find some rats. No surprise that we have so many types of terriers who are perfectly adapted to hunting and killing them. If there is a biological need for a niche to be filled...there will be a dog which will come about to fill it in a handful of generations.

However...again...I do understand what your saying. However...the whole idea w/ the mayflies or other short-lived insects HAS been tried...but there are other factors that play into the equation which makes these experiments which make many of these species terrible candidates for an evolutionary study...(continued in nxt post)

Originally posted by jiggerj

..continued.

A short lifespan is not necessarily the thing that someone is really looking for when conducting these sorts of experiments. Sure...it's convenient because it doesn't take long for a generation to come and go...but whats REALLY important is the genetic code of the organism itself.

Specifically...how much "elasticity" or the range of adaptability that a specific organism gene's permit it to vary from generation to generation. Mayflies have evolved to eat algae and reproduce in water. Thus...for the sum total of their existence as long as they had those two things they have been more or less just fine. Given that since the mayfly has evolved there hasn't yet been a day where their species has been threatened...they really have no precedent for doing a whole lot of adapting at all. Algae has been around longer than even lichen. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of different species of mayflies worldwide...but I imagine that so long as everyone has water and algae they probably don't differ a whole hell of a lot except in terms like you mentioned previously like color, size, etc.

However...let's say that we radically changed that mayflies environment in a lab. An organism that has survived millions and millions of years with little need for change...and NO need for rapid or immediate change will probably just die before it can truly adapt....much less evolve. Extinction is a bitch and unfortunately it's a whole lot more common than evolving.

Secondly we have to remember that nature and evolution very much dictate that organisms adapt to their environment in the most EFFICIENT manner possible. Nature has a way of coming back to the same general "solutions" from a whole lot of VERY different starting points. Let's think about wings. Birds, insects, and bats ALL have wings...but aren't genetically related (unless you are going back to the the first single-celled organisms perhaps). Likewise, a humingbirds wings are built for hovering and a condor is more of a glider...yet both are still birds.

Therefore...any attempt to radically change the mayflies environment that it would actually survive would probably not result in a super-cool set of fangs or scorpion stinger. It would much more likely be an internal change of some sort. I bet you fed 20,000 generations of mayflies a genetically engineered algae that became a little harder to digest (thicker cell walls or something) for each generation of mayflies you would ABSOLUTELY have a new species of mayfly on your hands. Probably with a radically different mayfly-digestive system. But internal changes aren't going to have that "Wow" factor.

However...I do believe I have a point to ponder regarding the whole macro-evolution thing. I gotta admit...even though I know feathered dinosaurs existed and hairy "fish" are all over the place at Seaworld...it's pretty hard to conceive of a salamander giving birth to something with hair like a mammal.

We know that evolution exists...both macro and micro. I can't think of anything more "macro" than meat-eating dinosaurs becoming chickens. However....we still have not found that ONE SINGLE common microbiotic ancestor...right? Realistically...we WON'T ever find it either. From what I understand an amoeba don't fossilize very well...and even if they did they are REALLY hard to spot.

But what if life didn't start with ONE "magic" spark...but several? We have now successfully created in a lab the very first self-replicating amino-acid chains (more primitive than single cell-organisms. The absolute precursors to the precursor for evolutionary life to exist) from a simulated primordial soup in conditions that replicated the cooling earth. Once they had the "recipe" correct...they researchers found it was actually pretty easy to do. The big "secret" was adding lightning. The electrochemical reaction required some sort of catalyst to start synthesizing. As soon as they zapped their simulated primordial pools with a nice lightning simulations...voila...life took hold.

Maybe there isn't ONE common ancestor. Maybe this first protein synthesis occurred 100,000 times...but only a handful were durable enough to truly evolve. Maybe one of these eventually became plant life...one became the precursors of insects, fish, etc. Hell..there are such a myriad of insects on earth...maybe there are 1,000 different "first" microbiotic ancestors of the insect kingdom.

We don't know...yet. But we will. The first 100+ years we could only tackle evolution on one end...the fossil record. Now we also have DNA analysis...and the ONLY limiting factor of a deeper understanding of the planet's genetic material is simply computational power. Moore's Law is blindingly fast...but we will soon be accelerating FAR faster than we could with Moore's Law as we move away from silicon and into spintronics, photonics, & quantum computing.

It's only a matter of time.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
We don't know...yet. But we will. The first 100+ years we could only tackle evolution on one end...the fossil record. Now we also have DNA analysis...and the ONLY limiting factor of a deeper understanding of the planet's genetic material is simply computational power. Moore's Law is blindingly fast...

While I agree on principle with most of your post, I have no confidence in that statement of yours. Entropy can be a b!tch, you know. Moore's law is sweet, but entropy always wins. Whatever traces and correlations existed once will be diluted after some 10**7 years. It's hard to reconstruct the anatomy of a fish while looking at a sushi platter. Computational power nonwithstanding (saying this as a person who's familiar with computational power).

As an illustration, most linguists will tell you that there is only so much we can infer about the oldest of langiages, by comparative analysis.

reply to post by blackcube


I guess all you faithless will find out eventually wont you? Hopefully you see the truth in the lords day.

Otherwise....... sizzle sizzle crackle pop :-)