Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

Getting to the bottom of evolution
The link above, is an article that deals with the evolution of orifices, such as the mouth and anus. I heard about the article while listening to a podcast by Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.
Here is the link
What Ross and Rana talk about is the fact that orifices, specifically the anus, has evolved many different times and in many different organisms. The question they raise is; If in fact these multiple, unrelated evolution events occurred with regards to the anus, then this would seem to be counter to the theory of evolution.
Rana actually explains; random variables are acted upon by selection. Selection is contingent on the environment, other organisms that are in the environment, and climate. It's a sequence of chance events.
Knowing that is the case, how can the anus evolve in different organisms, in different times, and in different sequential selection events?

Is this happening in other areas of biology? If so, can there be some hidden property causing all of these coincidences?

or .. early anus genetic coding, from a common ancestor, leading to anus's in many and varied forms across evolutionary stages and genus.

i expect more from creationists that bungholes...

but i guess i shouldn't be surprised...

Originally posted by addygrace
What Ross and Rana talk about is the fact that orifices, specifically the anus, has evolved many different times and in many different organisms.

Convergent evolution explains this just fine - the development of the same trait in different lineages.

And natural selection is a nonrandom mechanism.

If by hidden property you mean a supernatural deity, then no.

So what would be the first thing with a butt? Lol if anyone knows.

reply to post by addygrace


Wow a creation "scientist" misrepresenting the findings of an article in nature... Shocking.

Did you actually read the article? It doesn't counter the Theory of Evolution. It says that new findings may revise what we currently think led to complex excretory systems in animals.

One piece of evolutionary theory may be revised, IF these two biologists can prove their findings.

Got news for you.... This happens at least once a year as more research is done within the field. Science is constantly evolving, just the same as the universe and life in general.

And I thought this was going to be about how A holes not only evolved but get elected into positions of power

reply to post by OneLove20


Probably a multicelled organism...unless you count vacuole as "butts", which bacterias and other single celled organisms have.

Wow...I really didn't expect everybody to be so defensive.
I don't see any problem with their line of questioning. I mean this is supposed to be a workable theory, so asking questions such as they asked is really what science is all about.

reply to post by addygrace


I guess this site has put up with lots of other creationist who has no understand of anything(mixing of theory), starts a bashing thread.

I did not find your OP any offensive or stupid, it was a decent question.

But the person you mentioned in the OP is not credible for explaining science.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by addygrace

 

I guess this site has put up with lots of other creationist who has no understand of anything(mixing of theory), starts a bashing thread.

I did not find your OP any offensive or stupid, it was a decent question.

But the person you mentioned in the OP is not credible for explaining science.

The people I mentioned in my OP are not credible? Why? They are both scientists. Fazale Rana has a PhD in Chemistry with an emphasis on Biochemistry.

So luciddream on ATS tells me a PhD in Chemistry is not credible for explaining science.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by addygrace

 

I guess this site has put up with lots of other creationist who has no understand of anything(mixing of theory), starts a bashing thread.

I did not find your OP any offensive or stupid, it was a decent question.

But the person you mentioned in the OP is not credible for explaining science.

The people I mentioned in my OP are not credible? Why? They are both scientists. Fazale Rana has a PhD in Chemistry with an emphasis on Biochemistry.

So luciddream on ATS tells me a PhD in Chemistry is not credible for explaining science.

Both Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana are creationist, they are using "Science" to connect religion to Science.

Just because you have PhD does not give them the right to go against Science laws and theories.

And ATS Luciddream is a Microbiologist Bsc. without a bias.

I liked this part in the article:

A through gut could have been present in the last common ancestor of all bilaterians and the anus could have been lost independently in both Acoela and Nemertodermatida lineages. The expression of hindgut markers at the posterior pole in C. longifissura would therefore be remnants of a posterior anal opening.

Later in the article:

In addition to rejecting hypotheses based on the simultaneous evolution of mouth and anus (for example, the amphistomy-hypothesis), our results question whether a through gut was present in the last common ancestor of protostomes and deuterostomes because there are basal taxa in both branches that lack an anus (for example, Platyhelminthes and Xenoturbella). The anal opening of protostomes and deuterostomes could have arisen independently in distinct lineages, which would account for the broader variation of the genes involved in its patterning. The posterior expression domain of bra in acoels corresponds to the adult gonopore, which supports suggestions that the anal opening evolved in some animal lineages in association with the somatic reproductive tissue, for example, by forming a cloaca. However, a further investigation of animals that possess a blind gut, and more detailed analyses of anus formation, will help to explain the course of the evolution of a through gut.

Anatomy as such is not really my field. Reading the article through quickly. I didn't see how many times they suggest the anal would have had to evolve independently. Convergent loss in just two (?) lineages vs. multiple (how many?) gains.. the first option sounds more plausible to me. Anyway, it wouldn't be the first thing that evolved over and over (e.g. complex eyes).

Anyway, nothing here counters the theory of evolution.

What is causing convergence? Shouldn't convergence be a rarity?

reply to post by addygrace

Is this happening in other areas of biology?

Yes. Eyes and wings to name just two.

Nothing evolution destroying or even unusual about the paper in the slightest.

Interesting yes, sensational no.

Originally posted by addygrace
What is causing convergence?

Cetacea (whales, dolphins, porpoises) and Pinnipeds (seals, walruses, sea lions, etc.) both have a thick layer of fat under their skin. However, they don't descent directly from the same 'aquatic mammal' ancestor, e.g a blue whale is more closely related to a hedgehog than to a fur seal. So the thick fat layer trait in aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals is convergent and evolved independently at least twice. What do you think caused it? It's the same with the thick light-colored winter coat in many arctic mammals. There's no common 'arctic mammal' ancestor, and thus this trait is convergent. What could have caused it?

Evolution no longer remains a THEORY. It is fact. The Human Genome Project was concluded and this mapping was compared and is still being compared the the massive amount of Genome Mapping of other organisms it was determined that ALL LIFE...Plant, Animal, Microscopic Organisms...etc...ALL had the same Viral Infection encoding within their DNA.

This is 100% PROOF that all Life originated and EVOLVED from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. A VIRUS is NOT ALIVE. The Men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology won in the Nobel category of CHEMISTRY as a Virus does have DNA but is not living.

END OF ISSUE! Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Evolution no longer remains a THEORY. It is fact.

The theory of evolution (or modern synthesis) attempts to explain the natural phenomenon of evolution (fact of evolution). There's a difference.

The Human Genome Project was concluded and this mapping was compared and is still being compared the the massive amount of Genome Mapping of other organisms it was determined that ALL LIFE...Plant, Animal, Microscopic Organisms...etc...ALL had the same Viral Infection encoding within their DNA.

What are you talking about?

This is 100% PROOF that all Life originated and EVOLVED from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. A VIRUS is NOT ALIVE. The Men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology won in the Nobel category of CHEMISTRY as a Virus does have DNA but is not living.

END OF ISSUE! Split Infinity

No such thing as 100% proof in science outside mathematics. However, the accumulated genome data and knowledge indicates extremely heavily (beyond any doubt), that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. As to the rest, there's no accepted definition of life, and furthermore viruses are not a monophyletic group. IMO, and with my own definition of life, some viruses, e.g. some Nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses, are alive (they're really not that different from some obligatory intracellular parasite bacteria like Rickettsia spp.). Finally, not all viruses have DNA, there are both single and double-stranded RNA viruses..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by addygrace
What is causing convergence?

Cetacea (whales, dolphins, porpoises) and Pinnipeds (seals, walruses, sea lions, etc.) both have a thick layer of fat under their skin. However, they don't descent directly from the same 'aquatic mammal' ancestor, e.g a blue whale is more closely related to a hedgehog than to a fur seal. So the thick fat layer trait in aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals is convergent and evolved independently at least twice. What do you think caused it? It's the same with the thick light-colored winter coat in many arctic mammals. There's no common 'arctic mammal' ancestor, and thus this trait is convergent. What could have caused it?

edit on 8-11-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

That whales and dolphins evolved from land animals and not the other way around.

Isn't the hippo the closest relative of dolphins?

reply to post by addygrace

If in fact these multiple, unrelated evolution events occurred with regards to the anus, then this would seem to be counter to the theory of evolution.

How else would a multicellular organism get rid of waste?

How else would a multicellular organism ingest food?


Separate developments of these traits (Mouth and Anus) along unrelated lineages would SUPPORT evolution.

This is due to the fact that a multicellular organism that has no excratory or ingestion mechanism will always be outpreformed by an organism that HAS a mouth and an anus, except in *EXTREMELY SPECIFIC* environmental niches...

(Sponges, for example intake nutrients through pores in their body, and excrete through a hole in the top, so they in essence have MANY mouths, and one anus.)

reply to post by rhinoceros


You are right about the RNA based Virus'. I thought to include this in my post would be being over specific.

As far as what I am talking about. Some 4 Billion years ago or so...the original SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM which is responsible for ALL Life on Planet Earth...was infected by a Virus. The Single Celled Organisms that survived this Viral Infection...which were most likely those organisms which were in a state close to Mitosis at the time of infection...went on to evolve and carried with them the Genetic Encoding of the original Viral Infection.

All LIFE on Earth shares this Genetic Viral Encoding of this Original Viral Infection. Split Infinity