Evolution? Yes. Whole story? No

SLAYER69
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes, no offense but I've read that version of events too.

Well, it answers your question, so there you have it.

soficrow
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

...The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations.

A lot of epigenetic research suggests that mutations are not so "random." In bacteria at least, epigenetic responses that are successful can change the genetic code - unsuccessful ones tend to just 'disappear.'

DNA methylation (one form of epigenetics) and how DNA is packed into nucleosomes in Eukaryotes (another form of epigenetics) affect mutation rates in specific parts of genomes. Take home message? Random mutations don't occur at identical frequency in all parts of genomes. I don't know what you're trying to say with the genetic code part. The term genetic code refers to a collection of codon to amino acid translation tables..

reply to post by rhinoceros

Nature selects the genomes that are the most efficient in reproducing successfully in the given conditions. The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations. That's why.

That's not really true, they aren't random at all. It's a system and the system makes demands based on the need for variation. If nature does not stay ahead of the variation, then the system breaks.

It's not random, form follows function.

What we are looking for here seems to be the nature of whatever it is that provides the organizing influence that causes the world to be something that we recognize as the world.

rhinoceros

SLAYER69
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes, no offense but I've read that version of events too.

Well, it answers your question, so there you have it.

No, not really. It's a regurgitation of a theory we are presently dissecting.

Bybyots
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Nature selects the genomes that are the most efficient in reproducing successfully in the given conditions. The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations. That's why.

That's not really true, they aren't random at all. It's a system and the system makes demands based on the need for variation. If nature does not stay ahead of the variation, then the system breaks.

It's not random, form follows function.

What we are looking for here seems to be the nature of whatever it is that provides the organizing influence that causes the world to be something that we recognize as the world.

It's the hand of the great pink unicorn that changes bases in loci it determines best. See? Anyone can write nonsense.

SLAYER69

rhinoceros

SLAYER69
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Yes, no offense but I've read that version of events too.

Well, it answers your question, so there you have it.

No, not really. It's a regurgitation of a theory we are presently dissecting.

It does answer your question why the exact same animals didn't evolve over and over after extinction events. It's fairly simple logic. What part you can't understand? What part are you attempting to refute?

rhinoceros

soficrow
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

...The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations.

A lot of epigenetic research suggests that mutations are not so "random." In bacteria at least, epigenetic responses that are successful can change the genetic code - unsuccessful ones tend to just 'disappear.'

...I don't know what you're trying to say with the genetic code part. The term genetic code refers to a collection of codon to amino acid translation tables..

So if you change 1 gene, you've changed the code. But I agree, it's potentially semantic. My point is, research is showing that mutation is much less random than previously recognized. (Not that the perspective is not controversial - but 2nd point is, there IS controversy.)

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Thank you for that. But if I'm not mistaken panspermia would still require
evolution, correct ? And forgive my total lack of experience in communicating
my question. Apologies. Try again.

Does science have any other theories in regards to the origin of life that do not
include Darwinism, evolution or abiogenesis ?

Yes, panspermia would still result in evolution. It's almost a trick question as to the alternate theories you ask about as science isn't really a cohesive unit like the 3rd ranger battalion per se. Each field deals with its own specialities and while there is some disciplinary overlap such as with geology and paleontology. there are still fairly well defined boundaries. So to ask if there are alternative theories in science is a bit misleading in a way. In the biological sciences, which encompass anthropology and evolutionary biology, no. There may be some fringe ideas I'm not aware of but the prevailing thoughts of 99% of people in these fields are quite confident in the evidence we currently have supporting evolution. The only theories/hypothesis im aware that stray away from evolution are religious based aka creationism or ID.

soficrow
So if you change 1 gene, you've changed the code. But I agree, it's potentially semantic. My point is, research is showing that mutation is much less random than previously recognized. (Not that the perspective is not controversial - but 2nd point is, there IS controversy.)

If you change 1 gene, you have changed one gene. Changing the genetic code means something completely different, it's when a codon gets reassigned from one meaning to another, e.g. UGA usually signals termination of translation, but in especially mitochondrial genomes the meaning of UGA has often changed so that it encodes the amino acid tryptophan. Mutations are random, they're just less likely to occur in specific places of genomes. In other words, mutation likelihood in given part of a genome is not completely random, in fact, far from it.

reply to post by randyvs


Magic is that which isn't understood... yet. Everything that we know today (and have), would be magic to our ancestors. But anytime that we 'know' something, it loses it's magic. So if we were to look into the future and say that what we are looking for is magic, would be the day that it is no longer magic, because then it would be understood. So yes, Sir, in a sense, we are looking for magic.

reply to post by peter vlar


And I thank you for that answer my good man.
I'll leave you gents to your discussion.


reply to post by Amarri

Magic is that which isn't understood... yet. Everything that we know today (and have), would be magic to our ancestors. But anytime that we 'know' something, it loses it's magic. So if we were to look into the future and say that what we are looking for is magic, would be the day that it is no longer magic, because then it would be understood. So yes, Sir, in a sense, we are looking for magic.

You articulated that perfectly.

Give it time, and the earth will shake off humanity like water off a wet dog. Humans are like a virus. It’s just a matter of time until the virus it eradicated. Humans have used, abused, destroyed, etc., this planet. I think it’s time for a cleansing. I think mother earth is looking at a little payback!

All in all I think you're theory might be right.

But the theory of evolution is just...childish.

It should be called change'o'lution if something. Evolution sure ain't linear in one way. Devolution, staticlution and evolution all happen at every pikosecond of our lives. Based on what we define as an advancement or cessation according to our surroundings and view of the world through what we know.

I as a Homo Sapien am similarly advanced/regressed as all of you, but not like you on all levels.

We could also say that this "change'o'lution" happens just as much on the inside as it does on the outside.

reply to post by rhinoceros

It's the hand of the great pink unicorn that changes bases in loci it determines best.

That's likely closer to what's really happening than what you are suggesting. Which seems to be that life is a random event with no "mind" or organizing influence behind it.

You must be familiar with the Vedas in order to wield such mighty satire, right?

Anyhow, I think that you must have learned what you have about biology more than 15 or so years ago, before it all became engineering and systems science; what seems to be your theory lacks holism.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Nature selects the genomes that are the most efficient in reproducing successfully in the given conditions. The variation from which nature selects, is in the end the product of random mutations. That's why.

Oh geez,

I'm sorry, I've gone and stepped in it. I hope you'll forgive me.

What you posted there is absolutely correct. For me, because I am bent like that, it deepens the mystery, but you've expressed yourself flawlessly there.

SLAYER69
If the theory of Evolution holds true then why doesnt life start over again and create the same types of animals? I understand birds supposedly evolved from Dinos etc. But again. Once the slate was practically wiped clean not once but several times why didn't the process simply start all over again in locations where there was complete collapse?

Life does start all over again, but not with the same animals. The old animals failed to survive. New animals emerged with new abilities to deal with new threats. Its no accident that humans are here today. We're the ones, for the first time, that may have the ability to thwart disasters from space. It wouldn't be evolution if we didn't adapt to new threats.

I like to think about future adaptations. For the first time, the earth evolved something that is also a threat to itself. We have the power to thwart some of the most powerful disasters and save the earth, although, with that power, we also have the potential to destroy the earth. The earth might not have known about comets before they happened, but right now, it knows how dangerous we are. So I'd say were on the verge of a new paradigm in evolution.

The earth is going to protect its life. That's the number one priority of the earth because thats the number one priority of all life on earth. So, with the awareness of the threat that humans are, I believe you can expect a big change. Remember, the atom bomb first exploded only about 60 years ago. On an evolutionary scale, thats a stone's throw. So, don't assume the adaptation is not already happening.

I also like to think about maybe its not the earth's priority to survive, but the priority of something larger than the earth, like the galaxy. That leaves open the possibility of there being an extra intelligent race out there to come help us get on the right path, out their neccessity to maintain the balance. But that's just speculation.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Just because some of them change doesn't mean all of them change. If the new version tackles a different niche and they don't interfere with the old niche the two types could be viable but separate.
The weirdest thing about evolution is the changes have to be gradual enough and widespread enough that they continue. It's entirely possible that some superior lines died out by being too radical or too specialized to continue. It doesn't help to have a viable adaptation that precludes procreation.

When homo-superious takes over the rest of us won't leave the playing field immediately if at all.

reply to post by Nacirema


You are partially correct in that statement. Even if you set up two environments that are identical in every way, and begin with gene pools that are also identical, the evolutionary results would not be the same. They would be very similar, yes, but in my humble opinion, based on my knowledge of genetics and the like. Mutations are random. Even in the above situation I described, there would be differences. There is more than one way to skin a cat. in environment A, one evolutionary "solution" might occur. In environment B, evolution might take a different 'solution' to adapt to the exact same environment.

I will grant that, based on the theory of evolutionary convergence, creatures do tend to come out very similar in similar niches of similar environments, but never the same creature evolving more than once.



As to the OP, these ELE's didn't just wipe out/nearly wipe out the animals, they also changed the earths environments at the same time

Sorry to be late to the party.

My understanding of evolution is a bit different than the other explainations I have skimmed through here.

Creatures evolve to fit a certian part of the existing ecology.Sometimes they evolve to be overspecialized for the particular part they fit.When that environment is very stable for a very long time, This makes them very suseptical to any changes in that environment.Species that are not so specialized,that is species that have a more generalized form or adaptation, can fit into more areas of their environment,and are more able to adapt to a changing environment.These species are able to continue to evolve.

The more generalized species can better withstand drastic changes to their environment.The overspecialized species being evolved to survive in only a very narrow part of the environment cease to evolve due to their specilization.When a drastic change takes place that disturbes and changes the environment they are specalized to fit they can no longer adapt to their changed environment and therefore die out,or become extinct.

The generalized species can adapt better to the environmental change and therefore tend to survive the drastic change.As the change to the environment becomes stable,they are able to evolve to fill the now empty areas left by the specialized species who are now extinct.Many of these species will continue to evolve over time to become the new overspecilized species in this new environment.Some will stay generalized.These are the species that will survive the next time the environment changes again.

Just because a creature doesn't change it's appearance over time does not necessarily mean that it has ceased to evolve.They can change in the way their body functions,or the size of their brain or bodily organs.These changes would not be apparent in fossils.However a more generalized body structure can be very adventagous.Witness the crocodile,The turtle,and on and on.

We humans have a very generalized structure,and I think that it's pretty clear that we are very adaptable.

While I think that panspermia may have been responsible for the original influx of life on this planet,the appearance of complex forms of life took billions of years. After the major extinction events,life came back in millions,not billions of years.My belief is that the generalized species that survived the drastic change to the environment,from whatever the cause,where able to reproduce and adapt to refill the environment which was now mostly empty.In these cases evolution may have proceded at a more rapid rate as there where more areas that could be adapted to.Minor adaptations may have led to greater advantages for those new species as the many areas of the environment where now unexploited.

Species that adapted to empty areas would be more able to reproduce.More reproduction would lead to more mutations. The mutations that were advantagous to fit empty areas of the ecology would survive and continue to reproduce. The mutations that where not adventagous would die out.This is how evolution is supposed to work on a very simple level.It is of course much more complex that this explaination.My apologies for my many spelling errors.

a lot of those extinction events occurred because of changes in earths cliate. And as earth changed the conditions of life did too. dinos cold exist becase of an abndance in oxygen for exaple. the ice ages are a helpful allegory as well.