Evolution? Yes. Whole story? No

What an interesting read so far, I see it brought out alot of ats members I like reading works from. I just wanted to ask a simple question as I am still going through all of the info here:

What if what we think is an accurate model of time and history is absolutely wrong, would this skew what is also believed as our evolutionary journey from one point in time to the next?

I only ask because I am no historian but I only have the word to take one thing is this without the ability to question why this is a proof of time because it is my opinion if we are wrong about the time line then it is possible to be wrong about so many things, off square here an eighth of an inch is going to be so far off the beaten path in 500feet does time not work as much as linear as this example?

SnF for the interesting reading and the provocation of my thinking this evening!

reply to post by SLAYER69

The only reason why I ask is that there seems to be huge differences and diversity in all the life that have ever lived on Earth and not all seemed to be related. Just variations on a theme.

Thoughts?

This is what I found most interesting in the OP, other members are bringing and developing on the topic in a very broad way which is awesome. My thoughts on this particular part of the OP, what if it isn't that big of a difference or diversity in life, just the conscious observer that bears witness to a perceivable life over a period of time. It begs me to ask myself what is life without cognition, what does life matter without it? I am not trying to walk on a spiritual or religious theme here either but what if evolution in a sense is not an evolution in life form alone but evolution in an except-able vessel to witness it. Slayer you blew my ####ing mind bro.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Some things about evolution have struck me as very mysterious. It is apparently directed. Consider that species most fit to survive in an environment continue to evolve into species that are not more fit to survive, they are equally fit or less fit to survive. Then you see many of these species which have older origins have not survived despite being more fit to survive in many more common (or stable and consistent) environments than other species. Species that did not die during mass extinction events. Species that just sort of fizzled out after it spawned a new species via evolution.

It's a very strange phenomenon, evolution. There is something very mysterious about bacteria more fit for survival in environments that are very permanent evolving new species out of themselves before going extinct. It's almost as if DNA is an organism in itself and all DNA is inextricably linked in a fashion comparable to Einstein's spooky action at a distance. It's as if DNA is a program, a program that will evolve and take on characteristics depending on its' geographic location and environment, possibly its' neighboring local species existing in its' environment as well. Think about this notion - mutations aren't random. A species living in the water will have an incredibly low rate of mutation of traits not favorable to their conditions compared to mutations that are favorable to their conditions. This implies that DNA does not evolve randomly. If you put the most basic microbes on another planet with conditions equivalent to those on earth in which it can thrive I imagine that planet could end up with the same evolutionary paradigm. This planet - just from the most basic organisms would evolve very similar species to those on earth, literal turtles, sharks, trees, etc. Either that or their would never be evolution past microbial life which would imply once again that there is something very mysterious about how Earth evolved her native species.

Anyway, clearly something is up.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Not to mention, part of what makes Evolution work is the randomness of the traits. As animals mutate over generations, these mutations are completely random. Some are beneficial, but most aren't. However, in a location that had plenty of life and post-extinction event is now barren, the beneficial traits that rise to prominence the second time can be completely different than the ones that were there pre-extinction event. And even if those same traits end up in prominence again, the evolutionary path that the animal took to get there could be completely different (again thanks to randomness). Therefore would look completely different.

Before I mentioned the notion that most mutations ARE beneficial, and less aren't which implies that mutations are NOT random. And the mutations that aren't beneficial, as infrequent as they are; are often very drastic mutations that make reproduction for the organism about impossible. I'd illustrate the notion by mentioning that I think a fish with 2 heads or no gills is less likely a mutation than that of a fish with a mutation that makes it a slightly faster swimmer. Which leads me to another notion that maybe species evolved their evolutionary capabilities, I.E. they evolved the tendency to evolve favorable mutations compared to those that are unfavorable.

Evolution really may be the strangest of the mysteries.

reply to post by rhinoceros

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...

Like I said, semantics. But if UGA (fro example) normally signals the termination of translation, how do you explain all the epigenetic overrides? The on-off switching that overrides the "code," and results in phenotypic variation (at the least)? ...By all accounts such overrides are normal, and the genetic code is more of a preliminary sketch than an architectural engineer's detailed building plan.

It is clear that the attempt to believe that things happen "naturally", naturally meaning without interference from intelligent attempts to control things, is the most flawed approach, and one that should likely be forgotten entirely.

It actually would seem much more likely that "Evolution" should just mean "that which changes" and these changes can, and will mean getting LESS better, MORE better, or DIFFERENT because of constant attempts by unimaginable amounts of influences, many of which are much more similar to a MONSANTO type approach that is taking place in all of things CREATED.

Ergo, so much dam more complicated and far more interesting than the masses dumbed down, and truly awful brainwashed attempt to explain that nothing designed us to be this well,, crazy.

So what brings back a critter that has gone extinct?,such as the sabre tooth?

I would say that your view leaves out the evolutionary concept of punctuated evolution... Once a die off happens the environment is changed and we are left with what ever life forms that survive a die off with a open ecology with changed environment and when this occurs the species adapts or dies... And these changes can happen quickly... As an example take Space Flight... Humans change very little on earth over thousands of years as long as the environment is stable... But place them in a Zero G environment and within weeks the body starts to change to adapt to the massively different environment ... Bone weaken as calcium is lost, muscles deteriorate and other changes happen very fast and would be deadly to most over a long period of time... But given a few generations in that environment those children that survive and reproduce could look nothing like their earth bound counterparts and would die instantly if brought back the the surface .... If you think of human actions as the same as natural selection over long time frames then Dogs and Cats give another example... Our selection of breeds and acting like a environmental pressure have taken Wolves & Cougars to hundreds of animals with body shapes from Huge Mastives to Wiener-dogs and tiny house cats to many varied feline kinds... And those changes happen in a few 1000 years... A tick of the Geological clock... If tomorrow a catastrophic event occurred and killed off 95% of life on earth those that survived would in short order fill the empty niches of the new environment and change very quickly to fit what ever local environ that they can adapt to... In a few million years the changes would slow as the life form becomes stable with the environment and could have a basic design far different from the being before the event....

With regards to the OP, I think you might benefit from review of this key piece of the evolution puzzle.

After an extinction event, many previously occupied biological niches open up. (In review, a "niche" is primarily a place in the food chain, not a habitat, although there is slightly more to it.) For example, when dinosaurs went extinct, it suddenly became more attractive to be a mid-sized to large-sized herbivore: there was less competition over finite resources and fewer predators. At the same time, a medium- to large-sized predator could thrive on all the new (medium to large) herbivores. In other words, a niche represents the function of a critter, and extinction events open up these for filling.

On the other hand, large-scale extinctions aren't necessarily niche-selective, and indeed are more likely to affect similar families of organisms based on genetic/physical structure rather than function. For example, a family of organisms with mineral-rich exoskeletons would be better shielded from large quantities of radiation, regardless of the organisms' respective sizes or diets. Warm blooded animals tolerate cold conditions better than cold blooded ones, etc.

If species are lost to extinction based on structure, leaving their functions to be taken up by critters which survived due to having different structure, you should expect the next stage of evolution to be very different than the last.

Imagine if intelligent creatures were killed off selectively by a brain parasite that induces a homocidal rampage. Mammals, with their large frontal lobes, would suffer the harshest fate. However, since mammals take up so many niches, one would expect to see turtle-like nut eaters, fish as large as whales, and burrowing reptilian ant-hunters in a few million years.

Here's my idea of the origin of life on earth, based on some scientific reasonning.

Our universe has billions of galaxies. There are trillions of stars and likely millions of life forms. Likely there are multiple universes. We know from recent disclosures (including ex defence minister from canada) that there are other beings living in other planets and galaxies and able to travel here. There would be several types of beings not all from the same place.

These beings, or others unlike them, have been here since forever. Since well before humans on earth. Humans have been genetically engineered, as an experiment, or maybe just because it is "the right thing to do" to spread life across the universe, like the human spreading on earth (Some would say like a virus).

Our creators are not gods. But Gods created our creators (or the creators of creators, depending on many levels). God is maybe the one who designed DNA or made it work after creating a universe. Our creators engineered us, at their image maybe. Our creators are _hopefully_ higher spiritual beings (we haven't been created by lizards I hope). Our creators may be some kind of Super-Spiritual-Entity that can create intelligent life. Maybe they are watching over us, or maybe not, just we are a running planet on the way to its own destiny.

Some of the most amazingly beautiful creatures are likely obviously engineered: peacocks, butterfly, zebras... There have been multiple extinction cycles. How come some lifeforms stay the same and survived? Just like we grow fields of flowers they may grow planets of beings... Earth was possibly created or brought here, if not then possibly the moon was brought here.

This is what I like to believe the most and the theory that works best in my opinion, after doing much research. I would love to hear if anyone knows if this belief is already shared and if there are good references?

reply to post by SLAYER69

Great stuff to ponder about, thanks for posting this.
As to the question why the same lifeforms didn't start over to evolve the same way I think the climate condition is a good answer. Different climates after an ELE means different adaptation of life thus different evolution.

i'm jus gonna jump in head 1st. k?

biblically, the celestial battle depicts a great warrior grappling with the dragon tiamat….a story ?
Tiamat was a watery planet with multiple moons, sitting right about where the asteroid belt is now. the warrior was an invading planet w/4 moons, caught by the gravity of our sun, the event took many passes of planetary jousting, IF this happened, the evidence with explanation is plainly visible. the planet Tiamat had a standard orbit and the invader came into the system retrograde… the invader has a few names, NIBIRU, Marduk, Planet X… the final blow to Tiamat's already decimated moons, with one moon remaining -Tiamat was struck and split in two… Half of her remained to become what is now a debris field, the other half of her drifted toward the sun dragging with her that moon. the invader continues to make this retrograde orbit to this day but it has not been seen for a couple thousand yrs, as for the half of tiamat that slid into a new orbit, It assumed a new name, Earth/Gaia, and her guardian moon.
this explains pangaia, the single land mass that eventually, billions of years later formed the planet we live on…also reasonably takes the mystery out of our moon being dated older than Earths outer mantle. yep. and further evidence the invader exists lies with the still unexplained rings on other outer reach planets… the planet has had encounters with the rest of the planetary family kissing there smooth surfaces as it ran away, leaving our home system in shambles, only to return every 3600yrs (roughly) its orbit elliptic retrograde.
I believe (strictly theory) that the dinosaurs were on Tiamat and these huge reptilian creatures suffered near extinction, theoretically survival was pure luck, -location location location- , so life was already present, it was just knocked back to stage one.

this story is in the bible and written in shumerian stone tablets. apparently translated by zacaria sitchen.
The Moon has remained as it is since this incident, in orbit falling one mm a year over several millennia.

~the TRUTH shall set us free~

reply to post by SLAYER69


None of the events you mention completely eliminated life on Earth. The one that came closest was the Permian-Triassic event, which wiped out 90–95% of all then-extant species.

Following every extinction event, evolution continued to act on the remaining biological material. Obviously the material available was different in every case. So was the environment, which appears to have changed radically with each event. And finally, mutation, the basis of evolution, is a random process.

So why on earth should anyone expect to see evolution repeat itself after every ELE? If that happened it might be considered evidence of intelligent design — intelligent but mad, because it keeps repeating the same steps and hoping for a different result. Instead, we see evolution taking a different path every time, but still filling all the available niches — just filling them with different species.

Nice try, but there is nothing in the biological or palaeontological record that the theory of evolution by natural selection cannot explain quite nicely. Panspermia continues to be an unnecessary hypothesis.

reply to post by Astyanax

...mutation, the basis of evolution, is a random process.

Not proved. From November, 2013:

Novel Genetic Patterns May Make Us Rethink Biology and Individuality

..."We have always thought, 'your genome is your genome.' The data suggest that it is not completely true."

…Their research examined "mitochondrial DNA" (mtDNA) -- a part of DNA that is only inherited from the mother. Technically all women would share mtDNA from one common female ancestor, but mutations have resulted in differences. The importance of Williams' finding is that these tissue-specific, recurrent, common mutations in mtDNA among unrelated study subjects -- only detected in three body tissues -- are "not likely being developed and maintained through purely random processes," according to Williams. They indicate "a completely different model …. a decidedly non-random process that results in particular mutations, but only in specific tissues."

If our human DNA changes, or mutates, in patterns, rather than randomly; if such mutations "match" among unrelated people; or if genetic changes happen only in part of the body of one individual, what does this mean for our understanding of what it means to be human? How may it impact our medical care, cancer screening, or treatment of disease?

reply to post by soficrow


If a number of different individuals of the same species are exposed to the same mutagen under somewhat similar conditions, they are likely to undergo the same mutation. And it is beyond obvious that mutations can exist in some somatic cells and not in others.

None of this implies that mutation is anything but a random process.

Astyanax
reply to post by soficrow

 

None of this implies that mutation is anything but a random process.

Professor of Genetics Scott Williams, PhD, and his team at the Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Sciences (iQBS) at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine do not agree. Neither does the editorial staff at Science Daily. Or a whole bunch of other recognized professionals.

reply to post by soficrow


No. A reporter at Science Daily with an eye for what angle will sell a boring science story — usually it's the mumbo-jumbo angle — thinks this means mutation is not random.

Here's the quote:

common mutations in mtDNA among unrelated study subjects -- only detected in three body tissues -- are "not likely being developed and maintained through purely random processes," according to Williams. They indicate "a completely different model …. a decidedly non-random process that results in particular mutations, but only in specific tissues."

Read it carefully. It doesn't mean what you (or the reporter) appear to think it does.

reply to post by Astyanax

RE:

common mutations in mtDNA among unrelated study subjects ...indicate "a completely different model ….a decidedly non-random process ...

Mark Israel, MD, Director of Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Professor of Pediatrics and Genetics at Geisel, says, " The fact that somatic mutation occurs in mitochondrial DNA apparently non-randomly provides a new working hypothesis for the rest of the genome. If this non-randomness is general...

A reporter at Science Daily ...thinks this means mutation is not random.
....It doesn't mean what you (or the reporter) appear to think it does.

I trust you can document your telepathic abilities with references. In any event, the referenced research -and researchers- do question the "mutation is always random" dogma - both with respect to mtRNA somatic mutations and "the rest of the genome."

reply to post by soficrow

I trust you can document your telepathic abilities with references.

Your trust is misplaced. I am through wasting my time with creationists and their specious distortions of science gleaned from the popular press. The difference between a random cause and a random effect should be obvious to anyone with a brain. Anyone who doesn't get it can go and hang.

reply to post by Astyanax


You obviously are committed to defending the "mutation is always random" hypothesis, and to assuming any query indicates the questioner is a "creationist." In doing so, you close your mind.

The referenced research -and researchers- do question the "mutation is always random" dogma - both with respect to mtRNA somatic mutations and "the rest of the genome." They do not claim to have proved their "new working hypothesis," but specifically question if "this non-randomness is general."

common mutations in mtDNA among unrelated study subjects ...indicate "a completely different model ….a decidedly non-random process ...

Mark Israel, MD, Director of Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Professor of Pediatrics and Genetics at Geisel, says, " The fact that somatic mutation occurs in mitochondrial DNA apparently non-randomly provides a new working hypothesis for the rest of the genome. If this non-randomness is general...