View Full Version : Why aren't our evolutionary ancestors extinct?
I'm just curious; if species evolve from other species why don't the (I don't know the term so I'll call it gateway species) gateway species die out? Surely there'd be no need for the lesser evolved species to still remain in the chain at all if they'd been out-competed in the vie for evolutionary supremacy. I'm not entirely convinced with this evolution thing. Sorry if this is a totally stupid question by the way.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 03:32 PM
Often they do. In a general sense, species may evolve to fit a new ecological niche, but if the old niche still exists, there is no reason to change. Often, the new species is created by geographical separation.
So if there's no need for the old species to die out due to suitable ecological niches then why would it evolve in the first place? I'm not sure I'm being clear here. What I mean is, if a species evolves due to an ecological/geographical change why does the older species not become extinct due to the ecological change? Clearly there are species which have evolved over billions of years and yet they co-exist besides species that are relatively evolutionarily new and have evolved from that species.
I'm just curious; if species evolve from other species why don't the (I don't know the term so I'll call it gateway species) gateway species die out? Surely there'd be no need for the lesser evolved species to still remain in the chain at all if they'd been out-competed in the vie for evolutionary supremacy. I'm not entirely convinced with this evolution thing. Sorry if this is a totally stupid question by the way.
In the realm of nature humans are far from ideal and are not physically superior to their supposed predecessors.;)
cosmictraveler
05-21-08, 04:22 PM
Do you see any Neanderthals walking about?? Don't answer that.
Do you see any Neanderthals walking about?? Don't answer that.
Well they would be phsically superior wouldnt they?:)
species may evolve to fit a new ecological niche
Throws that right out the window.
cosmictraveler
05-21-08, 04:32 PM
Well they would be phsically superior wouldnt they?:)
Not really for their brains weren't as developed as what superseded them which led to their downfall and are no longer with us.
And exactly what do their brains have to do with physical appearance? Seems to me these supposed predecessors would be physically superior to modern humans. Anyone can see that. Stronger, hairier...sure seems better equipped for demnds of ordinary existence. Maybe not the hairier part in all circumstances but for what purpose was the physical change? I say there was none.
In the realm of nature humans are far from ideal and are not physically superior to their supposed predecessors.;)
There is more to evolution than physical fitness. How about the fact that our brains got larger, more developed, over time. Tools can more than compensate for physical inferiority. Ask anyone who has shot an elephant, a tiger and so on. !
OK fair enough, but if we're descendant from apes why haven't apes become extinct? If all life came from the primordial soup, some of which I believe are living beside their evolutionary offspring, why would they need to evolve at all. Am I thinking evolution is a linear process and it's not here?
There is more to evolution than physical fitness. How about the fact that our brains got larger, more developed, over time. Tools can more than compensate for physical inferiority. Ask anyone who has shot an elephant, a tiger and so on. !
Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence and i would say that the evidence bears that out.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/Size-elephant-brain-1.htm
It sounds like you are saying that we evolved so we can use tools but what you are doing is deviating from the natural world to the man made. Nature makes no concessions for or has no link to man made devices. The point is that there was absolutely no reason for a physical change and the change was not even an advancement. If it was then show me where.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 04:56 PM
OK fair enough, but if we're descendant from apes why haven't apes become extinct? If all life came from the primordial soup, some of which I believe are living beside their evolutionary offspring, why would they need to evolve at all. Am I thinking evolution is a linear process and it's not here?
The apes we descended from are extinct. There used to be many more ape species than now. They evolved to fit different ecological niches. Evolution is not linear, it can move in any direction, even seemingly backwards.
Interesting point John. So you think we're more of an anomaly that a betterment of DNA?
Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence and i would say that the evidence bears that out. It sounds like you are saying that we evolved so we can use tools but what you are doing is deviating from the natural world to the man made. Nature makes no concessions for or has no link to man made devices. The point is that there was absolutely no reason for a physical change and the change was not an advancement. If it was then show me where.
Man is a creature, a part of nature
Man develops tools ( weapons)
Therefore there is a connection between nature and tools via man.
Q.E.D.
So I'm wrong in thinking that in order for a species to have evolved its evolutionary predecessor does not have to die out?
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:15 PM
If you measure brain size as a ratio to the animal's mass, larger numbers are significant.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:15 PM
So I'm wrong in thinking that in order for a species to have evolved its evolutionary predecessor does not have to die out?
Right.
But that seems to negate the need for evolution.
Interesting point John. So you think we're more of an anomaly that a betterment of DNA?
I can accept changes within genera but relatively slight changes or adjustments made over time. And as you mentioned the 'primordial soup' going from that to developing an eye and not just one time but thousands of variations along with complex organs working together entirely dependant on each other for no rhyme or reason??? None.:shrug:
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:17 PM
But that seems to negate the need for evolution.
But it happens anyway.
So I'm wrong in thinking that in order for a species to have evolved its evolutionary predecessor does not have to die out?
In a nutshell yes. It might be more helpful to think of diversity and parallel evolution. Thus, way back in time we split off from the apes. Both continued to evole but along different lines.
Well sadly as my post (#19) alludes to we are talking about something virtually impossible. Guys...i dont know how to say this but...it just could not happen like that. At the very least a crucial element is missing from the equation.
tablariddim
05-21-08, 05:22 PM
Evolution is like streams of water overflowing out of a larger stream or river. The larger stream does not need to dry up before the new smaller streams find the right levels from which to break out. The new streams then follow the natural contours of the earth and from them spring even more streams, as some of the older streams lose momentum and dry up and as some get even stronger; some, even join up with others creating more streams, ad infinitum.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:31 PM
Not impossible, just improbable.
Good analogy. My question still remains though. If that ancestral predecessor still remains why would another species evolve? Surely other species wouldn't need to evolve from that one common species, or if it did surely the ancestors become obsolete. My understanding of evolution is species evolve to adapt to their environment more adeptly. However, if that species didn't need to adapt why would it evolve in the first place? And if it did need to evolve why would the previous species not become extinct due to its environmental ineptitude?
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:43 PM
There is either a geographical, or some other separation that prevents the diverging species from jumping back into a common gene pool.
Ring species (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html) show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
Nope, doesn't answer my question though. If a species evolves the ancestor should become extinct or there would be no reason for its evolution.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 05:51 PM
I edited my post to include the part about ring species. The reason can be merely a variation in climate due to elevation or latitude. The ancestor stays where it is. Eventually, they evolve enough of a difference that they no longer breed with each other, thus becoming a new species.
CharonZ
05-21-08, 05:54 PM
EmmZ, there is no "need" to evolve anything. Either it happens or it does not. So the real question is not why it happens, but rather how.
The answer to the latter also helps to explain why ancestors to extant species (unless under very exotic circumstances) do not exist anymore.
Just to clarify the definitions. If we talk about speciation, we mean that two gene pools do not mix anymore.
Now let us envision a speciation event. We have first the ancestor species, let's call it A. Then due to some events (migration, flodding, whatever) population A splits into to two sub-populations: A1 and A2. Both diversify but do not exchange genetic material anymore (due to the separation). After sufficient generations bots subpopulation may have developed in such a way that they are unable to interbreed anymore: speciation has happened. The subpopulation A1 and A2 would now be classfied as two new speices: B and C, for example.
As you can see from this example, there is no separate ancestor population per se, as both split populations are subject to evolution themselves. However, it is quite possible that one of the two subpopulation (A1 and A2) stay genetically similar to their ancestors (the "whole" population A), nonetheless, logically they cannot be their own ancestors from a phylogenetic point of view.
Still, it doesn't make evolutionary sense for it to remain. Surely if a species evolves it needs to have specific requirements which would involve the eradication of the gateway species.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 06:02 PM
Say there are two islands. On one island, birds need a long beak to eat bugs out of holes in trees. On another, nearby island, they need short beaks to crack nuts. So one kind of bird happens to land on the first island, and after a while it evolves a long beak. Then it happens to find the second island, where the environment requires a short beak, so a short beak evolves. The first birds no longer recognize the second as their own, and as a result, they diverge into two species.
our direct evolutionary ancestors are dead.
Oh definitely CharonZ, the how is what I'm asking. The why is of no consequence here I agree. so I suppose my question might be if Species A gives rise to subspecies a1 and a2 how does species A not become extinct due to its environmental (or whatever) conditions becoming a cause for its own evolution?
our direct evolutionary ancestors are dead.
That's besides the point draq, I'm asking about evolutionary predecessors still being around when their evolutionary offspring are. Surely if evolution is conditioned to happen there can no longer be conditions for that predecessing (pardon that bad grammar) ancestor to still co-exist in the same geological period.
EmmZ...the niche is not designed for anyone in particular to live in, the species just change their niche and that is their *adaptation*, our current success is yet to be tested on the long term timeframe, meanwhile in another niche some of our ancestors are still surviving quite well.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/timechart.jpeg
Am I being a complete phylogenetic spanner here and asking inane questions?
spidergoat
05-21-08, 06:15 PM
That's besides the point draq, I'm asking about evolutionary predecessors still being around when their evolutionary offspring are. Surely if evolution is conditioned to happen there can no longer be conditions for that predecessing (pardon that bad grammar) ancestor to still co-exist in the same geological period.
The environment changes all the time, and there are variations even within one environment that can support new species.
Anti-Flag
05-21-08, 06:18 PM
OK fair enough, but if we're descendant from apes why haven't apes become extinct? If all life came from the primordial soup, some of which I believe are living beside their evolutionary offspring, why would they need to evolve at all. Am I thinking evolution is a linear process and it's not here?
Fundamental flaw here, we're not descended from apes, we share a common(oddly enough now extinct) ancestor.
spidergoat
05-21-08, 06:19 PM
...Who most probably fit the definition of ape.
I get that. To a point. I understand that species give rise to other species depending on varying factors. What I don't get is why those species meet with the causes for evolution and yet still manage to continue to exist. Although something is telling me I may need to know more about evolution to be able to ask the correct questions. But I thought I'd ask anyway because others might have similar questions about evolution.
Anti-Flag
05-21-08, 06:21 PM
...Who most probably fit the definition of ape.
Technically perhaps. Although it's not the same ape as the modern one.
Fundamental flaw here, we're not descended from apes, we share a common(oddly enough now extinct) ancestor.
Yeah, I realise that now. It's pretty bloody obvious now you guys mention it. I'm not the brightest of sparks:o but still, that wasn't necessarily my question.
Anti-Flag
05-21-08, 06:24 PM
I get that. To a point. I understand that species give rise to other species depending on varying factors. What I don't get is why those species meet with the causes for evolution and yet still manage to continue to exist. Although something is telling me I may need to know more about evolution to be able to ask the correct questions. But I thought I'd ask anyway because others might have similar questions about evolution.
In a word - Yes.:p
It can be a daunting subject in depth and people do throw around confusing simplicities.
Basically the old ancestor will only die out if it is no longer able to compete for it's share of resources, neanderthals didn't die out instantly, they survived for a while, but gradually were out-competed. It's not an inevitability but it is highly likely for this to occur. This is of course entirely dependant on circumstances.
That's besides the point draq, I'm asking about evolutionary predecessors still being around when their evolutionary offspring are. Surely if evolution is conditioned to happen there can no longer be conditions for that predecessing (pardon that bad grammar) ancestor to still co-exist in the same geological period.
Not at all. A new species is created when sufficient mutation results in speciation. Mutations are completely seperate from natural selection and environemental preassures (other than perhaps the environements ability to augment the number of replication errors, however, that is no factor on the type of mutation.) That is, the environement does not force a species to evolve, it merely kills off those which are not suited for it.
Now, often, a new species will be better suited to the environement, and if it is a competitor of the ansestor, the anscestor will probably become extinct.
However, If the two do not compete, or there are plenty of resources, or they are equaly matched, than both can continue.
The real question is; why should the anscestor die out?
-Andrew
Anti-Flag
05-21-08, 06:27 PM
Yeah, I realise that now. It's pretty bloody obvious now you guys mention it. I'm not the brightest of sparks:o but still, that wasn't necessarily my question.
I apologise for not reading through everyone elses replies thoroughly I was slightly rushing.
I'll confess I giggled when I read your post but you're obviously sincere about learning so worthy of response. I'm sure you're laughing now too. :) See what you make of my above post though.
Anti-Flag
05-21-08, 06:32 PM
The real question is; why should the anscestor die out?
-Andrew
Bingo! I'm just highlighting this for Emmz - If there is no reason for it to die out it probably won't.
Say there are two islands. On one island, birds need a long beak to eat bugs out of holes in trees. On another, nearby island, they need short beaks to crack nuts. So one kind of bird happens to land on the first island, and after a while it evolves a long beak. Then it happens to find the second island, where the environment requires a short beak, so a short beak evolves. The first birds no longer recognize the second as their own, and as a result, they diverge into two species.
Highlighting this too, it's a great example. Now try imagining it occuring on the same island, an abundance of food the birds could be eating, and the birds are not directly competing with each other as they have different food sources, so both species can survive.
Thanks for your patience everyone. I'm told i need to understand genetic reproduction a bit more to understand where my confusion lies. I have a feeling I've bitten off more than I can chew, but hopefully this thread will help other idiots like me understand a little more about the evolutionary process. Thanks again :)
DeepThought
05-21-08, 07:12 PM
A new species is created when sufficient mutation results in speciation. Mutations are completely seperate from natural selection and environemental preassures (other than perhaps the environements ability to augment the number of replication errors, however, that is no factor on the type of mutation.) That is, the environement does not force a species to evolve, it merely kills off those which are not suited for it.
The only mutations I've ever observed result in deformed or handicapped people, and these seem to occur with startling regularity. Is there an example of a positive mutation which occurs with the same frequency?
Creeptology
05-21-08, 07:21 PM
you have to understand it's not instantaneous transition, or clean boundary between successors. Say a pioneer species gives way to a new one it seems the old dies off and a new one appears, in reality it's not like this exactly. It happens slowly, a process of succession. The original species slowly changes over time due to mutations and common traits changing and being affected by environmental conditions(like with the long hair short hair rabbit examples often given in biology studies). Eventually the species becomes distinct from it's original and is classified as a new one. It looks from reading books etc like one gives way to another but at closer inspection you can see many more sub divisions (like the divisions between archaic H. sapien and present day). For example if you slowly add water to a container 1 drop a day it's easy to measure in say 100ml increments and maybe for ease to document the stages of filling by 100ml>200>300 transitions. In reality though it's a very gradual change that blend in.
Species slowly change until they become quite distinct from their original and are recatagorised. Organisms change over time and environmental factors allow some to out compete others and hence succeed them. The succession on a small level (ie in same species) is slow so it's even longer process for a new species to succeed the old. For instance it's not like a new Hominid will suddenly appear and outcompete H.sapien (present day) and we will decline and they increase. This happens with small scale mutation which then affects the next generations and so on. Like rabbit example where small percentage of rabbit pop has longer fur but hot climate means they are not as suited to the niche as shorter fur rabbits who are the common ones in the population so don't thrive. Then harsh winters occur and mean the short fur ones are not as adapted as the long, hence the long fur becomes the common variety. Many of these small scale changes happen until eventually over 100s of thousands to millions of years a new distinct species exists when compared to it's ancestor at a suitably far back enough previous point in time.
So the old ones do not really exist at the same time as the new, but if you go into microdivisions you can see there are times when a few different characteristics within a species exist at the same time.
The only mutations I've ever observed result in deformed or handicapped people, and these seem to occur with startling regularity. Is there an example of a positive mutation which occurs with the same frequency?
Well, first, it should be pointed out that the probability of a usefull mutation is smaller than that of a debillitating mutation: most resault in a condition infavourable to the environement, or so damaging that the cell simply dies (in multicellular organisms; it undergoes apoptosis, ones that do not due to excessive damage can become cancerous.) Thus, speciation will only occur if we consider hundreds of thousands of years (obviously, a timespan inobservable to any human.) for macro organisms. Less for single-celled organisms.
However, there are examples of positive mutations (though, infact, they are negative as far as we are concerned.)
The pesticide and pharmaceutical industries are quite aware of these.
Some insects of a particular species will be resistant to pesticide X, and hence, when X is applied, the ones carrying this gene will replicate without competition from the ones who do not. Hence, a usefull mutation propogated by natural selection.
Viruses contain little to no error-checking, and hence, have considerable mutation. Because of this, it is extremely hard to treat them. The HIV virus is a specific example; infact, after infecting a new host, the strain soon mutates into a distinct phenotype from its predecessor. When applying pharmaceuticals to a patient, one cannot apply too much at once, or it will merely whipe out the competitors of the resistant strains, and render the drug useless for future applications.
A third example is penicillen and bacteria. Certain bacteria have develloped enzymes capable of disabling certain penecillins. Thus, penicillin can be modified to overcome this, but, eventualy bacteria devellop a resistance to that one as well; and kind of mutation is the major behind adding penicillins to foods; one wouldnt want to breed resistant bacteria!
-Andrew
CharonZ
05-21-08, 07:40 PM
Oh definitely CharonZ, the how is what I'm asking. The why is of no consequence here I agree. so I suppose my question might be if Species A gives rise to subspecies a1 and a2 how does species A not become extinct due to its environmental (or whatever) conditions becoming a cause for its own evolution?
Well it kind of cease to exist as an own population, as the gene pool that represented A is now divided into a1 and a2. If both would interchange genetic material again (i.e. the separation would somehow reverse before both population accumulate changes) then population would in theory be existent again. Population A does not go extinct in the classical sense, though. It just dissolves into the two subpopulations.
Think of it this way, its not a replacement of a prior ancestor, its merely the preponderance of most likely to survive to reproduce. Over time, you find that the ones that reproduce become the majority; over a longer period, they become the survivors.
Creeptology
05-21-08, 07:55 PM
the thing about bacteria gets complex since it's not just mutations where many get resistance from but swapping resistances between different types by plasmid dna. Plasmid dna can be swapped easily between different types of bacteria.
I see what you mean now. I was under the impression that both pioneering and evolved species did exist together. But only within a certain time frame.
What I don't get is why those species meet with the causes for evolution and yet still manage to continue to exist.
Evolution is often localized. A mountain range, a desert, or an ocean gulf might split a formerly homogenous species into two parts that can no longer interbreed because of geography. There exist biological forces that tend to keep a species homogeneous (e.g., sexual preferences for the norm). These biological forces do not apply when a sub-population becomes separated from its parent population. These biological forces that tend to maintain the status quo can also be overwhelmed by other forces; local climate change, for example. A sub-population can become a separate species from the parent population. The parent population might follow a different evolutionary pathway or can even remain relatively unchanged.
Right. That makes sense. Cheers.
Creeptology
05-21-08, 08:15 PM
like Galapagos finches and lizards
DeepThought
05-22-08, 03:15 AM
Well, first, it should be pointed out that the probability of a usefull mutation is smaller than that of a debillitating mutation: most resault in a condition infavourable to the environement, or so damaging that the cell simply dies (in multicellular organisms; it undergoes apoptosis, ones that do not due to excessive damage can become cancerous.) Thus, speciation will only occur if we consider hundreds of thousands of years (obviously, a timespan inobservable to any human.) for macro organisms. Less for single-celled organisms.
What example would you give from the human fossil record of a positive mutation?
Further, I don't see how a positive mutation can spread through a population, since breeding with non mutated stock will eliminate it. It seems to me that such mutations could only affect a macro species when there are relatively few of them, ie, early on in their evolution. In fact, thinking about it, I'm not even sure that that it is possible, since in the first generation the mutation would be largely eradicated.
However, there are examples of positive mutations (though, infact, they are negative as far as we are concerned.)
The pesticide and pharmaceutical industries are quite aware of these.
Some insects of a particular species will be resistant to pesticide X, and hence, when X is applied, the ones carrying this gene will replicate without competition from the ones who do not. Hence, a usefull mutation propogated by natural selection.
Viruses contain little to no error-checking, and hence, have considerable mutation. Because of this, it is extremely hard to treat them. The HIV virus is a specific example; infact, after infecting a new host, the strain soon mutates into a distinct phenotype from its predecessor. When applying pharmaceuticals to a patient, one cannot apply too much at once, or it will merely whipe out the competitors of the resistant strains, and render the drug useless for future applications.
A third example is penicillen and bacteria. Certain bacteria have develloped enzymes capable of disabling certain penecillins. Thus, penicillin can be modified to overcome this, but, eventualy bacteria devellop a resistance to that one as well; and kind of mutation is the major behind adding penicillins to foods; one wouldnt want to breed resistant bacteria!
Shouldn't a scientific example of evolution be free of human action?
In the case of bacteria and viruses, mutation would seem to be a necessary characteristic of the organisms survival, rather like our ability to run from predators using our legs, but no evolution seems to occur from this. Surely a positive adaptation in micro cellular organisms would see them conglomerating into larger organisms, rather than just changing their structure around, which is just as likely to change back?
In the case of insects and pesticides, it would seem that we are doing the selecting, rather than nature.
iceaura
05-22-08, 04:34 AM
What example would you give from the human fossil record of a positive mutation? The one that crippled its victim by reducing the size of its jaw muscles and lowering their attachment point on the skull.
It's apparently a simple point mutation in one of the development regulating code sequences.
It removes the compression of the jaw muscles from the skull, allowing it to grow more during childhood.
It was probably a deformity, and certainly a handicap to some degree, at the time.
Further, I don't see how a positive mutation can spread through a population, since breeding with non mutated stock will eliminate it. How's that happen ?
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 04:52 AM
Further, I don't see how a positive mutation can spread through a population, since breeding with non mutated stock will eliminate it.
why would it eliminate it? Genes are passed on to progeny - if a mutated gene increases survival, and therefore increases the number of ofspring produced, a mutated gene would proliferate throughout subsequent generations.
It seems to me that such mutations could only affect a macro species when there are relatively few of them, ie, early on in their evolution.
In fact, thinking about it, I'm not even sure that that it is possible, since in the first generation the mutation would be largely eradicated.
Not sure how you jump to that conclusion - explain.
ps - what's a macro-species?
Shouldn't a scientific example of evolution be free of human action?
Evolution continues regardless of what it is in the environment that is causing the selective pressure - so an example of selection that has been induced by the changes humans have made to the environment has no fundamental difference to selection induced by say the environmental considtions resulting from say an asteroid strike, or an ice age.
However seeing as you ask for one - try this one for size:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80923
DeepThought
05-22-08, 05:42 AM
why would it eliminate it? Genes are passed on to progeny - if a mutated gene increases survival, and therefore increases the number of ofspring produced, a mutated gene would proliferate throughout subsequent generations.
No it wouldn't, unless incest was the norm. Surely I don't have to tell a biology undergraduate that the offspring of a man and a woman is a blending of both their physical attributes, and not a carbon copy of one or the other.
Take the obvious example of skin color, a dark skinned person placed amongst light skinned people will produce offspring lighter than itself, successive breeding with light skinned people will eradicate the heavily melinated skin entirely. Or vice versa.
Unless the mutation occurs simultaneously, in more than one individual, it's a mathematical impossibility for it to proliferate.
However seeing as you ask for one - try this one for size:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80923
What's the positive mutational adaptation? And where's the original fish in which this occurred?
This adds up to little more than 'we found a bunch of fish that look a lot like these other fish, but with slight differences, and there's a lot more of them than there used to be, lets use it as an example of evolution in action' (and try shut those Christians up?).
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 06:19 AM
No it wouldn't, unless incest was the norm. Surely I don't have to tell a biology undergraduate that the offspring of a man and a woman is a blending of both their physical attributes, and not a carbon copy of one or the other.
Indeed - but the GENE that gets passed on IS a carbon copy of the gene that comes from one of the parents - not an amalgam of the two genes.
If one parent has red hair and one parent has black hair, the child won't have chestnutty coloured hair - it'll either be red or black
What's the positive mutational adaptation? And where's the original fish in which this occurred?
The adaptation is the featherlike supra-ocular tentacles (the little tencales above the eyes) - the photo's illustrate it reasonably well, and gives an example of the original phenotype.
In terms of what is positive about it, the full version of the paper goes into some detail over possible explanations - I have the full version in PDF if you want it.
Suffice it to say that the increasing frequency of this particular phenotype indicates that there is something advantageous about it - the next thing to do is find out what that is - this is recent research after all.
(and if any funding bodies are reading this I have an excellent hypothesis and access to some very cool accelerometer technology that might prove it)
This adds up to little more than 'we found a bunch of fish that look a lot like these other fish, but with slight differences, and there's a lot more of them than there used to be, lets use it as an example of evolution in action' (and try shut those Christians up?).
Yes - becuase it fits exactly with the definition of evolution - namely "Changes in allele frequencies over time"
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 06:25 AM
Unless the mutation occurs simultaneously, in more than one individual, it's a mathematical impossibility for it to proliferate.
Fair enough - prove it's impossible mathematically then
OK fair enough, but if we're descendant from apes why haven't apes become extinct? If all life came from the primordial soup, some of which I believe are living beside their evolutionary offspring, why would they need to evolve at all. Am I thinking evolution is a linear process and it's not here?
EmmZ, any intermediate state between species (which is human defined) is a viable life form. It does well within its own habitat.
Under environmental pressure the following things can happen:
- the genepool does not contain any (or too little) genes that will give any individuals a significant advantage in the current (but changing) environment.
The species will likely die out.
- the genepool does contain genes that will give some individuals a significant advantage in the current (but changing) environment. Frequency of these genes will rise in the genepool.
The species may evolve into another species.
Sometimes a group will get separated from the main group because of natural events, such as mountain ranges forming.
The weather on one side of the mountain might stay the same while it changes on the other side. Along with the weather the environment will change.
Eventually the separated group may evolve into a new species.
Key is that beneficial genes for the new environment must already exist within the genepool before it is selected upon by environmental pressures.
New species can also arise because of accidents.
For example:
A flood kills the larger part of a group of rabbits.
By pure chance a rare gene in the original genepool becomes now common, because precisely those rabbit with the rare gene survive by chance.
Any specific questions ?
Reading back on that question I asked, I see how I was confused about our common ancestors. It's often said we're descendant from apes, but in fact we're not genetic brothers, more genetic cousins. My original question has now been succinctly answered into a concise, "They are, or will be soon, evolution takes time". I think I was looking at species like Crocodiles who are commonly said to have been around since the dinosaurs, and thought if they'd genetically evolved into another sub species, or even a different species all together, why wouldn't the original croc species have died out (given that its environment forced an evolutionary change).
iceaura
05-22-08, 08:16 AM
Surely I don't have to tell a biology undergraduate that the offspring of a man and a woman is a blending of both their physical attributes, and not a carbon copy of one or the other. It could hardly be a "blending" - it's probably one sex or the other, just for starters.
It could hardly be a "blending" - it's probably one sex or the other, just for starters.
And not only physical attributes.
The offspring of a man and a woman has a genotype that is a combination of half the mans genotype and half the womans genotype.
This results in a phenotype that shows characteristics shared with either parent and completely new characteristics.
DeepThought:
A beneficial mutation will usualy propogate: by breeding with non-mutated members, there is a 50/50 chance (in species which pass on half their chromosomes) that each offspring will have the improved gene. As most animals have several offspring at once, and have several 'batches', it is statisticaly probable that the gene is passed on to more individuals of the second generation.
Furthermore, every large species that I am aware of is attracted to the most fit individual, and hence, the individual with a beneficial mutation will have more opportunities to pass on its gene (sexual selection.)
Now, of the second generation of the gene, the children wit hthe beneficial gene have a better chance of surviving (you don't have to run faster than the predator, you only have to run faster than your buddy.) and hence, there will be less competiton when it comes to breeding for memebers carrying the beneficial gene, untill the point when (after many generations) the gene is common.
Shouldn't a scientific example of evolution be free of human action? What human action? If it adapts to the environement it adapts to the environement; they aren't psychich to what caused the change.
In the case of bacteria and viruses, mutation would seem to be a necessary characteristic of the organisms survival, rather like our ability to run from predators using our legs, but no evolution seems to occur from this.
The fact that old phynotypes and genotypes are removed rapidly in this environement is irrelevant. If the new mutations are highly necesary for survival, then all the more obviouse the effect (and an obviouse proof is still a proof.) Evolution is this process (by definition), even if the exact speciation is hard to quantify in this instance.
Surely a positive adaptation in micro cellular organisms would see them conglomerating into larger organisms, rather than just changing their structure around, which is just as likely to change back? Why? If it survives, it survives. You don't see many people recovering from AIDS now do you...
Remember your child proverbs? Bigger isnt always better?
And sure, ther may be just as likely to devolve, but, this is true for all species, however any that do usualy get picked off by natural selection pretty fast, and if they aren't, than they are loosing a now useless trait: like being born without an appendix or wisdom teeth.
Take the obvious example of skin color, a dark skinned person placed amongst light skinned people will produce offspring lighter than itself, successive breeding with light skinned people will eradicate the heavily melinated skin entirely. Or vice versa. Remember that skin colour is controlled (in humans) by something like 6 genes, who's expression is incompletely dominant: this means that while the offspring will be lighter, it still has at least some of the genes to produce a dark offspring. It would then be up to natural (and possibly sexual) selection to favour darker offspring (if it did not, then the gene would not be called beneficial.) Hence, the lightest individuals with none of the mutated genes would be least likely to breed, and those with more, would be more likely.
That is: the allele would appear to be erradicated, but it would re-emerge after a few generations when those sporting it could interbreed (without it being incest.)
-Andrew
one_raven
05-22-08, 11:48 AM
It sounds like you are saying that we evolved so we can use tools but what you are doing is deviating from the natural world to the man made. Nature makes no concessions for or has no link to man made devices.
Concessions for manmade devices?
That makes no sense.
Nature has no specific goals or intentions for any species.
Nature is not some cognizant God.
Nature is simply the environment in which we live and those who are better at surviving in that environment will thrive.
Those who are not as good at surviving will not thrive.
It really is as simpl as that.
The point is that there was absolutely no reason for a physical change and the change was not even an advancement. If it was then show me where.
The fact that we are not only here but wildly successful is the only proof necessary.
Size is not everything - if it were, why did the dinosaurs die off and mice thrive?
If you have the ability to survive and prosper in your environment, you will.
If you do not, you can adapt, move or die.
We adapted through our intellect by creating tools, shelters and other "man-made devices" to aid our survival in any environment.
Neanderthal did not.
The irony of it is that we were smart enough to have created this layer above the nevironment in which we live, so we can survive anywhere, which makes us lazy, complacent and stupid, which will be our downfall.
No it wouldn't, unless incest was the norm. Surely I don't have to tell a biology undergraduate that the offspring of a man and a woman is a blending of both their physical attributes, and not a carbon copy of one or the other.
Take the obvious example of skin color, a dark skinned person placed amongst light skinned people will produce offspring lighter than itself, successive breeding with light skinned people will eradicate the heavily melinated skin entirely. Or vice versa.
Unless the mutation occurs simultaneously, in more than one individual, it's a mathematical impossibility for it to proliferate.
Do you really not understand the idea of a dominant genetic trait? If so, your country’s education systen has failed you badly.
We adapted through our intellect by creating tools, shelters and other "man-made devices" to aid our survival in any environment.
Neanderthal did not.
The irony of it is that we were smart enough to have created this layer above the nevironment in which we live, so we can survive anywhere, which makes us lazy, complacent and stupid, which will be our downfall.
But whatever tools we use to aid our survival or make things easier are not necessary for survival and Neanderthals from what we assume to know about them could have easily survived and thrived just as they were. You are assuming that for some reason evolution wanted to create a species to use shovels, rifles and build elaborate shelters. That is just comical.
Now you give me compelling evidence that humans NEEDED to evolve from whatever they supposedly were before. Do you honestly think a brain can evolve to something more sophisticated because of a natural obstacle or because the organism needs to sit its ass on a couch somewhere? Sounds like BS to me.
We hear about organisms evolving because of need or adaptation, well then you tell me what the need for humans to evolve from whatever you think they were before was. The logical and obvious answer to me is that there was none. Sorry Charlie.
one_raven
05-22-08, 03:35 PM
But whatever tools we use to aid our survival or make things easier are not necessary for survival and Neanderthals from what we assume to know about them could have easily survived and thrived just as they were.
They quite obviously could not have or they would have.
You are assuming that for some reason evolution wanted to create a species to use shovels, rifles and build elaborate shelters.
That is just ludicrous and very clearly shows you complete misunderstanding of the very core of what evolution is.
You, as usual, come half cocked with a seriously flawed understanding of that which you argue so vehemently against.
Evoltuion doesn't "want" anything.
Evolution does not have some kind of end goal in sight and forces species to change to fit that mold.
Evolution does not DO anything.
WE adapt to our surroundings or we do not.
It is really as simple as that.
When our surroundings change - such as climate change, for one example, the species that can survive in the new environment will, those who can not will either relocate or die.
Our greatest strengths are our intellect and community, which allow us to build shelters in any environment.
The biggest difference between us an the other animals is that we can dramatically alter our environment on a rapid and wide scale.
This is why we have been as successful as we are now.
Evolution did not intend anything for us, because evolution does not have any intentions.
We learned to adapt to our environment, and perhaps more importantly, we learned to adapt our environement to us.
Neanderthal was quite obviously not as successful.
By the way, another flaw in your understanding seems to be the belief that we evolved from Neanderthal - we did not.
It was a distinct species.
Now you give me compelling evidence that humans NEEDED to evolve from whatever they supposedly were before.
There isn't any, you moron.
We did not NEED to do anything.
Either we would have adapted, or we would have died.
Do you honestly think a brain can evolve to something more sophisticated because of a natural obstacle or because the organism needs to sit its ass on a couch somewhere? Sounds like BS to me.
You seem to have a similar ego-centric view that puts the cart before the horse.
We did not evolve with this being the end-goal.
The world was not created for us.
There was no grand plan or direction.
This is how we happened to evolved, given the restraints, opportunities and nature of the world we lived in and how all the other species happend to evolve as well.
WE adapt to our surroundings or we do not.
It is really as simple as that.
When our surroundings change - such as climate change, for one example, the species that can survive in the new environment will, those who can not will either relocate or die.
Our greatest strengths are our intellect and community, which allow us to build shelters in any environment.
And you are very wrong about that. What you are displaying is typical narcissist security blanket that nature needs humans, wants humans and that humans are the ideal. Well maybe to other humans they are but nature does not care one way or another.
When our surroundings change - such as climate change, for one example, the species that can survive in the new environment will, those who can not will either relocate or die.
There isn't any, you moron.(:mad:)
We did not NEED to do anything.
Either we would have adapted, or we would have die
That is complete BS. I asked you to give me even the simplest guess as to why we needed to adapt or DIE OUT and you cannot give one. Why? Because there is none.
If you take a body of water and introduce a natural toxin to that water then the only things to survive are those that can...for whatever reason those organisms have the ability to survive BUT one species does not morph into another to survive because life DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. And just as this thread began- we see EXTINCTION all the time- with no replacement and NOTHING to fill in the gap. Gone forEVER.
one_raven
05-22-08, 04:07 PM
And you are very wrong about that. What you are displaying is typical narcissist security blanket that nature needs humans, wants humans and that humans are the ideal. Well maybe to other humans they are but nature does not care one way or another.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Humans are certainly not ideal.
We have been successful, but it has been a relatively short time.
All I said is that we have been more successful than Neanderthal has been, and the proof is that we are hee and they are not.
If you think I was saying that nature needs humans somehow, you are even more dense than I had thought.
I was saying precicely the opposite.
How could you possibly get that nature needs humans from anything I said?
We easily could have died, just as countless other species have died.
Idiot.
That is complete BS. I asked you to give me even the simplest guess as to why we needed to adapt or DIE OUT and you cannot give one. Why? Because there is none.
No you didn't.
Go back and read what you said, jackass.
You asked for "compelling evidence that humans NEEDED to evolve from whatever they supposedly were before."
This is quite different from what you just said.
And I answered that question already.
I said there isn't any.
If I stripped you naked and dropped you off at the South Pole you will either A.) Adapt (very quickly find food and find or build shelter)
B.) Find a way out of there.
or
C.) Die.
You have no other options.
Neanderthal died, we adapted.
Tell me, genius, why did Neanderthal die out if it was so wonderfully fit to survive?
If you take a body of water and introduce a natural toxin to that water then the only things to survive are those that can...for whatever reason those organisms have the ability to survive BUT one species does not morph into another to survive because life DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
I never said it did, neither did anyone who has even the faintest understanding of evolution.
All you are proving in this argument is that you are ignorant of the precepts of the theory of evolution.
If I stripped you naked and dropped you off at the South Pole you will either A.) Adapt (very quickly find food and find or build shelter)
B.) Find a way out of there.
or
C.) Die.
Now you are finally beginning to understand...
But you still do not see how foolish you are? Your proving my point. Otherwise you would believe that humans would grow fur or some other means to survive. How about if most of all the good food was high up in trees would humans (if they could not figure out another way) start flying? Would they, over time, grow wings? Fairy tale!
You OneRaven are a fundamentalist. Now go read up on you flying spaghetti monster or offer up some proof.
John,
You are very confused. You ask why we needed to adapt. Answer: Environmental pressure. I get the impression that you think every member of a species adapts, which is why you cannot see a reason. Some members adapt, others go extinct. The survivors have an advantage which the others do not. For an easy introduction to what is going on, read up on Mendel's experiments with peas and having done so, imagine that one type is better adapted to a change in its surroundings. That's the one that will survive. Bear in mind that we are talking about many generations before one form becomes firmly established.
Mendel will explain genetics and from that point on you will find it easier to understand evolution which is. of course. a different issue/
one_raven
05-22-08, 04:30 PM
Now you are finally beginning to understand...
But you still do not see how foolish you are? Your proving my point. Otherwise you would believe that humans would grow fur or some other means to survive. How about if most of all the good food was high up in trees would humans (if they could not figure out another way) start flying? Would they, over time, grow wings? Fairy tale!
You OneRaven are a fundamentalist. Now go read up on you flying spaghetti monster or offer up some proof.
As I said, learn something about the theory of evolution.
It does not state that food being high in trees will cause a species to evolve so it can reach it.
It states that those animals which have evolved the ability to reach said fruit are more likely to survive.
In other words, you will not grow tall to reach the fruit, the tall ones that can reach the fruit are more fit to survive in that specific environment.
I am not saying that Darwin was 100% correct - in fact I am pretty sure he wasn't.
What I am saying is until you learn something about evolution, arguing about it simply makes you look like an ass.
You ask why we needed to adapt. Answer: Environmental pressure.
This stems from creatures supposedly leaving the water to go onto land because for some reason living in water no longer suited them. Of course there are still creatures who live quite happily on land and water.
Be that as it may:
Myles, what did humans evolve from?
Environmental pressure.
How about black bears? if they lose their habitat then what will they evolve into? or what about polar bears?
Creeptology
05-22-08, 04:40 PM
werewolves
This stems from creatures supposedly leaving the water to go onto land because for some reason living in water no longer suited them. Of course there are still creatures who live quite happily on land and water.
Be that as it may:
Myles, what did humans evolve from?
John, an organism itself doesn't ever evolve. A species evolves, or a group within a species evolves. Often over many many generations.
Your thinking error is that you only see the begin- and endpoint, which both don't actually exist unless defined by man.
Evolution usually happens very gradually. It's only after many many generations that an isolated group (for instance) becomes a different species from the group they split off from.
Environmental pressure.
How about black bears? if they lose their habitat then what will they evolve into? or what about polar bears?
No one can tell, although dying out seems a more than likely outcome.
werewolves
I think it is a serious question because all we have witnessed is extinction. So now tell me where does that leave this evolution theory?
spidergoat
05-22-08, 04:55 PM
Most species do die, most have died. Since there are still many species left, it doesn't seem like a deal breaker. There very fact that there are still millions, if not billions of species, means that speciation occurs.
This stems from creatures supposedly leaving the water to go onto land because for some reason living in water no longer suited them. Of course there are still creatures who live quite happily on land and water.
Be that as it may:
Myles, what did humans evolve from?
I have suggested a course of action to help you understand what is going on. Until you have read up on the subject, your questions will make no sense and you will not understand my answers.
Using algebra as an example, consider the equation
x =
-b +/- the square root of (b^2 -4ac )
------ --------------------------------
2a
Clumsy layout but the best I can do.
You are asking me to explain "a" which I cannot do without going through all the steps necessary to establish the above general solution of a quadratic equation. Life is too short so, I am suggesting that you read an introduction to algebra and learn to handle a few equations. which will enable you to understand my answer. Otherwise, if I just reply that "a" is the co-efficient of x, you will ask me what a co-efficient is and why x needs one. Get the idea ?
Your thinking error is that you only see the begin- and endpoint, which both don't actually exist unless defined by man.
Evolution usually happens very gradually. It's only after many many generations that an isolated group (for instance) becomes a different species from the group they split off from.
But then you are assuming that the organism would have the ability to predict changes or even know that things would stay exactly the same but for what reason? And did you ever consider that these changes would have had to happen millions of times?
Explain the evolutionary need\reason for a jelly fish.
But then you are assuming that the organism would have the ability to predict changes or even know that things would stay exactly the same but for what reason? And did you ever consider that these changes would have had to happen millions of times?
Explain the evolutionary need\reason for a jelly fish.
:confused:
Please read this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1867825&postcount=65
Most species do die, most have died. Since there are still many species left, it doesn't seem like a deal breaker. There very fact that there are still millions, if not billions of species, means that speciation occurs.
So species replenish themselves? Extinction means forever. The fact is that cataclysmic events (to a particular species) do not happen often.
:confused:
Please read this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1867825&postcount=65
Enmos,
I am not an idiot, not by a long shot. Here is the gist of that post:
A flood kills the larger part of a group of rabbits.
By pure chance a rare gene in the original genepool becomes now common, because precisely those rabbit with the rare gene survive by chance.
I already acknowledged that changes (relatively slight) can and do occur but from your own example they are still RABBITS.
Enmos,
I am not an idiot, not by a long shot. Here is the gist of that post:
I already acknowledged that changes (relatively slight) can and do occur but from your own example they are still RABBITS.
Yes, they are still rabbits :rolleyes:
That was not by far the gist of that post though.
How about this:
"Key is that beneficial genes for the new environment must already exist within the genepool before it is selected upon by environmental pressures."
Please tell me you are trying to understand..
John,
I cannot understand why you avoid educating yourself like the plague. Spend some time reading as has been suggested. Then ask questions if you have difficulties !
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 05:17 PM
But then you are assuming that the organism would have the ability to predict changes or even know that things would stay exactly the same but for what reason?
No-one is saying that except you johnboy
And did you ever consider that these changes would have had to happen millions of times?
considering we have somewhere on the region of 3.5 billion years of evolution under our conspecific belts, where is the problem there?
Explain the evolutionary need\reason for a jelly fish.
To make more jellyfish
Pandaemoni
05-22-08, 05:19 PM
But whatever tools we use to aid our survival or make things easier are not necessary for survival and Neanderthals from what we assume to know about them could have easily survived and thrived just as they were. You are assuming that for some reason evolution wanted to create a species to use shovels, rifles and build elaborate shelters. That is just comical.
Now you give me compelling evidence that humans NEEDED to evolve from whatever they supposedly were before. Do you honestly think a brain can evolve to something more sophisticated because of a natural obstacle or because the organism needs to sit its ass on a couch somewhere? Sounds like BS to me.
We hear about organisms evolving because of need or adaptation, well then you tell me what the need for humans to evolve from whatever you think they were before was. The logical and obvious answer to me is that there was none. Sorry Charlie.
The way you use "need" seems to me to be the issue. Humans did not need to evolve in some absolute sense, nor did intelligence, nor did birds' wings.
Let's say all the food is high up in trees and I aims to gets it. Presumably, if that is my only food and my species is surviving, I must be getting it somehow (perhaps we live on the food that happens by chance to fall to the ground). However we are eating, we are eating and there is no "need." But suppose the food that falls is insufficient to sustain our whole population. Now what happens? Some of them starve, and the ones that starve are disproportionately likely to be the ones who had some comparative disadvantage in getting that food. (Why? it could be any reason. Maybe they have poor eyesight and can't see the food as it falls or in the distance while others can. Perhaps they are slow and can't get to the falling food before it's scavenged. Perhaps they are weak and others beat them up and take the food. It could be any trait that puts them in the group that starves.) Those traits that disproportionately led to the starvation of certain members of the first few generations start to become less and less prevalent in the population as a whole. The population's characteristics change.
Conversely, the ones that tend to remain are the ones that have a comparative advantage. Suppose many generations in, one animal as a result of a random mutation develops the ability to climb, or slightly better senses to see/hear/small the food, or better footspeed, or greater strength, or any other trait that gives him a slight or great advantage over his peers. Assuming the group as a whole is still breeding in numbers that lead to starvation, his trait is disproportionately likely to allow him to survive. He is disproportionately likely to have offspring and to pass that trait on. In succeeding generations, that those with the trait are more likely to succeed than those without and so the trait becomes more prevalent in the population as a whole. Again the population's characteristics change.
"Speciation" is the cumulative effect of all of these changes over the course of many generations. Any one individual change is likely not enough to result in a new species, but a dozen, a hundred, a thousand? At some point the new population is so different that a clear demarcation across time can be made.
As for humans and intelligence, we developed it because it was helpful in our survival on balance. It comes at a high cost given the many calories it takes to sustain the brain and the high levels of protein required. What must have happened, under the natural selection model, is that (i) ancient pre-humans faced challenges, (ii) some pre-human had a random mutation that led to greater intelligence, (iii) he and his descendants with the trait were disproportionately likely to overcome the hurdles to reproduction that they faces, and so the trait thrived. If those pre-humans had (randomly) developed wings, or a better immune system, or the ability to hold one's breath for three straight hours *and* those traits helped them survive better than the the rest of their competitors, then we'd have those traits instead, but that is not how it happened.
Let's say (again) that the food is very high in the trees and someone develops wings. Let's also say that another individual, without wings, develops the ability to throw rocks with pin point accuracy. Suppose that the rocks can be used to knock the food out of the trees (and, for arguments sake, let's suppose they can't be used to kill our flying competitors). What happens in that case?
Nature has several paths it might take (likely even more than I am imagining). First, it might be that wings are expensive...it takes a lot of energy to fly your whole body up into the trees, and comparatively little to throw a rock. It might be that rock throwing is superior in efficiency to wings and that the rock throwers will out-compete the bird-men. Second, it might be that the wings are more efficient (perhaps the fliers gather more food per trip than the rock throwers, or catch the rock throwers food as it falls). Third, two separate populations might develop, one living in one area and the other in a second area, eventually becoming two separate species with different strategies for food gathering.
In either case, they neither needed to develop the ability to fly nor the ability to throw rocks, those traits appeared randomly and happened to be beneficial in light of the environmental contstraint that the species faced.
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 05:19 PM
Please tell me you are trying to understand..
Trying to explain evolution to a religious fanatic is like teaching a pig to sing - it gets you knowhere and it pisses the pig off
synthesizer-patel,
And you just contributed absolutely nothing.
Trying to explain evolution to a religious fanatic is like teaching a pig to sing - it gets you knowhere and it pisses the pig off
The problem is that I am not a religious fanatic or even religious at all.
spidergoat
05-22-08, 05:21 PM
So species replenish themselves? Extinction means forever. The fact is that cataclysmic events (to a particular species) do not happen often.
Species have an average lifespan of about a million years. So, that's like- a particular kind of bird might die out, but similar birds will still go on.
synthesizer-patel,
And you just contributed absolutely nothing.
John if you are not willing to learn then why are you here ?
Cut open a pineapple and they taste great. Big deal right? Well you tell me how that just happened and not only with pineapple but an abundance of natural foods that taste incredibly good and also:
Pineapples contain Vitamins A and C, but most importantly, they are a great source of an enzyme called Bromelain. Bromelain helps the body's diegestive system and it also has anti-inflammatory properties as well. It has been used to treat a number of medical problems, including heart disease, arthritis, and upper respiratory infections. When taken with antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs, Bromelain has been found to increase the actions of these drugs. This remarkable enzyme is found in all types of pineapples.
There are just too many pieces that fit together and without them you have what?
Dead planet.
Cha Ching....
Seems like he's here to make a fucking nuisance of himself. I think he should be re-directed to a Creationist site where he will get a warm welcome and lots of wrong answers to his misguided questions.
Cut open a pineapple and they taste great. Big deal right? Well you tell me how that just happened and not only with pineapple but an abundance of natural foods that taste incredibly good and also:
Pineapples contain Vitamins A and C, but most importantly, they are a great source of an enzyme called Bromelain. Bromelain helps the body's diegestive system and it also has anti-inflammatory properties as well. It has been used to treat a number of medical problems, including heart disease, arthritis, and upper respiratory infections. When taken with antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs, Bromelain has been found to increase the actions of these drugs. This remarkable enzyme is found in all types of pineapples.
There are just too many pieces that fit together and without them you have what?
Dead planet.
Cha Ching....
You know what ? Forget it..
Pick up a book man, you are not looking good here.
Seems like he's here to make a fucking nuisance of himself. I think he should be re-directed to a Creationist site where he will get a warm welcome and lots of wrong answers to his misguided questions.
I think you are right on all accounts.
[QUOTE=John99;1868521]Cut open a pineapple and they taste great. Big deal right? Well you tell me how that just happened and not only with pineapple but an abundance of natural foods that taste incredibly good and also:
Pineapples contain Vitamins A and C, but most importantly, they are a great source of an enzyme called Bromelain. Bromelain helps the body's diegestive system and it also has anti-inflammatory properties as well. It has been used to treat a number of medical problems, including heart disease, arthritis, and upper respiratory infections. When taken with antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs, Bromelain has been found to increase the actions of these drugs. This remarkable enzyme is found in all types of pineapples.
There are just too many pieces that fit together and without them you have what?
Dead planet.
Cha Ching....
The jaded argument from design....yawn
Seems like he's here to make a fucking nuisance of himself. I think he should be re-directed to a Creationist site where he will get a warm welcome and lots of wrong answers to his misguided questions.
And you are frustrated because i am providing facts and all you can provide is conjecture.
And you are frustrated because i am providing facts and all you can provide is conjecture.
John.. :bugeye:
Go educate yourself, seriously..
You are coming off as an idiot right now.
spidergoat
05-22-08, 05:36 PM
Plants don't need fruit for themselves. They developed fruit in order to spread their seeds by exploiting the nutritional needs of animals. Naturally, the more appealing and nutritious the fruit, the better it will spread the seeds.
John.. :bugeye:
Go educate yourself, seriously..
You are coming off as an idiot right now.
Only to a fundamentalist.:) At least i have logic on my side.
Only to a fundamentalist.:) At least i have logic on my side.
No, you don't. You just don't see it, or don't want to see it.
If I were you I'd leave this thread alone and pick up a book on evolution.
Then come back when you have questions :)
If you can't afford a book, join a lending library !
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 05:50 PM
Cut open a pineapple and they taste great. Big deal right? Well you tell me how that just happened and not only with pineapple but an abundance of natural foods that taste incredibly good and also:....
All - without exception products of artificial selection - ever tasted a "wild orange" bitter and nasty - wild banana - tough bitter and starchy.
Humans are responsible for the way they taste - and they modified them using the principles of evolutionary theory and genetics.
Been watching a little too much Kirk Cameron have we ?:D
Pineapples contain Vitamins A and C, but most importantly, they are a great source of an enzyme called Bromelain. Bromelain helps the body's diegestive system and it also has anti-inflammatory properties as well. It has been used to treat a number of medical problems, including heart disease, arthritis, and upper respiratory infections. When taken with antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs, Bromelain has been found to increase the actions of these drugs. This remarkable enzyme is found in all types of pineapples.
Easily explained by natural selection - plants which have the most beneficial fruits get their fruit eaten by more animals - and their seeds spread over a wider area and deposited in a handy package of fertiliser.
I see nothing remakable about plants which contain useful substances - plants need to manufactuire all kinds of chemicals for survival - out of the billions of plant species around and the billions of years of evolution that has gone into making them what they are today, it would be remarkable if some DIDNT have useful properties
Not every animal needs certain vitamins - almost all mammals for example have a gene which helps them manufacture their own vitamin C.
In humans this gene is damaged and no longer functions - in apes this gene is damaged and no longer functions and is in exactly the same position in the genome, and is damaged in exactly the same way as in humans.
[QUOTE=John99;1868521]
There are just too many pieces that fit together and without them you have what?
QUOTE]
An inability to fit the pieces together? - I bet you're a nightmare on jigsaw night
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 05:53 PM
And you are frustrated because i am providing facts and all you can provide is conjecture.
I think I missed a meeting Johnny - I've not seen any convincing facts from you yet - any chance you could give me a quick run-down please
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 06:00 PM
112 Lmao
jigsaw comment?
synthesizer-patel
05-22-08, 06:02 PM
how does this fit in with your "theories" on plants Johnny;:
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/banana-god-p1.php
No, you don't. You just don't see it, or don't want to see it.
If I were you I'd leave this thread alone and pick up a book on evolution.
Then come back when you have questions :)
And what are your qualifications?
I just happen to know more than you do.
how does this fit in with your "theories" on plants Johnny;:
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/banana-god-p1.php
LMAO ! I had to think of that too :D
And what are your qualifications?
I just happen to know more than you do.
I studied biology at the 'Vrije Universiteit' (university) in Amsterdam.
You don't just know more than me, it seems you know more than everyone here.
What are your qualifications ?
All - without exception products of artificial selection - ever tasted a "wild orange" bitter and nasty - wild banana - tough bitter and starchy.
Humans are responsible for the way they taste - and they modified them using the principles of evolutionary theory and genetics.
Been watching a little too much Kirk Cameron have we ?
I have eaten plenty of wild fruits so i really dont know what you are referring to. They were genetically modifying fruit in the 30's? That is news to me. Perhaps you dont see your errors but right now i am talking to a stepford wife.
Devolving into pointlessness, hence closed.
Please PM me if you want to conduct a meaningful discussion.
iceaura
05-24-08, 02:09 AM
They were genetically modifying fruit in the 30's? People have been breeding fruit, and selecting fruit, and grafting/cloning/propagating fruit, for thousands of years on at least five continents.
I think it is a serious question because all we have witnessed is extinction. So now tell me where does that leave this evolution theory? All you have witnessed is artificial extinction. No one has ever seen anything go extinct naturally. So how do you know it ever happens ?
I'm just curious; if species evolve from other species why don't the (I don't know the term so I'll call it gateway species) gateway species die out? Surely there'd be no need for the lesser evolved species to still remain in the chain at all if they'd been out-competed in the vie for evolutionary supremacy. I'm not entirely convinced with this evolution thing. Sorry if this is a totally stupid question by the way.
It depends on the speciation event.
Isolated populations can "drift" into a new species, randomly, with little or no selective pressure. This allopatric speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation) can also lead to new species because of selective pressures. For instance, in the isolated Hawaiin island chain, Diptera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diptera) (flies with two wings, like mosquitos, houseflies, or craneflies) were blown out there tens of millions of years ago. Presumably, there weren't enough predators out there to fill a "predatory bug" niche, so the Diptera ended up filling that niche through positive directional selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_selection). In this case, a new and old species exist.
In alternative scenario, organisms with ancestral traits can survive in remote places where new better adapted plants haven't arrived, like the ancient cycads in Australia, or the ginko tree in Japan (which is believed to have been kept alive by cultivation in temples).
In remote places like Hawaii or Australia, the introduction of animals like the cane toad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad) or rat, dog, pig and cat pose major problems to native flora and fauna, since the introduced organisms can outcompete the local ones. In such cases, we see "more evolved" species driving other ones to extinction.
In places where there aren't entirely new clades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade) of organisms aren't being introduced, the ecosystem has been around since at least the ice age, one presumes that the species present are, for the most part, in equilibrium. The ones that would have gone extinct already have, and we've only been around a thousand years or so to observe and record any changes, most of which were due to us dicking with the environment.
But to more directly answer your question, in most cases, the ancestral species (proper term for your "gateway species") HAS died out, and only its descendants remain. Using phylogenetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics), a logical process that looks at organisms that share similar characteristics (typically genetic) and groups them into trees, scientists can infer what the common ancestor looked like. At one point, the entire vertebrate line most likely looked something like this lancelet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet). But that lancelet itself is descended from an ancestor that we once shared about 500 million years ago- it has undergone extensive evolution since to stay adapted to its environment. Persistence can be a matter of luck or evolving the right things at the right time, or possessing the right suite of pre-adaptations that later allowed for diversification.
Please paraphrase what you want to say; I do not want people posting private conversations in Biology
Please paraphrase what you want to say; I do not want people posting private conversations in Biology
Fine. Never mind.
It gave some insight in Johns position :shrug:
Fraggle Rocker
05-24-08, 03:33 PM
The most recently evolved large animal species is the polar bear, which arose only 100,000 years ago and its teeth didn't attain their final shape until about 10,000 years ago. The polar bear is the descendant of curious grizzly bears who ventured into the artic region and found an abundant source of food there, but weren't suited for the local environment: an aquatic life during feeding season and temperatures vastly below freezing in the hibernating season. A few grizzlies happened to be bigger, have thicker fur, larger paws, or perhaps just sheer cussedness, and stuck it out. Some survived and some of their descendants had even better adaptation, through selection of genes that were already there or through mutation, and eventually the entire suite of polar bear characteristics was achieved. Meanwhile the grizzlies who remained in the subarctic and temperate zones were doing just fine the way they were and their descendants had no pressure to evolve.
Buckaroo Banzai
05-29-08, 02:27 PM
I'm just curious; if species evolve from other species why don't the (I don't know the term so I'll call it gateway species) gateway species die out? Surely there'd be no need for the lesser evolved species to still remain in the chain at all if they'd been out-competed in the vie for evolutionary supremacy. I'm not entirely convinced with this evolution thing. Sorry if this is a totally stupid question by the way.
The thing is, there's no "need" for anything.
Nature isn't thinking "well, I want only the best of the best alive, I don't need primitive forms aynomre, so I wipe them out".
Organisms with their particular hereditary traits and modifications just survive at different rates, at different places. Some become extinct, some don't, some are able to enter new territories or ecological "lifestyles".
And the "newer", even if "better" will not always be in an ecological position that would always cause primitive organisms to become extinct.
There will be quite primitive lifeforms that would still be perfectly able to keep living for generations and generations, and nature does not "bother" that they're primitive.
The thing is, there's no "need" for anything.
Nature isn't thinking "well, I want only the best of the best alive, I don't need primitive forms aynomre, so I wipe them out".
Organisms with their particular hereditary traits and modifications just survive at different rates, at different places. Some become extinct, some don't, some are able to enter new territories or ecological "lifestyles".
And the "newer", even if "better" will not always be in an ecological position that would always cause primitive organisms to become extinct.
There will be quite primitive lifeforms that would still be perfectly able to keep living for generations and generations, and nature does not "bother" that they're primitive.
No, I realise my language conveyed emotion but I didn't mean to imply evolution was sentient.
Thanks for the other information, it's quite an intricate and detailed process, one I find immensely fascinating.
our evolutionary ancestors (neanderthals or whatever) are extinct. maybe you mean apes but they are not our evolutionary ancestors.
spidergoat
05-30-08, 11:21 AM
our evolutionary ancestors (neanderthals or whatever) are extinct. maybe you mean apes but they are not our evolutionary ancestors.
'fraid they are babe.
I read something in the New Scientist that claimed Orangutans may be our closest relative.
Care to comment?
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ape-Orangutans-Origins-Revised/dp/0813340640
Well they're cuter.
And any primate capable of working in a library gets my vote.
I read something in the New Scientist that claimed Orangutans may be our closest relative.
Care to comment?
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ape-Orangutans-Origins-Revised/dp/0813340640
So then we dont know?
I read something in the New Scientist that claimed Orangutans may be our closest relative.
Care to comment?
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ape-Orangutans-Origins-Revised/dp/0813340640
I think it's bull..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Sequence_divergence_be tween_humans_and_apes
That's wiki! You're raising my New Scientist with a Wiki?
That's wiki! You're raising my New Scientist with a Wiki?
Deal with it :p
Ha, you said "deal". You're so clever Enmos :D OK, I see the tree chart. Tell me, is it possible for Orangutans to be lesser genetically similar but behaviourally more similar? I don't want to let this one go because I've seen Oragutans get post natal depression, that shows enormous emotional aptitude.
Don't forget that Wiki quotes sources 2 and more years old.
NewSci (depending of course on which issue!) may well be more up to date on current thinking.
Yeah! Although New Scientist is like the toilet magazine for "real" scientists.
Don't forget that Wiki quotes sources 2 and more years old.
NewSci (depending of course on which issue!) may well be more up to date on current thinking.
Of course, but I doubt Orangutan genetic make-up changed significantly lately.
Besides, the article EmmZ found didn't exactly agree with the claim either.
It said it was 'controversial, to say the least'.
So according to today's scientific findings it is controversial 'to say the least'.
I also didn't see any arguments to back up this claim.
The author's premise is that morphology links people and orangutans, despite genetic and molecular studies that say that chimps are our closest relatives.
Anyone that knows what convergent evolution is, knows the claim is bull..
Ha, you said "deal". You're so clever Enmos :D OK, I see the tree chart. Tell me, is it possible for Orangutans to be lesser genetically similar but behaviourally more similar? I don't want to let this one go because I've seen Oragutans get post natal depression, that shows enormous emotional aptitude.
The author's claim rests on morphology.
Behavior would have been even worse though.. ;)
madanthonywayne
05-30-08, 11:43 PM
And exactly what do their brains have to do with physical appearance? Seems to me these supposed predecessors would be physically superior to modern humans. Anyone can see that. Stronger, hairier...sure seems better equipped for demnds of ordinary existence. Maybe not the hairier part in all circumstances but for what purpose was the physical change? I say there was none.The purpose of the physical change was that brute force, sheer physical strength turned out to not be the most important factor in the survival of the genus homo.
Buckaroo Banzai
05-31-08, 01:11 PM
I simply can't understand how someone can really defend such thing by now. It was pretty much a viable, if not preferable, hypothesis, before the emergence of all the molecular data, but now... impossible. Unless we're allowed to make really crazy ideas about how pseudo-genealogical patterns of acquisition of RNA viruses could happen and things like that.
At the same time, that does not mean that all the similarities are meaningless, actually, some people propose "alternative" hypotheses that take these evidence as more relevant than just the bare statement that chimps and gorillas are more closely related to us.
For some people, bipedal apes came first, as bipedism is/was somewhat already present in arboreal apes, which are the ancestors of both the lienages of bipedal "apes" (australopithecines, humans, etc) and knuckle-walkers (gorillas and chimps). Then instad of bipedism being an "evolved" trait of our lineage, it would have been just a betterment of secondary bipedism of arboreal apes, while knuckle-walking evolved independently on the other lineages. Some people even propose that chimps descend from Australopithecines.
The overall "humans retained and improved secondary bipedism" is a rather old hypothesis, actually, but it's being "revamped" recently by some researchers.
And how does that connect with the evidences that Schwartz (and hopefully no one else) cites to defend that orangutans are our closest relatives? Well, basically it would all have been inherited from a common ancestor between humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans, along with bipedism, but lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.
Some old school theorizer of that idea (I don't remember his name, I guess I read about it in "Lucy: the beginnings of mankind" by Johanson and Edey or "the ascent of man" by Pilbeam) proposed that it happened due to some sort of "evolutionary pressure" that lead the other African apes to diverge from "pre-humans" (while the orangutans remained "safe" in Asia), a sort of selection for "character displacement".
I think it sounds pretty convincing overall; not only the knuckle-walking seems to me to be more plausible to evolve twice than full bipedism from knuckle walking, even if only once, but many other things seems to be coming together with this idea recently (or at least I had this impression from a few news along the last years, that seemed to fit together).
And I also think that something similar perhaps happened with lions and leopards, which, despite of being more closely related to each other, are far more physically/adaptively different than lions and tigers. Which, of course, is not an evidence per se that the same happened in the apes case, but a whole different episode, which would only illustrate that perhaps this thing could happen at this continental level. But that's just my layman's guesses, anyway.
Buckaroo Banzai
05-31-08, 01:28 PM
And there's no real problem with some species being more phenotipically and behaviorally similar to some not-so-close relative than to it's closest relative known.
Perhaps the better illustration of that would be different "morphs" of males in some species, or even the normal male and female sexes.
The different morphs of males are different "models" of males with behavioral and sometimes anatomical adaptations to some sort of reproductive strategy; I think that in some species they are actual diverging lineages within a species that's somewhat like at the point of speciation but still united by the females, but in other they are actually just the product of differentiation by environmental factors (like different sorts of ants or bees of the same swarm or beehive). In both cases, they can differ more from closely related ancestors or individuals than to some other not-so-close relatives.
And for just the sexes, which is perhaps more easier to visualize, just think of a female chimp and a female bonobo, how they are much more similar, anatomically and behaviorally to each other than to the males of each species. I've read that some bird species are somewhat cryptic, phenotypically indiscernible, by the female alone; you can only tell that there are different species by looking at the males.
Some other examples could be found probably in dog breeds; if I recal, the chow-chow and or the peklinese is more closely related to the wolves than the german shepherd.
Fraggle Rocker
05-31-08, 10:43 PM
Some other examples could be found probably in dog breeds; if I recal, the chow-chow and or the Pekinese is more closely related to the wolves than the German shepherd.Canis lupus familiaris has only had approximately fifteen thousand years to differentiate from Canis lupus lupus, so as you'd expect, there isn't much differentiation. Pick the two most unrelated dogs you can find and there will be more similarity in their DNA (and wolf DNA) than that of a human from Norway and one from Borneo.
DNA analysis shows which breeds were developed the earliest. I don't remember about the chow chow, but the Peke, Lhasa Apso, Shizi ("Shih-Tzu" in Wade-Giles romanization) and mastiff go back about 8,000 years, which puts them among the very first dogs to be selectively bred by humans. Some of the sight hounds (greyhound, Afghan, saluki, etc.) go back more than 3,000 years. The Maltese was the lap dog of the Roman empresses and Rottweilers pulled their peasants' wagons. But most of the breeds that you see in the USA and Europe aren't 200 years old. The German shepherd was invented in 1899.
I think Buckaroo's point, Fraggle, is that morphological traits aren't necessarily indicative, and often times are straight up misleading, when constructing evolutionary trees. Molecular phylogenetics, presumably, more accurately solves such problems.
Ophiolite
06-02-08, 04:28 AM
The German shepherd was invented in 1899.And the Austrian corporal ten years earlier.
synthesizer-patel
06-02-08, 05:13 AM
Yeah! Although New Scientist is like the toilet magazine for "real" scientists.
That is so true - I have a stack of them in my loo for a bit of enlightening reading while I take my morning dump :)
Although I also have a stack of old Judge Dredd comics too
Aquaria89
06-05-08, 07:08 PM
If you are asking. If we evolved from moneys, why are there still monkeys? Then the answer is. We did not evolve from the modren day monkeys.
Aquaria89
06-05-08, 07:11 PM
Still, it doesn't make evolutionary sense for it to remain. Surely if a species evolves it needs to have specific requirements which would involve the eradication of the gateway species.
Look at the peppered moths or the slight differences in the birds that Darwin studied.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.