Can anyone explain evolution to me?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(31-08-2012 11:05 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 08:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ontogeny does not reflect phylogeny Bishadi.
even in basic wiki, they syggest differently

The evolutionary connections between organisms are represented graphically through phylogenetic trees. Due to the fact that evolution takes place over long periods of time that cannot be observed directly, biologists must reconstruct phylogenies by inferring the evolutionary relationships among present-day organisms. Fossils can aid with the reconstruction of phylogenies; however, fossil records are often too poor to be of good help. Therefore, biologists tend to be restricted with analysing present-day organisms to identify their evolutionary relationships. Phylogenetic relationships in the past were reconstructed by looking at phenotypes, often anatomical characteristics. Today, molecular data, which includes protein and DNA sequences, are used to construct phylogenetic trees


dont be upset, you seem a little outdated

That quote in no way supports your statement; it does not refer to ontogeny at all.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(31-08-2012 11:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 11:05 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  even in basic wiki, they syggest differently

The evolutionary connections between organisms are represented graphically through phylogenetic trees. Due to the fact that evolution takes place over long periods of time that cannot be observed directly, biologists must reconstruct phylogenies by inferring the evolutionary relationships among present-day organisms. Fossils can aid with the reconstruction of phylogenies; however, fossil records are often too poor to be of good help. Therefore, biologists tend to be restricted with analysing present-day organisms to identify their evolutionary relationships. Phylogenetic relationships in the past were reconstructed by looking at phenotypes, often anatomical characteristics. Today, molecular data, which includes protein and DNA sequences, are used to construct phylogenetic trees


dont be upset, you seem a little outdated

That quote in no way supports your statement; it does not refer to ontogeny at all.

you apparently dont read using to the comprehension of what 'molecular data' represents.

You are looking for a leg to grow out of a forehead?






i know that is a classroom setting, but dont let it scare you. People learn from others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
Yes we study developmental biology as a means by learning how certain characteristics develop within lineages. We also study the similarity of these genes (such as HoX genes) between different phylogenies but that does not mean that the developmental history of an organism captures its full evolutionary history, nor does it mirror it. It reflects its developmental history. There are genes that are 'turned off' and the addition of new sequences, but these reflect the organisms current physiology, not its past physiology. It is important to note that some genes can even be manipulated by us to be switched 'on' or 'off' so that we can better understand something about the organism and its developmental history, but once again, it does not tell us anything directly about its ancestor. Is it fair to say that the HoX genes that are similar between organisms are shared traits from a common ancestor? Yes. Is it fair to say that the trajectory of development and evolution of those genes follows the evolutionary history of lineages? Yes. But yet again, the ontogenetic development of the organism lends no direct insight into the species that preceded it.

Humans do not develop in utero through all the stages of their evolutionary trajectory. We have a stage of development where we are a single fertilized egg, but that is not our earliest ancestor. There is a period where we have no limbs, distinct cephalization, a tail, but no limbs...this is not Pikaea. The stage of development that gills are present? Not the fish we descended from. "Ontogeny recaptiluates phylogeny" is no longer seen as a viable hypothesis. That does not mean developmental biology holds no place in science and also does not mean that embryonic development is useless. It is very similar to gravity in the sense that Newtonian gravity is known to be wrong, but pieces of it still work well enough for a practical use.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
31-08-2012, 11:40 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(31-08-2012 11:15 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 11:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  That quote in no way supports your statement; it does not refer to ontogeny at all.

you apparently dont read using to the comprehension of what 'molecular data' represents.

You are looking for a leg to grow out of a forehead?






i know that is a classroom setting, but dont let it scare you. People learn from others.

How is this applicable to the discussion?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 11:41 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(31-08-2012 11:06 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(31-08-2012 10:49 AM)Janus Wrote:  Sure, Charles Darwin wrote a whole book on it:

[Image: originb.jpg]

...which, for your convenience, is also available as a free app in the Play Store: "The origin of species".

Enjoy!

and not a once, within the whole of the book, is the word 'evolution' found (first edition)

cute

And your point is what? That Darwin didn't use that term so it isn't so?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 11:44 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
Darwin intentionally avoided the term as it had a religious connotation at the time of his writing.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 01:18 PM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(31-08-2012 11:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Darwin intentionally avoided the term as it had a religious connotation at the time of his writing.

And still does in large swathes of the planet. The GOP/Republicans, for instance, still go ballistic when you mention evolution. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2012, 04:23 PM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
(30-08-2012 06:47 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 07:45 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Yes the cells are not the same.

ie... the next cell is the child of the previous
Quote:They specialize into their specific functions during development.

Yet the cells containing DNA all have the same sequences, and function very differently.
correct

one skin cell, is not the same as any other
Quote:The reason why that isn't evolution is that evolution operates in terms of generations. From the offspring of adults.

to you

not me

I wake up today, evolved from the previous. Thinking it is generations is just using a different measuring stick.

Quote:During development there are things that can influence a beings growth, and adaptability, but those things also evolved along side them, as a result of mutations from adults to their respective offspring.
i agree

how many offspring are your hair folicasl making each day?

Dont believe that the ORGANISM or even the 'species' must have an identifiable change to be an evolution (developed change).

otherwise, look up the Doma Tribe..................... a human 'evolution' climbing the trees, perhaps as we speak!


Quote:The reason why Dolly came out so different is being researched.
and i told you the reason. (the environment)

Quote: Everything from causes in the womb to figuring out why the same dna expressed its self so differently in the cloned animal.

nature is cool aint it?

Rather than addressing all your points I feel as though doing so will be moot.

It seems you reject reality only to replace it with your own understanding.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2012, 02:11 AM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
Hey Hylonome, in James May's Things You Need to Know - Video series 2 - 3. "...about Evolution" you learn everything you want to know about evolution.

Download it here (98MB): http://wtrns.fr/InCKKhrA4aqPK0n
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Janus's post
03-09-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Can anyone explain evolution to me?
One of the drivers of evolution is mutation - the mistakes that sometimes the process of copying DNA in the process of replication.
Mutation is, according to our best understanding, entirely random. Other ways in which genetic diversity arise, such as methylation, gene transfer, and sexual shuffling, are also largely random.

The observed directionality of biological evolution is attributable to natural selection.
Whereby those variations that produce optimal phenotypes for reproductive success in the prevailing environment are favored.

It must be remembered that environments themselves are also in a state of dynamic flux. This provides an explanation for the phenomenon of "punctuated" evolution. Sometimes biological evolution has to wait for the environment to "catch up", if you will excuse the metaphor.
For example, the emergence of large multicellular organisms was unable to occur until after atmospheric oxygen levels became sufficiently high.

Turning to the quite separate issue of abiogenesis, one of the intractable of the many problems with trying to derive a mechanism is that of the development of the cell.
While lipid vesicles can quite easily be generated in the lab (and I have used the fatty coacervate jacket model in some of my own early writings) they do not meet the requirement for two way selective interaction with the surrounding medium that is required for a cell to survive, let alone the quintessential proton pump.
The most plausible proposition I have come across so far is the alkaline thermal vent model.
This is discussed in the very fine book "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane which is available in most public libraries.

Beyond such considerations there is a good case to be made for a much broader evolutionary model that extends beyond biology. From the formation of the chemical elements in the stars right through to the autonomous evolution of technology in ch collective imagination of our species which is so apparent today.
A model which can give useful insights into short-term future outcomes

This is outlined, very informally in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from my "Unusual Perspectives" website)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cognosium's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: