Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[sayak83]

From what I understand , for all life there is a single ''common'' cell. All life begins/evolved from this cell ? Would that be accurate

Are you saying this cell formed from a chemical reaction ?

Not a single cell. A population of related proto-cells evolved over time into a population of primordial cells.

 

[Polymath257]

From what I understand , for all life there is a single ''common'' cell. All life begins/evolved from this cell ? Would that be accurate

Are you saying this cell formed from a chemical reaction ?

Life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions.

DNA, like all chemicals, is made of atoms. It interacts chemically with its surroundings. The proteins it encodes for are chemicals, made from amino acids, which are also made from atoms.

The difference between living things and non-living things is, in part, due to the complexity of carbon atoms and how they bond to each other. It is carbon that forms the backbone structures for all the chemicals of life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Fossil species should be fully formed if evolution is true, so not sure what you are getting at with that one.

I am also wondering how you determine if a fossil species "suddenly appears". How do you do that?

Okay, I'll indulge us both.

Pick any two species that you feel represent two forms close together, immediately adjacent on a web or tree. Now tell me the differences, then let's discuss how long it took to change over and how we know one evolved to another.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I still don't know what you're talking about, exactly. Every species, every individual creature is always fully formed. This idea you seem to have where creatures are being born half-formed, and/or with "half-formed" limbs or wings and whatnot is a misconception of evolution on your part. Several posters, including myself have provided examples of what a transitional species may look like, according to evolution. But you'll notice that the mudskipper, for example, is a fully formed creature. It doesn't have a "half-formed" tail, rather it has a rear fin that it uses to both swim, and that it can also use to move about on land, when it's not in the water. That's what evolution gives us, rather than "half-formed" legs or whatever. That's the best "half-formed" limb you're going to get.

What do you mean, "that's what evolution gives us?" How do RANDOM mutations, not designed changes, create new species? We have land animals becoming whales in 43 million years only, requiring dozens of species-specific changes not including changes in pray, mating, etc. Please explain how this is not evolution just-so storytelling, so I can understand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you mean, "that's what evolution gives us?" How do RANDOM mutations, not designed changes, create new species?

Are you seriously asking how evolution works? If you don't even know how evolution works, why are you debating evolution at all?

We have land animals becoming whales in 43 million years only,

Just because you put the word "only" at the end of this sentence doesn't suddenly make 43 MILLION YEARS a short amount of time.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Pick any two species that you feel represent two forms close together, immediately adjacent on a web or tree. Now tell me the differences, then let's discuss how long it took to change over and how we know one evolved to another.

We could use chimps and humans whose lineages diverged about 5-7 million years ago. The differences are the 40 million mutations (in addition to some chromosomal rearrangements) that separate their genomes. We know that they share a common ancestor because of the genetic markers they share, such as orthologous ERV's. We also know that the differences between their genomes are due to random mutation because of the bias towards transitions over transversions as well as the strong bias towards CpG substitution mutations.

Also, species next to each other on the tree of life did not evolve from one another. They share a common ancestor.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How do RANDOM mutations, not designed changes, create new species?

Random mutations can cause changes in phenotype. On top of that, if different populations start accumulating different random mutations because of a lack of gene flow between the populations then that will reduce fertility between the populations over time while also causing different phenotypes to evolve in each population.

It's a bit like taking a human population and putting them on different islands for 2,000 years with no communication with each other or the modern world. Over that time, their languages will slowly change and there will be different changes on each island. Each generation will still understand the generation before and after them, but generations separated by hundreds of years may be speaking very different languages, just as a modern English speaker would probably not understand an early version of English. If you brought those populations back together after 2,000 years they may very well not understand each other due to the different changes that happened to their language on each island.

We have land animals becoming whales in 43 million years only, requiring dozens of species-specific changes not including changes in pray, mating, etc. Please explain how this is not evolution just-so storytelling, so I can understand.

When all of the evidence is consistent with evolution, you conclude that they evolved. This includes the evidence of the nested hierarchy which is the only pattern of shared derived features that evolution can produce. It is also backed by fossils that have a mixture of features between terrestrial mammals and modern cetaceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, "that's what evolution gives us?" How do RANDOM mutations, not designed changes, create new species? We have land animals becoming whales in 43 million years only, requiring dozens of species-specific changes not including changes in pray, mating, etc. Please explain how this is not evolution just-so storytelling, so I can understand.

So you have no clue and yet you try to claim that evolution is impossible.

This is a serious question, do you know how the insurance industry works?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe half formed would be like a digestive system open at only one end?

That's what I'm imagining. Or like a leg that looks like it was chopped in half down the middle or something? I don't know.

 

[Audie]

That's what I'm imagining. Or like a leg that looks like it was chopped in half down the middle or something? I don't know.

Is that sagittal or transverse?

 

[Audie]

Are you seriously asking how evolution works? If you don't even know how evolution works, why are you debating evolution at all?


Just because you put the word "only" at the end of this sentence doesn't suddenly make 43 MILLION YEARS a short amount of time.

I dunno. Seems like a person can say "Ad hom" and invalidate anything
the other says; "Just chance" or "Random" invalidates ToE, and, "Scandal"
wipes out the reputation of all paleontology, so- "only" outta be up to its
task too, dontcha think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that sagittal or transverse?

In my mind it's sagittal.

 

[Audie]

In my mind it's sagittal.

Me too. Which half?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Me too. Which half?

Good question. I wanna say left.

 

[Audie]

Good question. I wanna say left.

But if you had just the top of bottom half, I guess that would be what, frontal / coronal?

I think just the bottom half would be too funny.

Can you draw that? Illustration of half a wing might be useful.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But if you had just the top of bottom half, I guess that would be what, frontal / coronal?

I think just the bottom half would be too funny.

Can you draw that? Illustration of half a wing might be useful.

Oh right, I guess it would be.And yeah, that would be funny.

He could also be picturing something like an underdeveloped foot where it's just a sack of skin shaped like a foot without the bones, veins, tendons, etc. inside. Like just a shriveled up "half-formed" foot.

 

[Audie]

Oh right, I guess it would be.And yeah, that would be funny.

He could also be picturing something like an underdeveloped foot where it's just a sack of skin shaped like a foot without the bones, veins, tendons, etc. inside. Like just a shriveled up "half-formed" foot.

Got it! Like a butterfly wing, that is only half unfolded.

So now we just need to see from a creationist if we got it right.

Though I suspect that the notion of "half formed" is considerably less
than a half formed idea in their minds.

Still, I do ask from time to time, including BB, if they can say. So far nada.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you have no clue and yet you try to claim that evolution is impossible.

This is a serious question, do you know how the insurance industry works?

I sat for a state licensing exam on insurance and could formerly sell it and support it.

Evolution is real and happens currently, however, it lacks the mechanisms to create cross-kind species whether slowly or quickly.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Random mutations can cause changes in phenotype. On top of that, if different populations start accumulating different random mutations because of a lack of gene flow between the populations then that will reduce fertility between the populations over time while also causing different phenotypes to evolve in each population.

It's a bit like taking a human population and putting them on different islands for 2,000 years with no communication with each other or the modern world. Over that time, their languages will slowly change and there will be different changes on each island. Each generation will still understand the generation before and after them, but generations separated by hundreds of years may be speaking very different languages, just as a modern English speaker would probably not understand an early version of English. If you brought those populations back together after 2,000 years they may very well not understand each other due to the different changes that happened to their language on each island.



When all of the evidence is consistent with evolution, you conclude that they evolved. This includes the evidence of the nested hierarchy which is the only pattern of shared derived features that evolution can produce. It is also backed by fossils that have a mixture of features between terrestrial mammals and modern cetaceans.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of storytelling that is usually proffered as evidence: New species evolve in bursts : Nature News

 

[BilliardsBall]

We could use chimps and humans whose lineages diverged about 5-7 million years ago. The differences are the 40 million mutations (in addition to some chromosomal rearrangements) that separate their genomes. We know that they share a common ancestor because of the genetic markers they share, such as orthologous ERV's. We also know that the differences between their genomes are due to random mutation because of the bias towards transitions over transversions as well as the strong bias towards CpG substitution mutations.

Also, species next to each other on the tree of life did not evolve from one another. They share a common ancestor.

Evolutionists make charts showing supposed ancestral lines of descent. They call these “trees of life”. The problem is, different genes make different “trees of life”, and there are tens of thousands of different genes.

Evolutionists are often forced to invoke the “parallel or convergent evolution” fudge whenever the same new organ appears on unrelated creatures in the fossil record. It is not an explanation, it is an excuse.

In every taxonomic group studied so far, around 10 to 30% of the genes are so-called “orphan genes” because they are unlike genes in any other species. They are not modifications of genes from supposed ancestors; they must have formed spontaneously, “de novo”. That was formerly assumed to be impossible, and for good reason. It is essentially an admission that the foundation of evolution theory, descent with modification, is falsified. The only way to describe the existence of these genes is miraculous.