• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Where I struggle is the bigger change like from cold-blooded to warm-blooded.
At one point, there were no warn-blooded animals.
At some point there were both cold and warm blooded animals.
How does that happen slowly?
Where are all of the 'tepid-blooded' fossils? :)
Warm-blooded animals have tight control over their internal body temperature via metabolism, but that control can conceivably come in degrees. It's not too hard to imagine a creature that can raise its body temperature 5 degrees above its surroundings when it gets cold or lower it 5 degrees when it gets hot. That would be greater control than a purely cold-blooded creature but not as much control as a purely warm-blooded creature.

Otherwise, I admire your honesty.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
One of my many hats at work is flagging wetlands and identifying 'protected species'.
So I use morphological indicators to identify the extent of inundation and saturation (plant adaptations for anaerobic conditions).
It is not a huge leap to imagine that plants that survive at the fringe and spread uphill and down hill from the shore might adapt over time until they diverge as two related but distinct species.
So I get micro-evolution.

Where I struggle is the bigger change like from cold-blooded to warm-blooded.
At one point, there were no warn-blooded animals.
At some point there were both cold and warm blooded animals.
How does that happen slowly?
Where are all of the 'tepid-blooded' fossils? :)

I do not claim that these transitions do not exist ... I simply claim ignorance on the topic.
Now if you want to talk Newtonian Physics, then I am your man.

The circulatory system is complicated, but it its wrong to assume there is a distinction between warm-blooded animals and cold-blooded animals that can't be crossed. Consider:

"A poikilotherm is an organism whose internal temperature varies considerably. It is the opposite of a homeotherm, an organism which maintains thermal homeostasis. Usually the variation is a consequence of variation in the ambient environmental temperature. Many terrestrial ectotherms are poikilothermic.[1] However some ectotherms remain in temperature-constant environments to the point that they are actually able to maintain a constant internal temperature (i.e. are homeothermic). It is this distinction that often makes the term "poikilotherm" more useful than the vernacular "cold-blooded", which is sometimes used to refer to ectotherms more generally.

Poikilothermic animals include types of vertebrate animals, specifically fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as a large number of invertebrate animals. The naked mole-rat is the only mammal that is currently thought to be poikilothermic.[2][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poikilothermy

As far as how natural selection allows for increasing complex system, I can give you some materials for food of thought:


The circulatory systems of all vertebrates, as well as of annelids (for example, earthworms) and cephalopods (squids, octopuses and relatives) are closed, just as in humans. Still, the systems of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds show various stages of the evolution of the circulatory system.

In fish, the system has only one circuit, with the blood being pumped through the capillaries of the gills and on to the capillaries of the body tissues. This is known as single cycle circulation. The heart of fish is, therefore, only a single pump (consisting of two chambers).

In amphibians and most reptiles, a double circulatory system is used, but the heart is not always completely separated into two pumps. Amphibians have a three-chambered heart.

In reptiles, the ventricular septum of the heart is incomplete and the pulmonary artery is equipped with a sphincter muscle. This allows a second possible route of blood flow. Instead of blood flowing through the pulmonary artery to the lungs, the sphincter may be contracted to divert this blood flow through the incomplete ventricular septum into the left ventricle and out through the aorta. This means the blood flows from the capillaries to the heart and back to the capillaries instead of to the lungs. This process is useful to ectothermic (cold-blooded) animals in the regulation of their body temperature.

Birds and mammals show complete separation of the heart into two pumps, for a total of four heart chambers.

Circulatory system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And:


The term warm-blooded is a colloquial term to describe animal species that have a relatively high blood temperature when compared with ectothermic ones, and maintain thermal homeostasis primarily through internal metabolic processes. These are characteristics of mammals and birds.

Both the terms "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" have fallen out of favour with scientists because of the vagueness of the terms and an increased understanding of the field. Body temperature types are not discrete categories. Each term may be replaced with one or more variants (see the next section for examples). Body temperature maintenance (thermoregulation) incorporates a wide range of different techniques that result in a body temperature continuum.

Contents
Characteristics of warm-bloodedness
In general, warm-bloodedness refers to three separate aspects of thermoregulation.

  • Endothermy is the ability of some creatures to control their body temperatures through internal means such as muscle shivering or increasing their metabolism (Greek: endon = "within", thermē = "heat"). Some writers[who?] restrict the meaning of endothermy to mechanisms that directly raise the animal's metabolic rate in order to produce heat. The opposite of endothermy is ectothermy.
  • Homeothermy is thermoregulation that maintains a stable internal body temperature regardless of external influence. This temperature is often, though not necessarily, higher than the immediate environment (Greek: homoios = "similar", thermē = "heat"). The opposite is poikilothermy.
  • Tachymetabolism is the kind of thermoregulation used by creatures that maintain a high "resting" metabolism (Greek: tachys/tachus = "fast, swift", metabolēn = "throw beyond"). In essence, tachymetabolic creatures are "on" all the time. Though their resting metabolism is still many times slower than their active metabolism, the difference is often not as large as that seen in bradymetabolic creatures. Tachymetabolic creatures have greater difficulty dealing with a scarcity of food.
Reasons for term falling into disuse
A large proportion of the creatures traditionally called "warm-blooded", such as mammals and birds, fit all three of these categories (i.e., they are endothermic, homeothermic, and tachymetabolic). However, over the past 30 years, studies in the field of animal thermophysiology have revealed many species belonging to these two groups that do not fit all these criteria. For example, many bats and small birds are poikilothermic and bradymetabolic when they sleep for the night (or, in nocturnal species, for the day). For these creatures, the term heterothermy was coined.

Further studies on animals that were traditionally assumed to be cold-blooded have shown that most creatures incorporate different variations of the three terms defined above, along with their counterparts (ectothermy, poikilothermy, and bradymetabolism), thus creating a broad spectrum of body temperature types. Even some fish have warm-blooded characteristics. Swordfish and some sharks have circulatory mechanisms that keep their brains and eyes above ambient temperatures, and thus increase their ability to detect and react to prey.[1][2][3] Tunas and some sharks have similar mechanisms in their muscles, improving their stamina when swimming at high speed.[4]

Heat generation
Body "heat" is generated by the metabolism. This refers to the chemical reactions cells use to break down glucose into water and carbon dioxide and, in so doing, generate ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a high-energy compound used to power other cellular processes.

All organisms metabolize food and other inputs, but some make better use of the output than others. Like all energy conversions, metabolism is rather inefficient, and around 60% of the available energy is converted to heat rather than to ATP. In most organisms, this heat is simply lost to the environment. However, endothermic homeotherms (the animals generally characterized as "warm-blooded") both produce more heat and have better ways to retain and regulate it than other animals. They have a higher basal metabolic rate, and also a greater capacity to increase their metabolic rate when engaged in strenuous activity. They usually have well-developed insulation in order to retain body heat, fur in the case of mammals and feathers in birds. When this insulation is insufficient to maintain body temperature, they may resort to shivering — rapid muscle contractions that quickly use up ATP, thus stimulating cellular metabolism to replace it and consequently produce more heat. In general, in hot environments, they use evaporative cooling to shed excess heat, either by sweating (some mammals) or by panting (many mammals and all birds) — in general, mechanisms not present in poikilotherms.

Defence against fungi
It has been hypothesized that mammals and birds evolved warm-bloodedness as a defence against fungal infections. Very few fungi can survive the body temperatures of warm-blooded animals. By comparison, insects, reptiles, and amphibians are plagued by fungal infections.[5]

Warm-blooded - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Maybe I can find some relevant lecture material.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
And this is god to you?

God is many things. BEING, in the present/now. Eternal spirit, consciousness, the unmanifested(spirit) and that which is manifested(physical matter) at the same time. The sum total of both. The unborn infinite potential and the creation. The universe, nature.
God is truth, love, light, the force, energy, intelligence in motion, oneness, peace.

God is the balancing force that creates and controls the infinite universe, the force that gives us life and everything in it. That explains it in words, but it is not even close to experiencing what it really is. Some things, most real things, you can only know by experience.

God is not a separate life form. God is all life forms. God is life itself and the balancing force that controls it.

God is (everywhere), what God looks like (everything), what God does (everything), and how to be with God (overcome our animal minds). Everything except for our false mental-self is God.

God is only in human form when we let God manifest through us. We represent God and the mind. God can live through us, and we can live through God. God gives us life, and we give God a physical body. God becomes flesh through us.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
God is many things. BEING, in the present/now. Eternal spirit, consciousness, the unmanifested(spirit) and that which is manifested(physical matter) at the same time. The sum total of both. The unborn infinite potential and the creation. The universe, nature.
God is truth, love, light, the force, energy, intelligence in motion, oneness, peace.

God is the balancing force that creates and controls the infinite universe, the force that gives us life and everything in it. That explains it in words, but it is not even close to experiencing what it really is. Some things, most real things, you can only know by experience.

God is not a separate life form. God is all life forms. God is life itself and the balancing force that controls it.

God is (everywhere), what God looks like (everything), what God does (everything), and how to be with God (overcome our animal minds). Everything except for our false mental-self is God.

God is only in human form when we let God manifest through us. We represent God and the mind. God can live through us, and we can live through God. God gives us life, and we give God a physical body. God becomes flesh through us.
Alright. I just was not expecting someone to claim that photo particles were an aspect of god.
 

atpollard

Active Member
The circulatory system is complicated, but it its wrong to assume there is a distinction between warm-blooded animals and cold-blooded animals that can't be crossed. Consider:
That was pretty interesting.
I especially liked that it wasn't exclusive to extremophiles.
I have a harder time imagining a wide spread adaptation that requires a very unusual set of conditions to allow it to happen ... there are only so many deep ocean thermal vents. :)
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Where I struggle is the bigger change like from cold-blooded to warm-blooded.
At one point, there were no warn-blooded animals.
At some point there were both cold and warm blooded animals.
How does that happen slowly?
Where are all of the 'tepid-blooded' fossils? :)

I do not claim that these transitions do not exist ... I simply claim ignorance on the topic.
Now if you want to talk Newtonian Physics, then I am your man.

This is actually a good question and a very good way to open up the discussion on the development of mammals. A lot of people, even those that accept evolution don't fully know where mammals came into existence. From the begining the earliest animals were actually sponges or sponge like creatures. However lets skip past that a little to get to the more interesting animals to develop and that was fish. From fish developed reptiles and from reptiles almost all land animals spring forth. Obviously you know birds are direct descendants of the dinosaurs as they developed out of reptiles somewhat recently compared to mammals. Mammals actually came from reptiles as well. The "tepid-blooded" mammals were the first mammals to be able to regulate their own body temperature to a degree. Most likely this was a mechanisms to stay warm in colder environments and having any propensity to stay warm without the need for an outside source would have been a huge advantage. From there it simply became better and better at regulating the body temperatures. This continues today as we have several different mammals who are all "warm blooded" but not equally so. Lets take a human for example and a sea lion. Both are warm blooded but one is significantly better at keeping warm in very cold environments.

But back to what I was talking about. The synapsids were the first branch of reptiles found to be "mammal like" and are our direct ancestors. Synapsid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

dust1n

Zindīq
That was pretty interesting.
I especially liked that it wasn't exclusive to extremophiles.
I have a harder time imagining a wide spread adaptation that requires a very unusual set of conditions to allow it to happen ... there are only so many deep ocean thermal vents. :)


It's been hypothesized that life started around deep ocean thermal vents, but I don't think too many hold on to this so much anymore. There are peculiar things around those vents though. They seems to little factories for creating amino acids and such, and there are some things down there that effectively used arsenic instead of phosphorous for parts of its DNA.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
This is actually a good question and a very good way to open up the discussion on the development of mammals. A lot of people, even those that accept evolution don't fully know where mammals came into existence. From the begining the earliest animals were actually sponges or sponge like creatures. However lets skip past that a little to get to the more interesting animals to develop and that was fish. From fish developed reptiles and from reptiles almost all land animals spring forth. Obviously you know birds are direct descendants of the dinosaurs as they developed out of reptiles somewhat recently compared to mammals. Mammals actually came from reptiles as well. The "tepid-blooded" mammals were the first mammals to be able to regulate their own body temperature to a degree. Most likely this was a mechanisms to stay warm in colder environments and having any propensity to stay warm without the need for an outside source would have been a huge advantage. From there it simply became better and better at regulating the body temperatures. This continues today as we have several different mammals who are all "warm blooded" but not equally so. Lets take a human for example and a sea lion. Both are warm blooded but one is significantly better at keeping warm in very cold environments.

But back to what I was talking about. The synapsids were the first branch of reptiles found to be "mammal like" and are our direct ancestors. Synapsid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you say that we've evolved as life has evolved?
Would we be dissociated with evolution in a sense that we just happened to arrive at the pinnacle of intelligent beings/creation without being any of those things ourselves at some point? Ie: microbe, fish, dinosaur, ape, etc.

Have we, ourselves as we are now, skipped over every other life form and just arrived at the top of the evolution ladder?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then is there a complete record of these significant changes preserved?
A complete record? Of course not. Fossilization is rare, but we have a pretty good record of a lot of major developmental sequences preserved.

When I read Darwin's original work, I remember that his own criticism of his theory was that there should be evidence of lots of intermediate stages that did not exist.
I know that they have found LOTS of fossils since Darwin's day, so the record is much better.
Is the record of the transition from one (say 'class') to another documented in sufficient intermediate stages to be verified as fact rather than just a likely theory?
Or is that an unrealistic expectation? (like the demand for Mark's original transcript of the Gospel)
Reading Darwin to learn about evolution is a little like Aristotle to learn about biology. You're correct that we've found a lot more fossils since then, but the ToE is based on a lot more than fossils. It's based on geology, nuclear physics, embryology, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, &c. The evidence that organisms changed over time is overwhelming and, of course, there's no other reasonable explanation for these changes than the mechanisms described by the ToE.
Transitions: You can do a Google search and find all sorts of transitional sequences, or just look in any well illustrated textbook.
Fact vs Theory: A fact is a theory. When enough evidence accumulates supporting a theory it is considered a fact.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Would you say that we've evolved as life has evolved?
Would we be dissociated with evolution in a sense that we just happened to arrive at the pinnacle of intelligent beings/creation without being any of those things ourselves at some point? Ie: microbe, fish, dinosaur, ape, etc.

Have we, ourselves as we are now, skipped over every other life form and just arrived at the top of the evolution ladder?
Of course not.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Would you say that we've evolved as life has evolved?
Would we be dissociated with evolution in a sense that we just happened to arrive at the pinnacle of intelligent beings/creation without being any of those things ourselves at some point? Ie: microbe, fish, dinosaur, ape, etc.

Have we, ourselves as we are now, skipped over every other life form and just arrived at the top of the evolution ladder?
There is no "pinnacle" of evolution. There is no end point and there is no "top". There is top of the food chain but even then it doesn't mean that one is the best creature or most evolutionary adapted to the environment. We did start out as all of those things. We eventually reached the point in our evolution that we are right now. Our intelligence is somewhat impressive but we don't know if it was an inevitability or if it was by chance.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no "evolution ladder," no "top." Evolution sometimes makes things more complex, sometimes more simple. Evolution can discard features like eyesight, endothermy, flight or a digestive system as easily as it can develop them. It preserves those features that facilitate reproduction.
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
There is no "pinnacle" of evolution. There is no end point and there is no "top". There is top of the food chain but even then it doesn't mean that one is the best creature or most evolutionary adapted to the environment. We did start out as all of those things. We eventually reached the point in our evolution that we are right now. Our intelligence is somewhat impressive but we don't know if it was an inevitability or if it was by chance.

Of course there would be no top ladder. Meant we are currently residing at the top of the ladder as we all are in this present moment.

I am asking that since we are evolving as life is evolving, and the intelligence that's been given to us in our brains is quite impressive, what that remote, if existent chance, or inevitable, of it even occurring would be that we ourselves were once literal microbes, fish, dinosaurs, apes, etc? Or the chance of that not being the case.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Which one? There are thousands.

Do you mean like this one ?

Hanuman-DSC04702.jpg
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hamlet: (act 2, scene 2)
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals...

Of course there would be no top ladder. Meant we are currently residing at the top of the ladder as we all are in this present moment.
We are not the paragon of animals, nor are we at the top of anything. Physically I'm neither more complex or more evolved than my cat or the broken-winged pigeon I rescued.
Like any animal, we do some things really well and some not so well. It must be acknowledged, though, that our species' hubris is without parallel.:rolleyes:

I am asking that since we are evolving as life is evolving, and the intelligence that's been given to us in our brains is quite impressive, what that remote, if existent chance, or inevitable, of it even occurring would be that we ourselves were once literal microbes, fish, dinosaurs, apes, etc? Or the chance of that not being the case.
We, ourselves, were never dinosaurs or fish (though we currently are a species of ape), but we are either descended from these creatures or share a common ancestor with the clade in question.
 
Top