Evolution is obvious

[Robert.Evans]

You said in another thread about retaining info in evolution. My understanding of evolution is basic, but I know that if something is noninjurious it can be retained. Give me an example please of something retained in a physical way and also as regards DNA etc.

Secondly, does that mean that genes or DNA can be retained for later? If so how? How does it know it will need it? Why does it retain it? For how long? If it dies eventually, why? Why not straight away?

This is in line with the questioning on the ''me thinks it is a weasel'' of Dawkins. Even he admits that evolution does not have a target phrase to compare with, so what is he proving.

Clearly it is possible that random mutations could evolve and clearly it is possible that the best survive and the worst die. But I want to know whether it can retain info for later. Because if it can, it just got a whole lot easier!

Would appreciate some help please.... no big words now

Okay... I see thi s now, but what of something earlier? I suppose if it can do this now, then why not then. But can it store genes for later????

''Many snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones retained from their walking ancestors.''

 

[Robert.Evans]

Okay... I see thi s now, but what of something earlier? I suppose if it can do this now, then why not then. But can it store genes for later????

''Many snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones retained from their walking ancestors.''

Okay, now I have found this:
''Gregor Mendel, in his experiments on hybrid peas, showed that genes from a mother and father do not blend. An offspring from a short and a tall parent may be medium sized; but it carries genes for shortness and tallness. The genes remain distinct and can be passed on to subsequent generations. Mendel mailed his paper to Darwin, but Darwin never opened it.''

EDIT:
Now I found this:

'' A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate.''

Some one with a brain please answer!

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I recall that there are recessive genes which can skip generations and "re-appear" later on.

 

[Ouroboros]

You said in another thread about retaining info in evolution. My understanding of evolution is basic, but I know that if something is noninjurious it can be retained. Give me an example please of something retained in a physical way and also as regards DNA etc.

Really? You can't even think up anything that we have that is harmless in genetic code?

Sure. A couple that comes from the top of my head.

Gene for lactase. (environmental pressure, but not necessary in most parts of the world)

Eye color. (survival of the sexiest or survival of the non-cheater)

The complex genes for citric acid energy uptake of the E-Coli bacteria in the Lenski experiment. It was a multiple gene mutation, the first one harmless, if I understand it right.

I was thinking about other ones but they left my head before I could write them down.

Secondly, does that mean that genes or DNA can be retained for later? If so how? How does it know it will need it? Why does it retain it? For how long? If it dies eventually, why? Why not straight away?

It does.

(edit)
A short explanation. DNA is the code with which it is stored. DNA is the storage. There are some scientists experimenting using it to store data in DNA. Genes consist of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a sugar polymer. It's molecule. There are four basic and one variation of these, depending on where they occur. They're assigned letters based on their chemical names. They can be joined together in a chain, which is the RNA. But they can also attach to their counterparts in another RNA and hence make a DNA (double helix, RNA is single). The details would take me too long right now to go in to.

How does it know it will need it? It doesn't. First, it has to be a coding gene. Secondly, there has to be a selective pressure for or against a trait that the gene is part of. The whole system is very complex though because in most cases there are multiple genes involved, not just one. So it's rarely survive-or-die situations but rather more success or less success.

Why is it retained? Because it sticks around. It would require someone who looks at it and use intelligence to remove it. The fact that we have pseudo genes and malfunctioning genes is evidence that no-one is monitoring and modifying it on intelligence, but rather by chance.

For how long? Random. Some genes can stay for a very long time unchanged and others not. It's a roll of the dice.

If it dies? Genes are not really alive like an organism. They're chemical compounds. They change. They don't die. Perhaps you're thinking of the cells? They die because of multiple reasons, one being that the telomeres are being shortened in the mtDNA after each division. Our mtDNA (which is important for energy metabolism, and is in fact a separate, other DNA in our cells, we have two different DNA systems) can only divide some 20-25 times (I think), but they live for 7 years. Hence max lifespan just above 100-110. All our cells will eventually give up, not being able to divide healthy cells. However, there are scientists who might have solved this problem and in a few years, we might have things that will extend our lives with hundreds of years.
(end edit)

You have right now 98% of your DNA that's non-coding, i.e. does not produce polypeptides. They're dormant. That's billions of genes in each one of your cells right now. It's retained, but not with an intent (intelligence thinking that it's needed), but it's just retained out of benefits. One benefit is the help keeping the structure of the DNA, and other things, but they're practically quiet or dormant. A simple mutation can turn them on. For instance kids born with full body hair. They look like a little monkey, because we still have the gene for full body hair, but it's dormant (turned off). If our climate changes and gets really cold, there's a chance that children born with that turn-on mutation of the bodyhair will survive better than you or me. But in this climate, right now, there's no need. But on the other hand, we might never have one born again with it, and our future is doomed. It's a matter of chance. The interesting thing is that the mutation is so tiny and simple. Did you know that chicken carry a gene for teeth? Yeah, they have the gene still from their dinosaur past. Scientists have switch that gene on in experiments and have chicken born with teeth.

This is in line with the questioning on the ''me thinks it is a weasel'' of Dawkins. Even he admits that evolution does not have a target phrase to compare with, so what is he proving.

It does have a target: survival to successfully reproduce. That's the only target. To reproduce. Genes that prohibit reproduction and survival will die out and be gone from the gene pool, but genes that don't stop reproduction and doesn't hinder survival too much, they will hang around. This we know for a fact. This is what we have observed.

Clearly it is possible that random mutations could evolve and clearly it is possible that the best survive and the worst die. But I want to know whether it can retain info for later. Because if it can, it just got a whole lot easier!

Yes, I'm telling you. Only 20-25,000 genes of the human genome are actually coding for a protein. The rest are turned off. They're not totally wasted because they help with keeping a structure to the DNA, like a scaffolding, but in there, you have traces of our ancestry. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much research has gone into the non-coding genes yet to identify them. It took a long time just to decode the useful ones.

Would appreciate some help please.... no big words now

I always try to not use big words. I don't like big words. My interest is rather to give a very brief, rudimentary overview of things that I know science is very certain about. One is evolution. We have more evidence for evolution and how it works than Big Bang itself. There are over a half million fossils for instance. And much more. It's in a way easier to test evolution than it is to test Big Bang, and cheaper, but some things in evolution is really difficult to test. Reading the millions and millions of nucleotides in the DNA isn't easy, but the technology is improving, and sequencers are expensive (but not really compared to a space rocket, LOL!).

--edit
Sorry for all the grammar errors and such. I'm alone with the kids on weekends. My wife works as a chef, which means that I'm the one doing the cooking at home! LOL! Sometimes I just throw responses together. I rarely go back and fix what I write, unless I see something screaming at me.

 

[Ouroboros]

'' A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate.''

Allele means a variation of a gene. (*Scratch that* I wasn't thinking) An allele is one of the half's of the gene. We have one allele from mom and one from dad, basically two gene codes for the same gene. You get a blue eye color gene from mom, and a brown from dad. You end up with brown because it's dominant.

DNA contains genes. A gene is a series of codons. Each codon is a triplet of nucleotide. One change in any of these nucleotides (which is a chemical molecule, i.e. very physical, we know exactly the atoms that goes into them) can be mutated by radiation, chemicals, radicals (free electrons, which is why eating antioxidants is important), and some of these mutations are neutral in the sense that even if the codon is different, it still produces the same peptide. For instance GUU, GUC, GUA, and GUG all produce valine. So you could have a codon in a gene in one person that's GUU and another has GUG and they are perfectly healthy beings. But now if you change GUU to GCU and the other to GGG, now suddenly with one simple change in each person, they will produce different proteins. Perhaps one of them had a child, and they had a different mutation, and so on. Microscopically small changes. However, we have so many of these nucleotides and mutations are rare (we only have like 1 to 20 each, harmless ones), they most of the time hit the non-coding ones, i.e. that's one huge benefit of having those extra ones. They can mutate as much as they want.

Now the thing is, over time you can have a population with a huge variation of these genes, harmless genes. You have a gene that doesn't produce lactase, and I do, but you have a gene to produce something I don't, and then we have a huge family tree for 100 years. The distribution will follow a formula, 25% have both, 25% neither, etc. Something like that. There's a formula I can't remember right now. But if the distribution doesn't follow the exact curve, there's been selective pressure, i.e. there are reasons to why one or the other genes is winning out over the other. The genes were there all the time. But then let's say there's a shortage of food and only people with a certain gene can survive, boom! Suddenly only one gene is favored. Huge selective pressure.

(If it seems to be a mess, it's because I haven't had my coffee yet)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Really? You can't even think up anything that we have that is harmless in genetic code?

Sure. A couple that comes from the top of my head.

Gene for lactase. (environmental pressure, but not necessary in most parts of the world)

Eye color. (survival of the sexiest or survival of the non-cheater)

The complex genes for citric acid energy uptake of the E-Coli bacteria in the Lenski experiment. It was a multiple gene mutation, the first one harmless, if I understand it right.

I was thinking about other ones but they left my head before I could write them down.



It does.

(edit)
An short explanation. DNA is the code with which it is stored. DNA is the storage. There are some scientists experimenting using it to store data in DNA. Genes consist of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a sugar polymer. It's molecule. There are four basic and one variation of these, depending on where they occur. They're assigned letters based on their chemical names. They can be joined together in a chain, which is the RNA. But they can also attach to their counterparts in another RNA and hence make a DNA (double helix, RNA is single). The details would take me too long right now to go in to.

How does it know it will need it? It doesn't. First, it has to be a coding gene. Secondly, there has to be a selective pressure for or against a trait that the gene is part of. The whole system is very complex though because in most cases there are multiple genes involved, not just one. So it's rarely survive-or-die situations but rather more success or less success.

Why is it retained? Because it sticks around. It would require someone who looks at it and use intelligence to remove it. The fact that we have pseudo genes and malfunctioning genes is evidence that no-one is monitoring and modifying it on intelligence, but rather by chance.

For how long? Random. Some genes can stay for a very long time unchanged and others not. It's a roll of the dice.

If it dies? Genes are not really alive like an organism. They're chemical compounds. They change. They don't die. Perhaps you're thinking of the cells? They die because of multiple reasons, one being that the telomeres are being shortened in the mtDNA after each division. Our mtDNA (which is important for energy metabolism, and is in fact a separate, other DNA in our cells, we have two different DNA systems) can only divide some 20-25 times (I think), but they live for 7 years. Hence max lifespan just above 100-110. All our cells will eventually give up, not being able to divide healthy cells. However, there are scientists who might have solved this problem and in a few years, we might have things that will extend our lives with hundreds of years.
(end edit)

You have right now 98% of your DNA that's non-coding, i.e. does not produce polypeptides. They're dormant. That's billions of genes in each one of your cells right now. It's retained, but not with an intent (intelligence thinking that it's needed), but it's just retained out of benefits. One benefit is the help keeping the structure of the DNA, and other things, but they're practically quiet or dormant. A simple mutation can turn them on. For instance kids born with full body hair. They look like a little monkey, because we still have the gene for full body hair, but it's dormant (turned off). If our climate changes and gets really cold, there's a chance that children born with that turn-on mutation of the bodyhair will survive better than you or me. But in this climate, right now, there's no need. But on the other hand, we might never have one born again with it, and our future is doomed. It's a matter of chance. The interesting thing is that the mutation is so tiny and simple. Did you know that chicken carry a gene for teeth? Yeah, they have the gene still from their dinosaur past. Scientists have switch that gene on in experiments and have chicken born with teeth.


It does have a target: survival to successfully reproduce. That's the only target. To reproduce. Genes that prohibit reproduction and survival will die out and be gone from the gene pool, but genes that don't stop reproduction and doesn't hinder survival too much, they will hang around. This we know for a fact. This is what we have observed.


Yes, I'm telling you. Only 20-25,000 genes of the human genome are actually coding for a protein. The rest are turned off. They're not totally wasted because they help with keeping a structure to the DNA, like a scaffolding, but in there, you have traces of our ancestry. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much research has gone into the non-coding genes yet to identify them. It took a long time just to decode the useful ones.


I always try to not use big words. I don't like big words. My interest is rather to give a very brief, rudimentary overview of things that I know science is very certain about. One is evolution. We have more evidence for evolution and how it works than Big Bang itself. There are over a half million fossils for instance. And much more. It's in a way easier to test evolution than it is to test Big Bang, and cheaper, but some things in evolution is really difficult to test. Reading the millions and millions of nucleotides in the DNA isn't easy, but the technology is improving, and sequencers are expensive (but not really compared to a space rocket, LOL!).

I am too tired to read now, tomorrow.
I have to say thank you though for such a long response. Whether it will mean anything to me is another thing altogether. Thank you again...

 

[Ouroboros]

I am too tired to read now, tomorrow.
I have to say thank you though for such a long response. Whether it will mean anything to me is another thing altogether. Thank you again...

Oh, you're welcome. I'm trying to keep it on a overview level and not going into details. I'm an amateur in this area anyway, so I'm missing many details anyway.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Really? You can't even think up anything that we have that is harmless in genetic code?

Haha... I am ashamed to say, no! We did nothing like this at school, and it does not interest me enough to go through the mountains of info you would have to read to understand it fully. I suppose one might say I hold the belief of evolution by faith! It seems to make sense though and fits scripture, as I see it.

Sure. A couple that comes from the top of my head.

Gene for lactase. (environmental pressure, but not necessary in most parts of the world)

Eye color. (survival of the sexiest or survival of the non-cheater)

The complex genes for citric acid energy uptake of the E-Coli bacteria in the Lenski experiment. It was a multiple gene mutation, the first one harmless, if I understand it right.

I was thinking about other ones but they left my head before I could write them down.



It does.

(edit)
A short explanation. DNA is the code with which it is stored. DNA is the storage. There are some scientists experimenting using it to store data in DNA. Genes consist of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a sugar polymer. It's molecule. There are four basic and one variation of these, depending on where they occur. They're assigned letters based on their chemical names. They can be joined together in a chain, which is the RNA. But they can also attach to their counterparts in another RNA and hence make a DNA (double helix, RNA is single). The details would take me too long right now to go in to.

How does it know it will need it? It doesn't. First, it has to be a coding gene. Secondly, there has to be a selective pressure for or against a trait that the gene is part of. The whole system is very complex though because in most cases there are multiple genes involved, not just one. So it's rarely survive-or-die situations but rather more success or less success.

Why is it retained? Because it sticks around. It would require someone who looks at it and use intelligence to remove it. The fact that we have pseudo genes and malfunctioning genes is evidence that no-one is monitoring and modifying it on intelligence, but rather by chance.

For how long? Random. Some genes can stay for a very long time unchanged and others not. It's a roll of the dice.

So if ''...some genes can stay for a very long time unchanged...'' then they can be used later it seems. That appears to be what I am seeing.( I am surprised on the internet just how difficult it is to see simple explanations of evolution that cover all these points. It is perhaps no wonder that some don't believe in it.) This means that the Dawkins argument of ''me thinks it is a weasel'' is possible as, although the letters aren't 'locked in' as such (as some say) they might well 'hang around' and then get used later. (kinda convienient though I guess, may be even contrived... it is almost as if it does not want to die!)

If it dies? Genes are not really alive like an organism. They're chemical compounds.

Good.

They change. They don't die. Perhaps you're thinking of the cells?

Perhaps I'm not thinking.. haha

They die because of multiple reasons, one being that the telomeres are being shortened in the mtDNA after each division. Our mtDNA (which is important for energy metabolism, and is in fact a separate, other DNA in our cells, we have two different DNA systems) can only divide some 20-25 times (I think), but they live for 7 years. Hence max lifespan just above 100-110. All our cells will eventually give up, not being able to divide healthy cells. However, there are scientists who might have solved this problem and in a few years, we might have things that will extend our lives with hundreds of years.
(end edit)

Then we shall have major troubles and food shortages... oh goody

You have right now 98% of your DNA that's non-coding, i.e. does not produce polypeptides. They're dormant. That's billions of genes in each one of your cells right now. It's retained, but not with an intent (intelligence thinking that it's needed), but it's just retained out of benefits. One benefit is the help keeping the structure of the DNA, and other things, but they're practically quiet or dormant. A simple mutation can turn them on. For instance kids born with full body hair. They look like a little monkey, because we still have the gene for full body hair, but it's dormant (turned off).

So interesting that isn't it... it is like the stages that we go through in the womb, almost showing evolution in that change.

If our climate changes and gets really cold, there's a chance that children born with that turn-on mutation of the bodyhair will survive better than you or me. But in this climate, right now, there's no need. But on the other hand, we might never have one born again with it, and our future is doomed. It's a matter of chance. The interesting thing is that the mutation is so tiny and simple. Did you know that chicken carry a gene for teeth? Yeah, they have the gene still from their dinosaur past. Scientists have switch that gene on in experiments and have chicken born with teeth.

I have heard of it yes.

It does have a target: survival to successfully reproduce. That's the only target. To reproduce. Genes that prohibit reproduction and survival will die out and be gone from the gene pool, but genes that don't stop reproduction and doesn't hinder survival too much, they will hang around. This we know for a fact. This is what we have observed.


Yes, I'm telling you. Only 20-25,000 genes of the human genome are actually coding for a protein. The rest are turned off. They're not totally wasted because they help with keeping a structure to the DNA, like a scaffolding, but in there, you have traces of our ancestry. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much research has gone into the non-coding genes yet to identify them. It took a long time just to decode the useful ones.

Very interesting and well put. It is interesting, is it not, that there are these clues left or our ''ancestry'', do you not think? It is like similar things, fingerprints, DNA at the scene of a crime, etc. they all leave clues of the past, even footprints. If you are murdered there are clues left of how the person died. Again, kinda interesting. It is almost as if someone wanted to make sure the culprit was caught... just a thought!

I always try to not use big words. I don't like big words. My interest is rather to give a very brief, rudimentary overview of things that I know science is very certain about. One is evolution. We have more evidence for evolution and how it works than Big Bang itself. There are over a half million fossils for instance. And much more. It's in a way easier to test evolution than it is to test Big Bang, and cheaper, but some things in evolution is really difficult to test. Reading the millions and millions of nucleotides in the DNA isn't easy, but the technology is improving, and sequencers are expensive (but not really compared to a space rocket, LOL!).

--edit
Sorry for all the grammar errors and such. I'm alone with the kids on weekends. My wife works as a chef, which means that I'm the one doing the cooking at home! LOL! Sometimes I just throw responses together. I rarely go back and fix what I write, unless I see something screaming at me.

Haha... okay. Thanks again. I am reading something now about evolution... ususally I stall at it though, as it begins to get just too deep and involved. I like ideas simple in simple language. As someone once said, If you have a theory, and you can't explain it, it ain't much of a theory....

 

[Ouroboros]

Very interesting and well put. It is interesting, is it not, that there are these clues left or our ''ancestry'', do you not think? It is like similar things, fingerprints, DNA at the scene of a crime, etc. they all leave clues of the past, even footprints. If you are murdered there are clues left of how the person died. Again, kinda interesting. It is almost as if someone wanted to make sure the culprit was caught... just a thought!

Yes, exactly. It's very cool actually. There are many different remnants of the past"? Markers, transposons, ERVs, and more, all show on different levels how we all evolved and from where. Also, the radiation of species in the world matching up with the geological changes matches up with the DNA evidence. It's very clear that evolution is true.

Thanks for you post, and I'm glad we can come to a common understanding (as we've done before in other threads).

---

Another thing we can see how evolution works and why it's important that we know that it does and not reject it is the current "apocalypse" of drug resistant bacteria. It's soon going to be on an epidemic level. Why do we have these drug resistant bacteria? And where did they come from? They evolved, and partly because of our society's overuse to solve all health problems with blasting of these drugs in food and pills to people. No sense of understanding of how nature would respond. Farmers, breeders, doctors, people in general, all are at blame for the "creation" of these new superbugs. We're back to square one in medicine in this area because of ignorance of evolution.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, exactly. It's very cool actually. There are many different remnants of the past"? Markers, transposons, ERVs, and more, all show on different levels how we all evolved and from where. Also, the radiation of species in the world matching up with the geological changes matches up with the DNA evidence. It's very clear that evolution is true.

Thanks for you post, and I'm glad we can come to a common understanding (as we've done before in other threads).

---

Another thing we can see how evolution works and why it's important that we know that it does and not reject it is the current "apocalypse" of drug resistant bacteria. It's soon going to be on an epidemic level. Why do we have these drug resistant bacteria? And where did they come from? They evolved, and partly because of our society's overuse to solve all health problems with blasting of these drugs in food and pills to people. No sense of understanding of how nature would respond. Farmers, breeders, doctors, people in general, all are at blame for the "creation" of these new superbugs. We're back to square one in medicine in this area because of ignorance of evolution.

I have heard it said that rats evolved from the effects of Warfarin (a poison). But I have also heard it said that they did not, but rather then ones that did not have resistance to it, died. Those who did have resistance to it, lived. I suppose that is still evolution though.. haha. But I think the first idea is that genes had actually modified to the poison. Any ideas? I suppose I could look it up.... but I've written it now

 

[Ouroboros]

I have heard it said that rats evolved from the effects of Warfarin (a poison).

I haven't heard about that. That's the first time I hear that.

But I have also heard it said that they did not, but rather then ones that did not have resistance to it, died.

What do you think "natural selection" means? What you're saying there is "selective pressure, where those who didn't have resistance died." Survival of the fittest in that case.

Those who did have resistance to it, lived. I suppose that is still evolution though.. haha.

That's part of it. That's the part Darwin contributed to the theory. Mutation wasn't him. Recombination through sexual reproduction wasn't him either. Sexual selection (survival of the prettiest) wasn't him either. Any 99% other things about evolution wasn't him. But that part, survival of those who were most fit to survive, was first put into description by him. After that, there's been much more added. Today we also have epigenetics that can affect survival. For instance, what micronutrients did the mother get during pregnancy? Was the baby born naturally or cesarean? Those things can determine a child's health and even success to survive.

But I think the first idea is that genes had actually modified to the poison.

Modifications are happening all the time. It's not modifying itself to be resistant to poison. And some modifications have negative side effects. For instance, sickle cell is a genetic disease. If a person has one gene from one parent, they will live, but have a hard time running and do extraneous work. But if a person has both genes, they'll die in childhood. But, if a person has this, he/she is protected against malaria. In other words, it's a good and bad gene to have. And many genes are like that.

Another thing is, if there's an intelligence behind the genetic modifications, why would he/she/it have to wait generations and thousands of offsprings without the new gene until it shows up? Why not immediately? Why so long and so many deaths? And why would an intelligence help bacteria to be more efficient and survive to harm us? If it's true that there's an intelligence controlling it, he/she/it is most definitely not on our side.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I haven't heard about that. That's the first time I hear that.


What do you think "natural selection" means? What you're saying there is "selective pressure, where those who didn't have resistance died." Survival of the fittest in that case.


That's part of it. That's the part Darwin contributed to the theory. Mutation wasn't him. Recombination through sexual reproduction wasn't him either. Sexual selection (survival of the prettiest) wasn't him either. Any 99% other things about evolution wasn't him. But that part, survival of those who were most fit to survive, was first put into description by him. After that, there's been much more added. Today we also have epigenetics that can affect survival. For instance, what micronutrients did the mother get during pregnancy? Was the baby born naturally or cesarean? Those things can determine a child's health and even success to survive.


Modifications are happening all the time. It's not modifying itself to be resistant to poison. And some modifications have negative side effects. For instance, sickle cell is a genetic disease. If a person has one gene from one parent, they will live, but have a hard time running and do extraneous work. But if a person has both genes, they'll die in childhood. But, if a person has this, he/she is protected against malaria. In other words, it's a good and bad gene to have. And many genes are like that.

Another thing is, if there's an intelligence behind the genetic modifications, why would he/she/it have to wait generations and thousands of offsprings without the new gene until it shows up? Why not immediately? Why so long and so many deaths? And why would an intelligence help bacteria to be more efficient and survive to harm us? If it's true that there's an intelligence controlling it, he/she/it is most definitely not on our side.

Well I see everything as evolving consciousness so, as with any mind, there is good in there and evil. So we see that here in many ways. And just as it takes us time to grow up, so it takes time for the universe to 'grow up'.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well I see everything as evolving consciousness so, as with any mind, there is good in there and evil. So we see that here in many ways. And just as it takes us time to grow up, so it takes time for the universe to 'grow up'.

Sure.

It relates to something I said earlier about natural selection of universes. Who to say that the universes in the multiverse is a form of organism? That there are some "genetic code" with mutations and selections going on in a different dimension which gave birth to our world?

When the first humans started to think about the world, they considered themselves to be the center of the world and the center of the attention of the gods. Over time, we realized that the world isn't just a small area somewhere in Europe or Africa, but many continents around the planet. Then we discovered other planets. Our central role and importance is shrinking with each step. The we discovered that the lights in the sky were other stars. And only about 100 years ago, we realized that many of those lights were not one star, but other galaxies. Now, we now that the size of the universe is so vast and immense that we can't even comprehend it. Our galaxy is a rather tiny galaxy, only some 100,000 l.y. wide (if I remember right), but IC1101 (I think it's the name) is one billion l.y. away from us, and it's some 3.5 million l.y.e wide. Extremely large. The black hole in that center must be enormous. And I don't think we've stopped learning how small we are. In the future, the world will grow, while we stay the same size. In the end, we're infinitesimal small, but we probably can go back and consider ourselves being the center of the world. Each one of us.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sure.

It relates to something I said earlier about natural selection of universes. Who to say that the universes in the multiverse is a form of organism? That there are some "genetic code" with mutations and selections going on in a different dimension which gave birth to our world?

It would make sense

When the first humans started to think about the world, they considered themselves to be the center of the world and the center of the attention of the gods. Over time, we realized that the world isn't just a small area somewhere in Europe or Africa, but many continents around the planet. Then we discovered other planets. Our central role and importance is shrinking with each step. The we discovered that the lights in the sky were other stars. And only about 100 years ago, we realized that many of those lights were not one star, but other galaxies. Now, we now that the size of the universe is so vast and immense that we can't even comprehend it. Our galaxy is a rather tiny galaxy, only some 100,000 l.y. wide (if I remember right), but IC1101 (I think it's the name) is one billion l.y. away from us, and it's some 3.5 million l.y.e wide. Extremely large. The black hole in that center must be enormous. And I don't think we've stopped learning how small we are. In the future, the world will grow, while we stay the same size. In the end, we're infinitesimal small, but we probably can go back and consider ourselves being the center of the world. Each one of us.

Sure.
What is also interesting, if you can even break down the ''I'' into cells, trillions of them, and then smaller molecules and then atoms etc. If string theory is correct, we are vibrating elastic bands I think.. haha. Funny how the small make the large. So if all small things make large things, then I wonder what the universe makes, I wonder what the multiverse makes, the stellaverse etc. If they are infinitesimally small, what is the 'big' thing that they make up? And when we get to that, can that be divided into smaller things, or perhaps just into One. Now that would be fascinating!

 

[Blackmarch]

???

Macroevolution is evident from many different aspects than just microevolution. We can see it in the fossil record. We can see it in physiological features of living beings. We can see it the genetic code. We can see it based on radial distribution of species on the planet. And so on. Macroevolution isn't a guess, but an observation. The theory tries to explain why macroevolution exists and how it works. The theory doesn't postulate that macroevolution is hopefully right, but rather, it's there, now what? How do we explain it? It's there, we can see it in the evidence, now we have to figure out how it works. That's the theory.

well kind of like observing a black hole, everything goes around it and heads towards it but we have yet to see one directly.

 

[Ouroboros]

well kind of like observing a black hole, everything goes around it and heads towards it but we have yet to see one directly.

Yeah. Something like that. We know that black holes exist, dark energy, and dark mass as well, based on all the other evidence around it. But it's not necessarily visible directly in realtime when it's happening because the changes are too small over such a long time.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Thank your for answering.

So basically it is not the change of one kind of species into another ?

So that doesn't necessarily mean that there is macro evolution until you prove it. We can't prove one an jump to other. No ?

The best way to understand it is this. There is no micro or macro evolution. There is only genetic adaptation in populations over time. There are no "big" leaps or sudden changes but just slow adaptation. Eventually if something continues to adapt long enough and accumulates enough changes it will be significantly different than what it once was. That term is called speciation.