Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[shawn001]

Many members reject this point , and they said evolution did not come like this .

They would be factually wrong.

Your Inner Fish

"
How did your body become the complicated, quirky, amazing machine it is today? Anatomist Neil Shubin uncovers the answers in this new look at human evolution. Using fossils, embryos and genes, he reveals how our bodies are the legacy of ancient fish, reptiles and primates — the ancestors you never knew were in your family tree. The three-part series premiered April 9, 2014.

Visit Your Inner Fish Website

"
Have you ever wondered why the human body looks the way it does? Why our hands have five fingers instead of six? Why we walk on two legs instead of four?

It took more than 350 million years for the human body to take shape. How did it become the complicated, quirky, amazing machine it is today?

Your Inner Fish delves deep into the past to answer these questions. The three-part series, which premiered April 9. 2014, reveals a startling truth: Hidden within the human body is a story of life on Earth.

That's because the evolution of humans can be traced into the distant past, to the earliest forms of vertebrate life on land and even to the earliest forms of life on Earth. Each of us carries the genetic imprint of creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. From them, we inherited our most remarkable features — as well as quirks like bad backs and hernias.

The series is full of revelations that will surprise many viewers. Among the key insights: Our hands evolved from the fins of prehistoric fish. Our skin, hair and teeth can be traced to early reptiles. And our remarkable color vision is a legacy from ancient primates.

Based on a best-selling book by paleobiologist Neil Shubin, this scientific adventure story takes viewers from Ethiopia to the Arctic Circle on a hunt for the many ways that our animal ancestors shaped our anatomical destiny. Shubin has spent much of his life studying our ancient ancestors — searching for the deep pedigree of Homo sapiens. Using both the fossil record and DNA evidence, he traces various parts of our body's structure to creatures that lived long, long ago. Along the way, he makes it clear that we can thank our fishy origins for many human characteristics.


Your Inner Fish | Watch Online | PBS Video

 

[shawn001]

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

The above was in 2001

This is from 2011

Evolution of the Eye
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

Evolution of the Eye - Scientific American

 

[Godobeyer]

There were never mammals without eyes.
The eyes vertebrates have evolved before mammals did. So did bilateral symmetry, so there has always been two of most things like eyes and hands and kidneys and wings.

Tom

ok how take time for bacteria to creat cell , then two cells , then 3 cells , how it's build living body?
-from where the bacteria envited the catalogue/plan of that body?

how take time to evolute from 1 cell to first creature , how much time that creature transform to other creature .......etc how much time all creatures transformed in timeline ?

Why the human science (in labarotoire) did not succed yet to make the bacteria creat a singule living cell ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, you are asking about the chance that two DNA mutations would be exactly the same? Well, that would depend on many factors.

Geneticists seem to agree that the chances of two people having the same DNA would be 1 in 10^9 (1 in 1 billion or .0000000001%), excluding identical (monozygotic) twins: DNA Fingerprinting This article goes into the details: DNA profiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, just to be clear, this in no way shows the probability of mutation.

It does make a calculation on the probability of a mutation, it calculates the probability someone else might obtain the exact same DNA through mutations. That is how the 1 in 10^9 number is obtained, or at least in part. I imagine they adjust the figure with raw data from databases of actual measurements of DNA.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So your answer is "I don't like you"?
Nothing about why freedom is true? Or why it is relevant to evolution? Nothing at all?
You want to know why I don't believe religionists about the divine?
It's because I know that they will say things like this. Things that are obviously wrong.
Tom

Well, consider the possibility that it is a reasonable way to respond. Consider what would happen if you just lived up to a morale to acknowledge the reality of freedom. That indeed you are reasonably held guilty for failing to acknowledge it.

In my experience, people who deny freedom do so deliberately, and there is no way you can reason with them about it. And I have talked to dozens about it. Never do they openly consider the issue. Only by putting pressure, and by repeating things more than ten times, can you begin to get through to them. That is, you can wreck the confidence they have in their view that freedom is not real, never do they actually come to openly consider the issue.

Arguments about how choosing works fundamentally are about as simple as 2+2=4. So the issue is all emotion, there is no complexity to the issue.

You can see how being against democracy is evil, so then being against freedom is evil of that sort. Etc. all things involving freedom, you are against, making you ridiculously evil.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is not truly religious to refuse to consider a matter such as evolution. One does not have to reject God to consider what others are saying -nor must one completely accept what is said.
If one is to give answer for their faith as it relates to evolution, studying evolution can only be beneficial. It is wise to note what becomes known -but also to differentiate between what is known and what is inferred.
It is also not truly scientific to say with certainty that there is no God or creative influence. The possibility of initial creation or creative influence exists, so it would not be beneficial to reject the idea altogether.

There is no reason why God could not have given life forms the ability to adapt to various environments. He would be wise to do so.
However, "science" cannot simply accept that as true without proof.

That should not be acceptable to anybody believing in God. If one believes in God, then one must view the origins of things in terms of the decisions by which they came to be. Then one may make opinion if the spirit in which the decisions are made are divine or other. There is practically no spirituality left when freedom is ignored, there is actually no room left for any subjectivity whatsoever when freedom is ignored. Any idea which stands in the way of basic acceptance of subjectivity is justifiably obliterated.

One can make evolution theory consistent with accepting freedom is real, however it does mean to say that creationism is closer to the facts of origins than evolution theory. Conceptually in evolution theory the origins is in the asserted randomness of the mutation. Also the randomness of neutral selection, or the randomness of a change in the environment. Simply anywhere in the theory where randomness is asserted, then one can reinterpret this as saying that things may turn out one way or another, that the result is not predetermined, so there one can enter freedom as part of the process.

 

[leibowde84]

So what missing that human could similaire the evolution of bacteria to cell ...to new life?
if they know the path , why they could not make it ?

Do you mean reproduce the process of bacteria evolving into humans?! How could we possibly reproduce a process that takes 3.5 Billion years to get to this point? What would be the point?

 

[leibowde84]

It does make a calculation on the probability of a mutation, it calculates the probability someone else might obtain the exact same DNA through mutations. That is how the 1 in 10^9 number is obtained, or at least in part. I imagine they adjust the figure with raw data from databases of actual measurements of DNA.

No, that is incorrect. We all have human DNA. A DNA strand is merely a set of billions of DNA codons made up of amino acids. The probability of two human DNA strands being exactly the same, just by chance, has been found to be 1 in 1,000,000,000, or thereabouts. It does not indicate anything about the probability of a single mutation, as that could not be found by simply looking at a single DNA strand.

I am still not sure why this casts any doubts on evolution though. It is merely simple mathematics.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, that is incorrect. We all have human DNA. A DNA strand is merely a set of billions of DNA codons made up of amino acids. The probability of two human DNA strands being exactly the same, just by chance, has been found to be 1 in 1,000,000,000, or thereabouts.

......you obviously have to answer, how this number is calculated.....

I say the number is calculated with probabilities of mutations, you don't say anything whatsoever how the number is arrived at. So that would be to not make any argument whatsoever to the point at issue.

 

[leibowde84]

......you obviously have to answer, how this number is calculated.....

It's simple. There are the same number of codons per DNA strand, and most of human DNA is identical. The codons that can be different from human to human make up a certain portion of that entire strand. They take that proportion and use simple mathematics to figure out how often one could expect them to line up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's simple. There are the same number of codons per DNA strand, and most of human DNA is identical. The codons that can be different from human to human make up a certain portion of that entire strand. They take that proportion and use simple mathematics to figure out how often one could expect them to line up.

Yes obviously one would use mathematics to calculate something......

But what do these calculations involve. They involve calculating the chance of mutations making it all the same.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes obviously one would use mathematics to calculate something......

But what do these calculations involve. They involve calculating the chance of mutations making it all the same.

Nope. A mutation would, most likely, be part of the human DNA sequence (mentioned in my last comment) that should be the same for all humans, but ends up being different. That would involve a different calculation and the odds would be much much less. The calculation I provided is humans that are not "mutated" but have the same DNA codon makeup giving them the same exact human features, like eye color, eye size, hand size, leg size, height, skin pigment, nail width, nail thickness, etc. All of these traits are different in people, except for identical twins, and the calculation was assuming that the subjects are "human" in that they have the required DNA sequence that makes them "human" (which was your question). Differences in traits are not mutations, but merely variations.

And, keep in mind, we aren't including identical twins in these calculations either, as they are a special case coming from the same fertilized egg.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. A mutation would, most likely, be part of the human DNA sequence (mentioned in my last comment) that should be the same for all humans, but ends up being different. That would involve a different calculation and the odds would be much much less. The calculation I provided is humans that are not "mutated" but have the same DNA codon makeup giving them the same exact human features, like eye color, eye size, hand size, leg size, height, skin pigment, nail width, nail thickness, etc. All of these traits are different in people, except for identical twins, and the calculation was assuming that the subjects are "human" in that they have the required DNA sequence that makes them "human" (which was your question). Differences in traits are not mutations, but merely variations.

And, keep in mind, we aren't including identical twins in these calculations either, as they are a special case coming from the same fertilized egg.

You did not provide any calculation whatsoever, you provided the result of a calcuation, and then said the result was obtained with mathematics.

That is not answering the question about how the number is obtained, how it is calculated. You insist that these calculations don't involve calculating the probabilities of mutations, well then show the calculations.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes obviously one would use mathematics to calculate something......

But what do these calculations involve. They involve calculating the chance of mutations making it all the same.

A mutation would be

You did not provide any calculation whatsoever, you provided the result of a calcuation, and then said the result was obtained with mathematics.

That is not answering the question about how the number is obtained, how it is calculated. You insist that these calculations don't involve calculating the probabilities of mutations, well then show the calculations.

This will be the 3rd time that I'm explaining this. The calculation I provided is humans that are not "mutated" but have the same DNA codon makeup giving them the same exact human features, like eye color, eye size, hand size, leg size, height, skin pigment, nail width, nail thickness, etc. All of these traits are different in people, except for identical twins, and the calculation was assuming that the subjects are "human" in that they have the required DNA sequence that makes them "human" (which was your question).

Let's say, just to make things simple, that there are 100 DNA codons in a human DNA strand. Now, in all humans, 90 of the codons are identical. The remaining 10 make up the variations discussed above.

Codons are made up of 3 amino acids. There are 64 possible DNA codons, but human beings only use 20 of them. So, there are 20 different possibilities for each of the remaining 10 spots. So, in our example (where there are only 100 codons in a strand instead of 1,000,000,000) the probability that all 20 "spots" would end up the same would be 1/400 or .0025%. Now, if you did this same calculation with the actual number of codons in a human DNA strand (roughly 1,000,000,000) you will get the probability of 1/1,000,000,000.

Forgive my math if it is wrong, but the process/calculation is correct. Does help you to understand?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A mutation would be

This will be the 3rd time that I'm explaining this. The calculation I provided is humans that are not "mutated" but have the same DNA codon makeup giving them the same exact human features, like eye color, eye size, hand size, leg size, height, skin pigment, nail width, nail thickness, etc. All of these traits are different in people, except for identical twins, and the calculation was assuming that the subjects are "human" in that they have the required DNA sequence that makes them "human" (which was your question).

Let's say, just to make things simple, that there are 100 DNA codons in a human DNA strand. Now, in all humans, 90 of the codons are identical. The remaining 10 make up the variations discussed above.

Codons are made up of 3 amino acids. There are 64 possible DNA codons, but human beings only use 20 of them. So, there are 20 different possibilities for each of the remaining 10 spots. So, in our example (where there are only 100 codons in a strand instead of 1,000,000,000) the probability that all 20 "spots" would end up the same would be 1/400 or .0025%. Now, if you did this same calculation with the actual number of codons in a human DNA strand (roughly 1,000,000,000) you will get the probability of 1/1,000,000,000.

Forgive my math if it is wrong, but the process/calculation is correct. Does help you to understand?

That is actually calculating the chance the way mutations turn out.

But I looked it up, and mostly they just use a database for calculating, and mutationrate only comes up in selecting a region that is variable.

 

[leibowde84]

That is actually calculating the chance the way mutations turn out.

But I looked it up, and mostly they just use a database for calculating, and mutationrate only comes up in selecting a region that is variable.

You did not ask for the mutation rate, you asked for the probability that 2 HUMAN BEINGS (which assumes that the "human" part of the DNA sequence is identical already) have identical DNA strands. Mutations are merely mistakes made by RNA. When these mistakes are beneficial, they contribute to evolution. While traits like eye color, hand size, forehead size, etc. might some day provide benefits, we, as a species, do not seem to be going that way. But, either way, the mutation rate is, of course, going to be found using various examples in a "data base" as you call it (a database is not an important aspect as it is merely a collection of data), as a "rate" is very different than a "probability." A rate is an average of how often something occurs in practice. A probability is the calculated chance a certain thing will take place out of the number of attempts that would be expected. A probability is based solely in logic/mathematics, while a "rate" is determined through observation.

Can you at least admit there is a clear difference between the two?

 

[philbo]

Codons are made up of 3 amino acids. There are 64 possible DNA codons, but human beings only use 20 of them. So, there are 20 different possibilities for each of the remaining 10 spots. So, in our example (where there are only 100 codons in a strand instead of 1,000,000,000) the probability that all 20 "spots" would end up the same would be 1/400 or .0025%. Now, if you did this same calculation with the actual number of codons in a human DNA strand (roughly 1,000,000,000) you will get the probability of 1/1,000,000,000.

Forgive my math if it is wrong, but the process/calculation is correct. Does help you to understand?

Forgive my pedantic nature.. but the maths is very wrong: if you're looking at 20 different triplets randomly filling 10 codon spaces, then the permutations you're looking at are 20^10 (if my calculations are correct, that's 1.024 *10"13), or a probability of roughly one in 10,240,000,000,000 to get an identical set of codons at random for ten locations only.

The number of permutations down 3 billion base pairs would be rather large (20^a billion)

..not that it makes a huge amount of difference as he doesn't appear to know what probabilities he's actually after, what they (or anything else) mean

 

[averageJOE]

didn't read through all the posts cuz the OP is so ridiculous...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

could bacteria creat a alive cell of meat, and male , female form of lifes ?

Simple answer....YES..!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So what missing that human could similaire the evolution of bacteria to cell ...to new life?
if they know the path , why they could not make it ?

First you need evolution 101 because we are beyond this point of asking if we know how why haven'e we done it....WE HAVE....

Scientists Use Stem Cells To Grow Body Parts In Their Lab, Including Noses, Ears, And Tear Ducts

Growing Body Parts - CBS News

It is called regenerative medicine and the goal is to help the thousands waiting for organ transplants and the hundreds of veterans who return from Iraq and Afghanistan horribly maimed.

So far, researchers have created beating hearts, ears and bladders by manipulating cells in the human body into regrowing tissue.

It's like you guys don't even try to learn anymore....just want to battle the science to hold onto your myths.