695 replies to this topic

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 September 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Sadly this paper is not helpful at all to my query since it is a study of the existing genes which control the development of various eye types,what i am talking about is the gradual evolution of  this gene in the first place.Showing how a certain thing works is not always a testament on how it has biologically evolved.I am aware that there are various eye types in nature but what i am questioning is how do you explain the gradual evolution of the first eye type (or the proto eye) or the gene for the same.Variations and selective expression and addition and substraction of nucleotide sequences through mutation and natural selection are possible only after a prototype is evolved.
Explainig the gradual evolution of the eye is one of the biggest debacle experienced by most 'evolutionists' and hence they had to come up with the concept of spontaneous evolution.

In regards to the prior reference, you may have missed certain sections:

This point of view is supported by the evolution of eye organelles
in protists. Chlamydomonas, for example, has an eye organelle with
a rhodopsin-related photosensitive pigment and a shielding pigment
spot which allows it to determine the direction of the incoming light.
Analogous to jellyfish, the eye organelle is located directly at the base
of the effector organ, the flagellum, and the information is transmitted
directly from the eye organelle to the flagellum without an intervening
information processing organelle. It is worth pointing out that some
dinoflagellates like Erythropsis, have evolved the most elaborate eye
organelles consisting of a lens, shielding pigment and retina-like
structures with membrane stacks, closeling resembling the eyes of
multicellular organisms (Fig. 11). (Gehring 2002:72)

For further detailed research on this topic you may find that the paper by Glardon, et. al. (1998) addresses some of your questions. Note pp. 2708, 2709.

http://dev.biologist...1.full.pdf html

.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 September 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

As in many other theories my friend which seem very elegant on the surface the fallacy in these often lies in the details.It is your perogative as a sentient human is to rationalise why a aquatic animal would want to come to the surface or on land and also that vision was the only way to determine it's distance from the surface as pressure sensitivity and use of high frequency sound waves are other alternatives.The rest of the things you state are all probable but what i did was just highlight the chances of these happening in a sequential manner over half a billion years as suggested by you.When you say that the optic nerve developed along with this mass of photosensitive cell (this was highlighted by me as in my previous post as you had omitted it in your reasoning before) as a part of an organism it sounds like a very simple and plausible event but when you look at the molecular biological implications it would have on the whole organism then you can probably realise the magnitutde of this devolpment.You can also explain how man can evolve wings and start flying one day in the future and i or anyone cannot deny the possibility but the probability of that happening is something we can comment about.And like i said in that roughly half a billion years of evolution if any of the links(intermediate set of organisms) in the complex evolution of the proto eye would have been lost or interuppted then we would not have the eye.

For eg-just for a cell to become photosensitive is not a one step mechanism at a molecular level,it involves a complex process by which it achieves photosensitivity using various chemicals and chains of reactions happening within the cell along with the subsequent receptors and effectors.So even if such a development was to happen it would require a series of random mutations (which do not make the organism sterile or cancerous as in most cases mutants become so) just for the cell to become photsensitive.And this just for the photosensitivity,reorganising photo signals to provide and sort of coherent vision is light years ahead and would probably require thousands of favourable random mutations(assuming that mutations that happen on a larger scale almost 99.99% of the time make the organism sterile or cancerous).Now if you look at the great number of developments required at a molecular level for something like an eye to come into existence by gradual evolution and number of random mutations required for it to happen along with natural selection to support all the intermediate states and mind you that the whole process in not under any predetermined guidance and is happening over half a billion years then can you compute what is the probability of the same happening?

Now when you suggested that different creature evolved different types of eyes from a common eel like ancestor which just had photosensitive cells then you are telling me that such a huge number of nearly miraculous changes didn't only happen once but happened multiple times in different organisms.So it is next to impossible,you should rather say that a protoeye evolved in one ancestral organism which later evolved into diferent species and gave different types of eyes as per natural selection (not that this helps in actually explaining how the proto eye evolved).

Simple photoreceptivity exists in organisms at the bacterial level, and bacteria can go through a generation at least every 17 minutes depending on the species. For animals with simple eyes spots like planarians, not much more than days by fission or weeks the regular way. Less than a year for many higher organisms. Throw in gene exchange through conjugation and that mutations can actually increase in asexual reproduction. Factor all that over the time scale of a couple billion years.

The development of a dedicated optic nerve is hardly fantastic. All it is is a specialized cluster of nerves fibers. Every part of an organism has them governing specific organs and parts thereof. You might as well be arguing about the skin as a whole.

You also missed the point of swede's link in that it specifically explained how the same gene is responsible for eye formation in virtually all animals, eliminating most of the multiple evolution argument. (IOW they're different variations on the same basic plan)

BTW, Sentient =/= intelligent. The word you want is sapient. Everything from dogs to worms are sentient and one could say even plants after a fashion but only man is considered sapient.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Swede, on 13 September 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

In regards to the prior reference, you may have missed certain sections:

This point of view is supported by the evolution of eye organelles
in protists. Chlamydomonas, for example, has an eye organelle with
a rhodopsin-related photosensitive pigment and a shielding pigment
spot which allows it to determine the direction of the incoming light.
Analogous to jellyfish, the eye organelle is located directly at the base
of the effector organ, the flagellum, and the information is transmitted
directly from the eye organelle to the flagellum without an intervening
information processing organelle. It is worth pointing out that some
dinoflagellates like Erythropsis, have evolved the most elaborate eye
organelles consisting of a lens, shielding pigment and retina-like
structures with membrane stacks, closeling resembling the eyes of
multicellular organisms (Fig. 11). (Gehring 2002:72)

For further detailed research on this topic you may find that the paper by Glardon, et. al. (1998) addresses some of your questions. Note pp. 2708, 2709.

http://dev.biologist...1.full.pdf html

.

Oniomancer, on 13 September 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Simple photoreceptivity exists in organisms at the bacterial level, and bacteria can go through a generation at least every 17 minutes depending on the species. For animals with simple eyes spots like planarians, not much more than days by fission or weeks the regular way. Less than a year for many higher organisms. Throw in gene exchange through conjugation and that mutations can actually increase in asexual reproduction. Factor all that over the time scale of a couple billion years.

The development of a dedicated optic nerve is hardly fantastic. All it is is a specialized cluster of nerves fibers. Every part of an organism has them governing specific organs and parts thereof. You might as well be arguing about the skin as a whole.

You also missed the point of swede's link in that it specifically explained how the same gene is responsible for eye formation in virtually all animals, eliminating most of the multiple evolution argument. (IOW they're different variations on the same basic plan)

BTW, Sentient =/= intelligent. The word you want is sapient. Everything from dogs to worms are sentient and one could say even plants after a fashion but only man is considered sapient.

What i am stating is when we talk about the evolution of the eye we should first ponder how the protoeye and the gene coding for that proto eye evolved along with the optic nerve?Once a gene template for the protoeye has evolved then it can undergo variations to give different phenptypes,so when i talk of the evolution of the eye i am talking about the evolution of the first gene template that codes for the protoeye.

Now we come to my friend pointing out that bacteria have photosensitivity and incredibly small generation times but stating this in respect to evolution of the eye which is a multicellular organ in itself and is a smaller part of a bigger multicellular organism having cells interacting continuosly with each other.When you talk of a bacterial cell it has no higher cellular organisation and is pretty flexible entity genetically hence it's use to generate various proteins etc by modern biotechnologist.So talking about evolution of  an eye which deals with 'Vision' and not basic photosensitivity in a multicellular complex organism with multiple tissue types and talking about a gene which imparts photosensitivity in single cell bacteria which is eons behind in complexity when compared to anything related to evolution of the eye.Also like i said stating evolution you can also explain how man can grow wings and fly away justy the way you explained how formation of optic nerve is not very complicated but when you factor in the probabilities of these things happening then probably you will get an idea of how much close to an apparent miracle it is.

When you talk about other organs,there are other organs which are simpler in function and complexity when compared to the eye and hence seem comparitively easier to explain,but what you pointed out is true that all these organs of varying level of complexity coming together and giving rise to a human seems like a near impossibility if only judged by existing concepts of evolution.

When i said sentient i meant sentient as i was talking about intelligent life even if it is a cockroach as it would still have 'free will' and choice.

Now when we talk about photsensitive group of cells in clamydia i would like to point out that you are already assuming that chlamydia as an organism evolved a eye organelle independantly after it established itself as a species just to make it sound reasonable that complex eyes could evolve since simpler versions of photosensitive cells are present in other organism and again i would repeat that you can point out hundred variations of the eye in different organism with varying level of complexity but when you try to explain how it first came into existence and organised iteself into a complex organelle with natural selection supporting each intermediate stage then it becomes difficult to digest.Why have chlamydia not grown a complex eye like ours since they multiply much faster and are more simpler and probably have existed way before complex multicellular organism came into play.Evolution and its present concept fail to explain presence of different species,it fails to explain how one species can evolve into another completely different species

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Evolution and its present concept fail to explain presence of different species,it fails to explain how one species can evolve into another completely different species

Except that... it explains all those things perfectly. In great detail. That's what evolution is all about: diversity, change, and common ancestry.

Edited by Arbitran, 13 September 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 12 September 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

My earlier post has little to nothing to do with evolution. To be perfectly honest I'm not terribly interested in the science of evolution in the first place. My interest lies in the archaeology and research of ancient Near Eastern civilizations.

My point about women having more children in the past is unrelated to evolution. It expresses a relationship with ancient people's environmental and social conditions. As I explained in my earlier post, the only reason women had so many children in the ancient past is that many of the children (at least 30%) didn't survive past five years of age. So if anything, today's situation reflects a much better state of being. Women tend to get married later and have fewer children because there is no driving need for someone to be giving birth every year for around ten years (although I understand some women do this, anyway).

Men and women today also tend to live significantly longer, as I also explained in my earlier post. Here again, today's situation reflects a much better state of being. The average child living right now in the West can expect to live around 78 years. This is more than 40 years longer than a child could've expected to live in ancient times.

This is not evolution. Evolutionary developments usually take tens of thousands of years to appear in a species, not a few thousand years.

I agree with you about spiritually. Strictly speaking, however, spirituality and religion are two different things.

Sesh i agree with you when you say that since you are only keen on history of civilizations your ancient maybe 10000 bc at the max but evolution takes millions of years to bring about a small change and to be able to observe it in a complex multicellular organism over a small period of time like 10000 years is very difficult without external intervention but what i was talking about is genetic retardation which can be hastened by interferrence of humanity and civilization.

P.S-evoltuion or cretion of modern human has major implications on our knowledge of human history and civilization so you might wan't to look into it in further detail as a part of your study of near eastern civilization to have a more hollistic approach.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 13 September 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 12 September 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Evolution has never claimed that a monkey turned into a man. Are you under the impression that mutations and large feature developments occur in individuals?

Can you please tell me who were the distant ancestors of modern man according to the theory of evolution?'Apelike' Are such adjectives used for these hypothetical ancestors by our evolutionists .Since you are so up in arms against a monkey turning into a man then how can you suggest that a single cell bacteria like organism turned into a man over however long a period of time?How does one species evolve into a completelty different species? Evoltuionist tell us that all species in the world had a common ancestor at some point of time and then we all evolved following different chains of evoltion,if you have no problem in accepting this statement then you should proudly accept that a monkey can turn into a man and probably thats what happened probably over a long period of time.

And if you are pro evolution then you shouldn't have a problem in accepting that a individual organism did undergo a major mutation (and didn't become impotent or sterile) at some point of time,was then favoured by natural selection,mass reproduced with other organism of it's species to give rise to a completely new species.Can you tell me why a monkey can't turn into man if you believe evolution in it's present state is valid?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

Except that... it explains all those things perfectly. In great detail. That's what evolution is all about: diversity, change, and common ancestry.

Explain how Apoptosis (i.e programmed cell death) and mechanism for correction of mutated strands of DNA (template correction by DNA ploymerase)as observed in modern humans evolve?And if these mechanism are in place then can we evolve further,are we the Zenith of evolution?Our body has molecular mechanism to kill cells that have mutated DNA chains or DNA strands that are different from the regular strands i.e.Tumor supressors.How did these mechanisms evolve?

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

Can you please tell me who were the distant ancestors of modern man according to the theory of evolution?'Apelike' Are such adjectives used for these hypothetical ancestors by our evolutionists .Since you are so up in arms against a monkey turning into a man then how can you suggest that a single cell bacteria like organism turned into a man over however long a period of time?How does one species evolve into a completelty different species? Evoltuionist tell us that all species in the world had a common ancestor at some point of time and then we all evolved following different chains of evoltion,if you have no problem in accepting this statement then you should proudly accept that a monkey can turn into a man and probably thats what happened probably over a long period of time.

And if you are pro evolution then you shouldn't have a problem in accepting that a individual organism did undergo a major mutation (and didn't become impotent or sterile) at some point of time,was then favoured by natural selection,mass reproduced with other organism of it's species to give rise to a completely new species.Can you tell me why a monkey can't turn into man if you believe evolution in it's present state is valid?

Because the process you are referring to is called "saltation", and is a controversial, not-widely-accepted hypothesis. It is not a part of modern evolutionary biology. An individual organism does not undergo any sort of "transformation", and become some other species. Evolution is essentially just a fancy word for heredity, plus mutation. You are mutated, in that you have genes in you which are entirely unique to you, and you did not inherit from your parents. Everyone is this way. Evolution is the name given to the process which results from this: in other words, it is simply that after certain, long periods of time (thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of years), these slight differences can compound in such a way that the offspring of one lineage will ultimately be incompatible, and unable to mate with a member of another lineage, though they are descended from the same ancestors. You see?

Humans are apes, and our closest relatives are also apes (the great apes, precisely). But do not think that we descended from monkeys or chimpanzees or gorillas; no, these are all independent lineages, descended from a common ancestor they share with our lineage. To be fair, it is safe to say that the common ancestor we share with the other primates would likely have more closely resembled a monkey than it would have a human. And our more recent ancestors certainly aren't "hypothetical"; there are literally dozens upon dozens of excellent fossil specimens, representing our ancestry (though many of them, like the aforementioned chimpanzees and gorillas, are likely distinct branches, and not direct ancestors). No monkey ever turned into a man; a monkey-like animal millions of years ago mated with others of its kind, and that species diverged through natural selection and environmental pressures into multiple lines, one of which resulted in humans. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Explain how Apoptosis (i.e programmed cell death) and mechanism for correction of mutated strands of DNA (template correction by DNA ploymerase)as observed in modern humans evolve?And if these mechanism are in place then can we evolve further,are we the Zenith of evolution?Our body has molecular mechanism to kill cells that have mutated DNA chains or DNA strands that are different from the regular strands i.e.Tumor supressors.How did these mechanisms evolve?

In 1967, Lynn Margulis virtually formulated the theory that mitochondria originated from bacteria that had been incorporated as endosymbionts of larger eukaryotic cells. The most cogent evidence for this theory, currently, is the fact that mitochondria possess their own deoxyribonucleotides and are equipped with genetic and replicative mechanisms.

Such a progression would likely have posed a reasonable risk for primitive eukaryotic cells, which would have begun to overtake the energy-generating bacteria; it would also have been a risk for the ancestors of mitochondria, which effectively parasitized their proto-eukaryotic host cells. This process is still extant, human white blood cells and bacteria. Much of the time, invasive bacteria are exterminated by white blood cells, however, in many instances, the chemical warfare waged by prokaryotes is successful, resulting in infection.

One among the rare, risky evolutionary processes, which would likely have occurred circa two billion years ago, made it possible for certain eukaryotes and energy-producing prokaryotes to coexist and mutually benefit in symbiosis. Mitochondriate eukaryotic cells exist on the cusp of both life and death at once, because mitochondria still retain an array of molecules which can trigger cell suicide. Due to various reasons (i.e., not having your cellular colony spontaneously dissolving due to rapid cell decay), evolution and natural selection have favored multicellular organisms, the cells of which undergo cell death primarily through direct "programming". Given preset biochemical signals to cells (e.g., feedback from neighbor cells, stress, or genomic damage), mitochondria can release caspase activators which trigger the chemical process of cell death. The cell suicide mechanism has proved to act as a vital process in multicellular organisms, as it can correct or prevent potentially life-threatening internal genomic damage and infections.

Edited by Arbitran, 13 September 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Because the process you are referring to is called "saltation", and is a controversial, not-widely-accepted hypothesis. It is not a part of modern evolutionary biology. An individual organism does not undergo any sort of "transformation", and become some other species. Evolution is essentially just a fancy word for heredity, plus mutation. You are mutated, in that you have genes in you which are entirely unique to you, and you did not inherit from your parents. Everyone is this way. Evolution is the name given to the process which results from this: in other words, it is simply that after certain, long periods of time (thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of years), these slight differences can compound in such a way that the offspring of one lineage will ultimately be incompatible, and unable to mate with a member of another lineage, though they are descended from the same ancestors. You see?

Humans are apes, and our closest relatives are also apes (the great apes, precisely). But do not think that we descended from monkeys or chimpanzees or gorillas; no, these are all independent lineages, descended from a common ancestor they share with our lineage. To be fair, it is safe to say that the common ancestor we share with the other primates would likely have more closely resembled a monkey than it would have a human. And our more recent ancestors certainly aren't "hypothetical"; there are literally dozens upon dozens of excellent fossil specimens, representing our ancestry (though many of them, like the aforementioned chimpanzees and gorillas, are likely distinct branches, and not direct ancestors). No monkey ever turned into a man; a monkey-like animal millions of years ago mated with others of its kind, and that species diverged through natural selection and environmental pressures into multiple lines, one of which resulted in humans. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

so what your saying is modern evolutionist hope to muddy the waters with hundreds of specimens, species, divergent lineage, and theories that it will all become clear to the rest of us.

[Arbitran]

MiskatonicGrad, on 13 September 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

so what your saying is modern evolutionist hope to muddy the waters with hundreds of specimens, species, divergent lineage, and theories that it will all become clear to the rest of us.

Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not sure I quite understood... I apologize.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Because the process you are referring to is called "saltation", and is a controversial, not-widely-accepted hypothesis. It is not a part of modern evolutionary biology. An individual organism does not undergo any sort of "transformation", and become some other species. Evolution is essentially just a fancy word for heredity, plus mutation. You are mutated, in that you have genes in you which are entirely unique to you, and you did not inherit from your parents. Everyone is this way. Evolution is the name given to the process which results from this: in other words, it is simply that after certain, long periods of time (thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of years), these slight differences can compound in such a way that the offspring of one lineage will ultimately be incompatible, and unable to mate with a member of another lineage, though they are descended from the same ancestors. You see?

Humans are apes, and our closest relatives are also apes (the great apes, precisely). But do not think that we descended from monkeys or chimpanzees or gorillas; no, these are all independent lineages, descended from a common ancestor they share with our lineage. To be fair, it is safe to say that the common ancestor we share with the other primates would likely have more closely resembled a monkey than it would have a human. And our more recent ancestors certainly aren't "hypothetical"; there are literally dozens upon dozens of excellent fossil specimens, representing our ancestry (though many of them, like the aforementioned chimpanzees and gorillas, are likely distinct branches, and not direct ancestors). No monkey ever turned into a man; a monkey-like animal millions of years ago mated with others of its kind, and that species diverged through natural selection and environmental pressures into multiple lines, one of which resulted in humans. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

I don't know if you are defending evolution or you are refuting it.If you cannot account for or explain satisfactorily how one species gives rise to a different species which is more advanced ,what is your premise for believing in evolution.Hereditary is related to transfer of genes from parents to offspring from the set of genes and their alleles that they already possess as a universal set,you can throw in how genes recombine and give rise to variant phenotypes due to variable expression of inherited genes but you can in noway use these regularly occuring variations to explain creation of entirely new genes from scratch.Since once again you state that we did successively evolve from a common ancestor giving rise to various different subsequent species hence you are insinuating that a single species can give rise to different species that are majorly different,how do you suggest does one species give rise to multiple species?Why would a segment of the common ancestor evolve into a monkey when it could have very well have evolved into a human,are monkeys more fit to survive then humans? No matter how gradual you try to potray the evolution of a new species from an existing one you have to acknowledge that at given critical point the species completely diferentiate by additions of a significant amount of additional genetic material (coding genes) how do you suggest these genes evolve gradually and all intermediates are selected naturally?And since inter-specific breeding is not possible naturally then evolutionist have a lot to explain that how individuals belonging to a new species multiplied and evolved further?

Now when you talk of fossil samples we have found fossil samples of dinosaurs as well,why dont you label them as our ancestors?finding fossil samples of extinct species doesn't mean they were our ancestors,there have been no fossil samples of the mythical 'intermediate states' of evolution ever found.The exact point when one species transformed into another wether it was individual or a group.I suggest you read 'Forbidden Archeology' by Michael Cremo.

BTW-atleast you accepted that evolution relies heavily on 'Mutation' to explain anything or make any sense.This is something that you denied before.A single organism especially if it is unicellar can get 'transformed'.

P.S- i would rather believe that humans were the first species that at times got degenereated or devolved into all these subsequent species due to 'random mutations' and hereditary as you would like to put it.Also if billions of years are required for any species to differentiate from the parent then my frien the world is not old enough for so many different species to have progressively evolved.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 13 September 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

In 1967, Lynn Margulis virtually formulated the theory that mitochondria originated from bacteria that had been incorporated as endosymbionts of larger eukaryotic cells. The most cogent evidence for this theory, currently, is the fact that mitochondria possess their own deoxyribonucleotides and are equipped with genetic and replicative mechanisms.

Such a progression would likely have posed a reasonable risk for primitive eukaryotic cells, which would have begun to overtake the energy-generating bacteria; it would also have been a risk for the ancestors of mitochondria, which effectively parasitized their proto-eukaryotic host cells. This process is still extant, human white blood cells and bacteria. Much of the time, invasive bacteria are exterminated by white blood cells, however, in many instances, the chemical warfare waged by prokaryotes is successful, resulting in infection.

One among the rare, risky evolutionary processes, which would likely have occurred circa two billion years ago, made it possible for certain eukaryotes and energy-producing prokaryotes to coexist and mutually benefit in symbiosis. Mitochondriate eukaryotic cells exist on the cusp of both life and death at once, because mitochondria still retain an array of molecules which can trigger cell suicide. Due to various reasons (i.e., not having your cellular colony spontaneously dissolving due to rapid cell decay), evolution and natural selection have favored multicellular organisms, the cells of which undergo cell death primarily through direct "programming". Given preset biochemical signals to cells (e.g., feedback from neighbor cells, stress, or genomic damage), mitochondria can release caspase activators which trigger the chemical process of cell death. The cell suicide mechanism has proved to act as a vital process in multicellular organisms, as it can correct or prevent potentially life-threatening internal genomic damage and infections.

Thank you very much for explaining the process but what i am asking you is that how did this mechanism evolve and why did it evolve in the first place?Also endo symbionts etc etc are all good theories to read but then you could argue that why didn't photosynthetic plastids also get incorporated as endosymbionts?What does Mitochondria having its own seperate self replicating DNA prove.........does it by defunct mean that it had a foreign origin?Like i said you can oversimplify and explain away anythingh using these theories,and God created man is the best one of them.


Now if you calculate the probability of every event from scratch happening in the evolutionary scheme of things to finally arrive at Humans then it seems nothing less then a miracle.

"Due to various reasons (i.e., not having your cellular colony spontaneously dissolving due to rapid cell decay), evolution and natural selection have favored multicellular organisms, the cells of which undergo cell death primarily through direct "programming"."
"Evolution of legs happened because natural selection favoured organism with legs as organisms without legs could not run away from predators" this doesn't explain jack **** to me other then what was/is the use of legs,doesn't underline the process of why/how legs evolved.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 13 September 2012 - 09:52 AM.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

I don't know if you are defending evolution or you are refuting it.

Certainly not refuting it; explaining it.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

If you cannot account for or explain satisfactorily how one species gives rise to a different species which is more advanced ,what is your premise for believing in evolution.Hereditary is related to transfer of genes from parents to offspring from the set of genes and their alleles that they already possess as a universal set,you can throw in how genes recombine and give rise to variant phenotypes due to variable expression of inherited genes but you can in noway use these regularly occuring variations to explain creation of entirely new genes from scratch.

Evolutionary biology does satisfactorily explain the origin of species (hence the title of Darwin's origin book, if you'll recall). Did I not explain it adequately? A species is a breeding population of organisms. Ergo, two different species of sufficient genetic difference (say, a chimpanzee and a macaque), cannot mate (except under very rare instance, such as will mules, in which two distinct species are closely enough related to produce viable offspring; though mules are sterile). That is the distinction of species. Let's make a hypothetical: there is a species of gecko which lives in the deserts of California. These geckos live and reproduce perfectly normal, over time perhaps changing slightly to adapt better to their environment. Say, however, that due to, for instance, a shortage of water in one region, a small fragment population of the geckos migrates into a shrubland, and settles there. Over time, those geckos will adapt to their new habitat. Eventually, the differences in adaptation and evolution will have compounded in such a way that, even if the two groups were to be reintroduced to one another, they would not be able to mate and to yield viable offspring. That is the process known as speciation.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Since once again you state that we did successively evolve from a common ancestor giving rise to various different subsequent species hence you are insinuating that a single species can give rise to different species that are majorly different,how do you suggest does one species give rise to multiple species?

Simple, fragmentary populations of a species can sometimes adapt to better fill region-specific niches which better allow them to proliferate; thus, one species may become multiple, and each of those new species might, in time, go on to have their differences with the original species become so significant that they branch off into entire new genera, families, orders, etc.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Why would a segment of the common ancestor evolve into a monkey when it could have very well have evolved into a human,are monkeys more fit to survive then humans?

You still seem to be taking a rather erroneous, teleological view. Evolution is not a set path; a monkey-like ancestor need not yield humans among its descendants, however, due to a chain of events involving environment, adaptation, speciation, and a number of other factors, humans happen to have been one among the numerous descendants of the lineage in question. And yes, for the niche they are adapted to inhabit, monkeys are far better fit to survive than humans; if you lived in a tree and leaped from branch to branch for your whole life, chances are you might end up wishing you were a monkey... after all, they're much, much better at it than we are.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

No matter how gradual you try to potray the evolution of a new species from an existing one you have to acknowledge that at given critical point the species completely diferentiate by additions of a significant amount of additional genetic material (coding genes) how do you suggest these genes evolve gradually and all intermediates are selected naturally?And since inter-specific breeding is not possible naturally then evolutionist have a lot to explain that how individuals belonging to a new species multiplied and evolved further?

I'm not even sure what you're saying now... Would you be so kind as to rephrase that question?

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Now when you talk of fossil samples we have found fossil samples of dinosaurs as well,why dont you label them as our ancestors?finding fossil samples of extinct species doesn't mean they were our ancestors,there have been no fossil samples of the mythical 'intermediate states' of evolution ever found.The exact point when one species transformed into another wether it was individual or a group.I suggest you read 'Forbidden Archeology' by Michael Cremo.

We do share common ancestry with dinosaurs, just as we do with all other life on the planet. However, the ancestor which diverged into the two lineages which would ultimately yield dinosaurs, and us, respectively, would likely have been something like an iguana-like animal, hundreds of millions of years ago. And yes, there are bountiful supplies of so-called "intermediate" or "transitional" fossils; here's a tentative list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo is a virtually worthless work, as I gather it; particularly if it is making claims about evolution which bear any resemblance to yours. In any case, from what I know of Cremo, he's not a credible scholar; as a Hindu myself, it is overwhelmingly clear that his interpretations, from what I understand of them, are extremely farfetched and radical.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

BTW-atleast you accepted that evolution relies heavily on 'Mutation' to explain anything or make any sense.This is something that you denied before.A single organism especially if it is unicellar can get 'transformed'.

Yes, I can say that mutation has a part in evolution; this is because it serves a function in heredity, which is the fundamental driving force of allelic frequency shifts and gene flow which are the principal mechanisms of evolution.

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

P.S- i would rather believe that humans were the first species that at times got degenereated or devolved into all these subsequent species due to 'random mutations' and hereditary as you would like to put it.Also if billions of years are required for any species to differentiate from the parent then my frien the world is not old enough for so many different species to have progressively evolved.

You might rather believe that human were the first, and all others are descended from them, but you'd be mistaken. It simply didn't happen that way. There is not a shred of evidence indicating that (nor would that explain the origin of humans themselves), and mountains of evidence substantiating the current evolutionary model. And I did not say that it took billions of years for any species to differentiate from the parent; I said that it took billions of years to arrive at the stage at which we currently are. It can take as little as a matter of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years for significant evolutionary changes to compound; millions of years are more typically required for larger changes (for example, the divergence of caniforms and feliforms).

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Thank you very much for explaining the process but what i am asking you is that how did this mechanism evolve and why did it evolve in the first place?

I just explained that... did I not explain it clearly enough?

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Also endo symbionts etc etc are all good theories to read but then you could argue that why didn't photosynthetic plastids also get incorporated as endosymbionts?What does Mitochondria having its own seperate self replicating DNA prove.........does it by defunct mean that it had a foreign origin?Like i said you can oversimplify and explain away anythingh using these theories,and God created man is the best one of them.

Not sure I understood what you said... Sorry. What was it about "God created man"?

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Now if you calculate the probability of every event from scratch happening in the evolutionary scheme of things to finally arrive at Humans then it seems nothing less then a miracle.

Again, that's a very teleological view; as if humans are the pinnacle of life, and it all transpired with the express goal of producing humans. It didn't. It doesn't work like that. Humans happen to be one species of the billions upon billions which have arisen on our planet over the billion-or-so years since life first appeared. Humans are no more or less significant evolutionarily-speaking than a macaque or a flatworm. You might as well be saying that it was a "miracle" that evolution yielded flatworms; it wasn't a miracle, just basic mechanisms.  

Harsh86_Patel, on 13 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

"Due to various reasons (i.e., not having your cellular colony spontaneously dissolving due to rapid cell decay), evolution and natural selection have favored multicellular organisms, the cells of which undergo cell death primarily through direct "programming"."
"Evolution of legs happened because natural selection favoured organism with legs as organisms without legs could not run away from predators" this doesn't explain jack **** to me other then what was/is the use of legs,doesn't underline the process of why/how legs evolved.

How does your example not explain the process of the evolution of legs, exactly? If you're wanting to know exactly how the earliest legs evolved from the robust lobed fins of sacropterygian fish during the transition to tetrapods, then there is an exceptionally-well-written article outlining the process: http://en.wikipedia....rapod#Evolution