Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #26 Share Posted September 23, 2012 No? Well Arbitran Alphaproteobacteria morphed into Mitochondria at least thats what science tell us. About second part can you do it in own words. I realy did read those links and didnt found answer. As a scientist, I can tell you that whatever you have misconstrued about science's information about the transition between Alphaproteobacteria and Mitochondria is simply incorrect. Things don't "morph" into other things. And really? Two entire articles addressing your precise question and you didn't find any answers? What questions remain? Isnt homo heidelbergensis morphed into homo sapiens sapiens? How Alphaproteobacteria morphed into Mitochondria? Or it isnt? Im confused. If not then is there also missing link there? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #27 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Why on wiki it says "may be"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #28 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) No. 1.I have problem with this because I read in dozens articles, books that Alphaproteobacteria morphed into Mitochondria. So was I missguided? Or you do that? 2.Wiki says maybe now you say no. Then from what spicies human evolve? Edited September 23, 2012 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #29 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Also since you are biologist you can explain it to us. What happened to that pre-bacteria? Evolution isn't "morphing", it is fundamentally a process of reproduction. Due to mutations and natural selection, populations of organisms slowly undergo a process known as gene flow, in which favoured traits are selected, and unfavoured traits gradually pass away. This process results in morphologic flux, allowing for adaptation to environments, etc. Why on wiki it says "may be"? Because science is based on "maybe". Nothing is known 100%. Nothing. We've been over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #30 Share Posted September 23, 2012 1.I have problem with this because I read in dozens articles, books that Alphaproteobacteria morphed into Mitochondria. So was I missguided? Or you do that? 2.Wiki says maybe now you say no. Then from what spicies human evolve? Did any of them use the term "morph"? Cite some of these articles. Homo sapiens is directly descended from Homo heidelbergensis. I thought you'd figured that much out yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #31 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The most widely accepted hypothesis about the development of mitochondria is the endosymbiotic theory. Basically, at some point in history, mitochondria were independent organisms that were absorbed into a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotic cells. There is also a lot of evidence to suppose that mitichondria were prokaryotic bacterium; they have enzymes similar to bacterial enzymes, the contain double membranes, etc. There is a wealth of information about this that can be found online. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #32 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Did any of them use the term "morph"? Cite some of these articles. Homo sapiens is directly descended from Homo heidelbergensis. I thought you'd figured that much out yourself... Now we playing word games. No, they used word evolve. Same as I used it in polar bear / whale story on which you answered: Things don't morph into other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #33 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Why you used word morph if I asked you about evolution then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #34 Share Posted September 23, 2012 1.I have problem with this because I read in dozens articles, books that Alphaproteobacteria morphed into Mitochondria. So was I missguided? Or you do that? 2.Wiki says maybe now you say no. Then from what spicies human evolve? What has become mitochindria, at one point in the distant past, was probably a sort of alphaproteobacteria. Over time, this organism changed to be better suited to the environment that it was in. That's all evolution is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #35 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) No we have biologists who claim that things do not evolve from one spicies to another if that law was true then why we have countless interconnected spicies? What has become mitochindria, at one point in the distant past, was probably a sort of alphaproteobacteria. Over time, this organism changed to be better suited to the environment that it was in. That's all evolution is. But do we agree that they are diffrent spicies? Edited September 23, 2012 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #36 Share Posted September 23, 2012 But do we agree that they are diffrent spicies? Mitochondria and various alphaproetobacteria? They are now. The common ancestor that they shared probably billions of years ago no longer exists. The one sthat did not get absorbed into a eukaryotic cells also changed to better adapt to their environment. See, they both changed but in different ways. It's important to understand that WE are the ones the draw the lines between species. We don't find bones that are stamped "H. habilis", but based upon the morphology and location it which it was found and various other factors, we decide to call it Homo habilis. There are no clear lines between species. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #37 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Mitochondria and various alphaproetobacteria? They are now. The common ancestor that they shared probably billions of years ago no longer exists. The one sthat did not get absorbed into a eukaryotic cells also changed to better adapt to their environment. See, they both changed but in different ways. They are even back then too. As I understood, we dont talk about that they two shared ancestors. Rather that one evolve into another. I even read how some biologists use physicsts termonology and call it quantum leap in evolution. Anyway one spicies evolve in another. So I guess that polar bear/ Some sort of whale theory holds the ground. Polar bear can evolve into something like whale. There are no clear lines between species. Why? Edited September 23, 2012 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #38 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Why you used word morph if I asked you about evolution then? You've implied "morphing", but that simply isn't how evolution works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #39 Share Posted September 23, 2012 You've implied "morphing", but that simply isn't how evolution works. I didnt imply anything. I asked question clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #40 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I didnt imply anything. I asked question clearly. You asked if a polar bear could "become" a whale. What precisely did you mean by "become"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #41 Share Posted September 23, 2012 You asked if a polar bear could "become" a whale. What precisely did you mean by "become"? Evolve. We are talking about evolution arent we? Darwins theory is theory of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted September 23, 2012 Author #42 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Do you found incorrect that: homo heidelbergensis become homo sapiens sapiens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 23, 2012 #43 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Evolve. We are talking about evolution arent we? Darwins theory is theory of evolution. What do you think evolution means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #44 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) They are even back then too. As I understood, we dont talk about that they two shared ancestors. Rather that one evolve into another. I even read how some biologists use physicsts termonology and call it quantum leap in evolution. Anyway one spicies evolve in another. So I guess that polar bear/ Some sort of whale theory holds the ground. Well I guess if the sea ice keeps melting in the Arctic then the bears will have to do something! Adapt to survive. It would take millions of years for them to change, however. Modern whales evolved from a wolf-like creature in what is now desert. I can't remember where, off hand. Here's a neat video that shows the whale fossils we have and how they changed over time. [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUuUEo84YlY&feature=related[/media] Edit: The person who uploaded this disabled embedding, so you'll have to click on it to view the video on youtube. It's only 40 sec or so. Why? It's difficult to find all encompassing rules that work for all animals. Some animals can hybridize, but their offspring is generally sterile, so we're not going to see a population of ligers in the wild, for example. Also, lions and tigers would probably never breed in the wild. They are geographically isolated. Life is very complex and WE invented the idea of species in the first place. http://en.wikipedia....Species_problem Please read the link. It has more information than I can copy on here for you. Edited September 23, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendy Demon Posted September 23, 2012 #45 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Why? Well..I am no scientist but when I read about Earth history and its formations...it takes a long time for the planet to form and solidify and quite a long time for the surface to cool enough so an atmosphere can form and become stable enough to support hydrological processes. Geological and volcanic processes take a long time, the cooling of rocks takes a long time especially if the hydrologic cycles are not stable enough to provide reliable cooling or provide large enough pools to absorb gasses and so on. I may be wrong but something in the back of my mind says that the earth, as well as the rest of the solar system and even our own sun, may be far older than what we first anticipated. It could be that planets are still forming, albeit late in the game...which I suspect may be the case with the planet Pluto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #46 Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Do you found incorrect that: homo heidelbergensis become homo sapiens sapiens? I always find pictures to be useful teaching aids. Edited September 23, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 23, 2012 #47 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Well..I am no scientist but when I read about Earth history and its formations...it takes a long time for the planet to form and solidify and quite a long time for the surface to cool enough so an atmosphere can form and become stable enough to support hydrological processes. Geological and volcanic processes take a long time, the cooling of rocks takes a long time especially if the hydrologic cycles are not stable enough to provide reliable cooling or provide large enough pools to absorb gasses and so on. I may be wrong but something in the back of my mind says that the earth, as well as the rest of the solar system and even our own sun, may be far older than what we first anticipated. It could be that planets are still forming, albeit late in the game...which I suspect may be the case with the planet Pluto. But the problem when you state that you think the Earth could be 10 or 20 billion years old is that visible universe is approx. 14.6 billion years old. I suggest you check out this page for some good info on how we've determined the age of the Earth, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notoverrated Posted September 24, 2012 #48 Share Posted September 24, 2012 i like asking questions. thats why i enjoy L's threads. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted September 24, 2012 #49 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) i like asking questions. thats why i enjoy L's threads. There's nothing wrong with asking questions. That's the point of science. One has to realize, however, that some questions have very definite answers, even if they aren't the answers that one expects or wants. Edited September 24, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted September 24, 2012 #50 Share Posted September 24, 2012 there is no such thing There is. Every link that we don't see is missing. We are a link. You could never find a transitionary species because all species are transitionary. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now