Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Scientists solve animal evolution mystery

17 posts in this topic

 

Plrrrrt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually sounds pretty convincing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess that once the 'snowball' era ended the extra sunlight getting to the simple life-forms of the time would have lead to an explosion of photosynthesis. Once the organisms realised that summer had arrived they probably really wanted to get their 'Beach Bods' so that they could get their summer bronze  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the oxygen such a surfeit photosynthetic life would have flooded the atmosphere with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like UM-bot said, the increase in oxygen is old news, but the idea it came from glaciers grinding up nutrients is an interesting addition.

But since the article title mentions animals, there's a really big leap between more oxygen and the development of complex multicellular organisms with specialized cells. Trying to compare yeast colonies to multicellular organisms is like saying co-joined twins are a new species. And cell colonies where the individual cells are still capable of swimming off by themselves is more of a social behavior than a model for a multicellular organism. So that step is still being researched.

And research at the California Institute of Technology on simultaneous mutation rates among bacteria to explain larger leaps in mutations, like the difference between insects with 2 wings and 4 wings, still doesn't address hereditary traits. Darwin was spot on with his "If any complex organ could be shown to not be the result of many small mutations" etc etc. Note he didn't talk about single celled organisms or flagella. At this point saying the word "flagella" in relation to evolution is like saying "aether" around physicists. Simply put, big leaps in mutations would require a large population of sexually reproducing organisms to experience simultaneous mutations in order to create a sustainable population of the new species. A single random mutation is the same as only having one of an endangered species left. Not much use for keeping that species alive. Borrowing genetic code from elsewhere in the organism, as suggested during the Dover trial, is an interesting attempt to explain a single large mutation, but again one oddball is like having one of an endangered species left. An interesting suggestion, but not practical for populating a region with a significantly different species. And white tigers are a glaring example of how mutations get bred out of a line fairly quickly.

Then we get into artsy arguments about recessive genes being like the way an archway is built, where dirt is piled up, the stones are stacked, and the dirt is removed, so it only looks like a big mutation because part of it was already there as a recessive gene. That's great for architects, but has little to do with genetics and hereditary traits because it would still have to happen simultaneously in a large number of organisms to create a sustainable population. It's almost as bad as comparing pond scum to the formation of cell membranes in abiogenesis.

So yeah the nutrients gave the algae a boost. But an oxygen rich environment doesn't change how genetics and hereditary traits work. So there's plenty of research to be done to answer those questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, Trihalo42 said:

Darwin was spot on with his "If any complex organ could be shown to not be the result of many small mutations" etc etc. Note he didn't talk about single celled organisms or flagella. At this point saying the word "flagella" in relation to evolution is like saying "aether" around physicists. Simply put, big leaps in mutations would require a large population of sexually reproducing organisms to experience simultaneous mutations in order to create a sustainable population of the new species

But how does Darwin's theory of evolution explain the fact that mice reproduce much more rapidly than elephants, yet elephants evolve more rapidly than mice?

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo global warming is gooood....B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So humans were causing global warming back then too? Damn those humans. They ruin everything.

Edited by Trenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah... didn't happened this way... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not news, I regret to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2017 at 0:46 PM, Will Due said:

But how does Darwin's theory of evolution explain the fact that mice reproduce much more rapidly than elephants, yet elephants evolve more rapidly than mice?

 

Easy. Biological evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms.  Any mutation in the population of mice is swamped by the vast numbers of them.  Elephants are far less common, any mutation will not be swamped so much.  

Crude analogy.  Put a teaspoon full of salt in a bucket of water and it is easily detected.  Now put it in a swimming pool and you will have much trouble in detecting it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Codenwarra said:

Easy. Biological evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms.  Any mutation in the population of mice is swamped by the vast numbers of them.  Elephants are far less common, any mutation will not be swamped so much.  

Crude analogy.  Put a teaspoon full of salt in a bucket of water and it is easily detected.  Now put it in a swimming pool and you will have much trouble in detecting it.  

But if the reproduction rate of mice is faster than the reproduction rate of elephants, a lot faster, then mutation (evolution) of mice would logically occur much more rapidly than elephants. Yet instead, the opposite is true.

Did Darwin miss something? Is there more to evolution than just the survival of the fittest and "natural" selection?

There must be something else conditioning evolution that accounts for the illogical fact that the rate of evolution in a species that reproduces slowly evolves quicker than a species that reproduces at a much greater rate.

Mathematically and logically, something isn't adding up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Will Due said:

But if the reproduction rate of mice is faster than the reproduction rate of elephants, a lot faster, then mutation (evolution) of mice would logically occur much more rapidly than elephants. Yet instead, the opposite is true.

Did Darwin miss something? Is there more to evolution than just the survival of the fittest and "natural" selection?

There must be something else conditioning evolution that accounts for the illogical fact that the rate of evolution in a species that reproduces slowly evolves quicker than a species that reproduces at a much greater rate.

Mathematically and logically, something isn't adding up.

 

I'm sure Darwin missed a lot, and since he knew nothing about genes, probably a great deal.  His theory was pioneering, it is mostly of historical interest, it was 155 or so years ago, it's not as if everyone quotes Lavoisier when it comes to recent chemical facts.  No doubt someone has given some better explanation, I have given you part of it, the rest I do not know.  But there are certain sites on the net where you will not find that explanation, only obfuscation and lies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Codenwarra said:

I'm sure Darwin missed a lot, and since he knew nothing about genes, probably a great deal.  His theory was pioneering, it is mostly of historical interest, it was 155 or so years ago, it's not as if everyone quotes Lavoisier when it comes to recent chemical facts.  No doubt someone has given some better explanation, I have given you part of it, the rest I do not know.  But there are certain sites on the net where you will not find that explanation, only obfuscation and lies.   

What explanation and lies are you referring to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Will Due said:

But if the reproduction rate of mice is faster than the reproduction rate of elephants, a lot faster, then mutation (evolution) of mice would logically occur much more rapidly than elephants. Yet instead, the opposite is true

Can you cite this please? I only looked briefly but I can't find anything to support this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2017 at 7:10 AM, Will Due said:

What explanation and lies are you referring to?

 

On 8/25/2017 at 7:10 AM, Will Due said:

 

Sites like "Answers in Genesis" are all about obfuscation and lies for profit.      

" No doubt someone has given some better explanation, I have given you part of it, the rest I do not know."  That should be clear enough. I do not know the reason why mice evolve more slowly than elephants (if they actually do) other than the large population tends to swamp changes in alleles.  There may be more to it, I do not know.  Ask an evolutionary biologist.    

The evolution of modern mammals has nothing to do with the conditions after the supposed snowball earth. There were no mammals then and not for a very long time later.

As far as I am concerned, I'm bored with this and the subject, irrelevant as it is, is closed.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.