by, this I mean, do you hold fast to the idea that unique species can evolve over time? I'm hesitant to make a conjecture either way. On the one hand, I don't see how, either though mutation or some form of selection, a new species can be brought forth whole cloth. On the other hand, I am not an evolutionary biologist
With many thanks to Jeff, here is a related video to my question. I disagree with a lot of what he says, the video narrator, not neccessarily Jeff, but the guy does propose some interesting ideas
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Do you believe in inter-species evolution and billion years universe?"
Do I believe that all current "unique" forms of life evolved from a common ancestor? Yes, and I have a gigantic amount of evidence to support my position.
Do I believe that the universe that we live in is billions of years old? Yes, I think all of the best evidence supports that the universe is very old.
I congratulate you for watching that video, most people would would not even do that.
The thing is that although that video explain evolution critiques well, you failed to put forward where you disagree with the narrator.
Thus left us wondering, why would you want our opinion if you are not interested in even discussing what you disagree about?
Sorry for being blunt but...
Do you really care about the truth or you just want to find something that agrees with your belief?
"I don't see how, either though mutation or some form of selection, a new species can be brought forth whole cloth."
One thing should be clear, that evolution is not the answer for all questions regarding origin of species.
One cannot be so simplistic with regards to history.
There are much more factors we might not even be aware of.
Right now, evolution is one of the most logical solutions to "some" questions, but one cannot generalize without providing the "intermediate stages"/species.(as stated by Darwin himself)
Hope this helps.
Jeff, I don't disagree with anything explicitly stated in the video. I just don't believe that is how it happened historically. I'm no scientist and I do not know how to interprety scientific data properly, so all I am left with are guesses and hunches.
I was under the impression that evolution answered everything about life. I thought Richard Dawkins said so himself
"I was under the impression that evolution answered everything about life. I thought Richard Dawkins said so himself"
Well, you were under the wrong impression, the truth is that we do not know most things about life.
Evolution is just one from many explanations of how "some" species could originate.
I.E. from a previous specie that adapts to a particular(or new) environment.
neat
Trying to find wriggle-room for a god or an intelligent designer? If you don't understand evolution then there is plenty of scientific material available, either online in in your nearest library, or you could even buy a book.
lol, I suppose I am searching for said wiggle room. If those chemists ever actually create life, I know that will be a heavy blow to creationist movement, but I won't really be affected. Stephan Hawkings said evolution of the universe can happen with or without god. He even asked Dawkins what "his obession with 'god' was," which I found humorous.
VPT - "If those chemists ever actually create life, I know that will be a heavy blow to creationist movement"
I doubt it, then they will just say is is not 'real' life.
Vincent Paul--Your not an evolutionary biologist. That was the smartest comment in the history of the Universe and that is billions and billions of years. I think 150 billion years ago Tuterobee an alien from a far away galaxy might have made a statement so profound and true as yours "I am not an evolutionary biologist" God Bless
lol, thanks blasphemy
I do not know if this is a form of mutation but what I watched from human planet were there is a group of people who live in the ocean from the day they are born and their daily life is all base in the sea. One member of the family can swim deeply in the that it's already dangerous in an average human being to swim it, he can also stay under the water in a long period of time. Is that a form of adaptation or mutation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDspP4BhlTw
Saw the clip.
There was no mutation and no adaptation.
Just training to push your physical capabilities to the limit.
Marathon runners, and every sport you can name does the same effect on people.
Adaptation, is when through generations, the body starts to have physical qualities that are more suited for the environment you are in.
EG: if the guy could breath underwater like fish do after having his ancestors staying too much in the water, that would be a form of adaptation.
Mutation is an exception to the rule, a mistake, a defect, that rarely or never happens in the same way again.
EG: A guy born with 3 legs is a type of mutation, it has nothing to do with adaptation to the environment at all.
didn't someone post an article somewhere of bacterium undergoing mutation or adaptation in a controlled environment?
The context was about mutation of genes through few generations to generate an improved human trait.
(OP link example)
The closest type of mutation to that link example is the hypothesized quick mutation, a defect that creates a stable genetic branch off the standard model.(still not supported with enough evidence)
"bacterium undergoing mutation or adaptation in a controlled environment"
This not a something off a few generations like your example, bacteria microbes reproduce very quickly, some even divide every nine minutes.
http://www.microbeworld.org/component/content/article?id=150
Also you failed to address how your linked example differs from any other sport professional that can fare better then most in their particular hobby/sport?
Just so I am clear about how stupid BBC can get sometimes.
That video shows that he can hold his breath for up to 5 minutes.
Well that is not so impressive when one knows that the world record is 11 minutes 35 seconds.
"Stéphane Mifsud of France currently holds the static apnea record with a time of 11 minutes 35 seconds. Can you imagine holding your breath for that long?"
http://wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-long-can-you-hold-your-breath-underwater
Or you you wish to claim that Stéphane Mifsud of France is genetically related to that Soubin of Philippines or even worse, claim that her ancestors been doing the same exact thing for generations.
Admit it, sometimes the media pulls our leg, happens to everybody.
Before I waste a lot of time going into an in-depth explanation and analysis of genetic evidence, are you really interested in it, or is it going to be one of those things that gets summarily dismissed?
If you want to spend the time, it would be appreciated. I am always open to learning new ideas and facts. I've never had a wholehearted concern or ability to understand cosmology in any sense, however (when I read books about specific genes, I just get confused :/ )
VPT - "I've never had a wholehearted concern or ability to understand cosmology in any sense"
Just a footnote: cosmology and evolution are generally unrelated topics.
Can I just say that I admire you for your openness to new ideas? That is one of the best traits you can have! Keep learning. If you are truly interested there is an incredible amount of things online. I assume you are not atheist....?
I am an apatheist at this time. This is best given in a sample conversation.
Inquirer - Do you believe in God?
Me - I don't give a fuck.
Cheers :)
Alright, I will start with a strong piece of genetic evidence that we and modern primates have a common ancestor, then.
Genetic Endogenous Retroviruses.
Endogenous Retroviruses, or ERV's, is actually genetic material that is added to an individuals genome through the insertion of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. This permanently alters an individuals DNA, and the DNA of its descendants, as they now all carry the sequence of the viral genome. This means that all descendant species from that individual will carry the SAME sequence in the same position. We now KNOW that we carry a number of ERV's in common with ALL other mammals, even more in commons with primates specifically, AND far too many in common with Chimpanzees and Orangutans for it to be coincidence. The odds of two individuals getting the same sequence in the same place is over one in thirty MILLION, and we share 12 rather specified and unmodified versions of them. That is a bit too much to be a mere coincidence.
Cosmology.
The 16 billion year model was based on information gained from the rate of expansion and estimated size of the universe. Now, arguably, one could say that our estimates are wrong; but the estimates are based on the BEST information available. The 16 billion year model is the LOWER bound, based around the speed of light, and if the early universe was slower than light it would actually increase the age significantly. So astrophysicists really are speaking in good faith, by taking the most conservative estimates instead of the more extreme ones. They, basically, took the estimates and "rewound" the universe mathematically to derive both the age and physics surrounding the big bang.
I have provided what I consider to be the most easily digestible evidence and methods, I can only wait and see what you think of them.
I am surprised I have never heard this information in my years perusing the internet and youtube and books. I'm not thorough, but I cast a broad net :/
So I take for granted all the facts you state are true. The hard part for me is to go through the sequence of events of various models that would likely lead to what we have now, a proliferation of species from a common ancestor. Since we are talking not about the prime ancestor but a dna insertion from some type of virus that started sometime before animals arose.
I have a few questions on these points. First, how could the virus had spread to ALL the members of the species specified. I can only see that happening if we were all clumped in one place and it spread through the various ways viruses spread
The other is strictly a technical question that I don't know how to research. How does one know, when looking at genetic code, what is a viral insertion as opposed to the speciman's original DNA or a mutation of it? Also, Can entire genes pop up out of midair in a short timeframe? I'm also not entirely sure how a string of 4 types of nucleotides jump up to something more comprehensive such as a gene. I supposed it's an emergant property but I find it strange.
thank you for that information on cosmology. I feel that if I am weak on understanding that, I am weak on understanding all other aspects of reality.
Cheers :)
"So I take for granted all the facts you state are true."
I recommend independent investigation and corroboration, as that is the BEST way to have confidence in the information.
"First, how could the virus had spread to ALL the members of the species specified."
It didn't, the only way that all members in a species would get the same ERV's would be to inherit it from a single common ancestor. We didn't just evolve from the same species, but the same individual ancestor. Just like people with blue eyes.
http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html
"How does one know, when looking at genetic code, what is a viral insertion as opposed to the speciman's original DNA or a mutation of it?"
Endogenous retroviruses integrate into the host germ line in a Mendelian order (Gifford and Tristem, 2003). Their typical structure consists of gag (viral core proteins), pro–pol (viral enzymes), and env (envelope proteins) genes with long terminal repeats (LTRs) at their 5′ and 3′ termini ( Patience et al., 2001).
"Also, Can entire genes pop up out of midair in a short timeframe?"
No, not entire ones, only partial sequences. Take a book with 3,234.83(how many mega-basepairs we have) sentences, randomly change one word with a similar word every reprint, and see how many reprints it takes to get a different book. It takes a damn long time for the book to change, even if sentences change a whole lot.
"I'm also not entirely sure how a string of 4 types of nucleotides jump up to something more comprehensive such as a gene. I supposed it's an emergant property but I find it strange."
It isn't really that complicated, nucleotides are very reactive like the element carbon, and tend to not exist very long without reacting with something else.
"thank you for that information on cosmology. I feel that if I am weak on understanding that, I am weak on understanding all other aspects of reality."
No problem, most people are weaker than they think on these subjects. We tend not to generally focus a lot of time on the aspects of reality that either don't directly affect us or aren't immediately observable. This leaves us with a HUGE blind spot, one most people don't even realize exists or is of significant size, and that is why so many people seem to accept some very wrong things. You seem to have recognized that blind spot, and that makes me very pleased as someone who values self-education, as that is the first step to becoming interested and looking into things yourself.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."- Lao-tzu
""So I take for granted all the facts you state are true.""
"I recommend independent investigation and corroboration, as that is the BEST way to have confidence in the information."
True, but for the expediancy of the situation, I felt it was appropriate to expediate the process in good faith
""First, how could the virus had spread to ALL the members of the species specified.""
"It didn't, the only way that all members in a species would get the same ERV's would be to inherit it from a single common ancestor. We didn't just evolve from the same species, but the same individual ancestor. Just like people with blue eyes."
There could not have been a single common ancestor in a close time frame to the arrival of animals and mammels. There would have been a bunch of them by the time this virus arose
also your example about blue eyes is slightly backwards. That genetic change only affected part of the human race, not all. If I read your initial paragraph about the virus in primates correctly, it is in every primate (If I am wrong, please correct me)
"http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html"
I would love to know if green eyes come from a common ancestor (I'm the type for a green eyed girl ;) )
Cheers :)
"There could not have been a single common ancestor in a close time frame to the arrival of animals and mammels."
Eh? I am not quite sure what you mean by this. The first "animals" were anything that a) has their DNA in a nucleus; b) requires carbon-containing organic molecules for growth; and c) is multicellular. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be something with eyes, ears, legs etc. The first multi-celled animals evolved about 600 million years ago. Known as primitive metazoa, there are three basic groups: sponges, cnidarians (e.g. corals, sea anemones, and jellyfish) and worms.
Concerning mammals, placental mammals existed in the Jurassic period, as well as a number of non-placental mammals.
So what, exactly, do you mean by this?
"There would have been a bunch of them by the time this virus arose"
Viruses are ancient. Studies at the molecular level have revealed relationships between viruses infecting organisms from each of the three domains of life and viral proteins that pre-date the divergence of life, meaning that viruses predate animals.
"also your example about blue eyes is slightly backwards. That genetic change only affected part of the human race, not all."
True, but in only 6,000 to 10,000 years the number of people with blue eyes has went from 1 to over 300 MILLION. That is almost 5 percent of the total human population on the planet. Now, imagine a small population that wasn't so separated by geography. Let us imagine a newer species with a much smaller population and live in groups, how hard would it be to spread an inheritable trait? Not very...
"If I read your initial paragraph about the virus in primates correctly, it is in every primate (If I am wrong, please correct me)"
We share different numbers with different species of primate, depending how closely related we are.
"I would love to know if green eyes come from a common ancestor (I'm the type for a green eyed girl ;) )"
Indeed, green eyes probably result from the interaction of multiple variants within the OCA2 and other genes, just like blue eyes. As in the case of blue eyes, the color of green eyes does not result simply from the pigmentation of the iris. Rather, its appearance is caused by the combination of an amber or light brown pigmentation of the stroma, given by a low or moderate concentration of melanin. All green eyed people also share a common ancestor as well, though more Siberian than Mediterranean in origin, and my have actually been a branch mutation off of the same OCA2 as blue eyes. This means they share a more recent ancestor, because the blue mutation would have been a prerequisite for the mutation.
In essence, it is highly probable that green and blue eyed people both owe their eye color to a single common ancestor, though another later step resulted in green instead of blue.
""There could not have been a single common ancestor in a close time frame to the arrival of animals and mammels.""
"Eh? I am not quite sure what you mean by this. The first "animals" were anything that a) has their DNA in a nucleus; b) requires carbon-containing organic molecules for growth; and c) is multicellular. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be something with eyes, ears, legs etc. The first multi-celled animals evolved about 600 million years ago. Known as primitive metazoa, there are three basic groups: sponges, cnidarians (e.g. corals, sea anemones, and jellyfish) and worms."
I did not know this. Well, I should say I forgot that hierarchy I learned in high school. My bad. If you are talking about very rudementary "animals", I can see how a virus could spread to all of them if the conditions are right. I simply do not know what those conditions are.
I was also under the impression that there was a common ancestor very close to the arrival of the first animals. Since the animals were varied at that time to a level of significans, I don't see how that would happen.
"Concerning mammals, placental mammals existed in the Jurassic period, as well as a number of non-placental mammals."
Good to know
"So what, exactly, do you mean by this?"
Sigh I don't know. Part of it is my poor reading skills. Another is me jumping to conclusions. Another is bad logic and poorly formed belief systems
cheers :)
"I can see how a virus could spread to all of them if the conditions are right. I simply do not know what those conditions are."
Well, you should remember that in the beginning, life was VERY localized. At one time, all life on the planet was pretty much stuck in an area smaller than most states.
"I was also under the impression that there was a common ancestor very close to the arrival of the first animals. Since the animals were varied at that time to a level of significans, I don't see how that would happen."
The more complex an organism is, the less change is necessary to cause such variation. The most primitive ancestors didn't have much in the way of special characteristics like eye color(most of them didn't even have eyes), hair color, or specialized pigmentation. The overwhelming majority of their DNA dealt with things like morphology, organ function, etc. Ergo, a very small mutation can cause enough change to distinguish them. A round tadpole and a square tadpole can be easily distinguished, while two tadpoles that look the SAME but develop differently requires special observation.
I hope that helps.
I thought this article was pertinent to the discussion:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-where-did-viruses-come...
what do you think??
A very good summary. If you want something REALLY mindblowing, I would recommend the origin of mitochondria. They were, apparently, distinct and separate organisms back when life was unicellular. It is a left-over from a parasitic or symbiotic organism that infected some of the first eukaryotic(animal) life. We carry it in every single cell in our body, and share it with almost every other animal on the planet. It could be the remains of the first truly invasive cellular infection, and was the foundation of nearly all multicellular animal life on our planet. Had that infection never occurred, we most likely wouldn't exist, and eukaryotic life might have stagnated at the level of simple life.
Things like ERV's are similar, they aren't just sequences that passively our DNA, they actively change gene expression and chemical production. They are, quite possibly, one of the greatest drivers of evolution. We very well might not exist if our ancestors hadn't been infected with the retroviruses we still carry in our DNA.
If genetics and virology were in a relationship, their facebook statuses would say "Its Complicated".
The inhabitants of Mount Everest, referred to as "Sherpa", have evolved in an atmosphere with forty percent less oxygen. An evolutionary change in thirty human genes has been linked to their abilities.
So I don't have to believe in it, I can just research it.
In response to the OP:
Religious people who have only a notional understanding of evolution often ask this question: "how is it possible for one species to change into another?" Your queries aren't dissimilar. You're questioning how a new species can be "brought forth whole cloth" from another, but therein lies a fatal assumption: that species are fixed, unchanging organisms. They aren't.
Think of it this way: the taxonomic classification system is essentially a human categorization method applied to different organisms so that we can easier identify similarities and dissimilarities between those organisms. We, in the process of classification, arbitrarily decide which degree of physical difference is sufficient for us to classify two closely related organisms as different species, but people who don't understand that will look at this classification system and assume that those organisms are distinctly separate from one another. The reality is that those two organisms share common roots, but certain mutations in their lineages have resulted in them having slightly varying physical features -- enough so that we call one of them one thing and the other something else.
Liken it to two identical houses with one of a set of identical twins living in each. Those two houses start out exactly the same, but what are the chances that, if left to their own devices, both those twins will decorate and furnish those two houses with exactly the same colours and materials? It's almost impossible. The same applies to two members of the same species who end up in different environments. One human identical twin goes to Africa and another goes to Sweden. One mates with a Swede and the other mates with a native African. Move forward three or four generations and those lineages are going to look very different: they'll have different genes, different skin colours, different languages, different cultural ideas, different genetic weaknesses. If you can isolate those two populations from one another for long enough, and watch the lineages over hundreds of generations, going through all their various reporoductions and mutations, you will inevitably end up with two very different looking populations of organisms. Given long enough, those two isolated populations will have changed so much that their physical features and genetics make them incompatible for breeding.
That's a very basic illustration of how genetics and environment can shape physical change. If you imagine one small genetic mutation in each lineage, every few generations, those small mutations might seem insignificant at first, but add them all up over hundreds of generations -- a bit of height here; a bit of darker skin there; an immunity to a virus somewhere else; some change in sperm shape here; a smaller uterus there; denser bone structure here; a slightly larger brain somewhere else -- and you find that all those changes lead to significant physical differences. The only question then is: are those physical differences sufficient enough for us to justify classifying those two groups as separate species?
Perhaps not in humans, not least because of our political and cultural issues with race discrimination, but if those populations were lizards we would likely have no problem with classifying them as as two separate species.
NB: this is just an example of how "speciation" occurs. I'm not saying that different races of humans should be considered different species. For one, we can still breed with one another, but it's possible that eventually that might change. We observe it in other closely related organisms in nature, when their populations have been separated and have ended up in different environments. All it takes is for one person to have a genetic mutation that changes their sperm or eggs enough that they can only procreate with certain other humans. If that mutation is passed on through procreation, we could end up with whole populations of humans who can't procreate with certain other humans.
Pages