Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Dinosaur, Feb 1, 2017.
He does , slow but sure .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Why are the first humans without belly-buttons if primates gave birth to humans? You believe that?
Where is it that the " first Humans are without belly-buttons " ?
Since noone gave birth to them. ☺
Go away counter .
Honestly! I believe there is no-one there. No-one above us, below us only sky.
Counter, you're harming this thread. If you have no constructive contribution, at least let others discuss in peace.
I believe this thread is about anti-evolution. May I not engage? I believe the first two humans were without belly-buttons. What is wrong with that? What's it to you if that's what I believe?
The THEORY of Evolution makes little sense to me, and as I understand it anyone who believes it does not know human history.
The THEORY of evolution states the following: due to radiation affecting a creatures sexual organs, animals give birth to creatures differing significantly from their parents. This is concluded from Goeffrey St.Hilare's experiments. If the "deformity" is advantageous enough to allow the creature to survive to reproduce, then the genes dictating the deformity will be inherited by the offspring.
What I find most in-credible is the variability of genetics, which are then strictly inherited...
THANK YOU origin! :BIG GRIN: BIG help!
It makes no scientific sense.
You can believe whatever you like. But if you post your beliefs on a science discussion board, the validity of the science (or lack thereof) will be discussed. Hence the name.
If you don't want it discussed - don't post it. Pretty simple.
1) The initial driver is mutation; radiation is just one way that happens.
2) In general new creatures don't differ "significantly" from their parents. Most changes are gradual. A very few occur rapidly.
3) The "deformity" as you call it has to have an evolutionary advantage to spread throughout the population.
How can something be a fact when ob-servation is neccessary for scientific methodology? Has anyone seen evolution in progress, given it happens so slowly (so it is stated.)
3)Yes as I wrote: the mutation must be advatagous enough for the being to reproduce. "Natural selection."
Yes. Some examples:
Coloration in Biston Betularia moths
Switch from egg birth to live birth in Saiphos Equalis skinks
Evolution of thicker shells for blue mussels when they detect the presence of Hemigrapsus Sanguineus crabs
Evolution of Podarcis Sicula lizards from insect to vegetation based diet
Ground finch beak sizes (of course)
Hypolimnas Bolina butterflies evolving to reject parasites
Evolution of antibiotic resistance in pathogens (VRSA, MRE)
Growth of a "wing bone" in the Idiurus Macrotis flying mouse
We've also watched several new species evolve:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)
For the mutation to SPREAD it must be BETTER than the original.
It doesn't matter as long as reproduction is viable, I.e. they can attract a mate.
If you're going to participate, please try to observe convention and quote the pertinent passage that you are responding to.
From the above response, one can't tell what "it" is and what it "doesn't matter" to.
Evolution is indisputable fact. It can be observed in any petri dish, any dog kennel or any fish breeding farm.
What is harder to demonstrate is the theory of natural selection.
Or just neutral, as most mutations are.
Natural selection? Isn't it ladies' choice?
How ladies choose their mates is driven by ... natural selection.
This can actually jeopardize survival of a species. It's called Fisherian Runaway.
A recent discovery suggests that evolution of DNA can be traced back to archaea.
As to natural selection, it seems to me that at this stage of life male/female selection was not of great importance as long as it resulted in off-spring. As Hazen proposed, it was only when subtle difference in DNA gave a survival advantage over an older form that competition became an issue. The newer DNA organisms might have been able to breed with older DNA organisms, but the resulting off-spring might be infertile, as we can see today even in very closely related species of mammals. If we did not specifically breed for mules, they might die out naturally, even as there are rare exceptions.
It would be logical to assume that at that time stronger more vigorous organisms would successfully compete with organisms of lesser abilities, which then resulted in a gradual cognitive ability in females to select for those traits which proved their dominance over other species. And this led to a cycle of natural selection for specific traits which proved to be more successful.
IMO natural selection is somewhat misleading as it suggests that only the best adapted species survive. But natural selection can also be viewed as a natural de-selection or even a natural stabilization of a population in a special niche, where mutations are a disadvantage. No human can live near a black smoker, but a few very simple organism are perfectly adapted to such an extreme environment and any change would make the organism not fit in that specific environment.
An example of such reverse devolution can be seen in cave dwelling fish, which at one time had developed eyes, but which were useless in total darkness. As a result their eyes stopped development and became scaled
over, but they undoubtedly developed other means of sensing food sources.
And then there are the very rare species, such as the silvery salamander, which already have an ability to produce off-spring without the need for male sperm. The species needs only go through the mating ritual with males from another salamander family, but rejects the male sperm as it would produce a triple stranded DNA, which is not viable. So they use their own double stranded DNA for cell division. The result is that all silvery salamanders are not only all female, but exact clones of the mother. It is no wonder that they are an endangered (and protected) species living in a few small ponds in Michigan and Illinois
Separate names with a comma.