Denial of evolution IV

[Zenithar66]

Yes. Google "HOX genes." Those are like master switches that code for where arms, legs, eyes etc go. You can make just a few changes to them, for example, and replace a fruit fly's antennae with legs.

What's cool about that is you don't have to tell the organism "make more exoskeleton, make the muscles a millimeter longer, make the curve of the leg just so." The HOX gene just turns on leg expression at that point, and leg development starts in a new place.

First off, im sure those hox genes dont control tightness of legs, size of heart and everthign else ive mentioned let alone the co ordination of there growth. Did you see any co ordination with those fruti flies..nope, we had heads coming out of eyes, and of course the legs had no blood supply, which means that the veins must be controlled by a differetn gene. either way, invoking hox genes simply means nothing becuase, there amount of growht would still have to be proportional, and judging by teh fruitly mutatons that is a serious long shot...of course ive yet too see girrafes fossils that look like anything drastic happened in there hox genes..(maybe we just havent found them yet?)

You don't need to change any other genes to make those things work. As I mentioned before, some humans have longer legs. Usually their skin, veins, lymph systems, nerves, arteries etc have no problem growing along the longer limb.

this is very different since its not coevolution its co growth from a pre existing recipe. the coevolution involves long stretches of time where diffrent parts of the anatomy gain complementary mutations..which, for me at the moment, hard to swallow, but maybe im wrong, Ill just have to keep studying.

Yes, everything else did have to keep up. And the "miracle" that allowed that to happen is that all the organisms that could NOT keep up died. Which seems pretty cruel for a miracle, but it's how evolution works.

well im glad that you are the first person to admit that indeed you do belive that these things had to keep up..everyone else just danced around it. Of course you have just admitted to invoking a miracle.
Do you realise how many changes your talking about, over 6 mllino years, with only an average of 60 mutations per germline and most are in non coding regions do you know the task you are setting the mechanism?(that stat was for humans, but im sure it cant be much less or more for girrafes, of course im open to be proven wrong)
How many times do you think the same mutations occured? since you obviosly think there were alot of failurs then teh same thing must have occured over and over...

Its not as simple as simply claiming those others died, indeed how do you you test that many of those mutations happened and produced failed attempts? what would be the evidence for that.

Since not all of the needed chagnes would be linked to the same hox gene then you are invoking a miracle(either way)..

I see no strong evidence at all for this claim, and it gets worse a thousand fold when we talk about symbiosis or sexes etc, the problem gets so bad as to become biblical!

I will adress this in a future thread should you wish to check it out..

not to mention you obviously feel this is a common phenomenon.
Did you see those italian wall lizards i posted on? One can only invoke faith when applying the mechanisms to that incident.

 

[billvon]

oh yes and why dont we have uv vision too!

Because it wasn't helpful enough to us. It is helpful to bees so they evolved UV vision.

its perfect for what we are

It's certainly not perfect - but again it's good ENOUGH. And that's all that matters.

I'd say it is mind numbing infact its one of the most delicate yet complex and coordinated things in the universe so you'd have to be pretty dead inside , as in zombie dead, not to apprecaite that.

The eye is indeed pretty cool. It just doesn't numb my mind as it does yours.

Its not just good enough, its much more then that. It is much better then waht is needed to merely survive..

No, it's not, that's the point. There was a point in our evolution where people with better eyes survived, and people with worse eyes did not. The people with better eyes could see edible animals from farther away, could tell ripe apples from leaves, could tell turbid water from clear, could tell their way back to the tribe slightly better etc. The people with worse eyes could not, so they died.

Nowadays, of course, we have glasses.

nope you dont just keep "doing that for 10000 years" that is simply selection!

Precisely! Selection of existing and new (i.e. mutated) genetic material.

again you are literally making up a story here to fit with what you belive, i wont do that. and again "those with tighter skin" had to, over evoltuion, not just be selected again and again, but get progressibly tigher skin AS THE BLOOD PRESSURE ROSE as the heart grew!

Yes, they did.

which is a miracle.

Again, it only looks to you like a miracle because you see the outcome. Seeing a proto-giraffe with slightly less tight skin die isn't a miracle - but that's how the miracle in the long term works.

of course not all at once, but many many still had to "keep up" and that, again, is miraculous. even the trachea would grow substantaily along with the neck!

Yep. And many animals likely had problems with that longer trachea. They all died. Only the ones that did not have problems survived.

you mean you THINK it happened this way..how can you seriously belive that any part of any organisms(dont even start me on sexes since they are totally independent mutationally) would ever keep up over long periods. you are invokign a constant series of miraculous events!

Again, those "miraculous events" are not miracles, they are miserable deaths for animals whose hearts could not stand the strain, whose skin grew edematous and ischemic, and whose brains did not get enough blood. The few that could became the next generation of proto-giraffes. Their necks, perhaps only an inch longer, were able to get even more food, and they survived.

You seem to have this image of a modern giraffe being born from a zebra, with larger heart, better skin, better balance, larger vertebrae etc all ready formed, magically configured and ready to go. It doesn't happen like that. It takes literally millions of offspring to get one with a neck even slightly longer, then another million to get one with a slightly stronger heart. And that means it's going to be a long, long time before the NEXT longer neck comes along, because until that stronger heart can keep up with the animal's requirements, that next mutation can't happen.

What is critical is that they can all happen one at a time over millions of years. No one step relies on the other happening at the same time.

 

[billvon]

Did you see any co ordination with those fruti flies..nope, we had heads coming out of eyes, and of course the legs had no blood supply, which means that the veins must be controlled by a differetn gene.

Well, flies don't have veins. But the really cool thing is that the legs work. The HOX genes said "build a leg here" and the rest of the genome said "oh, look, I see a leg here, better connect nerves, muscle anchors etc."

well im glad that you are the first person to admit that indeed you do belive that these things had to keep up..everyone else just danced around it. Of course you have just admitted to invoking a miracle.

Your not understanding how it works does not mean that it's a miracle. It just means that you don't understand how it works.

Do you realise how many changes your talking about, over 6 mllino years

Let's say it's 60 significant coding changes. That's one every 100,000 years! That's a lot of time to evaluate literally billions of mutations and find one - just one - that helps you survive just a little bit better.

How many times do you think the same mutations occured? since you obviosly think there were alot of failurs then teh same thing must have occured over and over...

Absolutely! And the failures FAR outweighed the successes.

Its not as simple as simply claiming those others died, indeed how do you you test that many of those mutations happened and produced failed attempts?

That's simple. They died before reproducing. That's the test for whether they failed.

you are invoking a miracle . . .One can only invoke faith when applying the mechanisms to that incident.

You keep saying that. But you should realize that you are the only one who thinks that this requires faith, or is a miracle. And incredulity or misunderstanding is a poor proof of a miracle.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Zenithar66:

You should read specifically about the haploid archegonium, and how it has been preserved in land plants' haploid phase as they transitioned their diploid phase from non-vascular stalks, to vascular rootless stalks, to vascular rooted stalks, to vascular seed plants, all of which retained the archegonium as a necessary organelle for reproduction. Once you've read up on that, I might respond to further posts of yours. Show me your knowledge about the archegonium.

 

[Trippy]

first off can you provide me with evidence that any mutation taht makes the spinal column longer also make the nerve because that certainly would be intersting!

Go and look in a mirror.
Your spinal cord grows at the same rate as your spinal column.

indeed, even if this was true, is the heart also controlled by the same factor? and the skin around its legs? what about the specialised structures in the jugular to slow blood flow, and is skin tissue, muslce and veins all part of the same control factor? i highly doubt it sinnce in the papers i read on the girrafe it is not mentioned.

Heart size is, in part, determined by blood pressure, it is one of the reasons that hypertension can become problematic if left uncontrolled.

Well i think there are alot more things in nature that scream intelligence then this but i get your point.

I propose a new theory.
I call it the lazy designer - and I think that there are a lot more things in nature that scream lazy, than there are intelligence.

you are suggesting? is it true or not? and again, heart, muscle, tissue, veins, nerve, bone, skin strapped aournd legs? I doubt all of this is controlled by a single hox gene?

In so far as skin goes
Have you handled a womans breasts?
Are you familiar with the concept of stretch marks?
Bones can outgrow muscles, it happens some times at puberty, it results in discomfort, but the muscles stretch with the bones, then grow to accomodate them. It's what muscles and veins do, they grow. So muscle, skin, and veins are non-starters in this issue.

there is a big difference between beign a bit hypersenstiive to have the blood pressure a girrafe has now. Lets just say though that there was the odd hypersensitive girrafe? would that blood pressure have been enough for the grwoing neck? or would that also have to "keep up"..

The term is hypertensive, not hypersensitive.
It's a tautology - the answer is 'of course', because those Giraffes who were insufficiently hypertensive to cope with the slightly lengthened neck, would be classed as being hypotensive, and less successful.

surely we cant suggest that as the heart grew, that tight leg strapping also coevolved to those veins from becoming smush!

This is an argument from personal incredulity, you can not believe that it happened, therefore you believe it could not happen.
Meanwhile you miss the obvious point that perhaps the leg strapping pre-existed as some other structure, that served an entirely different purpose, and evolution co-opted it.
Or, alternatively, maybe female giraffes find bruising in the lower legs unattractive.

there is a big differenec in "selecting" for long necks and high blood pressure, we still have to get to the point girrafes are at now, and simply selecting does not set sometign on the road to higher complexity, it just selects it, we are still invoking here a miraculous coevolution of parts and i personally wont do such a thing yet. I mean, wow, that is a real miracle.

Again, you're arguing from personal incredulity.
But more to the point you're completely missing the point - I only made two assumptions to build a long necked giraffe from a short necked giraffe. That their physical characteristics (neck length, and blood pressure) exist on a normal distribution, and that having a longer neck provides some sort of advantage.

speculation based on what you alredy think occured does not actually explain anything, it simply gives your opinion.

This isn't speculation, it's deductive logic - more to the point, it's deductive logic that provides testable predictions.

and you of course left out the strapped skin, veins, tissues, tendons, muscles and even things like the lymphatic system would have to coevolve, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I dealt specifically with the issues you raised in your posts to that point - blood pressure, and nerve growth.
If my response was inadequate, it's because the post I was responding to was inadequate.

My next post wont be for a while but it will be about the faith of coevolution(Im not saying it didnt happen just that there is far too much faith, far too little evidence, far too much extrapolation, far too little cirtical thinking, and this isnt even getting into creatures that separatly coevolevd to suit each other, or predator prey relationthips.

There was no faith involved in my post, it was deductive logic, looking at things from a ground-up perspective. My job involves a substantial amount of statistics, and I have cross trained accross several fields, which often leads me to insights that I consider obvious, that those around me miss.

I think you'll be intersted in what i have to say)

I doubt it, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

it all depends on how you define magic and mystery. Since its not a fact and you only tried to explain away very few details from the full picture then indeed it is still a mystery.

Once again, to assert that I should have setout to explain every aspect of the evolution is dishonest and fallicous. I responded to your post, and addressed the issues you had raised, if you found my post to be lacking, then it was only because your original post was equally lacking.

But, if it turns out it did happen exactly as you say, and the same for the sexes etc then there is no other word for it then miraculous, and that is in some sense magical..

I find shifts in population statistics far from miraculous, because that is the only thing I described in my post - the migration of population statistics.

You need to get out of thinking that simply having an prior advantage(higher then avarge blood pressure, slihgly longer neck) will lead you to higher(coevolving) complexities..

Nonsense.
I don't suppose that having high bloodpressure is any more advantage for our proto-giraffe than it is for me. In fact, I would wager that being hypertensive is probably every bit of deliterious for our proto-girrafe as it is for me. That's the point that you missed though, having high blood pressure only becomes advantageous to our proto-giraffe if it has a longer neck then average.

 

[Trippy]

so SOME genes affectl large scale changes? does this apply to the girrafes skin, veins, lymph system, bones, nerves, heart, and arteries?

Yes - I believe I mentioned Hox genese in my post - a mutation in Hox genes in fruit flies can result in things such as legs growing on heads in place of antennae.

The simple fact of the matter is that yes, there are a some genes that control the large scale distribution of body parts and such.

 

[Trippy]

oh yes and why dont we have uv vision too!

We do. It's called Aphakia. [ur;=http://starklab.slu.edu/humanUV.htm]W. Stark[/url] seems to have written a number of articles on human UV vision.
The wikipedia article suggests that it may have been responsible for Monet's sense of colour.
Yes, at this point it requires cataract surgery, however, the point is that you're asking the wrong question.
The question is not "Why haven't we evolved UV vision".
But "Why did we evolve coreneal pigments to block UV light in the first place".
The answer to that question is probably environmental, and could be found in Africa, or it might be as a result of something that happened 60 million years ago.

 

[Trippy]

At this Juncture, it seems appropriate to share this:
Storm: The Animated Movie
I suppose some sort of disclaimer regarding the language Tim Minchin uses some times is appropriate.

 

[Zenithar66]

]Because it wasn't helpful enough to us. It is helpful to bees so they evolved UV vision.

so they evovled it becuase it was helpfull? i thought it would be the other way around?

It's certainly not perfect - but again it's good ENOUGH. And that's all that matters.

well, considering you said it was quite subjective i dont think you can say its CERTAINLY not perfect, your logic, not mine.

The eye is indeed pretty cool. It just doesn't numb my mind as it does yours.

pretty cool! understatement of the cetury, I advice you read biology of the eye, then your mind will be numbed!!

No, it's not, that's the point. There was a point in our evolution where people with better eyes survived, and people with worse eyes did not. The people with better eyes could see edible animals from farther away, could tell ripe apples from leaves, could tell turbid water from clear, could tell their way back to the tribe slightly better etc. The people with worse eyes could not, so they died.

people with beter eyes see beter? ahh that explains everthing,

Precisely! Selection of existing and new (i.e. mutated) genetic material.

yep and coevolution of thos parts. Oh and simply stating that new mutations occured means nothing. Indeed there could be other factors at work considering epigenetics and how large scale changes can be made without mutations, i personally do not think there is even nearly enoug evidence to suggest that such processes coevolved a girrafe and i personally think its invoking a miracle.

Yes, they did.

oh , great, now its a fact! painful

Again, it only looks to you like a miracle because you see the outcome. Seeing a proto-giraffe with slightly less tight skin die isn't a miracle - but that's how the miracle in the long term works.

umm no, i dont simply see the outcome i ponder teh proces you are invoking and call it miraculous, becuase it is.

Yep. And many animals likely had problems with that longer trachea. They all died. Only the ones that did not have problems survived.

so the theory would predict! i cant go on just so stories thanks..



[/quote]Again, those "miraculous events" are not miracles, they are miserable deaths for animals whose hearts could not stand the strain, whose skin grew edematous and ischemic, and whose brains did not get enough blood. The few that could became the next generation of proto-giraffes. Their necks, perhaps only an inch longer, were able to get even more food, and they survived.

again this explains nothign of teh mechanisms but obvious truths of surviaval.

You seem to have this image of a modern giraffe being born from a zebra, with larger heart, better skin, better balance, larger vertebrae etc all ready formed, magically configured and ready to go. It doesn't happen like that.

so even after i was clealry takling about long stretches of time you stil thougth that? not good news.

It takes literally millions of offspring to get one with a neck even slightly longer, then another million to get one with a slightly stronger heart.

that is both presumption and demonstratably false, ie, punctuated equillibriam..as well as modern experiments on wall lizard who evolved a new cecal valve in 36 years! try applyign the mechanism to that and all you can do is come up blank, unless you simply say it must have happened.
also are there any fossils of teh neck actaully getting longer and longer? i know fossils are sparse and i do beleiven in common descent and descetn with modification but i am quite curious about such fossils,l

And that means it's going to be a long, long time before the NEXT longer neck comes along, because until that stronger heart can keep up with the animal's requirements, that next mutation can't happen.

why couldnt that mutation happen? is there something keeping track of such mutations to make sure they occur in order? of cousre it could have happened. you see though you dont just get a mutation to make you NECK longer 1once in a few million years, i think you are forgetting just how many separte components make up a neck. come on

What is critical is that they can all happen one at a time over millions of years. No one step relies on the other happening at the same time

nope many woud indeed reqiure such a process, and of course the best exampel is sexual coevolutin, or the angler fish mating ritual(look it up) where, if the male didnt produce a particular enzyme when he loses his ability to use his own innards, then the species goes extinct!
but of course there not extince so it MUST have been a lucky coevolution again!

 

[Trippy]

why couldnt that mutation happen? is there something keeping track of such mutations to make sure they occur in order? of cousre it could have happened. you see though you dont just get a mutation to make you NECK longer 1once in a few million years, i think you are forgetting just how many separte components make up a neck. come on

Now you're just being silly. Of course it can happen - on an individual basis, it can happen at any time, it's just unlikely to survive to pass the trait on to offspring, and so be considered to be a population trait rather than a sample trait (for lack of a better way of putiting it).

What (I imagine) Billyon means is that it could happen at an individual level, but it's unlikely to become a population trait for a long time, or until something unusual happens that forces rapid adaptation.

 

[Zenithar66]

Go and look in a mirror.
Your spinal cord grows at the same rate as your spinal column.

is this supposed to prove something?

Heart size is, in part, determined by blood pressure, it is one of the reasons that hypertension can become problematic if left uncontrolled.

i like how you only addressed the heart there, very nice..avoided the important issues..

I propose a new theory.
I call it the lazy designer - and I think that there are a lot more things in nature that scream lazy, than there are intelligence.

wow, you truly must be unstudied to think this of nature...i would guess your cases are ones of personal incredulity. I am studying nature at macro and micro and all I can say is I am literally glad i got a chance just to live here. Its that amazing, balanced, efficeint, technological, beautiful etc etc. anything we have ever made has alrady been done twice over by mother nature, ask the biomimicry people just how "lazy" a designer mother nature is....what an horrific worldview imo

In so far as skin goes
Have you handled a womans breasts?
Are you familiar with the concept of stretch marks?
Bones can outgrow muscles, it happens some times at puberty, it results in discomfort, but the muscles stretch with the bones, then grow to accomodate them. It's what muscles and veins do, they grow. So muscle, skin, and veins are non-starters in this issue.

a non starter becuae they grow? wow, so becuase muscles nowadays grow to a suitable size that is predertimined then girrafes muscles etc could coevovle? ok..of course you cherry picked again i see. Yes or no, do you believe the girrafe has undergone a significant amoutn of coevolution of parts?

The term is hypertensive, not hypersensitive.
It's a tautology - the answer is 'of course', because those Giraffes who were insufficiently hypertensive to cope with the slightly lengthened neck, would be classed as being hypotensive, and less successful.

you answred nothing , but stated obvius facts of survivlal.

This is an argument from personal incredulity, you can not believe that it happened, therefore you believe it could not happen.

Unfortunatly your wrong, i can accept it if i see enough reason too.
And i suppose becuase you believe it it did happen? becuase indeed it is a belief...i have used my own deductive logic and deducted that.

Meanwhile you miss the obvious point that perhaps the leg strapping pre-existed as some other structure, that served an entirely different purpose, and evolution co-opted it.
Or, alternatively, maybe female giraffes find bruising in the lower legs unattractive.

first off, its a story to fit what you think occured, second I highly highly doubt they had such a clearly specialised adaptiion in the past. But the point is not if they did, its how many things had to coevolve.
What adavantage woudl such leg strapping have to an animal with regular pressrue in ints circulatory system, if anythign it would drasticaly slow blood flow..dosent sound adavantageous to me...anywho its simply specualtion on your part. Oh and sexual selectin simply picks whats there, it dosent lead to higher complexities neccacarily, and it doesnt addres the coevolution issue,

Again, you're arguing from personal incredulity.
But more to the point you're completely missing the point - I only made two assumptions to build a long necked giraffe from a short necked giraffe. That their physical characteristics (neck length, and blood pressure) exist on a normal distribution, and that having a longer neck provides some sort of advantage.

well you need to make more assumptions becuase you missed alot of other things that would have had to coevolve. its not incredulity its my opinion based on evidence and study. Just becuase someone dosent accept somethign dosent mean there incredulous. You hold a belief about what occured based on shoddy evidence..simple

This isn't speculation, it's deductive logic - more to the point, it's deductive logic that provides testable predictions.

fine deductive logic, yet you are still speculating using it,

many theories have had testable predictions only to be thrown out later. either way, thats how science works. ok, what do you think is the best evidence that such co evolution is so common throughout nature via the proposed mechanisms?(unfair question? dont answer if you dont want to)

I dealt specifically with the issues you raised in your posts to that point - blood pressure, and nerve growth.
If my response was inadequate, it's because the post I was responding to was inadequate.

nope you dealt with those you wanted too, and seriosly the whole "post was inadequate" thing is purely childish, why even respond if it was so?
come on,

There was no faith involved in my post, it was deductive logic, looking at things from a ground-up perspective. My job involves a substantial amount of statistics, and I have cross trained accross several fields, which often leads me to insights that I consider obvious, that those around me miss.

yes, so when you speculate it is deductive logic, but i am incredulous?
infortunatly you indeed hold faith since it cannot be proven that such events actaully occured. ie accruing of complimentary mutatons over such long periods.

Once again, to assert that I should have setout to explain every aspect of the evolution is dishonest and fallicous. I responded to your post, and addressed the issues you had raised, if you found my post to be lacking, then it was only because your original post was equally lacking.

nope I was not asking to explain all of evolution, re read my post..

I find shifts in population statistics far from miraculous, because that is the only thing I described in my post - the migration of population statistics.

yes becuase you trivializing the whole thing by simply calling it shifts in population statistics make you sleep better at ngiht i take it? iwont do such a thing, i will keep digging.

 

[billvon]

so they evovled it becuase it was helpfull? i thought it would be the other way around?

They evolved it because a mutation produced an increased sensitivity to UV, and natural selection preserved it because it was helpful in helping the organism reproduce. Bees that can see more variations in flowers can return more food to the hive.

pretty cool! understatement of the cetury, I advice you read biology of the eye, then your mind will be numbed!

I have. I suggest you learn more about eyes of other species; your eyes may be opened (pun intended.)

yep and coevolution of thos parts. Oh and simply stating that new mutations occured means nothing. Indeed there could be other factors at work considering epigenetics and how large scale changes can be made without mutations, i personally do not think there is even nearly enoug evidence to suggest that such processes coevolved a girrafe

Everything "coevolved" in that every single mutation we have preserved was based on other, earlier mutations. Our muscles could not work without blood; our blood could not circulate without a circulatory system; that system could not transport oxygen without a heart and lungs; our heart and lungs could not work without a brain. A religious type, ignorant of biology, could easily exclaim "therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of these things to exist without the other! We were created all at once!"

A wiser person would do a little research and realize that there are animals with hearts but without circulatory systems. There are animals with hearts but no lungs. There are animals with nervous systems but no heart. Thus the claim that "everything must have evolved together" is proven false.

and i personally think its invoking a miracle.

That's fine. A person raised in the jungle might think a cellphone was a miracle. He's as right as you are - and both of you can believe whatever you like.

why couldnt that mutation happen?

Oh, it could. But without the stronger heart, the longer necked animal would die and not reproduce. So the mutation would not propagate, like 99.999% of mutations.

is there something keeping track of such mutations to make sure they occur in order?

Not at all! They don't happen in order. But until it is survivable, the mutation stops there. Once it IS survivable (say, in an animal that now has a slightly stronger heart) then it is preserved.

of cousre it could have happened. you see though you dont just get a mutation to make you NECK longer 1once in a few million years, i think you are forgetting just how many separte components make up a neck. come on

What components do you claim have been added to a giraffe's neck?

 

[Zenithar66]

They evolved it because a mutation produced an increased sensitivity to UV, and natural selection preserved it because it was helpful in helping the organism reproduce. Bees that can see more variations in flowers can return more food to the hive

and i suppose the requisite brain functions co evolved with this?
can such a mutation causign uv vision happenin one go? and if not, can we simply presume such stepwise formatinon of uv vision would have an advantage all the way, specifcally with the brain having to coevolve ?

Everything "coevolved" in that every single mutation we have preserved was based on other, earlier mutations.

that is not true, since coevolution is not the building of muattions in oneplace, but the complimentary occurence over long periouds..also coevolution is defined as predator prey, pollinaters and flowers etc..

[/quote] Our muscles could not work without blood; our blood could not circulate without a circulatory system; that system could not transport oxygen without a heart and lungs; our heart and lungs could not work without a brain. A religious type, ignorant of biology, could easily exclaim "therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of these things to exist without the other! We were created all at once!"

indeed it would be not impossible for any to exist without anohter, but try taking one out of a living creature and sea what happens.

A wiser person would do a little research and realize that there are animals with hearts but without circulatory systems. There are animals with hearts but no lungs. There are animals with nervous systems but no heart. Thus the claim that "everything must have evolved together" is proven false.

what does the fact that there are many types of organissm with distince characteristics prove? i dont know what you mean here sorry.

That's fine. A person raised in the jungle might think a cellphone was a miracle. He's as right as you are - and both of you can believe whatever you like.

you may also belive what you like, even if it is miraculous,

Oh, it could. But without the stronger heart, the longer necked animal would die and not reproduce. So the mutation would not propagate, like 99.999% of mutations.

if indeed we know enough about mutations and evolutin since many of teh stats of mutations change in very short order.
but either way it simply shows the destructive nature of such changes to an oderly structure and makes even less likly the co evolution of anything let alone such complicated things as sex...by the way, im wondering could you link me(i simply cannot find ANY) to papers or a paper even dealing with sexual coevolution of humans?(or any organism) that would be great if you could,

What components do you claim have been added to a giraffe's neck?

not added, but that would have to "keep up".

threrse no real point in continuing this, i respect your views and i am indeed(beliveve it or not) open to them being factual, I simply am the type of person who finds it hard to have absolutes. I am as yet not in your camp, but alot more reserach and some posts down the line we can debate this again.

 

[Trippy]

is this supposed to prove something?

Yes - growth of the bone and growth of the nerve are controled by the same factors.

i like how you only addressed the heart there, very nice..avoided the important issues..

Get real. Stop trolling.
I used one as an example.

wow, you truly must be unstudied to think this of nature...

Argumentum ad hominem, this is a science forum. Address my argument, not me.

i would guess your cases are ones of personal incredulity.

In the context of what I said, this statement is bordering on nonsensical.

I am studying nature at macro and micro and all I can say is I am literally glad i got a chance just to live here. Its that amazing, balanced, efficeint, technological, beautiful etc etc. anything we have ever made has alrady been done twice over by mother nature, ask the biomimicry people just how "lazy" a designer mother nature is....what an horrific worldview imo

But mother nature is lazy, she keeps reusing the same basic designs over and over again.

a non starter becuae they grow? wow, so becuase muscles nowadays grow to a suitable size that is predertimined then girrafes muscles etc could coevovle? ok..of course you cherry picked again i see. Yes or no, do you believe the girrafe has undergone a significant amoutn of coevolution of parts?

No, and I have made that abundantly clear - I agree with the others that you are abusing the term co-evolution.
Do you suggest that the growth of a Giraffe from a new-born to an adult is somehow different?
Do you suggest that the mechanisms that ensure that a newborn giraffe has sufficient arteries, trachea, muscles, nerves, and so on and so forth, can not be applied to a Giraffe with an above average neck length? Because that is the only thing that I am proposing.

you answred nothing , but stated obvius facts of survivlal.

And in so doing answered everything, because the obvious fact is the answer (ot at least, that's part of what I'm suggesting).

Unfortunatly your wrong, i can accept it if i see enough reason too.

It's you're, not your, you're is the abbreviatead form of you are, your indicates possesion. I am wrong, but I do not own a wrong.

And no, I am not wrong - your state,emt is precisely an argument from incredulity.

And i suppose becuase you believe it it did happen?

I don't believe that it happened, for me this is not a question of faith. The evidence available to me supports the logical deduction that it happened, and from that I infer that it probably happened that way.

becuase indeed it is a belief...i have used my own deductive logic and deducted that.

Then your decutive logic has led you awry.

first off, its a story to fit what you think occured, second I highly highly doubt they had such a clearly specialised adaptiion in the past. But the point is not if they did, its how many things had to coevolve.

This is pure bullshit. I didn't say it must have happened that way, I simply offered two alternatives to your assertion that it could only have happened in response to blood pressure.

What adavantage woudl such leg strapping have to an animal with regular pressrue in ints circulatory system, if anythign it would drasticaly slow blood flow..dosent sound adavantageous to me...

Argument from personal incredulity - you can not see how it might have been advantageous in some way, therefore you assume that it wasn't.
Meanwhile, you miss the point that it might have been advantageous to a proto-giraffe ancestor, or its common ancestor from a nearby relative. There are literally, a myriad of possibilities.

anywho its simply specualtion on your part.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

Oh and sexual selectin simply picks whats there, it dosent lead to higher complexities neccacarily...

And?
Giraffe has random mutation that leads to increased skin or muscle density in its legs that act as strapping.
Consequently the veins in our giraffes legs are capable of handling higher bloodpressures without bruising.
Female giraffes who dislike bruising find this attractive, the mutation leads to more success breeding, the mutation is passed on to offspring, and eventually becomes a population trait.

and it doesnt addres the coevolution issue

There is no co-evolution issue.

Only a bunch of stories made up by some religous folk who are afraid of what lies in the dark corners.

well you need to make more assumptions becuase you missed alot of other things that would have had to coevolve.

No, I don't, because I observe that in the growth of giraffes, all of these red herrings that you keep bringing up are already addressed.

The only mutation that's required to lead to a long neck is in the genes that control how fast the neck grows, however, those genes control all factors of how fast the neck grows.

its not incredulity its my opinion based on evidence and study. Just becuase someone dosent accept somethign dosent mean there incredulous.

It is the very definition of incredulity.

You hold a belief about what occured based on shoddy evidence..simple

I believe nothing, however I infer much from the information available to me.

fine deductive logic, yet you are still speculating using it,

many theories have had testable predictions only to be thrown out later. either way, thats how science works. ok, what do you think is the best evidence that such co evolution is so common throughout nature via the proposed mechanisms?(unfair question? dont answer if you dont want to)

Most of the points you have raised - with one possible exception, can be trivially explained by examining the factors that lead to growth from a newborn to an adult, because at its core, what we are discussing is simply a variation on that.

nope you dealt with those you wanted too, and seriosly the whole "post was inadequate" thing is purely childish, why even respond if it was so?
come on,

Your misrepresenting what I said.

yes, so when you speculate it is deductive logic, but i am incredulous?

My speculation is based in deductive logic and observation, and yes, you are incredulous.

infortunatly you indeed hold faith since it cannot be proven that such events actaully occured. ie accruing of complimentary mutatons over such long periods.

Yes, it can.

nope I was not asking to explain all of evolution, re read my post..

Not what I said, you need to go back and re-read mine.

yes becuase you trivializing the whole thing by simply calling it shifts in population statistics make you sleep better at ngiht i take it? iwont do such a thing, i will keep digging.

I'm trivializing nothing, and you have provided no evidence that anything other than that has happened.

 

[billvon]

and i suppose the requisite brain functions co evolved with this?

They likely evolved before that, actually. Compound eyes see color by using color filters in each eye. The insect brain evolved the ability to use receptors with varying filters to see in color because it was advantageous to be able to see in color. Adding an additional color component was something its brain was already prepared to process - much the way that a woman with tetrachromatic receptors can see more colors without needing any new brain connections. If you cause mice (which normally only have two types of color receptors) to generate a third through genetic engineering, their brains can process the additional colors as well without any "co-mutation" requirement.

can such a mutation causign uv vision happenin one go?

Yes, as sometimes happens in humans (although it's just another blue receptor, not a UV receptor.)

that is not true, since coevolution is not the building of muattions in oneplace, but the complimentary occurence over long periouds..also coevolution is defined as predator prey, pollinaters and flowers etc..

You keep changing your definitions.

If you define "coevolution" as evolutionary changes that support each other, then it is present everywhere. If you define it as changes that must occur at exactly the same time, then it happens very rarely (if ever.)

if indeed we know enough about mutations and evolutin since many of teh stats of mutations change in very short order.
but either way it simply shows the destructive nature of such changes to an oderly structure

Exactly! That's why it takes so long to produce a useful mutation - and why, once it happens, it spreads so fast. 99.9999% of mutations are destructive.

and makes even less likly the co evolution of anything

Agreed. If you define evolution as changes that happen at exactly the same time, then they are exceedingly unlikely.

 

[Trippy]

and i suppose the requisite brain functions co evolved with this?
can such a mutation causign uv vision happenin one go? and if not, can we simply presume such stepwise formatinon of uv vision would have an advantage all the way, specifcally with the brain having to coevolve ?

Sensitivity to certain frequencies of light is a matter of chemistry, not neurology.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, as sometimes happens in humans (although it's just another blue receptor, not a UV receptor.

The S-cone is sensitive down to 400nm, but the cornea has pigments in it that block the UV before it reaches the retina, and I can think of several evolutionary advantages to us for this - which you can probably understand if you've ever looked directly at a black light.

This was interesting:
http://neuronresearch.net/vision/files/photopiceffic.htm

 

[Trippy]

I thought this was interesting:
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book-tools.html

Some might even call it :gasp: educational.

 

[Zenithar66]

Yes - growth of the bone and growth of the nerve are controled by the same factors.

and veins? muscles, tendons, lymph system, nerves too?

Get real. Stop trolling.
I used one as an example.

if you think stating a fact is trolling then indeed i am trolling,

Argumentum ad hominem, this is a science forum. Address my argument, not me.

oh please , you have cherry picked mine? AND addressed me so i believe that is called hippocrisy

In the context of what I said, this statement is bordering on nonsensical.

you have not disproved your incredulity ie, i dont understand something so there for i attribute it to "lazy" design, what an odd thing to say about nature imo.

But mother nature is lazy, she keeps reusing the same basic designs over and over again.

Oh, but those body plans are put to use is such uncountable and myriad ways, modifications of every archetypal plan give nature her pallet. There is archetypal forms, but there is such variation that yout point really says nothign at all except that nature is efficient since it uses a solid base in endless ways for purposes that we are still and alwasy will be discovering!

No, and I have made that abundantly clear - I agree with the others that you are abusing the term co-evolution.

OH im abusing the term, how terrible! its the only term i can use for parts that co evolve over long periods..unles there is a better term?

Do you suggest that the growth of a Giraffe from a new-born to an adult is somehow different?
Do you suggest that the mechanisms that ensure that a newborn giraffe has sufficient arteries, trachea, muscles, nerves, and so on and so forth, can not be applied to a Giraffe with an above average neck length? Because that is the only thing that I am proposing.

if you got this from anything i said then i cant help you.

And in so doing answered everything, because the obvious fact is the answer (ot at least, that's part of what I'm suggesting).

Oh...that explains...that

And no, I am not wrong - your state,emt is precisely an argument from incredulity.

nope, i have weighed the evidence i have seen so far(i notice you chose not to link me up to anything, your call.) and deducted that it simply dosent hold up, ie, the extrapolation of what we observe now is strethed way to far.

I don't believe that it happened, for me this is not a question of faith. The evidence available to me supports the logical deduction that it happened, and from that I infer that it probably happened that way.

You dont believe it happened? so you know ? indeed it is faith, whether or not you want to admit that. Do you think there is no faith in what you deducted?

This is pure bullshit. I didn't say it must have happened that way, I simply offered two alternatives to your assertion that it could only have happened in response to blood pressure.

I really dont remembering asserting such a thing becuase if i did i admit it was silly.

Argument from personal incredulity - you can not see how it might have been advantageous in some way, therefore you assume that it wasn't.

and you CAN see so therefore assume that it was.
And your right i didnt consider the potential advantages closely enough but i cant think of any at the moment since(surly) it would give terribel blood flow to the lower legs when the veins arent adapted to such force?
Of course thinking up advantages to suit what youthink happened dosent really count as much.

Meanwhile, you miss the point that it might have been advantageous to a proto-giraffe ancestor, or its common ancestor from a nearby relative. There are literally, a myriad of possibilities./

well thats if it was there of course..i would like to hear some of these myriad possibilities.

I don't recall suggesting otherwise.

good, once were clear on that fact.

And?
Giraffe has random mutation that leads to increased skin or muscle density in its legs that act as strapping.

first off i dont presume to know if such a change could occur in 1 mutation, neither do i presume to know if it would not be selected out becuase it may (although improve the sexual fitness) degrade the overall fitness. second, its a just so story unfortunatly to fit the fact that you already pre suppose how indeed it happened. Nothing wrong with that i suppose, i simply dont agree. as of yet,

Consequently the veins in our giraffes legs are capable of handling higher bloodpressures without bruising.

thats assuming bruising would be the worst of the problems for such an organism in that situation. It measn that strapping would have "had to" come along before the pressure got worse(since they are here now)..
and lucky enough, it did.

Female giraffes who dislike bruising find this attractive, the mutation leads to more success breeding, the mutation is passed on to offspring, and eventually becomes a population trait.

and there fore the rest of the whole thing is set in motion!
or rather this is a possibility based on what you think happened.

There is no co-evolution issue.

I disagree, there are many many examples(i will adress them in a later thread) exampmles in nature where conventional theory can only suggset that certain organisms co evolved, or certiain features of organisms co evolved or even whole sexes and symbiotic relationships. So indeed there is a coevolution issue and i will hopefully get some feedback on a further post about it.

Only a bunch of stories made up by some religous folk who are afraid of what lies in the dark corners.

nope, there are alot of us who are simply seekers of knowledge not religous folk. That word is quite loaded becuase i would consider myself somewhat spiritual or reverant of nature maybe..

where we came from, our history, our evoltuion is so important to better lay out our future and in simply want to get as close to that truth as i can. As of now, i simply dont find myself at all convinced by the mechanissm put forward for what we actually see in nature..thats all

No, I don't, because I observe that in the growth of giraffes, all of these red herrings that you keep bringing up are already addressed.

I assure you i am not bringing up read herrings on purpose. I simply dont check is every question i want to ask already answered, if it was, you dont have to answer yourself and therefore have no one to blame.

The only mutation that's required to lead to a long neck is in the genes that control how fast the neck grows, however, those genes control all factors of how fast the neck grows.

some evidence might help. not forgetting the heart of course.
if indeed it took one change, can we be sure a random mutation to a hox gene would not scramble the info for the worse? is there evidenec that mutations in a hox gene can cause advantageous morphologicalchanges ?

It is the very definition of incredulity.

so becuase i have looked at the same type of evidence as you and come to a (tentative) conclusion that opposes yours i am incredulous..this is simply the crap that is alwasy thrown around me when i question the thoery. I question becuase i see the evidence, not because i dont apriori disbelieve it could happen/

I believe nothing, however I infer much from the information available to me.

you keep telling yourself that, i simply admit i dont know how it could have happened yet.

Most of the points you have raised - with one possible exception, can be trivially explained by examining the factors that lead to growth from a newborn to an adult, because at its core, what we are discussing is simply a variation on that.

and which points cant be addresed in such a way?

My speculation is based in deductive logic and observation, and yes, you are incredulous.

again, your free to tell youself that.

Yes, it can.

so it can be proven? yet you admit earlier you are speculating? does that mean it has not yet been proven, and if so then dont be so sure it can.
Can you link me to this proof maybe, or start me in the track?
i dont want to ask too much(seriously) and i know i will have to reserach myself, but personaly i have come across no papers dealing wtih coevolution of sexes or parts and I'd love a kick in the right direction.

I'm trivializing nothing, and you have provided no evidence that anything other than that has happened.

and you have provided none that it has, i dont claim to have evidence of how it happened, i am simply critiqing what is said to hear how i am rebutted so i can learn from those points and form a better picture of the thoughts on such matter and the evidence for and against.

 

[Zenithar66]

They likely evolved before that, actually. Compound eyes see color by using color filters in each eye. The insect brain evolved the ability to use receptors with varying filters to see in color because it was advantageous to be able to see in color. Adding an additional color component was something its brain was already prepared to process - much the way that a woman with tetrachromatic receptors can see more colors without needing any new brain connections. If you cause mice (which normally only have two types of color receptors) to generate a third through genetic engineering, their brains can process the additional colors as well without any "co-mutation" requirement.

so you have made up a story to make it easier to explain by suggesting it might have been there before hand..what if it was not?




Yes, as sometimes happens in humans (although it's just another blue receptor, not a UV receptor.)

hmm intersting, and can we then actually percieve in uv? or is there brain changes needed to occur.

If you define "coevolution" as evolutionary changes that support each other, then it is present everywhere. If you define it as changes that must occur at exactly the same time, then it happens very rarely (if ever.)

i've defined what i meant, if you dont know be now its not my problem.

Exactly! That's why it takes so long to produce a useful mutation - and why, once it happens, it spreads so fast. 99.9999% of mutations are destructive.

so the theory goes, yet we see instances of very very rapid adaptions in nature, shockingly so infact. if so much is destructive, then why do you in start to believe that sexes could co evolve? seems like a miracle to me.