facts of evolution

[Katster]

Aren't we supposed to be slowly losing our little toes?

[Atlanteanlost]

Aren't we supposed to be slowly losing our little toes?

[Katster]

Badly fitted shoes

[Atlanteanlost]

And aren't our thumbs getting bigger because of texting?

[jacketspud]

Aren't we supposed to be slowly losing our little toes?

[Katster]

My little toes dont even touch the floor it hovers above the one next to it (in limbo if you like! ) Im sure if they fell off it wouldnt make any difference to my balance. What are yours like?

Edited January 30, 2009 by Katster

[worm]

Yes, we all ultimately evolved from the same organism, but we have not all followed the same evolutionary path.

Some similar things have evolved independently of each other. Eyes have not.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

any differences such as that are what have evolved since that original eye care about - they're caused by mutations to that original eye.

[rabid]

Aren't we supposed to be slowly losing our little toes?

[eFestivals]

I know. You said that to start with. I'm saying that it's obvious. Many species have eyes.

no, it's far from obvious.

Other similar things have evolved independently of each other, and that could have been the case with eyes too.

As ever, you assume far too much, and at odds with lots of known facts. But don't let me stop you making it up out of nothing as you go along, you'd disappear in a puff of insignificance if you did.

Edited January 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[Radar]

As ever, you assume far too much, and at odds with lots of known facts. But don't let me stop you making it up out of nothing as you go along, you'd disappear in a puff of insignificance if you did.

[Atlanteanlost]

So, err... what does BLIND mean?

[worm]

Other similar things have evolved independently of each other, and that could have been the case with eyes too.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[Katster]

So, err... what does BLIND mean?

[eFestivals]

Like what?

If everything comes from the same species, then at one point that species evolved eyes (lets say animals). They then evolved independently to become different beings and so evolved different forms of this eye (birds, reptiles, mammals all having different forms of this animal eye).

This works with everything if we accept that all life evolved from one organism.

They idea that a bird evolved an eye without a pre-existing eye being there is mental.

You might think it mental but it is certainly a fact that some similar things across species evolved independently of each other. It's not always the case that a feature only evolved once.

Here's one such example I very quickly found via googling:-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04655.html

[llcoolphil]

Apparently we are losing our Coxis.

[sifi]

You might think it mental but it is certainly a fact that some similar things across species evolved independently of each other. It's not always the case that a feature only evolved once.

[pehaw]

...

Other similar things have evolved independently of each other, and that could have been the case with eyes too.

...

[eFestivals]

That seems reasonable. The environment that we live in might result in a similar mutation in different species.

I got the impression from that programme (via the way that it brought up the common evolution of the eye) that independent evolution of similar body features across species is far more common than the just-once evolution that's applicable for the eye. But I might be wrong about that.

[eFestivals]

I still think that it is just a theory that eyes did not evolve separately. Other theories state otherwise (certainly amongst different phyla).

there is, apparently, definitive genetic proof that the eye has evolved just the once.

For example (as raised in the programme, and via which this link was discovered in 1994), the fruitfly has identical genetic triggers for identical abnormalities as humans do.

[eFestivals]

There's a wiki page about the evolution of the eye:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[sifi]

I got the impression from that programme (via the way that it brought up the common evolution of the eye) that independent evolution of similar body features across species is far more common than the just-once evolution that's applicable for the eye. But I might be wrong about that.

Edited January 30, 2009 by sifimaster

[worm]

You might think it mental but it is certainly a fact that some similar things across species evolved independently of each other. It's not always the case that a feature only evolved once.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

one of my lecturers was doing research on yeast into this kinda thing. Basically he is trying to prove that some mutations occur with higher frequency than others. say a 1:100,000 chance of a particular change rather than the 1:1,000,000 average

[krisskross]

I know. Obviously.

These things evolved from the same universal thing independently, thus, creating a different thing through adaption. Just like all of the different forms of the eye (reptiles, mammals, birds) evolving from one universal form of the eye (animal).

This is evolutionary theory. It's what it is.

Edited January 30, 2009 by krisskross