facts of evolution

[worm]

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

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

Interesting fact; there is a gene called the 'sonic hedgehog' gene! It gets shortened to SHH lots, its involved in some childhood cancer so its a bit embarressing for docters to tell parents their kid is ill because of a mutation in their sonic hedgehog

[worm]

But the same thing (or functionally very similar) can evolve from different things. - convergant evolution

edit to add a y

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

Do you know what the odds of that are?

Without one organism creating an eye (for whatever purpose) the others would never have been able to adapt an eye. The eye would have to be adpted by other species that evolved from a seeing species. What you are suggesting is that the environment tells the organism what to do. Evolution is random (trial and error).

[eFestivals]

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.

you say you do, then you make up wrong shite again.

So that's child psychology and now evolution that can be added to the ever-growing list of things you consider yourself to be more expert in than the experts.

[worm]

But individuals of different species live in the same environment, so what is a 'beneficial' mutation for one species is also likely to be beneficial to the other. This means they develop in the same way independantly of each other.

[jonbob]

What you are suggesting is that the environment tells the organism what to do.

Edited January 30, 2009 by jonbob

[worm]

you say you do, then you make up wrong shite again.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[krisskross]

Yes, but they derive from the same organism.

[worm]

Which is exactly how it works. Darwin's Finches during the El Nino cycle are still the best current evidence of natural selection in action.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Well, yes... It just depends how many million years you want to go back.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[jonbob]

It doesn't tell them what to do. They adapt to it randomly. You are implying a designer.

Edited January 30, 2009 by jonbob

[worm]

Designer? No, you are inferring a designer for your own reasons.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

How is that wrong?

''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).''

It's what your expert source (some dude off the tele) said in that article (tv programme) that you read (watched). It's exactly what he said. If you are to believe that everything came from the same organism, that is, which you said you did.

Yes, everything ultimately came from the same organism. But you've said more than that.

You've said that because they've come from the same organism yet evolved things independently that those evolutions are not evolutions but adaptations. That is 100% incorrect.

Yes, you're 100% incorrect. It does happen you know. A lot.

[krisskross]

edit: what im trying to say is that things can evolve seperately - on a functional level. There are two methods that are used to explain how this ends up. convergant and divergant evolution

Edited January 30, 2009 by krisskross

[worm]

Yes, everything ultimately came from the same organism. But you've said more than that.

You've said that because they've come from the same organism yet evolved things independently that those evolutions are not evolutions but adaptations.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[jonbob]

You've just said that the environment tells them what to do. That implies a design. That implies a designer.

[eFestivals]

It doesn't tell them what to do. They adapt to it randomly. You are implying a designer.

They have to work out what to do.

latest evolutionary theory is that evolutionary adaptions are not (necessarily) random, but could be 'pre-programmed' - that the evolution of certain features in species is an inevitability from our shared dna.

That does not have to mean a designer. All it could mean is that by random chance every living thing has happened to descend from a certain set of dna which by chance has within these 'pre-programmed' things.

Edited January 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[worm]

because the common ancestor was a blob of goop with no eyes limbs or anything. These blobs of goop developed in different ways, some being better at some things than others. eventually zebedee develops an arm from a set of genes x. Meanwhile annabelle develops a leg from a set of genes y. After lots of years zebedees arm starts looking and functioning much like annabelles leg. They evoled a leg completely seperately, even though they may have come from a blob, because it had no legs or arms.

Edited January 30, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

What are you banging on about? Things evolve through adaption otherwise they'd be the same thing forever. Each contemporary organism is different, because it has adapted to the environment differently from the last special form. The eye is still part of that former special form. I showed you this.

This is obviously only relevant if you believe that we evolved from one species.

a new body feature - such as the common eye - evolves into being. Changes of that common eye are adaptations of that evolved feature.

Now, I might well have (probably have) got the terminology wrong for what I've said above, but that's essentially it - the 'evolved' and the 'adapted' that I've said above are distinctly different things.

Are you mad?

I'm not the one disputing what the experts have discovered.

[worm]

latest evolutionary theory is that evolutionary adaptions are not (necessarily) random, but could be 'pre-programmed' - that the evolution of certain features is species an inevitability from our shared dna.

[worm]

a new body feature - such as the common eye - evolves into being. Changes of that common eye are adaptations of that evolved feature.

[krisskross]

Now, I might well have (probably have) got the terminology wrong for what I've said above, but that's essentially it - the 'evolved' and the 'adapted' that I've said above are distinctly different things.

[worm]

I'm not the one disputing what the experts have discovered.

[eFestivals]

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along.

My point was that it is obvious.

But then it would be similarly obvious that the sense of taste is common, yet it's not.

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

Which is why you saying "it's obvious" is wrong.