You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-1
PurestEvil on scored.co
8 months ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)
> But what if they lay 10?
They lay a lot more, and only a fraction of them survive. The point is that better adaptation grants a higher survival rate.
> That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
THAT is the essence of evolution: The reproduction of genes. Or what did you think what it was about?
> Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
The fact that they changed proves evolution right... or what do you mean? Should they have changed more?
> Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
It is entirely irrelevant, and we don't know anyway. You see, we started recording our history around 5000 years ago, and a lot got lost. What you refer to happened what, a billion or more years ago? And it's irrelevant to the topic of evolution being a valid theory.
BUT I just happen to find an [article](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas) that expands on it:
> By sequencing the entire genome of various organisms, including yeast, rice, and frogs, researchers have found that all living things on our planet have some similarities in their instruction manuals. The overlap exists because we all evolved from a common ancestor, a single-celled organism that lived three or four billion years ago, known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Many of these common genes have been conserved through billions of years of evolution.
It appears all life on Earth today evolved from a single-celled organism that multiplied itself. It's like binary code for computers... or Assembly. You could say Assembly is the common ancestor to ALL programming languages.
> Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
So you just happen to say that reproduction is unrelated to evolution, and you call me uneducated on evolution? And as of Christianity, the essence of what I said is true, if you ignore the sarcastic undertone. God created humans by his image, and he created the world in 7 days. If you go to the extreme, you have creationism, and if you go a little further, flat Earth theory.
> As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks?
[Microbes were detected on a meteorite from Mars](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/fossil-microbes-mars), which implies that yes, life can indeed "just" emerge from something. I for one can settle for not knowing how it can happen.
> Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
Yes, a theory that is on very solid foundation. It's a good theory, and also the best we have. And if adaptation is observable... you see, evolution is that, scaled over orders of magnitudes longer time periods.
> I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
A weird phrasing... but your question is answered [here](https://www.quora.com/Can-humans-grow-gills-to-breathe-underwater): No, we cannot grow wings or gills, because both come in tandem with a plethora of body structure changes we are too far away from. Fish are cold blooded and therefore require much less oxygen. We have to expend a lot of energy to regulate our body temperature. It would require an environmental pressure and millions of years... and it must be gradual, otherwise immediate extinction would occur instead.
We DO however "carry within our DNA" the ability to do photosynthesis, as banana for example [shares 60% of our genome](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas).
> Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.
> Species do change in the micro. But not the macro
See, there are 2 factors you have to consider. 1. As evolution occurs, it applies to all life forms, meaning ALL are evolving with consideration for all other life forms. While the predator evolves to become faster, so does its prey. Meaning the time is of essence, and if you put in a gazelle with 30% less speed than today, they will be hunted down easily by the predators - possibly so easy, that they'd go extinct even. It's like a continuous arms race.
And 2., with regards to that, there is a phenomenon of genetic tunnels. Cats for example can no longer evolve radically into fish, birds or whatever, because the time frame where it would have been possible is over. The last opportunity might have been somewhere millions or more years ago.
In programming, these tunnels can occur. Imagine you create a learning AI that learns to walk. And it does some absurd silly walk, like using a single leg, dragging the rest of its body along, and it gets caught into doing and improving it, up to a point where it is no longer able to try anything else like using 2 legs for walking. The speed it could have achieved would have been much higher if it used 2 legs, but at the beginning it just happened that some silly movement using 1 leg worked better than all others.
So yes, TODAY it will be very difficult to perceive radical changes in species, even if we could cut the middleman (the multiple human lifetimes of time frame).
They lay a lot more, and only a fraction of them survive. The point is that better adaptation grants a higher survival rate.
> That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
THAT is the essence of evolution: The reproduction of genes. Or what did you think what it was about?
> Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
The fact that they changed proves evolution right... or what do you mean? Should they have changed more?
> Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
It is entirely irrelevant, and we don't know anyway. You see, we started recording our history around 5000 years ago, and a lot got lost. What you refer to happened what, a billion or more years ago? And it's irrelevant to the topic of evolution being a valid theory.
BUT I just happen to find an [article](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas) that expands on it:
> By sequencing the entire genome of various organisms, including yeast, rice, and frogs, researchers have found that all living things on our planet have some similarities in their instruction manuals. The overlap exists because we all evolved from a common ancestor, a single-celled organism that lived three or four billion years ago, known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Many of these common genes have been conserved through billions of years of evolution.
It appears all life on Earth today evolved from a single-celled organism that multiplied itself. It's like binary code for computers... or Assembly. You could say Assembly is the common ancestor to ALL programming languages.
> Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
So you just happen to say that reproduction is unrelated to evolution, and you call me uneducated on evolution? And as of Christianity, the essence of what I said is true, if you ignore the sarcastic undertone. God created humans by his image, and he created the world in 7 days. If you go to the extreme, you have creationism, and if you go a little further, flat Earth theory.
> As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks?
[Microbes were detected on a meteorite from Mars](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/fossil-microbes-mars), which implies that yes, life can indeed "just" emerge from something. I for one can settle for not knowing how it can happen.
> Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
Yes, a theory that is on very solid foundation. It's a good theory, and also the best we have. And if adaptation is observable... you see, evolution is that, scaled over orders of magnitudes longer time periods.
> I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
A weird phrasing... but your question is answered [here](https://www.quora.com/Can-humans-grow-gills-to-breathe-underwater): No, we cannot grow wings or gills, because both come in tandem with a plethora of body structure changes we are too far away from. Fish are cold blooded and therefore require much less oxygen. We have to expend a lot of energy to regulate our body temperature. It would require an environmental pressure and millions of years... and it must be gradual, otherwise immediate extinction would occur instead.
We DO however "carry within our DNA" the ability to do photosynthesis, as banana for example [shares 60% of our genome](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas).
> Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.
> Species do change in the micro. But not the macro
See, there are 2 factors you have to consider. 1. As evolution occurs, it applies to all life forms, meaning ALL are evolving with consideration for all other life forms. While the predator evolves to become faster, so does its prey. Meaning the time is of essence, and if you put in a gazelle with 30% less speed than today, they will be hunted down easily by the predators - possibly so easy, that they'd go extinct even. It's like a continuous arms race.
And 2., with regards to that, there is a phenomenon of genetic tunnels. Cats for example can no longer evolve radically into fish, birds or whatever, because the time frame where it would have been possible is over. The last opportunity might have been somewhere millions or more years ago.
In programming, these tunnels can occur. Imagine you create a learning AI that learns to walk. And it does some absurd silly walk, like using a single leg, dragging the rest of its body along, and it gets caught into doing and improving it, up to a point where it is no longer able to try anything else like using 2 legs for walking. The speed it could have achieved would have been much higher if it used 2 legs, but at the beginning it just happened that some silly movement using 1 leg worked better than all others.
So yes, TODAY it will be very difficult to perceive radical changes in species, even if we could cut the middleman (the multiple human lifetimes of time frame).