Wallace line

[Frantic]

This article disgruntled me a bit. I have read the entire Origin of species written by Darwin, and the statements in this article are quite misleading. Natural selection was proposed by Darwin not gradualism. He was influenced to research by earlier ideas of proposed gradualism. Natural selection only indicated mutations of genes and the best gene mutations survived. He was unaware of the mechanism and speed. Regardless if the change is electrical or not his theory would still hold, if I was mutated to have only 1 leg I wouldn't last long, or reproduce. He also did not require sexual reproduction, natural selection included asexual changes. Later scientists began proposing ideas of the mechanism and Darwin's science became corrupted.

[Frantic]

Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. Therefore the population evolves.

So basically, Natural Selection includes all possibilities of external factors causing mutation, it is instant specification. It just takes many years of success of that particular species to become populous enough to find a fossil of. Obviously mutations would not be uniform as each DNA molecules varies with exception of clones, and the external environment is not uniform. Hence the misunderstanding of natural selection and the fossil record cause some peope to erroneously confuse natural selection with gradualism.

[Spektralscavenger]

This article disgruntled me a bit. I have read the entire Origin of species written by Darwin, and the statements in this article are quite misleading. Natural selection was proposed by Darwin not gradualism. He was influenced to research by earlier ideas of proposed gradualism. Natural selection only indicated mutations of genes and the best gene mutations survived. He was unaware of the mechanism and speed. Regardless if the change is electrical or not his theory would still hold, if I was mutated to have only 1 leg I wouldn't last long, or reproduce. He also did not require sexual reproduction, natural selection included asexual changes. Later scientists began proposing ideas of the mechanism and Darwin's science became corrupted.

Indeed, Darwin didn´t even speak of genes or mutations, just of descent with modification_ and did not discard Lamarckism. The genes-mutations mumbo jumbo was introduced by the XX century neodarwinism.

[Frantic]

Thanks Spektral, at least I'm not the only one. I did think the article had some good points. There has become a dogma around some of the mechanisms of evolution. Ultimately scientists may endlessly search for "missing links", they find one fossil, and they say, this is the ancestor of all humans. Just wanted to say that although I don't agree with the criticism of Darwin the article was interesting and had some good points. Now I always consider electrical activities when I think evolution, so I was convinced in some ways... Mechanism is not important for me in validating Darwin's theory. Saw an article today and wanted to post something back to this thread anyhow:

From an article today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envir ... icRSS20-sa) :

"They are not regarded as direct human ancestors but DNA analysis has revealed that between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals."

---So a common ancestor to Neanderthals and Humans passed 4% of their DNA at most to Neanderthals and 96% of their DNA to humans?

A second quote from NBC/Smithsonian (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... rthalensis) :

"until during one very cold period, modern humans spread across Europe. Their presence may have prevented Neanderthals from expanding back into areas they once favored and served as a catalyst for the Neanderthal’s impending extinction."

---They find multiple fossils of Neanderthals and say this is a separate tree of a common ancestor to humanity.
Science admits thousands of years of species isolation, and then a large interaction between the two species. This type of specification by isolation is heavily documented. However this usually allows for interbreeding at the fringes and the species cannot annihilate each other entirely, there is always interbreeding unless a very strong barrier exists, which there is no evidence between Human and Neanderthal. DNA analysis of a Neanderthal may or may not include the population interbreeding, fossils represent less than 1% of any population and as such are not reliable. The assumption of ancestry based on DNA analysis or Mitochondrial DNA analysis all seem BS to me, the observations and data doesn't exist to make conclusions from the DNA analysis. Secondly the assumption of gradualism is always there, that their should be some missing link, that a certain % of DNA must be transferred to the new species. Imagine one of these human sub species evolves and suddenly both subspecies find themselves more attracted to the new evolution. An evolution could occur in one sub-species, and preferring to breed outside your sub-species could ultimately lead to a mix of ancestral descent where overtime one sub-species was preferred over the other. This appears that one species DNA contributions becomes quite small, yet does not indicate they were not part of the human tree at some point. This is a gradualist mechanism, but natural selection should include everything, there is not a single mechanism. Gradualism, sexual selection, rapid changes from disasters, mass extinctions, massive radiation or electrical bursts all seem plausible mechanisms.

Electrical effects on DNA would seem quite possible. Has anyone ever seen a biogenesis experiment absent electricity?

Ultimately less time needs to be spent analyzing fossils of less than 1% of a population and rather on evolutionary changes occurring now where you have entire populations to observe and sophisticated Satellites and sensors. It is even assumed that radiation is not a driver of evolution. You have events like Chernobyl where you can document DNA % changes. You can perform radiation experiments on microbes, plants, mice, etc. and find out what relationship exists between radiation and DNA. Maybe I haven't seen enough of recent developments, but I have not read a better explanation of evolution than Darwin's The Origin of Species. Molecular biology has advanced yet evolutionary theory has been only corrupted by its scientists' assumptions.

Yes I am rambling, but mainstream science is lost in so many ways, especially life and the cosmos. And Is there anything more important? The brain and our movements are entirely electrical, electric potential is fundamental to life, more and more this site points me to what is wrong with science, it is unwilling to learn, it is willing only to teach.

[Sparky]

However this usually allows for interbreeding at the fringes and the species cannot annihilate each other entirely, there is always interbreeding unless a very strong barrier exists, which there is no evidence between Human and Neanderthal.

Lots of speculations and assumptions, and they always find "evidence" in the DNA!

Electrical effects on DNA would seem quite possible. Has anyone ever seen a biogenesis experiment absent electricity?

Gotta have sparks!!!

This is a link to a very interesting experiment, Primeval Code.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread938249/pg1

[Spektralscavenger]

Possibly the electromagnetic environment of both sides is very different.


Let´s not forget that evolution is not necessarily a necessity Some species/bio-organizations are quite robust and do not need to change, not as much as to become a "new specie" at least. Some scientist claimed that modern cyanobacteria are the same as 3,500 m.y. ago cyanobacteria. I don´t believe it but illustrates my point. "Living fossils" are around.

Sometimes the ecosystems stabilize in a complex network and all the species get "locked" until a great event disturbs the self-regulated system.

[Frantic]

Possibly the electromagnetic environment of both sides is very different.


Let´s not forget that evolution is not necessarily a necessity Some species/bio-organizations are quite robust and do not need to change, not as much as to become a "new specie" at least. Some scientist claimed that modern cyanobacteria are the same as 3,500 m.y. ago cyanobacteria. I don´t believe it but illustrates my point. "Living fossils" are around.

Sometimes the ecosystems stabilize in a complex network and all the species get "locked" until a great event disturbs the self-regulated system.

One species' genes remaining unchanged in an organism capable of cloning is much more likely than one sexually reproducing. One genome could become dominant and would remain until either a new more successful mutation occurs or environment changes allow another genome to be more successful. I don't think you can find an example of an organism exclusively reproducing sexually, that shows a species lock, but it is all relative and we have seen little evidence of evolution occurring in our time. I do see it, but it is simply extinction and animals learning to cope with urban environments. Everywhere environments shrink and there is nothing natural about natural selection anymore and it becomes a difficult study. Ignoring wildlife we will eradicate soon anyhow, how about us. There are those who see the human population ultimately dividing to sub species based on wealth. Likely, considering the theory of natural selection. Wealth is not a genetic attribute, but simply being born to money is an advantage almost infallible. Natural selection is not simply genetic, it is situational.

The mechanism for mutation is generally unknown, but something unbinds and recombines molecules. Radiation is shown to do this. Radiation is energized particle waves, not much different than an electron current. DNA molecules have polarity. If a DNA molecule were to conduct current(more than that caused by the natural electric field we live in) what would happen? The polarity is based on hydroxyl group on the strand, the polarity determines direction the DNA is read. Each nucleotide pair in the helix is bonded through molecule polarity. DNA has a high sensitivity to electric fields, that is the basis for a process called Gel electrophoresis. Through this process DNA molecules can be sorted by lengths, discern RNA DNA, detect mismatched pairs, etc. In DNA formation we have a built in error checking process that will detect and correct mismatched pairs. Mismatched pairs exhibit electrical characteristics and can suppress or enhance current in DNA. Molecules travel down the DNA helix and they bind to these mismatched sites and repair the DNA. I think in a large electric field DNA formation would be altered considerably do to high polarity of all molecules involved and even the error checking process would be altered, it could ignore mismatches it should not, or it could interpret the electric fields current as being incorrect DNA and begin modifying and incorrectly finding a balance with the temporary large electric field. What happens if the earths electric field is triple its strength, our biology would of course be affected significantly.

Evolution recognizes the role of great events leading to speciation, but we always think of comets, volcanoes, extinctions, floods, famines, droughts. We forget that one of the major factors driving our evolution is the electro-magnetism of earth. Having asymmetric magnetic fields, changing strengths, etc could lead to changing frequencies of mutations. From gradualism to cataclysmic.

OK, well wrote all this, than checked out the link from Sparky.

Gotta have sparks!!!

This is a link to a very interesting experiment, Primeval Code.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread938249/pg1

It seems to be very inline with what I was just thinking, I haven't fact checked anything on that experiment, but I'll trust Sparky. Beyond DNA formation and error checking, this link actually takes it further and shows electric fields modifying expression of the genes, I should have though of that. Polarity is involved in reading the DNA and transcribing to proteins. Thanks for the post to that.

It even implies something much more intriguing, I have to think about. Traits shown in ancestors become expressed when in a varied electric field. If I were to look at a fossil of my genetic clone but existing 1 billion years prior, his genes would all be expressed differently in that environment(depending how different) and might appear to me a fossil of another species. The Genotype-Phenotype correlation has been heavily studied, by I usually forget its importance. The same genes actually produce a different phenotype. Environment induced phenotypes are seen in other cases, levels of light, food, water, etc., but I have never heard electric fields included here. I think that experiment if results are true expands a good deal on our ideas of evolution.

[Sparky]

http://youtu.be/i69p0lldbGY

I haven't fact checked anything on that experiment, but I'll trust Sparky

Would a utube video transmit an untruth?

[601L1n9FR09]

Catastrophic changes on enormous scales might account for two things which should not be ignored.

The mutated survivors of the catastrophe could not have competed successfully with their un-mutated ancestors. Face it, mutations are bad.

If everything in the region was killed or mutant, un-mutated ancestors were no longer there to compete, and the mutants win by default. There was nothing left for miles around but mutants.

Natural selection could take it from there. This catastrophic scenario offers some plausibility for punctuated equilibrium as I see it. I have never been much of a fan of punctuated equilibrium BTW.

I now resume my regularly scheduled lurking.