Evolution

[ItJustMakesSense]

Rapid evolution check it out

Lizard experiment suggests rapid evolution
Jeff Poling

An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade.

The experiment bears on two theories of evolution, that of punctuated equilibrium and that of gradualism. Gradualism states that evolution is a relatively slow, constant process, producing changes over millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium states that environmental constraints hold species remain unchanged for millions of years, which then undergo rapid evolution when environmental changes demand it. The results of the experiment suggest that there are no constraints, and no difference between gradual and rapid evolution.

The experiment involved the introduction of one species of lizard to fourteen small, lizard-free Caribbean island near the Exumas in the Bahamas. The lizards were left for fourteen years. The original intent of the experiment was to study extinction. The experiment, started by Thomas Schoener of the University of California at Davis, would have provided scientists with important information as they observed the extinction of the introduced lizards. Unfortunately, the lizards adapted to their new environments, and the focus of the experiment changed to study this rapid evolution.

Lizards on Caribbean islands have been carefully studied by biologists for their adaptation to different conditions on different islands with corresponding changes in body shape. Birds, most notably the Finches of the Galapagos islands, also show such specializations when favoring a certain island. One of the specializations of lizards noted by scientists over the years has been that lizards that inhabit large trees tend to have long legs, whereas those lizards that live on twig-like plants have short legs.

Jonathon Losos of Washington University in St. Louis stated that such adaptations allowed scientists to predict what would happen to the lizards placed on the islands, some of which are smaller than a football field. The more the vegetation differed from that of their original home, Staniel Cay, the more the lizards should evolve. The scientists predicted that evolutionary pressure would cause the long-legged lizards to produce short-legged forms as the Caribbean islands are almost treeless.

Losos and his colleagues report in the journal Nature that the lizards evolved in the direction as predicted. Those with the shortest legs are found on islands with the scrubbiest vegetation.

Douglas Futuyama of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, states that while there are many known instances of rapid evolution in biochemistry, such as evolving resistance to pesticide, there are fewer examples of bodily changes.

A long-standing issue in biology is whether small evolutionary changes are the same as the large evolutionary changes seen over millions of years. In biology terms, the question is whether microevolution is the same as macroevolution.

One well known macroevolutionary event is the specialization of lizards on Caribbean islands. Lizards have evolved into 150 different species spread across these islands. Losos and his colleagues write that their lizard experiment suggests that macroevolution is simply microevolution observed over a much larger time period.

Punctuated equilibrium proponents suggest that a given species may remain unchanged for millions of years until some event shakes up the ecosystem, causing rapid evolution. Since the lizards on all 14 islands evolved as expected, Futuyma states that "it means you don't need to invoke a complicated hypothesis of this type."

The rate of evolutionary change is measured in units called darwins. Darwins provide a measure of the proportional change in a given organ over time. Changes typically seen over millions of years in the fossil record usually amount to 1 darwin or less. The transplanted lizards evolved at rates of up to 2000 darwins.

"Darwin thought that natural selection had to be slow and gradual," Losos said. "I think it is clear he was mistaken. In some cases change can be very rapid."

The results of the experiment echo observations made in the 1980s of one species of Finch on one Galapagos island. Over a ten year period there were three major swings in the ecosystem of the island. At the start of the observation period, there were two morphs of the Finch, a large beaked morph and a small beaked morph. One change in the ecosystem favored the large beaked morph over the small beaked morph, with the latter nearly becoming extinct. A second change in the ecosystem favored the now nearly extinct small beaked morph, and within a short time it was the dominant morph, with the large beaked morph on its way to extinction. Finally, the ecosystem shifted again, and populations stabilized. Today, a third morph has appeared, with a beak intermediate between the large and small beaked morphs. Over a ten year period, three natural selection events occurred, suggesting that evolutionary change might be more rapid than ever before suspected.

[ItJustMakesSense]

Another example of rapid evolution

ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
Science News
Share Blog Cite
Print Bookmark Email
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.


“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”

Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.

“What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.

Results of the study were published March 25 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders. Additional members of the research team include Anthony Herrel of Harvard University and the University of Antwerp, Kathleen Huyghe, Bieke Vanhooydonck, Thierry Backeljau and Raoul Van Damme of the University of Antwerp, Karin Breugelmans of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Irena Grbac of the Croatian Natural History Museum.

[webolife]

Orthogonal, your usage of the term "common ancestor" presupposes that DNA similarities/differences in organisms are somehow evolutionary. It is a presupposition because there is no actually data from which to judge a starting position for the alleged genetic drift. Based on commonality of structures and functions, would you not expect that organisms having similar functions or physiology might demonstrate similar genetic structures? This is regardless of the mechanism behind those similarities. The physiology of people and pigs is more similar in most respects than people and lemurs. Does this connote to you that we are more evolutionarily linked to pigs than to primates? In determining genetic similarities between families of organisms, often a nucleotide sequence is selected from a particular gene that is convenient for identification or location. A similarity gradient is constructed for that particular genetic trait, with no respect to other traits which would yield different results. It is left to the student to infer any relationship between the organisms based on that particular range of similarity. On the other hand for organisms within a species, the differences may very great. It has been said of chimpanzees that there are more differences between different subspecies than between chimps and humans! While this is usually intended as a claim for descendency, it smacks of obvious data manipulation for the purpose of persuasion to the presupposed evolutionary linkage. The number of differing genes cannot be as significant a factor as which genes are different!
And what if the key distinctions between humans and apes are not genetically traceable?

[webolife]

Now that I have a bit more time, there were a couple more points to address to Orthogonal.

1. ERVs are helpful to the cause of evolutionary theory in that they fill a niche left vaccuous by the sheer illogic of "the accumulation of random mutuations in the light of the preponderance of deleterious mutations" being a sound mechanism for macroevolution. What they do not help is the need in macroevolution for a continuous long term supply of new information to feed the stream of simple to complex biodiversity.
2. Evidences that support microevolution, a la the model of migration, isolation, inbreeding, adaptation, population dynamics, genetic information loss, and eventual extinction are not friendly to macroevolution, a model that requires spontaneous generation, accumulation of positive random mutations, parallel development of interdependent structures in un"related" organisms both at the microscopic/subcellular level as well as in the macro web of life, and a steady record of simple transforming to complex.
3. The fossils record is full of evidence of variation within family groupings [supporting microevolution] and also full of gaps when it comes to the myriad of transitional forms that should exist if the theory is valid. In fact it is a wonder [even Darwin's enigma] that for all the fossils that fill the shelves of museum back rooms worldwide, distinct clad traits is the rule rather than the exception. The fossil record is the story of those that didn't make it, not those that survived. The first buried [evolutionists would say earliest] fossils demonstrate the same range of complexity as living organisms do. And the fossil record demonstrates [ as go the claims] nearly a 95% information loss [extinction rate] over time.

[Orthogonal]

JaJa, I'm very familiar with Electrostatics. I'll try to be more clear. In standard evolutionary theory it describes changes as mutations, genetic drift etc. DNA is extraordinarily robust when copying, but is not perfect and occasionally errors occur. Evolution purports that the accumulation of these errors combined with natural selection drives speciation. At the most rudimentary level, this is explained in terms of chemical processes. If you are proposing that electrostatics can induce changes on the DNA level, I'm simply asking for a comprehensive explanation of this process. Thanks for posting the TPOD, that is a good place to start. I'll research that some more.

I’d be interested in your views on how evolution accounts for lizards and salamanders being able to re-generate limbs. Considering humans are supposed to be at the top of the evolutionary tree why haven’t we and other species evolved with the same magical trait?

Humans are not the "top of the evolutionary tree", there is no such thing. Those creatures evolved regenerative limbs, humans evolved abstract thought and language. Neither is more "advanced" than the other, just different.

I'm sorry but what is relatively stable supposed to mean. We have no way of reverse engineering planetary environments millions or billions of years. If bacteria have been around since the dawn of time this means they would be a common ancestor according to Darwin. The rate at which bacteria mutate we should expect to see a zoo of strange intermediates both past and present.

How much more time do we need and what can we expose bacteria to that it hasn't already been exposed to over the life-span of the earth? Bacteria has been subjected to millions/billions of years of different environments and planetary changes but we do not observe them in the process of speciation (at any stage). From the dawn of time until now has been a very long and strenuous test and yet this apparent common ancestor only mutates into different strains of bacteria and not something else. Are we to assume that because we are in a relatively stable environment that bacteria has simply stopped evolving.

Ok, this is where I'm going to need to spend a little more time to properly address all points. Evolutionary theory does NOT claim that animal's evolved from bacteria. It does say that they had a common ancestor and then diverged. This common ancestor does not exist today in any form. I'm not trying to be pretentious here, but bacteria would not be expected to evolve into complex life forms. Plants/Animals are Eukaryotic cells and Bacteria and Archea are Prokaryotic cells. In addition to Eukaryotes cells being an order of magnitude larger than Prokaryotes, they are significantly different structurally. You can google the differences, but the Eukaryotic cell structure is much better adept at becoming multicellular and vertical evolution (increased complexity) whereas a Prokaryotic cell is more adept at horizontal evolution (broad adaptation). Plants/Animals have relatively few Phylogenic trees as compared to the veritabal cornucopia of phylogenies of bacteria and archae. This has led to the ubiquity of bacteria across the biosphere and allowed them to enter habitats that were originally considered inhospitable i.e. acidic hot springs, radioactive waste, deep seas and the earth's crust. Bacteria cells are structurally more efficient as unicellular organisms and would require significant changes to become multicellular structures. There are currently very few bacteria that even show those traits as they group into collectives like slime and biofilms. A bacteria turning into an animal is about as likely as a tree evolving legs, uprooting itself and finding a new place to live. Is a lifeform like this possible? maybe, but not very likely.

What do these same studies say about information transfer to DNA via laser light or radio waves?

Nothing, although I would like to see some more data in this area if you have it.

Thanks to ItJustMakesSense for posting those articles. I have read on that experiment before. It is very interesting. I have no problem with rapid evolution.

It is a presupposition because there is no actually data from which to judge a starting position for the alleged genetic drift. Based on commonality of structures and functions, would you not expect that organisms having similar functions or physiology might demonstrate similar genetic structures? This is regardless of the mechanism behind those similarities.

Commonality of structure or function does not necessarily require similar genetics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

It has been said of chimpanzees that there are more differences between different subspecies than between chimps and humans!

Once a species has diverged, it says nothing about the degree of genetic differentiation from one species to the next in a family. They experience different rates of change based on numerous factors.

ERV's... What they do not help is the need in macroevolution for a continuous long term supply of new information to feed the stream of simple to complex biodiversity.

I'm not sure I follow, please expound.


Look, I'm not opposed to alternative model's of speciation and biodiversity and I'm not a cheerleader of the current evolutionary theory. It is just the most sound explanation that I have come across to date.

[JaJa]

JaJa, I'm very familiar with Electrostatics

Why ask for clarity on what an electrostatic field is then.

If you are proposing that electrostatics can induce changes on the DNA level, I'm simply asking for a comprehensive explanation of this process.

Orthogonal. I haven't proposed anything. I have highlighted ideas (already put forward in this thread) that offer an alternative explanation for the huge bio-diversity on earth. If I had a comprehensive explanation for this phenomenon I wouldn't be discussing this with you on the TB forum, rather, I would be sitting on a beach somewhere warm enjoying my new found fame whilst my Nobel Prize sat in the display cabinet.

However, the reality is, that I am still reading about how Light and Electric Fields might induce rapid/spontaneous changes in DNA/Bio-diversity.

Humans are not the "top of the evolutionary tree", there is no such thing

I did use the term as a metaphor. However, I do disagree with you that humans aren't at the top of the evolutionary tree/chain unless you can think of any other species that has made the same kind of advances we have?

Evolutionary theory does NOT claim that animal's evolved from bacteria. It does say that they had a common ancestor and then diverged. This common ancestor does not exist today in any form.

It is a great shame or convenience there is no trace of this common ancestor even though it's earliest offspring can be traced in abundance, i.e. prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Don't these date back 3.5 billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote ... rokaryotes

The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protobionts. In general, the eukaryotes are thought to have evolved later in the history of life. However, some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification. Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single a gene pool. This controversy was summarized in 2005:

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

Confusing isn't it. It also sounds like just about every base is being covered in the above. Either way, my question about prokaryotic cells or even eukaryotes I think is valid ... do we see them in a process of continual evolution that might explain/lend evidence to the huge bio-diversity here on earth.

I would like to see some more data [DNA programming] in this area if you have it.

So would I...

[JaJa]

I would like to see some more data in this area if you have it.

Not information on DNA re-programming via Laser or Electric Fields but information about DNA being 'fine-tuned' by the Golden Ratio.

Codon Populations in Single-stranded Whole Human Genome DNA Are Fractal and Fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1.618

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress. ... -perez.pdf

Abstract: This new bioinformatics research bridges Genomics and Mathematics. We propose a universal “Fractal Genome Code Law”: The frequency of each of the 64 codons across the entire human genome is controlled by the codon’s position in the Universal Genetic Code table. We analyze the frequency of distribution of the 64 codons (codon usage) within single-stranded DNA sequences. Concatenating 24 Human chromosomes, we show that the entire human genome employs the well known universal genetic code table as a macro structural model. The position of each codon within this table precisely dictates its population. So the Universal Genetic Code Table not only maps codons to amino acids, but serves as a global checksum matrix. Frequencies of the 64 codons in the whole human genome scale are a self-similar fractal expansion of the universal genetic code. The original genetic code kernel governs not only the micro scale but the macro scale as well. Particularly, the 6 folding steps of codon populations modeled by the binary divisions of the “Dragon fractal paper folding curve” show evidence of 2 attractors.

[Orthogonal]

Why ask for clarity on what an electrostatic field is then.

Indeed, I realized afterwards in my hastiness to post that I was not clear at all.

Humans are not the "top of the evolutionary tree", there is no such thing

I did use the term as a metaphor. However, I do disagree with you that humans aren't at the top of the evolutionary tree/chain unless you can think of any other species that has made the same kind of advances we have?

It's semantics really. Yes, humans are incredibly advanced in terms of brain function, but there are some other extraordinary abilities by other animals. Human exceptionalism is a natural tendency, but I don't think its warranted (and no, I'm not a moral nihilist).

Confusing isn't it. It also sounds like just about every base is being covered in the above. Either way, my question about prokaryotic cells or even eukaryotes I think is valid ... do we see them in a process of continual evolution that might explain/lend evidence to the huge bio-diversity here on earth.

Agreed, it is confusing but that is the nature of trying to model events that occured in remote history with what few strands of evidence are left. No, there is not a consensus on the actual progression of evolutionary history at this earliest of times, but that doesn't disprove anything about the theory.

To expand on the info you just posted, when life was first on earth, it was essentially a blank slate, so the first proto-cells had near infinite paths of progression with little or no competition. At this point, it would have been very easy (relatively speaking) to evolve from prokaryote to eukaryote. However, once this divergence occured and biodiversity flourished to fill every niche available, fierce competition would make it very difficult for one type of cell to transition from one type to the other due to their specialization. It may be possible to do demonstrate prokaryote evolution to eukaryote or vice versa in a lab, but it is not known what environmental conditions are necessary to even begin. It must also be stressed that if the experiment of life were restarted on earth, there is no guarantee that we even see life remotely the same as it is today. There could be numerous viable solutions and bio-cells or structures could be entirely different.

[JaJa]

No, there is not a consensus on the actual progression of evolutionary history at this earliest of times, but that doesn't disprove anything about the theory.

Unfalsifiable speculation doesn’t prove a theory is right.

The first proto-cells had near infinite paths of progression with little or no competition.

Those near infinite pathways (if true) would still be open despite competition – hence near infinite possibilities – an almost endless number of crossroads. If one path is shut because of competition then another door will always be open due to near-infinite possibilities. The fact that prokaryotes and eukaryotes are still around and assumed to be amongst the earliest living organisms on this planet we must assume they were amongst the first steps in the evolutionary process in which one common ancestor changed from its original form into these and then all other living organisms. If these little critters have endured 3.5 billion years and there is zero evidence of them in transitional stages either now or then how can we even consider they came from something else.

At this point, it would have been very easy (relatively speaking) to evolve from prokaryote to eukaryote. However, once this divergence occured and biodiversity flourished to fill every niche available, fierce competition would make it very difficult for one type of cell to transition from one type to the other due to their specialization.

Evolution is supposed to be a blind and random process. Human beings are intelligent and we can’t prevent ourselves from multiplying and consuming everything within our own niche. We are not evolving into something else despite filling our niche to the point we might actually destroy ourselves - prokaryotes and eukaryotes multiply and die off the same as us. There is no evidence they evolve into something else to utilize another niche or space when theirs becomes full. There is also no evidence (to my knowledge) that any species on this planet is undergoing change and turning into something else - considering evolution is an ongoing process I would expect this. In your above comment you are basically accrediting intelligence to what is supposed to be a machine-like process akin to a random number generator. A machine doesn’t care if a niche is filled because it is simply coughing out near-infinite combinations in a blind process – hence I expect to see the little critters or those things small enough to have super-fast metabolisms still churning out those random numbers or at least trying to.

It may be possible to do demonstrate prokaryote evolution to eukaryote or vice versa in a lab, but it is not known what environmental conditions are necessary to even begin.

Maybe they need to expose them to electric fields?

Speaking of which - considering you are very familiar with electrostatics I would be very interested to hear your views on electrostatic fields and spontaneous or rapid evolution. I'm sure I read on a TPOD that gravity might have been different with the dinosaurs - indicating a change in earths electric environment. Also, it makes more sense to me to assume sudden and rapid changes in evolution as this would account for the extraordinary lack of transitional fossils - wouldn't you agree?

Darwins theory does nothing for me.

[JohnMT]

JaJa wrote:

Darwins theory does nothing for me.

Agreed!

Does nothing for me either.

John

[webolife]

To expand on the info you just posted, when life was first on earth, it was essentially a blank slate, so the first proto-cells had near infinite paths of progression with little or no competition. At this point, it would have been very easy (relatively speaking) to evolve from prokaryote to eukaryote. However, once this divergence occured and biodiversity flourished to fill every niche available, fierce competition would make it very difficult for one type of cell to transition from one type to the other due to their specialization. It may be possible to do demonstrate prokaryote evolution to eukaryote or vice versa in a lab, but it is not known what environmental conditions are necessary to even begin. It must also be stressed that if the experiment of life were restarted on earth, there is no guarantee that we even see life remotely the same as it is today. There could be numerous viable solutions and bio-cells or structures could be entirely different.

Now this is a very apt summary of the state of evolution theory today.
Here's my take:
1. "when life was first on earth...first proto cells...infinite paths of progression... little or no comptetition." Be sure not to mention spontaneous generation, or the assumption of evolution as progression [towards what?], or the inescapable interdependence of organisms upon each other [ie. life as we know it].
2. "very easy... to evolve from prokaryote to eukaryote." Never mind the tremendous information jump for genes to build any or all of the cell organelles and regulate their very specific functions. Never mind that the process of protein synthesis for even the simplest of life forms [even viruses, if they are considered] is irreducibly complex. Never mind the amazing complexity found in prokaryotes, such as the bacterial flagellar motor: http://www.annualreviews.org/na101/home ... 0038_1.gif
3. "once this divergence occured and biodiversity flourished to fill every niche available" -- yeah, once that happened, never mind how it started or got there...
4. "fierce competition would make it very difficult for one type of cell to transition from one type to the other due to their specialization." Exactly why this observed process of natural selection [microevolution] could never be the basis of macroevolution, as Darwin hypothesized, and all evolutionists since. It weeds out organisms, but adds no new information to the pool. (My answer to Orthogonal's other question.)
5. "It may be possible to do demonstrate prokaryote evolution to eukaryote or vice versa in a lab" -- this was a joke, right? Who can make such a claim?
6. "but it is not known what environmental conditions are necessary to even begin." Hey, I agree with that!
7. "if the experiment of life were restarted on earth, there is no guarantee that we even see life remotely the same as it is today." -- "You can't rewind the tape," Stephen Jay Gould was famous for saying. It's a nice dodge for the "how" question of evolution. Most evolutionists parrot this by saying something like, "As lucky as we are, we're here, so it must have happened." As if that is all that is needed to defend this mechanismless and evidenceless process.

[Sparky]

the brain eaters!

Prions cannot be destroyed by boiling, alcohol, acid, standard autoclaving methods, or radiation. In fact, infected brains that have been sitting in formaldehyde for decades can still transmit spongiform disease. Cooking your burger 'til it's well done won't destroy the prions

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/ ... na/prions/

are prions a product or byproduct of evolution?

[Aristarchus]

Human exceptionalism is a natural tendency, but I don't think its warranted

I think you need to explain further on what you actually mean, "is a natural tendency." In addition, how did you derive what you stated in the first part of your sentence, and then conclude, "I don't think its warranted." It appears to be a non sequitur.

For example, Homo sapien sapiens share with Neandertals the gene for language, i.e., the FOXP2. However, Neandertals lived in very small family groups and were never able to organize into greater communities as found in the tribal units of Homo sapien sapiens. Thus, in Neandertals' groupings, the children did not have the longer developmental stages of learning as in the Homo sapien sapiens' children. What resulted was that the longer developmental stages of the latter produced more effective communication skills that created the organization of larger groups that were able to develop into societies. Explain the natural tendency of such a development, and also how this would relate to something unwarranted.

It does appear that one could argue that there is a development of consciousness acting upon Homo sapien sapiens to manifest within an environment that has been cultivated to nurture this kind of social evolution. I could explain this further, but I really need to know where you're taking your argument.

Darwins theory does nothing for me.

Indeed. One should look to the scary prospects Darwins' offspring have taken the extent of his arguments. Watch the following video from this young man with its satirical tone, but for me this is an example of how the Darwinists have developed their reasoning to rather dubious ends:

The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin

[JohnMT]

I have followed much of the comments, suggestions and other ideas on this thread, but the entire subject is still inconclusive.

Whether one begins with a Cell or its extreme individual complexities etc., one is still assuming some kind of a beginning.

So this kind of thinking contains no meaningful substance whatsoever on the defunct subject called 'evolution' at all!

Just like the most outdated and ridiculous so-called 'Big Bang' supposition (have I inadvertently started a new thread here)

Are we talking about REAL beginnings here, or what?

Just a few thoughts,

John

[webolife]

Clarification, JohnMT? Are you saying that you think any framework built on the concept of "origins" is irrelevant or immaterial or...? Since you based one of your comments on my illustration of the complexity inherent in bacteria, I am wondering where you are going with this? If it is a question of origins, then It would appear you are right on thread here, since evolution is fundamentally built around this concept.