Comments
-
So we are descendants of fish?
-
@jaski, Which are descendants of bacteria. Pretty neat. Life finds a way.
-
@jaski, rètarded fish frogs*.
-
@jaski, not just us. Most land creatures. And more like amphibians.
-
@LordCuddlefish, so before we evolved from primates, the primates came from gilled fish?
-
@jaski, A rough timeline of our lineage going back (as much as I can remember that are vertebrates): Mammals, mammal like things, reptile like things, amphibian like things, lung fish like things, bony fish
-
@theprofprofessor, so you’re saying there are yet to be discovered missing links for each of the transitions between mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish?
-
@jaski, Probably? But there are rarely a single species that is truely a transition between x and y groups that exist today. The genetic evidence is more compelling and accurate than the fossil record
-
@theprofprofessor, but transitioning should still be continuing and yet there are no evidence of transitioning from species to species. 🤔
-
@theprofprofessor, would you direct me to the genetic evidence so I can Google it?
-
@jaski, This is the first example of speciation I can think of that’s occurring now (ring species) https://www.flickr.com/photos/davemedia/6243040930 https://onlyzoology.com/how-is-dna-used-as-evidence-for-evolution/ genetic sequencing and how it relates to evolution
-
@theprofprofessor, will look it up. But trying to find the missing link from primates to Homo sapiens is not the only struggle. You have to do that for millions of species and they don’t exist. Btw, genetically, humans share 60% of the same dna as a tomatoe. Does that mean we come from tomatoes?🤔
-
@jaski, considering that life on earth all started from a common ancestor, id be more worried if there were genetic sequences that werent in common whatsoever with humans and other organisms. Plus, we're looking for the tiniest mutations in the genetic code to progress a more desirable trait in a species. Finding the EXACT specimen that would be that missing link is practically impossible. The best we can do is to continue scientific discoveries and catalog them to expand our knowledge of how life evolved here on earth
-
@that1german, how does a simple organism grow in complex development over time? Every science including the second Law of Thermal dynamics which states that eco systems will eventually have entropy and that mutations are almost always harmful not beneficial (we are not in the Marvel Universe in real life 🙃) to the organism. How do you account for every living creature going through precise mutation to be in perfect eco system right now? You can have a trillion years and that’ll never happen. Not sure if we have enough evidence to prove that “all life started from a common ancestor”. Hope we are not related to a fungus.
-
@jaski, now you're just lying. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful to the organisms. To say its mostlt ALWAYS harmful is a huge misrepresentation. And yes we can conclude that mutations over time have occurred in species throughout our time on earth, like this paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4 As for your claim of evolution violating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, I have no real knowledge of that as I'm a bio major and I have yet to take that class, so I'll just leave experts to explain it to you and how they can establish evolution with the 2nd law: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009 Ps: don't know if this is intentional or not, but you're almost spouting word for word arguments that young earth creationists like Kent Hovind have done in the past and when those get looked at critically by science/scientists, they fall apart gracefully
-
@that1german, mutations leading to a highly complex organism sounds scientific to you? Cells are so precise (ie mitochondria, nucleus, wall, etc.) at a microbiology level. A single cell developed that naturally? You sound defensive. I’m just holding to science.
-
@jaski, you're also comparing modern-day complex eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells to what was first cells on earth, which would have been more primitive than the most basic cells we have today. Eukarytic cells developed a nucleus, ribosome, and the other organelles over millions, perhaps billions, of years. They didn't start out like that, so either your glossing over a very important detail due to a lack of understanding or because you're deliberately being manipulative with your argument. And yes, I am being defensive for science. I'm striving to be a scientist after university. What you're proposing is lacking any real knowledge of the subjects you're trying to disprove. Not to mention, it ridiculous to think something along the line of "Sky man created earth in 6 days and earth is only 6000yrs old!" is a better argument to over a century of experiments and hard data that supports our arguments
-
@jaski, The second law of thermodynamics applies for closed systems that do not receive any external energy. Cells, organisms, ecosystems, and the Earth as a whole is an open system that gets energy from the sun. Most mutations have no noticeable effect since DNA bases are read in groups of three and there are many double ups in what they produce (eg GAT and GAC make the same amino acid) and most DNA doesn’t code for anything. Technically our eukaryotic cells are actually two cells in symbiosis but yes over the billion or so years since RNA was able to self replicate the evidence points towards cells evolving that way
-
@theprofprofessor, RNA self replicating equates to evolutionary progress? Lungs can just form out of gills because the RNA can self replicate? Please help me to understand that.
-
@jaski, Maybe I wasn’t clear but I was adding to the cell biology discussion by stating that self replicating RNA was likely the start of life
-
@that1german, you state “Eukaryotic cells developed a nucleus, ribosome, and the other organelles over millions, perhaps billions of years.” This is supporting an argument with the very question of the argument. You haven’t explained how does a simple cell develop these complicated components of a modern cell (your words)? Just pondering. Please do not be defensive.
-
@jaski, endosymbiotic theory is one way we can explain it among others, and no, theory doesn't mean its an educated guess Do you have anything to add other than just standard talking points and questions against evolution or are able to provide in any way which other theory is more possible?
-
@that1german, I’m just just challenging assumptions that are more opinions than science. Assumptions stating a simple cell became highly advanced on its own without real scientific evidence is just that: an assumption. I’m looking for evidence. Your statements lack real data. I’m exploring.
-
@jaski, opinions are a personal belief on a subject. A theory backed by experimentation, evidence, and peer review and has undergone scrutiny is not an opinion. Speculation is probably a better word for you. And I've provided evidence and data, in regards to endosymbiotic theory as well as links to scientific papers outlining how evolution could have occurred in simple bacterium and how your claim of evolution not being compatible with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics being false. I could also provide a link to the Miller experiment as well, which was able to create organic molecules under primitive earth conditions through spontaneous synthesis. And if you were just exploring, you wouldn't be actively trying to disprove this, like is evident in your earlier comments. You clearly have a bias, which is fine, but don't try to hide that bias under the umbrella of "im just looking for answers". Its disingenuous at best
-
@that1german, my bias is that without observable evidence many like you hold a theory to be fact. You only state you’ve provided evidence but you only state theories. Those are by definition not evidence. Simple cells do not develop into higher complex organisms. Humility is needed to discover scientific truth.
-
@jaski, just because you disagree, doesn't make you right. I have provided paper after paper, experiments that show that biomolecules can come from primitive conditions, and how simple primitive cells could evolve into complex organisms we have today. If you don't wanna acknowledge that, that's not my problem. So go ahead and continue downvoting comments that disagree with you while providing no alternative that could argue for or against. I'm gonna go continue studying about life on earth and its origins. Peace, nerd
-
@that1german, you keep referring to these experiments and then apply them conclusively to explain species and complex organisms. That’s not science.
-
@jaski, well if experiments and papers aren't sufficient for you, then I implore you to go and relay these criticisms to an actual professor, preferably one in biochemistry or evolutionary biology, maybe even microbiology. Im sure they can explain any sort of worries you may have, being much more informed than I am being just a student Who knows, maybe you'll be what brings us away from this fantasy notion of evolution, as you think it is
-
@that1german, let’s just continue learning. That’s all. Thank you for your perspective.
-
@jaski, and on that, we can 100% agree
-
@jaski, You seem to be trying to make yourself credible by talking about science and facts and theories yet you don't even know what a theory in science is clearly. Which is very common for someone that hasn't studied science. Nothing wrong with that just stop trying to sound like you know anything about science. A theory in science is the highest level of proof. Its called a theory because there is always room for more in science. Its not the same theory that you use in every day life. You're using the word wrong and misunderstand it. Gravity is a theory. Cells are a theory. Again a scientific theory is completely different from the way you are trying to use it. You also are clearly very close minded and not open to new ideas. You don't understand what science is. And that's okay but just try harder. And keep downvoting comments that make you look dumb that always helps.
-
@Rudolph Schmidt , you seem to be one who likes making a whole lot of assumptions and judge people on a social media app.
-
@Rudolph Schmidt , also, please double check that phrase “Gravity is a theory. Cells are a theory”. Very telling about your knowledge.
-
You stay in the water u dumb animal
I’d fix my wallet by telling my past self this seasons nfl scores.