Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Why do we only find giraffes with long necks? I did not mean that all other animals also grow long necks. We have millions of species which could easily have had long necks like the giraffe. Why is it that the giraffe is the only organism with the distinctively long neck? Surely other organisms, if it worked in that mechanism, would also have grown long necks? So this one neck mutation ONLY occoured in a girafe, when there were possibly millions of other SPECIES of animals that could have also obtained this mutation?
    Why should it have evolved in other species? Humans are the only species to evolve consciousness. So what? The fact is, natural selection for a characteristic is dependent on a variety of things, including, but not limited to:

    1. A balance between advantage : biological cost : feasibility
    2. Geographic requirements
    3. Current availablity of foods, predatation etc
    4. Sexual selection
    5. Current physical/physiological properties
    6. Evolutionary history
    7. Other environmental pressures
    8. Alternative adaptive routes. The 'path of least resistance' so to say.

    These factors, and many more, all interact to drive natural selection and evolution. It is not surprising if x characterisic only evolves once. But, that is not to say it is not impossible for similar characteristics to evolve in different environments in different lineages. For example, it is an evolutionary trend to see a new introductee to an island to become bigger if it is already relatively big, or smaller if it is relatively small. There are a variety of examples of a physical characteristic evolving to form the same function in different species of animal. It does happen, of course it does. This is not a functional argument against evolution

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    PS: 99.9% of mutations are either useless, or harmful. The 0.1 percent is arguable. If all of creation/animals/all the species we see came from malformations of DNA, why are there not innumerable fossils of organisms dead due to genetic disorders. They are not that common.
    Most mutations are useless yes, but this determined by the above list of factors which create the hostile environment of the creature. However, you seem to have the impression that a genetic mutation always produces some kind of freakish abnormality like a leg sprouted out of a head. This isn't the case. Most DNA mutations go unnoticed. If, by chance, it does happen to provide some sort of advantage (e.g. a very slight increase in neck length), it will be more likely to be adopted by the gene pool.

    You will have genetic mutations inside you. They will be tiny and chances are, will have no apparent effect upon you as a creature, but they will be there. Mistakes are always made. They are usually so small, however, that they would not be glaringly obvious in the fossil record unless genetic comparisons are done.

    (Original post by sixthformer)
    A--> If the giraffe needed a long neck, HOW did it survive before?
    B --> if the long neck only gave it a higher chance of survival, why don't we see other animals with long necks such as the giraffes? If it was such a benefit? Mind, i did not say ALL animals, i just said, one or two more, if the genetics/mechanism was THAT simple.
    It may not have needed a long neck, but having a slightly longer neck would have provided access to more food than the others had. Subsequently, that giraffe would be more successful in feeding and therefore more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass that gene on. Very quickly, such a gene would rapidly proliferate. Mathematical models have been produced to show that a successful gene can rapidly infiltrate a gene pool of a species in a evolutionaly-relative small number of generations.

    Keep in mind, before the selection of neck length, the 'evolutionarily primative' version of the giraffe would have, by this point, proved its success in surviving by getting to that stage in the first place. The adaptation of the neck would not have been a matter of life or extinction (although there are examples of this kind of acute dilemma, typically the product of radical environmental change), but a matter of getting ahead in the arms race of a Darwinian world. Not extending the neck may not have meant that it would die out, but in doing so, would increase its chances of surviving to reproduce.

    The second part of this section has been addressed in my above post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I will withhold from answering this point. I want to keep this strictly scientific.
    So you don't want to confront the scientific evidence in the link in my signature?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    You're not proving anything wrong here, just asking questions which reveal you don't understand evolution's mechanisms in the detail. Asking questions is not proving something wrong!

    Anyway, I'd recommend Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker, he may have written something more recently but it's a very good introduction to evolution in theory and evidence. If you're only prepared to read one book which promotes the acceptance of evolution I'd make this the one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    As evolution is based on malformation of DNA or mutation
    er yeh, thats not strictly true, in any way shape or form. and there's a difference between Evolution and Evolution by natural selection. one is the process and the other a reason for it.

    anyway on to my point, evolution of a species arises as all individuals of a species (barring twins) are unique. This means they all interact with their ecological conditions differently, some are better adapted to survive, some aren't. the ones that are are more likely to survive and pass on, in their DNA, the adaptation that allowed them to survive, hence the species evolves over time.

    These adaptations can occasionally occur due to a mutation, but they also occur through breeding. for example if two people with blonde hair have a child, it will have blonde hair. if two birds with long bills mate, odds are their offspring will have a long bill. now lets say a long bill is beneficial to the bird, maybe for spearing insects. it will be more skilled at getting food than birds with shorter bills (intraspecific competition) and will have a better chance at mating and producing offspring, passing on the trait and contributing to the evolution of its species.

    almost done, i know its a long post to keep it at a cellular level like you asked in your first post, the fact that almost every organism on the planet uses DNA as its genetic code, and that base triplets of DNA code for the same amino acids in every organism, e.g UAC and UAU code for tyrosine in humans, cuttlefish, E. coli, sparrows, blue whales etc not only proves that all species have a common ancestor, but also supports the theory of evolution

    also please stop asking where all these organelles arose from and asking how they could come into being, evolution isnt concerned with how it all came to be, it's an explanation of how we went from whatever there was in the beginning to what we have now, not how the beginning was formed :holmes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    there
    Read up on the edosymbiotic theory.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    :lol: Your argument is nothing more than the old chesnut of argument from incredulity. Very boring.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this the argument from incredulity, the logical fallacy?
    When you've finished a degree in cell biology, and you still can't believe that the cell can evolve, then it would be worth wasting time explaining this. Otherwise it would be about as fruitful as fiddling to deaf ears while Rome burns.
    In other words, absence of evidence is not the evidence for absence. And there is plenty of evidence, and it is growing all the time.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't a proof like you said it was - it's merely your opinion.

    And a flawed one at that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.
    Organelles arose when intracellular bacteria invaded another bacteria and acted as parasites, using the host cellular machinery for their own metabolism. Over millions of years the bacteria ended up transposing their own DNA into the human DNA, thus saving them the effort of having to transcribe their own genes. However, whilst it saves them energy, it also means that when the human cell is replicated it can replicate the bacteria as part of the cell. And thus organelles arose, resulting in eukaryotic cells.

    Mitochondria share homology with Rickettsia bacteria, way too similar to be a coincidence. Can't remember what chloroplasts are...


    All in all, you're using the same arguments against evolution they used decades or even centuries ago, with sheer ignorance of the developments in the theory of evolution in the mean time. Irreducible complexity has been worked on a lot over the years. Intermediate forms of eyes have been found, and it's thought the flagella of bacteria evolved from apparatus used to inject toxins. You have a lot more reading up to do if you want a credible argument.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you don't want to confront the scientific evidence in the link in my signature?
    even though the video is informative and somewhat credible, it doesn't prove or dissprove the theory of evolution using concrete proof. most evolutionists accept the voids within the theory, even Darwin when he finalised the idea admitted there are gaps in the theory that are unexplained and more evdince is needed. the theory is still unproven, can you at least agree with that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    the theory is still unproven, can you at least agree with that?
    Of course, but can you come up with a theory that fits the scientific evidence better? I don't think so.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Svenjamin)
    Organelles arose when intracellular bacteria invaded human cells and acted as parasites,
    impossible. the human cell could not have functioned without a complete set of organelles in the first place. what was the human cell before it became invaded by this bacterial parasiste? i.e according to your comment the human race exists strictly due to a bacterial parasite? what your saying is, this bacteria later switched roles and became a mitochindria as we now know? then that begs the question, what source of energy did the cell have to function up until that point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    even though the video is informative and somewhat credible, it doesn't prove or dissprove the theory of evolution using concrete proof. most evolutionists accept the voids within the theory, even Darwin when he finalised the idea admitted there are gaps in the theory that are unexplained and more evdince is needed. the theory is still unproven, can you at least agree with that?
    Its been a long time since darwin, you realize that?

    The vast majority of the holes Darwin was talking about have all been filled.

    Its a proven theory. Just not a proven fact.

    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    impossible. the human cell could not have functioned without a complete set of organelles in the first place. what was the human cell before it became invaded by this bacterial parasiste? i.e according to your comment the human race exists strictly due to a bacterial parasite? what your saying is, this bacteria later switched roles and became a mitochindria as we now know? then that begs the question, what source of energy did the cell have to function up until that point?
    Actually it could of. The human cell came from another animals cell, which came from another one. The basic structure of a human cell has existed for a long time, and small and slight changes eventually made it what it is today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Of course, but can you come up with a theory that fits the scientific evidence better? I don't think so.
    well the belief which i choose to follow is more credible than that of evolution. it also gives me more factual evidence to believe in what i believe and dismiss evolution. no evolutionist can provide evidence of the source of energy which first initiated evolution of living organisms, wheras my beleif does. as a scientist i agree that energy in=energy out, energy can only transform from one state to another. so its all fair and well saying that a simple cellular structure became more and more complex as time went by and took different forms etc., it doesnt answer how the energy cam about to form the cell in the first place. im talking on the atomic and molecular scale.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    impossible. the human cell could not have functioned without a complete set of organelles in the first place. what was the human cell before it became invaded by this bacterial parasiste? i.e according to your comment the human race exists strictly due to a bacterial parasite? what your saying is, this bacteria later switched roles and became a mitochindria as we now know? then that begs the question, what source of energy did the cell have to function up until that point?
    Saying human cell was a mistake on my part. It should have been a bacteria invading another bacteria(amended it now). Other than that, the theory stands. Prokaryotic cells don't have organelles, it's perfectly possible to survive without them. The evolution to organelles was the leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, and thus it happened a long long long long time ago in the evolutionary tree. Eukaryotic cells had a major advantage in future evolution, hence why there aren't any large prokaryotic organisms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    even though the video is informative and somewhat credible, it doesn't prove or dissprove the theory of evolution using concrete proof. most evolutionists accept the voids within the theory, even Darwin when he finalised the idea admitted there are gaps in the theory that are unexplained and more evdince is needed. the theory is still unproven, can you at least agree with that?
    Science doesn't deal with 'proofs'. Science is not mathematics. Nothing is ever proven. Concepts can be disproven, but not proven.

    What science DOES deal with, is evidence and theories and, in science, you accept the truth of a theory that has amassed significant amounts of evidence without being falsified. It essentially faces the test of time.

    If evidence begins to build that does not comply with the current dominant theory, it is sent into crisis and further investigation is undertaken. Eventually, if it proceeds to a point where there is a significant amount of disputing evidence, the original theory is rejected in favour of a new theory which better accounts for previous observations as well as satisfying the recently accumulated work.

    The theory of evolution is no different. Currently, in the field of biology, ethology, zoology, there are a huge number of observations which only make sense in the context of evolution. Evidence can be taken from a wide range of scientific disciplines which support the assumptions of evolution, more so than any other opposing theories. In addition, the theory is open to falsification, and so far it has very robustly stood up against the test of time.

    Ultimately, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species when placed in the context of empirical observation.

    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    well the belief which i choose to follow is more credible than that of evolution. it also gives me more factual evidence to believe in what i believe and dismiss evolution. no evolutionist can provide evidence of the source of energy which first initiated evolution of living organisms, wheras my beleif does.
    What's your evidence, then?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Its been a long time since darwin, you realize that?

    The vast majority of the holes Darwin was talking about have all been filled.

    Its a proven theory. Just not a proven fact.
    i agree, it still a theory not a fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    Oh dear....

    Man will never cease to question, will He?

    He will never cease to ponder?

    He will never stop exploring, finding...discovering?

    This is good - it will only lead to advancement and development.

    Questioning and evaluating evolution is an excellent way to either find out that it is false or reaffirm that it is actually true.

    Just wanted to add an small insightful comment.

    Don't mind me..

    Continue with your discourse...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gravity is still a theory, yet no-one debates it. electricity is a theory, again we take it for granted. However, evolution which just so happens to be the most prominent piece of evidence which undermines thousands of years of hate and segregation caused by religion causes uproar amongst those who have spent their entire life living by millennia year old book which every time someone disagrees with it gets socially segregated or murdered.

    I'm bored of religion now, can we please just shoot it in the head and let people love and live without worrying about what happens after?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Svenjamin)
    Saying human cell was a mistake on my part. It should have been a bacteria invading another bacteria. Other than that, the theory stands. Prokaryotic cells don't have organelles, it's perfectly possible to survive without them. The evolution to organelles was the leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, and thus it happened a long long long long time ago in the evolutionary tree. The evolution of eukaryotic cells gave a major advantage in future evolution, hence why there aren't any large prokaryotic organisms.
    your explanation does not answer the question. give me one stage of a human cell when it will function without, lets say a ribosome? the ribosome is responsible for protein synthesis after transcription. how then did the process of cell replication occur during the stages of no ribosome. another example could be a cell without a lysosome, how did the cell excrete its waste material or foreign substances during the stage of no lysosome. my point is, the human cell could not have survived as a human cell at any point without a complete set of organelles, thus it could not have existed during a stage of gradual progression. it can only have existed as a complete functional cell at any one point, at all other stages of incompleteness the cell cannot survive.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.