Evolution

[fieryash]

I was reading about Lamarckism, the previous idea to Darwin-Wallace's theory, and it got me thinking if there's any cases where elements of it could be true. In terms of simple adaptions anyways.
For clarification, I'm not claiming D&W's theory is wrong, but wondering if Lamarck may also have been right on some parts.

For example: Giraffes evolved long necks by having to stretch a lot and over time, by elongated muscles and such, then went on to pass the traits to the next gen.

I'm perfectly aware that it happens because of mutation and the breeding of species with favourable traits, but has there ever been an example where this wasn't the case?
Maybe even that this caused the mutations as opposed to them being random?

[fieryash]

After thinking over it, it seems fairly unlikely. I'm more so wondering if there's any possibility or evidence of non-random mutations.

[dio1989]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A

[hovla]

mutations that happen to single organism which arnt on genetic level, cant be transmited to offspring afaik. It would be interesting if there was a case of this happening in nature, but im not aware of such.

[LittleFuryThings]

It's sort of possible. Environment doesn’t change the DNA sequence itself, but it can affect how a gene is expressed, and that can be inherited by offspring.

There’s an article about it here.

“For instance, Bygren's research showed that in Overkalix, boys who enjoyed those rare overabundant winters — kids who went from normal eating to gluttony in a single season — produced sons and grandsons who lived shorter lives.”

Also, from the wikipedia article on Lamarckism:

"In October 2010, further evidence linking food intake to traits inherited by the offspring were shown in a study of rats conducted by several Australian universities.[17] The study strongly suggested that fathers can transfer a propensity for obesity to their daughters as a result of the fathers' food intake, and not their genetics (or specific genes), prior to the conception of the daughter. A "paternal high-fat diet" was shown to cause cell dysfunction in the daughter, which in turn led to obesity for the daughter."

[snowboarder1992]

where did personality, and humor come form? how has it evolved?

[Tbird915]

If you are looking for something that shows how evolution might not work you don't have to look farther than our own ancestry. Why would a species which lived in extremely cold environments, like ancient humans, evolve to loose the full body fur which they had to then harvest from other animals.

[michaelyin]

If you are looking for something that shows how evolution might not work you don't have to look farther than our own ancestry. Why would a species which lived in extremely cold environments, like ancient humans, evolve to loose the full body fur which they had to then harvest from other animals.

Which extremely cold environment are you talkIng about?

But if you want to use our own ancestry as example, there is plenty of proof for evolution in our own DNA and in the chromosomes

[Tbird915]

The natives to northern Europe had to survive through an ice age.

And the skeletal evolution of our ancestry makes a big jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien.

And finally within our chromosomes there is evidence of small changes to better suit to an environment but not full on transition from one species to another

[michaelyin]

The natives to northern Europe had to survive through an ice age.

Incorrect.
During the ice age, there were no natives to northern europe, since it was iced over. The emergence of Homo roughly coincides with the beginning of the ice age, but were geographically disconneced.

And the skeletal evolution of our ancestry makes a big jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien.

Incorrect.
There is clear fossile evidence of atleast 14 members of the Homo genus, that either coexisted, came before, or came after Homo Erectus.

And finally within our chromosomes there is evidence of small changes to better suit to an environment but not full on transition from one species to another

Incorrect.
In chromosome 2 one can find direct evidence of our ape ancestry. A chimpanzee and other apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans only 46. Chromosome 2 is clear evidence of a fusion of the ape chromosomes 2a and 2b.

[Tbird915]

on my first point i provide this evidence from dailymail.co.uk

"The last humans on Earth may have survived an ice age by retreating to a small patch of land nicknamed 'the garden of Eden'.

'Shortly after Homo sapiens first evolved, the harsh climate conditions nearly extinguished our species,' said Professor Marean.
'Recent finds suggest the small population that gave rise to all humans alive today survived by exploiting a unique combination of resources along the southern coast of Africa.'"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2EhB45NPG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Tbird915]

And please tell me one of the Homo Genus Proven to evolve into modern man after Homo Erectus.

[Tbird915]

So because our genes are similar to apes we automatically jumped from ape to us... we share genes with bananas as well.

[michaelyin]

on my first point i provide this evidence from dailymail.co.uk

"The last humans on Earth may have survived an ice age by retreating to a small patch of land nicknamed 'the garden of Eden'.

'Shortly after Homo sapiens first evolved, the harsh climate conditions nearly extinguished our species,' said Professor Marean.
'Recent finds suggest the small population that gave rise to all humans alive today survived by exploiting a unique combination of resources along the southern coast of Africa.'"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2EhB45NPG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Good job finding the only scientist in the world who would base statements on how life was lived 2 million years ago on findings that are no older than 160 000 years old. Every sane scientist who knows their thing knows that the ice never reached Africa, instead, the southernmost point was located in what is today Germany, as shown here, where the blue line corresponds to the glacial maximum glaciation. To say that there then was a "isolated Garden of Eden" is a grossly over-romanticized depiction of the events, and plain wrong. (Unless you consider three separate continents to be geographically isolated.) That scientist is not only scientifically wrong, its morally and ethically disgusting to lie in a newspaper as an "expert".

And please tell me one of the Homo Genus Proven to evolve into modern man after Homo Erectus.

The most famous of them all, Homo Neanderthalis, died roughly 25 000 years ago. Other noteworthy include H. heidelbergensis and H. gautengensis (lived at the same time as H. Erectus), H. sapiens idaltu (died out roughly 150 000 years ago in eastern africa) , H. floresiensis which was likely the most recent, died out roughly 13 000 years ago. Alongside the fossils were tools of various kinds.

So because our genes are similar to apes we automatically jumped from ape to us... we share genes with bananas as well.

Really? The "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes" argument? Do not ridicule yourself. As I said there is clear genetic evidence in Chromosome 2.

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

[SubieMike]

The list of proof for Evolution is endless. The list of proof for God is empty. Think about.

[Tbird915]

1) Here is another source that states Homo Sapiens lived in an ice age
http://www-v1.amnh.org/exhibitions/p...story/life.php

it says

"The winters of Ice Age Europe some 15,000 years ago were harsh, but modern human—Homo sapiens—had developed clever ways to cope with the cold."

2) Homo Neanderthalis lived alongside humans and was not an ancestor of humans. Homo Heidlbergensis is a species related to both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthalis so i will not argue that point. Homo Gautengensis could have lived alongside Erectus or been a subspecies of it, and Idaltu was a Sapiens subspecies as well. Finally Floresiensis was a dwarf species and were extinct without evolving into us in any way.
Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html
http://creation.com/homo-gautengensishttp://creation.com/homo-gautengensis
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ne-interactivehttp://http://humanorigins.si.edu/ev...ne-interactive
http://www.hypermodern.org/index.php...to-homo-sapienhttp://www.hypermodern.org/index.php...to-homo-sapien

3) I was not at all using that argument. I was saying that we didn't evolve from apes. We evolved alongside them from similar ancestry, and that a transition wouldn't have been a drastic jump form one species to another it would be gradual changes to better suit the area it lives in. I said this in my first post.

[snowboarder1992]

The list of proof for Evolution is endless. The list of proof for God is empty. Think about.

The amount of Schoolerly sources proving then being updating and disproven and then upgrading and making another theory then having it disporven, pluss all the scams such as piltdown man makes the so called evidence of Evolution shaky and unstable, plus theism has been held as a view for far longer then evolution and the list against it is also empty.

[michaelyin]

The amount of Schoolerly sources proving then being updating and disproven and then upgrading and making another theory then having it disporven, pluss all the scams such as piltdown man makes the so called evidence of Evolution shaky and unstable, plus theism has been held as a view for far longer then evolution and the list against it is also empty.

I don't know if you were dropped on your head as a young one, but perhaps you missed the quite undeniable evidence I out forward just a few posts up. We can prove evolution very easily, and there is no shortage of evidence ether.

To say "well people have being worshipping religious deities for longer than using the scientific method, hence theism must be right" are you kidding me? Really? Besides the flawed logic (that is a fallacy afterall) one must stand in awe of your ignorance.

[snowboarder1992]

I don't know if you were dropped on your head as a young one, but perhaps you missed the quite undeniable evidence I out forward just a few posts up. We can prove evolution very easily, and there is no shortage of evidence ether.

To say "well people have being worshipping religious deities for longer than using the scientific method, hence theism must be right" are you kidding me? Really? Besides the flawed logic (that is a fallacy afterall) one must stand in awe of your ignorance.

obviously you have no experience in University level debate, I can give you scholarly resources that completely contradict each other. also you did not contradict my example of the piltdown man scam or any of the others so are you conceeding the fact that your scholarly source are a bunch of crap because its nothing but a bunch of professors twisting evidence one way or the other. quite frankly a good debater could prove using scholarly sources that aliens will be invading the world next week and if we keep funding GOs in central africa the world will end.

[michaelyin]

obviously you have no experience in University level debate, I can give you scholarly resources that completely contradict each other. also you did not contradict my example of the piltdown man scam or any of the others so are you conceeding the fact that your scholarly source are a bunch of crap because its nothing but a bunch of professors twisting evidence one way or the other. quite frankly a good debater could prove using scholarly sources that aliens will be invading the world next week and if we keep funding GOs in central africa the world will end.

I'm not conceding anything to someone as clearly deranged as you.

The piltdown man scam? What on Earth are you talking about? Do you honestly believe that one scam wipes out all evidence we have found, and all the fossiles that arent scams? The hundreds and thousands upon millions of museum articles that are all dated older than 7000 years?

You seem to like thinking that you are vastly superior in debates, yet I've never, ever seen you provide even one sliver of hope for your theories through any sort of evidence, proof or material to support your ideas. Yet you seem to think that YOU, out of all people, know better biology than biologists and better physics than a physicist.

I dare you provide one shred of evidence to support your belief. Similarly, I dare you to provide even one scholarly source that refutes what I said about chromosomes and in particular, Chromosome 2.