Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3 This was a rather interesting story about a theory that cooking shaped human evolution. It allowed our digestive tracts to become simpler and use less energy, in addition to enabling our smaller jaws. The extra energy no longer needed by our digestive tract and the elimination of muscle anchor points used by a large jaw allowed our brains to expand. Pretty awesome.

Well, this is my first post, so hello to everyone and here's something for you to think about. I recently watched a documentary called 'The Colors of Infinity' ( ) by Arthur C. Clarke, the brilliant visionary scientist and author of '2001: A Space Odyssey'. In this documentary, he suggests that there may be some correlation between fractal geometry and the fundamental biological processes that create life in the real world. He compares the spirals seen in many fractals to the spirals seen in fern leaves and seashells, as well as many other similarities between fractal images and organic structures. He also notes that the infinite variety of endlessly complex fractal i…

Throughout the fossil record there is a tendency for shelled invertebrates to replace the calcite with the mineral aragonite (orthorhombic calcium carbonate). This is something of a bane for paleontologists because calcite is much less likely to dissolve in water and so thus is more likely to fossilize. That is why the fossil record for Paleozoic corals is better than the fossil record for Cenozoic corrals, the older coral is all made of calcite where the younger corals are aragonite. There are similar tendencies among mollusks. Why was this? The only reason I can think of is that the aragonite would be easier to precipitate out of water. Are there some properties of …

If you scrape your knee when you fall down, the blood cells and skin cells that are separated from the rest of the body and left behind on the ground will die while left in the open environment. Current evolutionary theory would suggests the tissue and organs in a multi cellular organism evolved by cells in the past joining together to from those cell structures that you see in present day animals and plants. But since individual cells in such organisms can not survive on their own, how did they exist separately in the past to merge together in the first place?

Hi I am here for some scientific backing on a novel I am working on. My novel involved rodents that have evolved into larger forms that can rival that of other mammalian groups. They evolved on an island like New Zealand and Gough Island which had no mammalian predators but lots of naive bird species. Soon after the rodents found the island, they increased in size and supplanted the native avians and became the dominant species. Provided that there are no humans to stop the rodents and there is plenty of bugs and plants to sustain the ecosystem, how possible is this scenario that rodents evolve into creatures that I suggest? I sincerely wish for some scientifi…

Have you heard about the Darwinius masillae? It must be our greatest ancestor. You can read more on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae So, what do you think? Is it a big deal or just another monkey? It's 95% conserved, so I think we can get a lot of cool information from it.

If bats have wing membranes that have a layer of fur, can they still fly? I am trying to design a creature that is based on Bats, but however the creature lives in a pretty cold place. So I need to know whether fur will cause its wing membranes to become too heavy.

Hi all, my first post. The title really covers my question. But i'll give the details. Human pathogen co-evolution and the red queen hypothesis, show humans and pathogens almost chasing each other through history for a slight advantage over the other. (if i understand it correctly.) Could we consider our invention of medicine against infectious diseases an evolutionary step, from the perspective that our intelligence etc is evolutionary and that drug resistance is perhaps the pathogens evolving in thier turn? I have often wondered about this and am curious about what others think. If anyone agrees and what step may be next? Looking forward to hear…

how is it debatable of the fact that we as life forms evolve without just random mutations but actually genetic differences to better fit there environment. things couldnt just be random like that. its alot like muscles, we need better ones, we develop better ones, we dont, we dont, right? arent humans a good example of that? our different skin pigments? lighter skin, come from a snowier place, wich white reflects sun, and also blends in. brown, from hotter places, like mexico, and alot of america, to not be as harmed by the sun by just getting darker instead of getting damaged. black, well im sure they have a reason too. alright maybe thats not a good one to use fo…

my father tells me how he has a temper so i will have one too. is there actually a science to that statement?are attitudes hereditary? what about past disorders like schyzophrenia? or ocd? are those hereditary? im guessing yes. thanks.

Just wanted to share what I just saw; when I got the camera the bird was gone. A hummingbird feeding from spiders that hide under a handrail at my home exterior. Thought they were strictly vegetarians. At least this one is not.

Throughout history many different selection pressures have changed organisms to be better adapted to their current environment, these have lead to different alleles being removed from the gene pool and other becoming far more prevalent within it. In the past many of these selection pressures were created by nature or the predator/prey relationship with the most successful organisms passing on their alleles and others perishing into history, due to the lack of competitiveness compare to other organisms. However, in modern day human society things are far different with the environment being controlled through buildings and electricity and food supply being constant. …

Hi I just wanna discuss something. I am designing some predatory rodents which I need some scientific fact to support the design of the teeth. As you can see the Rodent skull hasn't changed much for millions of years in fact they all look very similar. If let say Rodents are to become more effective hunters when kind of shape of their teeth they will need to adopt in order to make carnivorans make a run for their money? And also can a mammal's molar or incisor change shape if evolution allows? Example, a flat molar into a shearing knife edge Thank you

I remember in the movie Matrix when the "agent" tells Morpheus that the human race is like a virus—we multiply and multiply until finally, the only way to survive is to move to a new area. Mammals live in equilibrium with their environment, we do not. Today, with global warming and overpopulation, we, the agent's words become more and more truthful. Is this a result of our lifestyle, genes, or evolution?

Is it just me or is there anything that doesn't need water to live? why is life so attracted to water? If you think about it, if that's the case any planet with water should be capable of supporting some form of life. From what I can determine, it seems water and sun created the first life then new life stemmed from that, water+light hmmm... what's goin on here, anyone heard anything about this or any thoughts on this?

I'm wondering from an evolutionary point of view. I can think of a few advantages of the way my body has adapted to a number of sedentary months. I'm fitter in the sense that I can now last longer if I am isolated without food. Some of my muscles have atrophied somewhat. If I'm not going to use them, or don't require them to be that size/strength they might as well be lighter and more portable for the others. But overall, I just don't see myself as being as "fit", certainly not in athletic terms, but in Darwinian terms as well. So, how come I'm not lying on the couch looking more like Superman, ready to fight, flee, attract woman etc. etc.? Keep i…

I have this problem: When two people of differing skin colour have offspring, the kids will have uniform skin colour and also their hair is of uniform consistency. The kids might be light skinned or dark skinned, robust haired or flaxen haired. This does not matter. What matter is that their skin is uniformly coloured all over, and so is their hair uniformly curly/flaxen all over. Now, consider horses of different colours. If they mate, the resulting offspring will have spotty skin. they have a base colour, and over it, huge splots of different colour. So in them, their colour will come from both parents. So why does this not happen with humans? When, …

Where is life from? The human souls has been puzzled by it for thousands of years. It is because the opinion about life’s origin is the foundation of one’s outlook on life, which influences and determines one’s entire life. Through great efforts of bioscience researchers, a giant leap1 has been made in the study field of origin of life over the century. But just as what was said by Orgle that“almost everything else about the origin of life remains obscure, Little is known in certain about neither the physical environment in which life evolved nor the detailed steps that led from unconstrained abiotic chemistry to the biochemistry with systematical complexity ” in vol. 43…

I've been always perplexed when it comes to the intricate difficulties trying to explain scientific concepts. This is one that I've been chewing on for some time and it would be great to hear your opinions! Most of us are very familiar with all the interesting debates around artificial intelligence, strong ai, self-awareness, conciousness, feelings, etc. And there is a lot of talk about stuff like "we will never make a learning, self-aware, with feelings, etc. computer program, simply not possible", etc. So I would like to venture with this question: If Nature (Evolution, nothingness, the universe, randomness, whatever you want to call it), which is not supposed to be …

Many people regard natural selection (NS) as the engine that drives Darwinian evolution. Perhaps the metaphor is useful, maybe even helpful, but is it biologically correct? Is it even fair to say that biological evolution has an engine that drives it somewhere? Firstly, let’s define “evolution” in the Darwinian sense: It means “decent with modification,” arising from the Malthusian principle that more offspring are produced by a population than can be sustained by its habitat (or environment). Secondly, lets’ define “natural selection” in the Darwinian sense: It means an occurrence of differential reproductive success amongst the individuals of a population. That’…

Just a thought - if DNA based transposable elements exist in high enough numbers then should they not cause an increase to the number of mutation events in evolution history, causing a larger variety of genetic mutations than point mutations which are neutral (or even those point mutations which may be deleterious)? So are transposable elements Nature's acceleration pedal for mutation prior to selection? Any views? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon

Hi, I'm hoping that the Developmental Biology goes in here... If not, sorry. Feel free to move this. Anyway, I am reading about the frog gastrulation, and I am very confused in the difference between invagination and involution. I understand the term invagination when referred to sea urchin (i.e. it's like pinching in I think) but I guess it's hard for me to visualize the term, along with involution, in the context of frog. Also, my book (Campbell) uses the term "dorsal lip" but I can't really find "lip." Please help! Thank you very much! Sincerely,

Does anyone know what genes determine say, whether a person will be black or white if the child has a black father and white mother? Or Melado?

Much has been written to try to explain the evolution of bird flight. The discussion today revolves around two theories, the "ground-up" and the "tree-down." These theories and their variants have serious flaws as pointed out by the opposite camps. There is another way! My new theory is available now at: protobird.blogspot.com I think you will find it cogent and persuasive. I explain why, how and where flight evolved. I do avoid the fossil record because I'm no paleontologist. But, nothing I propose is contrary to archaeopteryx or the recent finds in China. Please give it a read.

There is a logical way, using only simple genetic considerations, to separate evolution into its vertical and lateral components. Vertical evolution could be seen as evolutionary progress. Whereas lateral evolution is more concerned with perturbations of existing systems. This distinction is easier to see with an example. Let us compare a single cell with a hypothetical multicellular life form composed of only two differentiated cells that integrate. To differentiate, maintain, connect, and integrate these two cells requires additional DNA support that is not needed by the single cell. All the extra DNA requirement would make this vertical evolution. If we had t…