Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

Here's an interesting article about the biais of biology students against randomness (something we see here very often, thank you very much Dawkins); http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/6/1/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0060003-S.pdf And the surprising part;

Hi my name is ttyo888, I am rather new to this forum which I believe can give me answers for some info needed for a fiction which has a lot to deal with in island evolution. I believe I can get my answers and constructive criticism here. The writing forums unfortunately do not have much realistic answers. Info I have currently The only problem is how or why the birds evolved into what I dream of Here's one I managed to identify the key species that will evolve to populate my island. Basically, the area I posted in the Google Earth pic earlier. Has the following Tubenoses, a lot of them Frigates Skuas from Antarctica Gulls Terns Lorik…

I understand that the pig survives easily because it is under the providence of a farmer (or some human care giver). But was this always the case? Did the pig evolve on the farm? There must have been a time when the pig had to live off the land, to fend for itself in the wild? But just look at the pig? What features does it have to survive and defend itself? It has no claws, it can't run very fast, it has no fangs, it can't climb trees, it has no warm fur coat, it doesn't camouflage very well, etc. How did it ever survive the menaces of the natural world?

Scientifically, 1)what can the fossil record tell us, and 2)what difficulties are there in its interpretation? I ask a question that I promise is not loaded. I've just spent an hour with my jaw hanging off my face after reading a load of Creationist propaganda. I can pick holes in all their arguments, except when it comes to the fossil record, which I know nothing about. They state all these problems with the data, and I'm sure they're spinning the facts to suit themselves, but I have no grounds to dispute those claims. That makes me a sad panda. Edit: Also, can anyone suggest some good textbooks where I can learn more about the fossil record? I've had a look thro…

I wonder if there are cases of creatures reevolving traits they had in the past naturally without human intervention. Like say, a bird reevolving fingers or it's vertebrae of its tail or spine unfusing.

Evolution proponents have a nice video that is bouncing around FrostCloud.Com right now. It does very good job of proving that when random mutations are introduced into an organism and adverse mutations are selected out, the advantageous mutations alter the organism advantageously. Did we need software to prove that? Now, just to be a little sciencey here, You know, ask questions and all. The software makes assumptions about the ratio of advantageous mutations to disadvantageous mutations. Are these assumptions empirically derived? Simple math tells us that if fatal mutations occur at even a slightly higher rate than advantageous mutations then even organi…

I have looked over several "evolution" simulations programs. Unfortunately every one I looked at is flawed. The most common flaw is that all permutations of all possible organisms are limited by the design of the software. This isn't representative of observations. The organisms cant grow in any way the program didn't already anticipate. i.e. every organism is made of eight bits. only eight bits. always eight bits. The results from these programs are exactly what the author expects because, the author has unwittingly evolved the program to be successful. ================== So I am writing new software, which solves this and the other flaws. But my soft…

These two features of a sharks physiology I find really neat, and I really don’t understand the details with the evolution of such. For instance these traits. “The lateral line, together with the ampullae of Lorenzini comprise the electrosensory component of the sharks sensory system. The lateral line allows the shark to orient to particle movement or sound. It consists of structures called neuromasts which are located in canals that lie just below the surface of the skin or the scales. Similar to the ampullae of Lorenzini there are pores that open to the outside and movement caused by prey can be detcted by the neuromasts.” http://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/sh…

This discussion was started by SamCogar in the thread "Evidence of Human Common Ancestry". It doesn't belong there because it has nothing to do with human ancestry. Hypertilly stated "But like djmacarro I believe that all animals have souls. my question to him was how do we know that they do not possess the intelligience to understand their own souls. " My response to this was: "By noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain. AND "You don't know dogs have souls, because the only reason we think humans have souls is because humans can discuss the subj…

What is the simplest organism that demonstrates the development of a head brain?

Hi All Newbie here! I would like very much to hear theory and fact Regarding Possible Genetic and/or Cellular memory. This to include passing from generation to generation in human and animal. Could this be possibly why some people believe they have lived in past lives, birds know where to migrate, and the Galapagos animals show no fear of man........Just a few questions I would really like some of your facts, thoughts and theories? Thanks

Is there any attempt to describe organisms as patterns of mutualistic evolution among eukaryotic cell lines that developed multicellular behavior? Or would it be possible that multicellular is a possibility of mutualistic behavior of course in a selection sense?

Explanation of Evolution

Irreducible Complexity JAVA Applet(you will need a browser enabled Java VM) This applet runs a "genetic selection" simulation. Basically it "homogenizes" the population. You have to run it fast (>>>) for a minute or two, or ~100 to ~2000 generations. The end result is a geneticly evolved piece that does not "evolve" anymore (that is to say, in my understanding, the removal of half the population always removes everything other than what is "IC"). Irreducible Complexity Demystified:

Just how likely is it in this day and age? Though I've read up on several possible scenarios, I find that most of them are at very best far fetched, and and most they seem more like doomsday prophesies or other kinds of baseless paranoia and nonsense. The only scenarios that I have found that are plausible are either technological (e.g. nukes, maybe genetics, etc) or that of an asteroid impact, or the end of the universe. Environmental damage may pose some pretty hefty problems too. But seriously, how critical is our condition really? Though, personally I do think there is a 100% chance that humanity will become extinct in some time in the future, but what I am …

I ask this with the evolution of the universe in mind. The universe was born 14 billion years ago, the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and life on earth...I don't know 1.5-2 billion years ago? How much earlier than 4.5 billion years ago could a planet like earth of been created. How about intelligent life. Could people smarter than us of lived 2 billion years ago, which means life on their planet probably started 2-3 billion years before that (if their evolution is anything like ours) or was the universe just not fit to do such a thing yet? About stars also. Stars have been observed "burning out" right? Our star's lifespan will be longer than 14 billion years....right? W…

Is the experience of vitalism as such is in philosophy a possibly evolutionary advantage? Being homo sapien is a generalist would not the ability to easily define living from non living elements of an environment become very favorable? What I mean basically is asking if vitalism as its currently understood a probable manifestation of certain organisms or species of life being able to understand life from non life as is currently understood? Such as language is a trait of some species with many possible forms such as the hundreds of dialects one can find in humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism "This article is about the non-mechanist philosoph…

It has been argued that Richard Milton in Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is NOT a creationist and is not arguing for creationism. Well, thanks to the Advocate we have the smoking gun to refute this: Look at what I bolded. Special creation = creationism. And again, this argument is one consistently used by IDers/creationists. You can find it on AiG! So the Advocate's attempt to say is unconvincing. If he was not arguing that, then why say it? the Advocate, if you really think this was "ironic", then please post some quote from Milton that would lead us to think so.

is pretty cool, IMO. Is this a new-ish discovery? I've never heard of it before.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0706190104v1 Now this wouldn't be the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; that was a few million years off, but the common ancestor of all the African apes, which is just as fascinating. This would be the primitive layout from which the human, gorilla, and chimpanzee conditions are derived. So, any thoughts on its implications? Its validity? I can't actually access the article, so I can't say much. Looks pretty promising, though. Ouranopithecus is fairly well known from Greece, so if this is a close relative, we could have an unprecedented look at the starting point of our own unique lineage.

In many cases modern paradigms of biology seem to be just that. They seem to be as mutable as the subject itself, squirming and full of tenacity relativity. In the advent of more modern synthesis movement of hereditary material seems to follow strictly direct reproduction. Horizontal gene transfer is seemingly becoming more or more a larger factor in evolution then previously held by the field. As such the manner in which life reflects evolution I find may be more meshed then previously understood. For instance, the simple ability of viral variation can allow for large scale death. The reality or impact of this variant does not have to seemingly hold the same for all spec…

Some genes are identified as cancer prone. International Agency for Research on Cancer (click on GLOBOCAN 2002 or other data base) healthcare variables: cancer reporting compliance and capability, diagnostic paradigms, cultural impediments (ie sari's in Islamic countries), medical facilities, cultural perception of healthcare environmental variables: solar UV exposure, weather, food stuffs and vitamin intake, water supply contamination, regional pathogans, industrial toxicity physiological variables: age, sex, early non-cancerous death, genetics North Korea and South Korea have almost identical statistics. Your thoughts?

When you look at the human fossil record it seems remarkably "progressive." Species further back in time are more like apes and they are "replaced" by species looking remarkably more and more like humans. That seems a problem to me. Why wouldn't some ape-like hominids continue into the "human period," like there are still proper apes around today? Even with environmental change, were there not forest edge environments remaining in Africa for them? Australopithecus and Paranthropus were long lived genera, wide spread, and by all indications well suited to their edge environment. So why was Australopithecus gone after 2 million years ago and Paranthropus after 1? Th…

I found this book a while ago, and managed to read most of it. It challenged my ideas at the time but, looking back with an analytical approach, I find that some thing don't seem to sound quite right. If anyone else has read this book, please tell me what you think. How much of what is said is true at face value, and how much is made up of facts that have been specifically worded to create the wrong impression? Also, how much of the 'facts' are merely oppinions stated as facts? I would like to know how reliable this information is. Click on this link to Amazon.com to view the book.

...well it's not really back. Mutationist hypotheses have been present in the last 50 years. But as most evolutionary biologists were debating about the relevance of the neutral theory, nobody really cared about "mutationists". It's changing, in the last couple of years several strong articles were written about it, especially by Masatoshi Nei; Nei, M. (2007) The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104:12235-12242. Nei, M. (2007) Historical perspectives of the above PNAS paper (informal comments). Nei, M. (2005) Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:2318-2342. Another great article was …