Well, the very distant ancestors of the venus fly trap probably didn't have such highly developed traps. Early venus fly traps were probably a little sticky or something, and as the crappier (or less sticky) traps started getting weeded out of the population, the better traps started to dominate. Slowly they began to develop tactile responses to stimuli (to close the trap). Also, one random mutation wouldn't generate a perfect trap. It probably happened over a very very long time, with little increments along the way.
Again, just speculation. I would like to read a paper on the evolutionary history of the trap and see if anybody knows how it developed.
I am no botanist but I did study some comparative vertebrate anatomy and got interested in poisonous snakes.
You might look at a rattlesnake- highly toxic poison, long folding hypodermic needle type fangs. Wos... how did THAT "just happen"?
We dont have a fossil sequence, but we do have living snakes that have teeth and saliva glands (that is what the poison is, a toxic saliva) in several intermediate stages from your harmless garter snake up to the vipers.
Here goes! I used to catch garter snakes and wondered why the bite from their tiny teeth would bleed so much. Found out there is some anticoagulant property to the saliva. Interesting.
There are "rear fanged" snakes with slightly enlarged teeth at the back, where the saliva gland opens. And slightly toxic saliva. (apparently some people allergic react to even a garter snake bite!) A snake trying to swallow a frog or mouse that is struggling will be better off if the saliva helps kill it.
Then you find rear fanged snakes with longer teeth and a groove, a fold in the enamel that lets the saliva be ducted more efficiently.
There are other snakes with a reduced number of teeth in the front of the maxillary bone and the grooved fangs closer to the front.
Also with the fangs now at the front, with only two tooth sockets left in the shortened maxillary.
The fangs have a deep groove that is folded shut now. A cross section of the tooth shows that it is enamel on the inside of the poison duct and plain as can be it is simply folded inside.
All this time the poison has been getting more and more effective.
Some of them rotate the maxillary to fold the long fangs up out of the way when the mouth is shut. The maxilarry on any snake is loose and movable, thats part of how they eat. In others like a cobra, the fangs are short and dont fold up.
Some evolutionary sequences are difficult to see how they happened.
Actually there is a whole lot of things we have not figured out about the world around us. heck.. at the time of the American Revolution people still thought there was an undiscovered continent in the south pacific. Sent out expensive expeditions looking for the imaginary "terra australis".
There are evolutionary sequences that are easy to see how they went though, and they point out ideas about how other things may have happened.
Some people just cant get calculus explained to them either! You could try to explain it for 200 years and they still wont get it!
"first off how does the organism even know to turn into a leaf for protection in the first place?, how does it even know that leaves exist or what they look like ,to be able to turn into one?"
that is a false question. The insect knows nothing. But out of all the billions that are hatched every season, if some have an advantage, even a very small one, they will survive and reproduce better. That is so obvious that surely nobody will deny it.
It is also obvious that climate and other conditions have changed over the years. An insect "perfectly" adapted to one set of conditions wont be 'perfect" if it gets colder, hotter, wetter or drier, or it cant eat a new plant that has arrived. In fact, they might just all die off.... as has happened to a lot of organisms.
So God would have to keep doing new special creations over and over and over.... or he could let his critters do a bit of adjusting on their own, dont you think?
What if some grew thicker fur, or maybe white fur to match this new cold stuff that comes more and more each year. Out of a batch of puppies you get black,white, brown.... what if only the white ones survive?
To say that animals cant change according to which ones survive best would be to say that there have always been toy poodles.
not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )
So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?
How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!
What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember). We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?
What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc? Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work? Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.
If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )
So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?
Wrong.
How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!
So, to boil down your objections; you don't see gross macroscopic changes in organisms happen in a single generation, therefore you find evolution to be implausible.
What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution.
Two things; 1) Most fatal genetic mutations sort out at conception, not at some point in a fully-grown individual's life... (which is why the modern conservative "life begins at conception" position is vastly more morbid than natural selection ever dreamed of being... but I digress.) Instead of looking for a wealth of fully-grown-and-then-dead genetic mutants, look instead at species' success rates at conceiving offspring.
2) ~99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct, so in a sense, you have your body count right there.
In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember).
Only mutation locations are random (heck, even mutation rates are pretty easily calculable). Natural selection is deterministic and decidedly non-random...
We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?
What are the odds of the water in a puddle having the exact same shape as the hole that was there before the rain? You're determining the odds of the shape of the water, absent the hole its in, and declaring that shape to be an impossibility. FAIL.
What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc?
Causes of mutation, in case it was a serious question, and not a segue into nonsense.
Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something,
Oops. Never mind the above link...
but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?
Careful, that applies to God, too. If before there was Something there was Nothing (note the Capital "N"), where did God come from?
Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves?
Nope, although please feel free to give it a try...
That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around.
Why? Or rather, why not the 457th time around? What's so special about the first time (that's not a personal question ;-)?
Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.
OK, and you're probably right. So I'll ask again Say every 100 years, you get ten simple "things" in your magical hand... and in 100,000 years, one of those things looks almost exactly like your car keys. What was so special about the first "thing" again..?
If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures?
For evolution, you need both an imperfect replicator, and a means of passing on heritable traits.
Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place,
What? No, its not "just random molecules and atoms forming together", mutations only matter in an evolutionary sense when they affect genetic material.
so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Table; not an imperfect replicator, no heritable traits... therefore no evolution.
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
I am very impressed by your patience in attempting to disect each point that was made!
Although most of the responces are non-sensical and are more of an attempt to discret in anyway possible, one in particular did catch my attention and ironically it is probably the hardest to answer and hardest to understand.
"but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?"
"Careful, that applies to God, too. If before there was Something there was Nothing (note the Capital "N"), where did God come from?"
That answer is NOT the same thing. The question does not even make sense in the fact that God is not in the same category as creation. He cannot and was not created. He IS. To have a beginning, one must have an end to compare it to. God has no end as He is eternal. No end...no beginning. God cannot die nor can He be created. Something cannot come from nothing. Everything in existance had to have come from something and therefore nothing could have never existed. That was and is and is to come, is God.
not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )
So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?
How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!
What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember). We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?
What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc? Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work? Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.
If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
i think that when a person has to use sarcasm and deliberately ridiculous questions it is a sign they are unwilling / unable to talk seriously. Esp the bit about the coffee table. Lets be adults here?
i see your post here already got a serious answer. Perhaps you would be willing to look at it in the spirit that it was offered.
Most of what you say, and your if/then sequences show you really dont know enough about the subject to even know a sensible question.
One word you use, "random". I dont think you udnerstand it at all. Let me give you an example of how undirected random movement actually will bring order out of chaos.
Brownian movement of ions in a solution is about as disorganized as you can get. But... here are precise crystals forming out of the solution. Just from all those little things bumping about randomly. God does not push each little piece into place does he?
You are aware as everyone is that there are subtle differences among individuals, human and otherwise. Perhaps you know too that a dark skin gives protection from UV, and that dark skinned peoples are found around the equator. The very pale skinned ones come from the far north, where that skin type gives an advantage. Anyone too light skinned who showed up... in the natural variation among people...in equatorial Africa, tribal society, would be dead from skin cancer.... so.... what do you think will happen? Selective breeding works on dogs but not on people?
Anyway... i guess you are determined not to understand it but what you dismiss as "random molecules and atoms forming together" is not at all the way things work. Perhaps you should take a chemistry course. None of that evolution stuff there, just how things really do work right there for you to see. Do this, and, 'poof' you have thousands of these perfect little geometrical design carbon nanotubes. Cool! You can tell the prof that it didnt really happen because it couldnt have. Go ahead.
not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )
So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?
If you take random to mean "everything is equally likely" then I see where your misunderstanding stems from. There is plenty of good material to read across the internet if you want to gain a better understanding of what mutations are. Don't get your info from Hollywood movies.
Originally Posted by 70x7
How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them?
There's alot more to be selected for than camouflage alone. Nature is very complex, and no doubt you will end up confused if you don't realize that. Unique patterns and light emission can have the selective benefit that members within the species will have an easier time to find and attract each other, or in the case of "eyes", might scare of some potential predators. But of course predators can also take advantage of easily noticable patterns and/or light emission, and there will be an energy cost in producing pigments and/or luminescense. What we end up with a multitude of counterdirectional selective pressures, and the direction that evolution will take, will depend on the nature and abundance of the species in question, the nature and abundance of the predators, the nature and abundance of nutrients, and what potential there is in the existing genetic makeup.
Originally Posted by 70x7
We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!
Like, elephants? Or are you still talking insects?
Originally Posted by 70x7
What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring.
There's plenty. You just have to open your eyes and mind, instead of denying indiscriminately whenever you encounter a piece of information you don't like. Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing, if you're interested in the truth.
Originally Posted by 70x7
There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember).
Have you never heard of decomposition before? Here's something you can try: Go out in a forest and try to find a dead animal lying on the ground. Go home, and return a week later. Is it still there? If so, does it look the same as the first time you saw it?
Originally Posted by 70x7
We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?
Here's another thing you can try. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them. Now, pick cards, one by one, and place them next to each other in the order they were picked. So what is the chance that the 52 cards you drew would end up in that exact order? Here's how it's calculated -> 1 in 52x51x50x49x48x47x46..... etc. Will you be astonished when you discover that the probability is ~1.24x10E-68? If you are, then I'm not surprised you find evolution unlikely.
Originally Posted by 70x7
What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc?
Mutations are caused by imperfect repair and replication mechanisms, and when they happen during gamete production they will be passed on to the offspring. There is tons of stuff to read on the internet, if you're interested in a better understanding.
Originally Posted by 70x7
Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?
Scientific knowledge goes back to the Big Bang, and stops there. Is that what your question is about? If you want to know what caused the BB, then you won't find any answers, as there are none available. Alot of people convince themselves they know the answers to the question, usually filling the hole with their favorite supernatural belief system.
Originally Posted by 70x7
Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.
Why do you say such nonsense? If you're trying to convince others, I suggest making some valid points instead.
Originally Posted by 70x7
If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
Dead objects don't reproduce. Dead objects don't inherit. Dead objects don't mutate. All these things are requirements for evolution to happen.
If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
Dead objects don't reproduce. Dead objects don't inherit. Dead objects don't mutate. All these things are requirements for evolution to happen.
Peter
I wonder if our original poster 70X7 could tell us if he can see that any of his ideas, like the one about the mutating coffee table have been addressed.
I think its necessary for someone to concede a point when its appropriate.
I wonder if our original poster 70X7 could tell us if he can see that any of his ideas, like the one about the mutating coffee table have been addressed.
I think its necessary for someone to concede a point when its appropriate.
Otherwise no sense in continuing a discussion.
I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.
I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.
Peter
PS.Welcome to the board, btw. I've enjoyed your posts so far.
I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.
Probably true. My habit is to treat a first time poster as if they were serious about the questions they raised, even "red and green puppy" type questions. They might be trying to ridicule, or they might just be that ignorant about evolution. Best not to make any assumptions on the internet...
Yanyways, 70x7 looks to be a post n' runner... *shrug*
I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.
You should add a weak education in biology (maybe even science in general) to the 'profile'...
PS.Welcome to the board, btw. I've enjoyed your posts so far.
)
Linear Mode
