How does evolution work? It's not a conscious thing, how

Fish gets mutation to make light is very succeful fish has light on protrusion even better over time this can cause evolution

>>9027591
But how would the intermediate form function with only a half/quarter/eighth of a light or protrusion to hold said light? Such an animal would probably be swallowed by something larger before it ever captures anything itself. Only thing to fill the gaping hole in this would be some ad hoc story, in which he "probably" developed them in tandem, or they served a different function beforehand, despite the complete lack of fossils in that regard.

>>9027591
How does it know how to imitate light, do our bodies also have the knowledge to grow a flashlight if it was necessary?

You should know one of the fundamental characteristics of life forms is reproduction. They can make more of themselves. It's a very delicate process that happens at the molecular level. On 99.9999% of the times, DNA replication goes well. But on the 00.0001% of times it doesn't, as there is some kind of mistake, usually the DNA is "programmed" in a way it shouldn't. Just think about it, products you buy from supermarkets come with defects all the time. It's the same with DNA, except much rarer. However, there are many alive beings on Earth and they have been around for billions of years. These mistakes when DNA is being replicated, they happen randomly, without warning. Some times these mistakes turn out to actually be good for the individual. For example, an individual born from the womb of a predator species has a mutation ("mistake") in its DNA that makes its teeth be much stronger than usual. So this predator gets more food and lives better. Females are attracted to him, and they fuck, and because the mutation is written on the DNA, it is passed down. Ta-da, here's an example of evolution. Another example would be a fish that is born with a more noticeable kind of mutation: it's DNA makes it so some chemical reactions inside him let him emit light. Now this fish can go deeper than other fish to get more food. This is a good "mistake" (mutation), so when this fish breeds, the mutation sticks and spreads. That's how evolution works. If you are really interested in it and/or still have some questions, look for YouTube animation videos showing how DNA replicates, you'll understand what I mean by mistake on the level genetic engineering biologists work with, and keep in mind every species that exists today evolved in an unique way, so the only underlying principle is these mutations that happen from time to time but are really advantageous.

>>9027604
That was really helpful.
>there are many alive beings on Earth and they have been around for billions of years
When you think about it that way, it sounds much less unbelievable... Thank you very much for the informative reply. I'm a little less dumb now, thanks to you.

it doesn't scientificaly, but it does sound convincing enough philosophically at the moment to warrant belief from those disgruntled with biblical truth and the accompanying dogmas.

fact is thereare no transitional fossils.

and not to mention darwin also conceded that the evolution of eye escapes evolutionary sense for him personally.

as a half evolved eye would be an impediment and would never gradually get better

further no species has actually evolved into another in expirement..

the universe is self aware and programming it's constituent components to experience itself subjectively

blind evolution is bunk

File: A0lX5wRghOGRt369sawwTQ_m.jpg (9KB, 240x156px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x156px

>>9027636
>as a half evolved eye would be an impediment and would never gradually get better
>half an eye
Then why aren't these things dead/eyeless?

>>9027636
im pretty sure theyve observed speciation in labs and in real life. just not radical changes in form. but if you do it over a long period of time with environmental change then...
and i dont think darwin is the one to cite as a good opinion for that considering he lived in the 1800s

>>9027642
Is there any chance humanity will ever figure the universe out?

Is it true that we live and die in the blink of an eye, but our brains' perception is that everything happens slowly?

Got kinda off-topic, sorry.

>>9027600
That's why evolution takes billions of years, but none of the failed morphologies are around to look at.

File: IMG_20140911_173533.jpg (92KB, 918x369px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 918x369px

>>9027667
Like I said, ad hoc.

>>9027636
>fact is thereare no transitional fossils.


There are plenty of transitional fossils. The only problem is that you have A and B, then you say "where is the transition?" So then you find C between them and then say "well what about between A and C? And between C and B?" SO then you find D and E that are between them and then they say "But what about between A and D? And between D and C? And between C and E? And..." etc etc. It never ends. You would need an infinite number of fossiles because they just move the goalpost every time

>>9027600
>Only thing to fill the gaping hole in this would be some ad hoc story, in which he "probably" developed them in tandem, or they served a different function beforehand
Correct. Complicated new adaptations, such as a light dangling on a limb, always evolve via some pathway where every single individual tiny improvement serves some useful function on its own.

As you say, this often takes the form of old body parts gaining entirely new functions, or related components evolving in lockstep fashion. More often, though, it is simply the case that a greatly simplified version of a fully developed organ is still useful. Consider that light dangler; a version that is just mounted on the forehead instead of on a limb STILL allows the fish to see further underwater and hunt more effectively there, and STILL attracts prey to its attack range. Not nearly as effectively, certainly; but still more useful than nothing. That explains why that organ could quite easily have evolved from a simpler forehead-mounted version. (This is just an example -- I have no idea what the evolutionary history of that body part is, in reality.)

>ad hoc story
It is true that we usually don't know the details of how something evolved. Sometimes we can work it out well; other times, there simply isn't enough historical information available to reconstruct the history. Fossils are very rare, and only provide a tiny part of this sort of history. Very often, how something evolved is guesswork. It is still clear how evolution was the general mechanism, though.

>>9027677
Sorry, but you don't know exactly every step of how something evolved with supporting fossil evidence for every single generation, then that proves that God is real.

Have we stopped evolving? Has it reached a point where it said 'Ok, this is my final form' ?

File: HARVx028cx1011_Thumb.jpg (280KB, 610x700px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 610x700px

>>9027682
Don't fucking start this.

>>9027682
Why did God create all those undiscovered life forms under water? We will probably never discover most of them, the world could go on without them.

>>9027677
Apparently it started as a modified dorsal fin.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_05

>>9027636

Darwin is not the final word on evolutionary theory. There has been quite a bit of research done since the 1800s in the field of evolution. Also, you're cherry picking lines. After Darwin states that about eyes, he then continues to say that it's not that impossible when reasoned out:
"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Also, low hanging fruit, but if there are no transitional fossils, then what is Archaeopteryx? It is quite definitely an organism that features some traits found only in dinosaurs and some traits found only in birds. What is that if not a transitional state? It has wings and a wishbone, but also an opposable hallux, teeth and a long bony tail. No transitional states my ass. How about Tiktaalik? What about the well documented history of horse development? Educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

You ask for evidence yet you give none of your own. Show me the organism that we have no line of descent for. Show me the organism that had to have been created, that popped out of thin air and has no lineage. There are no mystery organisms out there today that we can't find distant relatives for in the fossil record, stretching back 500+ million years ago to the Cambrian. I am a scientist, convince me! Show me your supporting evidence! Show me your methods, your discussion of your reasoning! Otherwise, your 'truth' is merely opinion and wild speculation. And shitty opinions at that.

File: IMG_4925.jpg (44KB, 433x340px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 433x340px

>>9027601
We would go extinct if we HAD to grow a light source to survive. Most species have gone extinct because the environment changes and they don't adapt fast enough. But imagine if by some freak genetic mutation a fish produces a tiny light. This fish catches a shit ton of prey that are attracted to the light and it has a bunch of offspring due to its success. Now you have a hundred luminescent fish swimming around fucking dominating because of their advantage. Each of them is slightly different genetically, and the ones with the best light will reproduce the most. Extrapolate this process over billions of genetic iterations over the course of hundreds of millions of years and you get to a species that has a lamp built right into its biology.

File: pooloo.jpg (74KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x720px

>>9027589
>Is it possible to adapt to everything, like if it was necessary could we develop limbs that worked as flamethrowers etc?
If there was a selective pressure for our ancestors to develop flamethrowers (e.g. some freak developed a second dick that functioned like a candle and allowed him to bang more females who mired his lighter dick, eventually having his ancestors fighting a flamethrower dick arms race), then yes. As you can imagine, this would be awesome, but unlikely.

So why do species still have weaknesses? By this logic should everything living today be untouchable? Why didn't we evolve in a way so we didn't need food, water etc but just sunlight and air?

>>9027589
>How does evolution work?
That which endures, endures.
That which does not, does not.

File: 51KszAUQEtL.jpg (42KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x378px

>>9027772
>Why didn't we evolve in a way so we didn't need food, water etc but just sunlight and air?
If only that were possible, some species would do it...
Oh, wait.
Srsly tho... things that just need sunlight and air get eaten by other things.

>>9027772
You'd need to redesign your body on a cellular level to not need water and macronutrients like proteins and lipids. If evolution wasn't chaotic, you could probably make untouchable species in the timeframe multicellular life has had, but the principle of natural selection is you don't need to be fastest, just faster than the guy next to you.

>>9027589
the trick here is "millions of years"

>>9027772

Because it's not a forward progression. Species simply change over time to best fit their environment. If a region is dry and becomes humid, and then goes back to being dry, you will find organisms with similar adaptations in the dry climate and very different ones in the humid climate. The other thing is that all organisms are changing over time and interact with each other. It's an ever changing arms race.

Let's say species A is a predator and species B is a herbivore. Species A and B live in a plains region. Species A develops a a more curved claw that allows them to hook under species B's shells to flip them over. Species B develops a shell that is more bottom heavy, making them heavier and harder to flip. However, the environment changes from plains to desert as the region heats up due to an oceanic current shift. Species B is too slow and heavy to migrate out effectively so it slowly dies out. A new herbivore (Species C) species migrates to the desert as they are better suited for it. Species A has trouble hunting species C as species C is built for agility and species A is adapted for hunting slow heavily armored species.

And so on and so forth for millions of years as the environment changes, global climate shifts and species migrate and change over time. No system or environment is completely isolated, all of them are influenced by global changes, and changes in neighboring regions. Species do not necessarily become more complex or superior as time goes on. After each major mass extinction, the fossil record shows that for the most part, only simple, primitive forms survive. Then they diversify and refill all the niches left over from the old paradigm.

>>9027772
>So why do species still have weaknesses?
https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html
Prey need predators as much as predators need prey.
Tiny bit drunk here, but my wife took money without asking (thief).
She sucked dick (mine) for money.
Now she's threatening to cheat if I don't have sex with her against my will (rapist).
All I have to do is not stick my dick in her, and she's a FAILED extortionist/rapist.
My life would suck entirely, except the last laugh is on her. 24 years in the marine corps, and she can't even rape some loser like me. fucking hilarious, what a cunt...

>>9027674
>god works in mysterious ways is so much more credible than a silly strawman comic

>>9027801
I get it. Sorry for the dumb questions. I know nothing about science. Our education system sucked and keeps on sucking. I want to learn.

>>9027808
Yeah. When you consider the time it takes, it's not so surprising. I wanted to know if these changes first happenned as accidents/mistakes or not. But >>9027604 explaned it well, I think.

>>9027819
No worries m8, ignorance isn't the same as being dumb, and can be fixed as long as you're willing to learn

>>9027812
woah, tmi, link me to your thread on adv/ though when u make one

>>9027827
>woah, tmi,
Sorry. More than a "tiny" bit drunk.

>>9027832
please make a thread on /adv/ about it

>>9027832
>Sorry. More than a "tiny" bit drunk.
But my point still stands.
Prey need predators the same way victims need villains.

>>9027811
I see, that makes sense. Thanks

>>9027835

when u gna send the link?

File: Ang__Saitama.png (286KB, 460x527px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 460x527px

>>9027589
>How does evolution work?
That is a good question as the process of evolution is a subtle one. This paper is great and seems to disprove the idea that evolution could have happened in the lifetime of the Earth because the required rate of mutation is much too high.
>The Truth About Evolution
>http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

>>9027756
This is now the origin story for my new fire mage character. Flamethrower dicks get all the ladies.

>>9027943
>The Truth About Evolution
>If inter-dimensional aliens are trying to enslave and eat humanity, it may be vital for them to crop these regions from our genome because they give us a natural immunity to aliens. Why do people think there is junk DNA? How long before a geneticist asks for a grant to remove the “non-coding” DNA from human genetic material so he may grow experimental children?
You uh... might want to consider actually reading articles before you cite them. On top of being a complete nutcase, the author clearly has no grasp of genetics, biology, or even simple probability.

>>9027589
learn basic biology and understand that evolution isn't an entity or thing but processes related to DNA that over time result in complex traits suited to environments but not perfect or optimised, or the only trait that could appear. It's not like a linear thing and it's completely blind.

>>9027589

Pretty much pure RNG over billions of years.

>>9027636
I know this is bait but a half evolved eye is a million times better than no idea. We can actually see animals in nature with basic "half evolved" eyes.

>>9027687
No. Evolution never stops.

>>9027772
Because evolution only does things that are possible.

>>9027636
>and not to mention darwin also conceded that the evolution of eye escapes evolutionary sense for him personally.

I can tell you're just repeating things you heard somewhere without checking the source yourself. It's a common tidbit from creationist propaganda that blatantly distorts facts by quote mining.

You're lazy. You're incurious. You don't really want answers. And worst of all, you want to drag down others to your level. I suggest you change that.

Read the source you're referencing, then educate yourself on the other stuff you're spouting, and don't come back until you actually know what you're talking about.

>>9027636
Here's your (You)
Read the origin of species, Darwin has a small statement about someone thinking the eye is potentially being unable to evolve, then expands on that and says he sees how it is possible through iterations ad gradual changes to evolve an eye

File: 1498336123463.png (69KB, 1048x854px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1048x854px

>>9027675
A picture is worth a thousand words

>>9027591
What I don't get is, what are the chances of a fishthat lives in the dark depts of the sea to grow an organ that can emit light, even in millions of years? It sounds too much of a coincidence.

>>9031004
>It sounds too much of a coincidence.
What possible grounds do you have to expect your intuition is reasonable on this subject?

>>9031033
Correct answer

Once upon a time a fish had the great idea to go to a greater depth of the ocean to avoid predators. He likely had some sort of adaptation that allowed him to handle the pressure better. Since he didnt get ate, he was able to reproduce and spread his genes. While they were protected from predators they had trouble finding food sources. One day another one of these fuckos was born with a tumor that glowd a little bit. Since this new fucko was able to attract prey to his glowing tumor he survived and reproduced and had other little tumor babies. Over time the fish that had the brightest tumors got the most food and were able to reproduce more tumor babies with brighter tumors.

Thats how it worked. It happened over millions of years and you literally have no conception of how long that really is.

>>9031052
>Thats how it worked. It happened over millions of years and you literally have no conception of how long that really is.
This. I understand why creationism sounds more likely to people, though. Because it's hard to wrap your head around evolution over millions of years

>>9027636
Gr8 b8 m8 I give it an 8/8

>>9027729
lmao you just btfo him so hard.

>>9027735
>But imagine if by some freak genetic mutation a fish produces a tiny light.
This isn't a fucking fairytale. A light doesn't just "mutate" out of nowhere.

>>9031160
Actually that's pretty much exactly how it works.

>>9031221
Oh right, I guess if anon says a light can randomly mutate on an organism, it must be true.

>>9031160
>>9031252
The light is actually produced by bacteria that produce the light. When there are enough bacteria in the same space the signalling moleulcules from the quorum sensing are in high enough concentrations that the bacteria produce light. So, it's more a case of evolve an appendage, and once you've built it, they'll come

>>9031252
Well, the light is there on the fish

We know plenty of bacteria, algae, and small animals produce bioluminesence. We know the chemical mechanisms that cause them to do this.

All we are lacking is how the chemical mechanism came to be in the glowing animals, and choosing between long term, understood processes that we can study in a lab (like the ecoli/antibiotics experiment) or a special creation to do it seems like a pretty clear choice imo without some more evidence.

>>9031396
>ecoli/antibiotics experiment
After many thousands of generations, the bacteria haven't speciated, they're basically the exact same bacteria from the start of the experiment, with small differences.

File: Evolution.jpg (154KB, 875x402px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 875x402px

>>9031411
>evolution of novel traits in the lab doesn't count because muh macroevolution is different
listen here you stupid cockmongler

>>9027601
why do retards have retarded kids

>>9027589
Backwards causation that looks like intelligent design. Consider this: the Universe is everything that exists. When causation takes place, it needs a cause and the cause can be only within the Universe. Since within time this cause can only come from the potential future, causation is directed to a goal, whilst natural selection is inherent to any system making it not the novelty that darwinians think of it.

>>9027772
Because there is no such thing as a perfect species, evolution and nature itself doesn't have prefection as a goal. Only adaptation.

And evolution might work on similar canvas but produces different paintings. The evolution of plants is different from the evolutionary pathway of humanity. These pathways separated a looong time ago.

>>9028243
Simple, elegant, true and even fun.

I like this post.

>>9031631
>there is no such thing as a perfect species

>he doesn't know about white men

>>9031562
Only minor changes have been observed after more than 60,000 generations.

File: 1498568225775.jpg (69KB, 699x485px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 699x485px

>>9027674
but we actually do do lots of research on proving where each mechanism evolved from

for example: I do research on how the genomes of generalist insects evolved to enable them to have such broad host ranges in comparison to specialists

My papers don't just have "it evolved hurdurr"

How did the brain evolve to perform Fourier Transforms on sound waves? Where the fuck do you even start with something like that?
I know evolution makes the most sense based on the evidence we have, but some shit just makes me question everything.

Life forms are impressive as fuck. Even scary. Some materials that aren't alive come together and become alive and gain consciousness.

>>9031753
>minor changes
>de novo development of a whole new metabolic pathway
this is actually a big fucking deal in bacteriology. since all bacteria look pretty similar (minor variations in shape), it's their biochemistry that really distinguishes them.

>>9031634
I like you.

How do we explain this when the glow is caused by bioluminescent bacteria? The fish grows a growth and the body puts bacteria there. Its genetic coding adapts to pressure, starts to detect the bacteria, learns to absorb it, learns that the growth is a good place for it and the growth also grows long. The bacteria's genetic coding also learns not to stop detection or absorbtion by a certain body, adapts to its homeostasis and learns to feed off the fish's body.

These are all caused by happy little accidents in the genetics of both organisms genetic coding. Odd organisms are just oddly evolved for very specialized environments and environmental niches.

>>9027682
MODS!!!

>>9027589
Evolution is a lie.

The theory of relativity is the law of reality in actuality. Thoughts come from thoughts. Life from life and so on. Mainstream science is fucking kiked beyond the blur and society is caught up in a bipolar stolkholm syndrome without the use of psychedelics and embracing that eternal love, dude. Bow, hoe. Bow down.

>>9031753
Would it be a minor change if humans could survive and reproduce during exposure to mustard gas at 1000x the concentration that kills us now?

Because thats about the scale of the change for the bacteria. Is that small?

>>9027589
If anything, their reproductive cycle is more interesting, since the males' only goal in life is to search for a female, and then bite into them, releasing an enzyme that digests the female's skin and male's mouth so that they fuse together, and then live the rest of their lives as a parasitic sperm source for when the female spawns. They are so dependant on this process that they are incapable of eating, are several times smaller, and are solely reliant on a female's blood supply, with enhanced eyes and olfactory organs for the sole purpose of seeking females out (since their lives literally depends on it). This would probably be driven by the scarceness of their species in their environment, resulting in an advantage for the males to be permenantly bonded to the female.

>>9027589
Reminder that humans are bioluminescent

https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-t-see-it-but-humans-actually-glow-in-visible-light

>>9033554
Does this mean that back people glow the most (due to higher melanin content). In which case, they may not be the most hidden in the dark?

>>9031800
And I'm doing research on why two lizard genera have evolved to have differing sizes between sexes. maybe in the early 1900s "it evolved" would've been acceptable, but even then probably not

>>9027589
>like if it was necessary could we develop limbs that worked as flamethrowers etc?
No thats fucking retarded and only machines could do something like that.

>>9027589
its written in the laws of the universe.

>>9027604
Good explanation. I'd like to use a similar simple scenario that my school teacher gave us.

We have a colony of yellow mice living in a sandy beach. Every week, 1 percent of the population is eaten by hawks. There is a 1-2 percent chance that a mutation makes a baby mouse black instead of yellow, and these mice typically are eaten first because they are easier to spot.

A volcano eruption covers the beach with black rock. When the mice try to survive here, the yellow ones are now much easier to see. The black mutated mice now survive an average of 10 times longer than the yellow ones, meaning they are the ones that survive and reproduce the most. As time goes on (think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years), the black mouse gene becomes the majority of the gene pool, because black mice have a random feature that happened to make them better suited to their environment.

>>9033908
I like the Peppered Moth example because it actually happened in real life and isn't just a hypothetical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

>>9031396
>>9031562

Not even the guy who conducted the e. coli experiment claims that he observed speciation.

>>9033947

Can their alleged predators distinguish those colors?

>>9027591
>Fish gets mutation to make light

>Human gets mutation to produce lightning from his fists

Do you see how retarded you are, yet?

>>9027604
>has a mutation ("mistake") in its DNA that makes its teeth be much stronger than usual.

But this is purely retardation. This would require the fine coordination of many dozens of structural genes, perhaps requiring specific regulatory proteins or RNA fragments.

>>9027619
You just got cucked.

>>9027636
>as a half evolved eye would be an impediment and would never gradually get better

Finish him.

wait anons, help a brother out
I understand the mechanisms of evolution, such as randomness in gene + an objective function.
My question is, how is that objective function defined? We can say that the objective function is to reproduce so that the species continues, but then what's so special about reproduction?
I'm just trying to figure out the objective function in life, and how it became about, given a universe filled with particles and certain laws of interaction.

>>9033947
>Three problems, though: (1) Kettlewell was responsible for nailing dead moths to the trees for the birds to feed on, (2) peppered moths rarely alight on tree trunks, and (3) birds don't normally feed on months moths that are on the side of trees. Even after scientists were informed of these inconsistencies, many still clung to the validity of the experiment, perhaps because they wanted to believe it as the canonical example of observed natural selection.
And yet again, the evolutionist is caught with a banana up his euphoric ass.

So, I'm familiar enough with textbook cases of evolution, which typically involve instances of simple mutation resulting in lost or modified function of the original gene, resulting in something like a color change or an alteration of limb development. However, I don't recall ever hearing many examples of how a species would develop an entirely novel set of genes with coordinated functions without losing a similar number of proteins in the process to accomplish that change solely through mutation.

How do species add completely new proteins to their genome without compromising the function of already existing proteins? For that matter, how do new chromosomes develop and why would mammals, with their relatively short evolutionary life and population size, have such drastically different numbers of chromosomes and functional genes despite the tortuous path required to turn a random pile of junk DNA into a sequence of coordinated functional proteins?

On the other end of the time-scale, how the fuck does something like a ribosome come into existence, whose function is basically the only reason why a cell can produce proteins yet consists of a large, highly-specific sequence of proteins and RNA itself? What made it in the first place? How did it suddenly get much larger in mammals without ceasing function somewhere along the process?

>>9034667

>How do species add completely new proteins to their genome without compromising the function of already existing proteins?

Maybe I dont understand your question. I dont think your genome has proteins in it. Dont quote me on this, but I think amino acids are encoded in our DNA. So different codes translate to different amino acids, which translate to different proteins. So the answer to your question is mutations result in different proteins that are produced by the biological processes that read that DNA.

>how do new chromosomes develop

New chromosomes are usually duplicates of old chromosomes. Chimps have more chromosomes than humans, and its pretty clear that their extra chromosome is a duplicate of one of the chromosomes we both share.

>How did it suddenly get much larger in mammals without ceasing function somewhere along the process?

Well its certainly did cease functioning somewhere along the process, but those individuals were selected out of the gene pool.

File: cola evolution.png (318KB, 903x458px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 903x458px

>>9034035
>Not even the guy who conducted the e. coli experiment claims that he observed speciation.
speciation is a pretty meaningless concept in bacteria, since they reproduce asexually and readily conduct horizontal gene transfer. the species concept, among prokaryotes, is essentially artificial. you'd know this if you had any sort of education in biology.

the very existence of microevolution implies the plausibility of macroevolution. and if you want an example observed in real time, check out Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot.

>Can their alleged predators distinguish those colors?
niBBa are you actually asking if birds are capable of distinguishing black from white? literally EVERY animal that can see can tell the difference! it's the most basic form of vision!

File: Terry.jpg (421KB, 1404x1024px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1404x1024px

>>9034050
>But this is purely retardation. This would require the fine coordination of many dozens of structural genes
and thanks to epistasis, this can be done by a point mutation. suppose there's a "master switch" gene whose protein regulates a bunch of other genes that control enamel deposition. Now suppose a mutation in that gene (or its promoter) causes it to be expressed more strongly. because the gene is expressed more, its effects on other genes are more intense, so enamel production is increased, leading to more durable teeth.

it's not that hard to understand

>>9034818
yep, that's why zebras are going extinct

>>9034044
This is obviously b8 buy
I mean we technically produce electrical charges in our brain. Sure we're not going to shoot lightning out of our hands but everything around is electromagnetic.

File: (You) hat.jpg (60KB, 448x468px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 448x468px

>>9034824
>he thinks lions can't tell the difference between black and white and that's why they haven't eaten all the zebras already
neck yourself my man

>>9031831
>How did the brain evolve to perform Fourier Transforms on sound waves?
Can anyone answer this?

>>9035257

That's probably not the right way to think about it. It's our working memory and linguistic specificity that allows complex mathematics to exist. These things are likely a happy accident of adapting to have larger, more coordinated, and more complex social groups.

Just because organism can do [THING], that doesn't mean if must have specifically been selected for exactly [THING].

If you want to collapse natural selection into a one liner, I'd reccomend
>the elimination of the least fit
instead of the usual "survival of the fittest"

File: 1359655428882.jpg (6KB, 251x229px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 251x229px

>>9035404
>These things are likely a happy accident of adapting to have larger, more coordinated, and more complex social groups.
>organism performing Fourier Transform is just a happy accident
A simple I don't know would have sufficed.

>>9034818

Why are you asking me my own question? Can the birds assumed to feed on those moths distinguish those colors?

>>9027604
>>9027619

4 bil years since formation earth was a barren rock and the most developed life was barely in oceans as simple organisms.

540 million years ago the Cambrian explosion happened, which gave life to diverse life on earth - so it's just 540 mil years of plants, animals, fishes and shit son.

>>9035257
>a range of different "hair" sizes that respond to different frequencies
>literally just an impulse like any other that the brain receives

How did the brain evolve to perform Fourier Transforms on light waves?

>>9034667
Eliminate complex from your vocabulary when you study biology, in reality most shit in life which appears complex is a mess - when you start to see it like this it all starts to puzzle out.

>>9035102

>i can't detect sarcasm if it hit me over the head

>>9035257
Its a common theory based on certain ways you can test spatial extent of receptive fields with sinusoidal gratings but its not consesnsus i think. Atleast completely

>>9034667
>How do species add completely new proteins to their genome without compromising the function of already existing proteins?
duplication events, anon.

Gene A is duplicated into Gene A and Gene B. One of the two is free to mutate into a gene with altered structure. The other is maintained in something close to the original form.

>>9035813
>a range of different "hair" sizes that respond to different frequencies
I don't think you understand the complexity of what is being done. A person can be in a room in which a piano is being played, someone is speaking and outside of which an ambulance is driving past with its sirens blaring. All of these sound waves combine into a single wave that reaches the ears (with minor differences because of the distance between the two ears). The brain can analyze this wave, separate the components and focus on each one separately if it desires. How? Some sort of biological Fourier Transform. It can also amplify the wave it wants to focus on, like the sound of one person's voice in a crowded room.

>>9037041
>>9035813
>>9035257
yikes. retards. trolls.

a google search away will explain to you the biological details of hearing.

>>9036428
>I was only pretending to be retarded!

>>9037214
>I'm doubling down on my deflection away from my cluelessness

>>9034818
>>9035805

Can the birds assumed to feed on those moths distinguish those colors?

>>9037068
Searched, didn't get an answer.

>>9034587
>an objective function
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

reproducing isn't an objective function, it's just what we see because organisms that don't reproduce lose their representation in the gene pool very quickly

>>9034718
Chimps extra chromosome relative to our karyotype is due to us having a fusion event that decreased our number of chromosomes by one

>>9035467
I'm pretty sure he meant people actually doing the maths consciously (I'm which case he's roughly right), not the brain doing the transform unconsciously

>>9037850
Oh...makes much more sense that way.

Everyday I am more sure that le accumulated mutations meme is dumber and dumber once you start digging into it.Punctuated equilibrium makes way more sense overall.Specially if we look at fossils and recorded zoology instead of a bunch of conclusions taken out of random hipothesis

>>9031004
I don't doubt evolution, but why would fish even evolve eyes when they live in complete darkness in the first place?

>>9031831
How did the brain evolve at all? I know it is beneficial, but it is hard to imagine.

>>9038061
Fish don't generally live in complete darkness.

>>9038082
Light can only go through about a hundred meters of water. There are many fish that live their whole lives at much deeper depths. I can see it if they evolved at shallower depths, but not any other way.

>>9027687
You could argue that the final form is when an organism is so dependent on its enviorment that it cant survive a changing enviorment. Since evolution is constant change.

>>9038073
True. If you saw a microprocessor lying on the ground, you'd be certain that someone designed it. Yet people see the brain, something like, a million times more complex than a microprocessor and say with certainty that it came about by random mutations and natural selection.

>>9038073
It's hard to imagine because you're working with a timescale that you aren't evolved to comprehend fully. Millions of years is an incredibly long time. Long amounts of time + environmental pressures likely to create general intelligences = general intelligences manifesting

>>9040227
>you're working with a timescale that you aren't evolved to comprehend fully
This is like the "God did it" of evolution. Anytime there's a gap, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEAR BRUH!

>>9040230
Except literally millions of years have passed since the homo speciation.

But if you don't like my wording, then consider this: you're working with a timescale that you aren't evolved to fully appreciate in an intuitive manner

>>9040245
Leave an inanimate object on the ground for a billion years and it'll still be an inanimate object. I'm not saying evolution is wrong btw, just saying the millions and millions of years argument is lazy. Billions of years have passed since the birth of the universe and we haven't seen any signs of life in the universe outside of Earth. Not to say that there isn't life out there, the universe is mindbogglingly vast and our ability to look is very limited, but it does seem to imply that creation of intelligent life isn't as simple as
>Long amounts of time + environmental pressures likely to create general intelligences = general intelligences manifesting

>>9040253
>just saying the millions and millions of years argument is lazy
It's an over-simplification to be sure, but it's far from wrong. How the fuck else would intelligence develop were it not for selection pressures favouring things like working memory? Saying "lol, but the argument is lazy!" isn't an argument, and there sure as hell is a lot more evidence for intelligence arising from evolution than the opposite.

>>9040266
>How the fuck else would intelligence develop
I don't know, that's what science is supposed to figure out.
It's wrong because it makes no sense. Suppose you study a microprocessor you find lying on the ground, when you see that it has cache memory you don't say "aha! This memory reduces latency so it was selected for in evolutionary timescales." If you want to claim such a thing, you need to demonstrate the mechanism by which that cache memory came about.

>>9027589
>How does evolution work?

So, you got a whole bunch of this one organism, right?

Right...

So, one of them gets a mutation in one of his germline cells that causes him to metabolize nutrients far more efficiently...

This gives him an advantage in reproduction, and thus the mutation is passed on.

Generations go by, hundreds of them...... This same mutation gives an advantage to all of the offspring of the original mutated organism, and so on and so forth until half or more of the population can trace their ancestry to this one individual mutation, and the benifit it produced.


Conversly, there are many organisms, and one gets a mutation that causes heart failure....

It does not reproduce, and thus the mutation is not propagated into the rest of the population.


This has been a brief primer on "Genetic Drift"

The one original mutation, carried by the one organism, is now in half of the population.

>>9034044
>If I compare it to something else it is le dumdum soudn!!
Fuck off retard
The light is created by fluorescent proteins, translated from specific genes. A mutation could easily change a gene to create a different protein as such.

Threads like these remind me how dumb you cunts are, having no understanding of even the basal concepts of DNA

>>9040316
>A mutation could easily change a gene to create a different protein as such.
I don't think you realize how complicated proteins are.

>>9040308
You know, I kind of hate how people are saying "muh reddit spacing" all the time lately, but this is insane

>>9040318
I don't think you realise how much of an impact a single mutation can have

>>9034818
>>9035805
>>9037657

Can the birds assumed to feed on those moths distinguish those colors?

File: impact.jpg (76KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1280x720px

>>9035805
>>9037657
>>9040397
>can birds tell the difference between the colors black and white?
YES THEY CAN, YOU RETARD. Literally everything that can resolve images can tell black from white. Like I said back in >>9034818, every animal that can see, can tell the difference. Are you intellectually incapable of reading past the first sentence in a paragraph?

>>9027589
>How does evolution work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnBCDFHifps&feature=youtu.be&t=463

we are sooooo fucked

>>9040226
Perhaps because we see all of the brainless creatures and microbes in the world and a large number of transitional figures with like 1/4 or 1/2 a brain, like you.

Obviously intelligence and brains exist for us to see because if they didn't then we wouldn't be here to observe them. It is plausible that there has existed billions of universes before this one (hypothetically) where intelligent life didn't develop and only one where we exist to observe ourselves through a freak accident of miniscule chance. The earlier argument about the microprocessor is stupid because we know it is man-made and we CAN see a whole plethora of brains, bigger and smaller, less and more perfect (from a human perspective only of course) - as well as alternative systems of organisms with no brains. If complex life didn't exist it couldn't question its origin, consider a selection bias.

>>9040282
>Suppose you study a microprocessor you find lying on the ground

Yes and just like other lifeforms if you give a microprocessor some food and a mate they will reproduce.

>>9040253
>evolution is the same as abiogenesis

>>9040308
That's not what genetic drift is, also stop reddit spacing

>>9040282
The mechanism is clear, it's natural selection. The only thing that's quibbled about in evobio is timescales and how and where the trait developed

>>9040425
Could AI evolve and take over the world? Could it gain consciousness?

File: 1254.jpg (26KB, 630x473px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 630x473px

>>9040308
Is that how different races came to be? Like a human mutates and gets black skin. He is not noticeable at night so wild animals hunt the light-skinned humans down and the black one survives and passes his genes on.

>>9041718
sort of, only dark skin seems to be the ancestral state, and pale skin (lower melanin levels) were an adaptation to higher latitudes (where sunlight is less direct, so you don't have to worry about sunburn as much but you are at risk of rickets).

>>9041826
Why do asians have slanted eyes? What's the advantage of that?

>>9041932

It isn't a disadvantage, and being generally isolated from the rest of the human population allowed that trait to spread in that region. That's called genetic drift.

>>9040318

Do you realize that bacteria evolved an entirely new enzyme that allows them to digest nylon through a single frame shift mutation?

>>9031160
Das some tasty bait

>>9040411

How do you know this?

>>9042993
Not him, but that really is a dumb question. The difference between perceiving black and white is just a question of light intensity. In the simplest case, it's photons vs no photons. If you have cells that react upon photon impingement, that's all you need to tell black from white.

>>9042993
because you can do things like make a fake worm that is black on a white background and the bird will attempt to eat it

>>9042999

Yes, that's all YOU need to tell black from white. How do we know those birds do?

>>9043259

Birds eat an assortment of differently-colored food from many differently-colored surfaces.

File: Fucking Stupid.jpg (49KB, 740x419px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x419px

>>9043457
>How do we know those birds do?
we can directly measure the activity of their visual cortex.
>Birds eat an assortment of differently-colored food from many differently-colored surfaces.
yes, and their ability to pick out a black worm from a white substrate is proof that they can see dark prey against a pale background, checkmate atheists

>the Creationist who was so salty he'd rather claim that birds can't see light/dark than admit to microevolution being observed in Biston betularia
>HURR DURR U CANT KNOW NUFFIN

>>9027589
>It's not a conscious thing
That's debateable, and that you've taken it as a given shows the dogmatic state of science. Science has become a religion, and has successfully overshadowed philosophy despite it being its own underpinnings. That disjointed state is half the problem.

What is "consciousness"? Why does consciousness need to include the type of awareness generated by the machinery of higher animals? What is "knowledge"? What is "memory", what is it to "know"?

You must decouple yourself from the strictly local human perspective, all the abstractions, and think mechanically. Trace out the underlying mechanical basis things map to. From this perspective, any arbitrarily subdivided portion of nature does display a manner of consciousness, whether dynamic and complex information storage and signal processing, as in an organism (made of programmable self replicating machinery), is present or not. Evolution occurred via the base logic the universe runs on. This can be called a manner of consciousness. The nature of that logic will probably remain unknown.

My ultimate question is if the means for the universe to be what it is, and do what it does, is entirely self contained or dependent on something "external". Math (computation and logic) appears to be made of signals and time, but signals often appear to be made of math. Self referential truths must be broken down further.

>>9027642
*citation needed

>>9043457
>Yes, that's all YOU need to tell black from white
It's a differentiation of binary states. There's nothing subjective about it.

Death is literally the mechanism. Some group of animals survived, and others didn't, and the ones that had the genetic material necessary to create a lamp.

>>9027675
>insert joke from Futurama here

>>9027591
>better over time
no evidence of this in the entire fossil record

>>9043682

Can you link me some measurements you've done and specify how exactly do these measurments prove that those birds can distinguish black from white?

>>9043896

How do you know the birds can experience this binary state?

>>9041932
Neotenous feature which is sexually more attractive

>>9042840
This is the interesting stuff for me. A single base change in the genome and suddenly bacteria have a digestion machine for something new. Once the genomics guys work this out its up to the proteomics guys to figure out active sites, cofactors, etc. to see how it works... and then it's up to the biotech scrubs to take all their work and figure out a better version that works 10x as quickly and sell it to waste disposal companies for 10 G's A GRAM SON

Guaranteed: enzymes with similar features to this one will hit the detergent market as an expensive add-on by 2025.

File: let me Axe (You) a question.png (390KB, 932x817px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 932x817px

>>9045233
>hurr durr you can't be sure that birds can tell the difference between light and dark
>therefore the peppered moth character shift isn't real evidence of evolution
this is what Creationists are unironically reduced to: demanding unreasonable standards of proof of things that have been known since antiquity and proven over and over literally every day, all to try and poke holes in a real-world observation of that which they claim cannot occur

>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1557506307000341
>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1460&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
>http://www.papagalibg.com/vs/avian_vision_(hart_review).pdf
faggot

>>9045450
>>http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1460&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
>Specifically, spectral sensitivity as related to animal behavior can in some cases be differentiated from color vision. Goldsmith (1994) noted that the implications of wavelength dependent behaviors, activities driven by different spectral classes of receptors or different combinations of spectral classes of receptor do not generally reflect quantitatively the distribution of photoreceptors within the retina. Instead, they reflect a neural filtering where spectral cues are interpreted by the central nervous system in specific ways (e.g., peripherally, such as the use of polarized light by bees and ants). Goldsmith suggested, therefore, that the presence of more than one spectral class of receptors does not necessarily indicate that the animal is capable of dissociating chromatic cues from other features of the object.

I know that you haven't read these, or anything else for that matter, before posting them, and that you understand nothing at all from this excerpt, but just for future reference, this proves my point.

>>9027604
Sorry neo-Darwinist but evolution is not "random"... I'm not saying random DNA mutations don't actually occur but they have little to do with the macroscopic morphological/taxonomic innovations in evolution. Natural selection is primarily an elimination process it doesn't generate innovations in the evolutionary process.

Most new behaviors/structures/taxa emerge not gradually over millions of years of accumulations of random DNA mutations but as a result in transformations in symbiotic relationships between members of different taxa.

Environmental influences via selective processes change sexual hormone levels which revise rates and timing of maturation. Darwin himself even said sexual selection was qualitatively different than natural selection since it acts far faster and could explain leaps of transformation that natural selection can't, he compared it to artificial selection of domesticated animals.

>>9044688
Not to mention the fact that no evolutionary development can be said to be "better" than another, which is a further contradiction in philosophical terms for the theory of evolution, which everyone seems happy to turn a blind eye to.

>>9045582
>Calling black a color

>>9045582
>reads passage saying that having photoreceptors that cover multiple bands doesn't imply color-specific vision
>thinks it means that color-specific vision doesn't imply the ability to tell light from dark

wew
having any visual sense whatsoever literally implies the ability to tell light from dark. Creationists will lie about anything to promote their inane agenda.

>>9027589
random genetic mutations appear in the gene pool and unsuccessful genes are weeded out via natural selection, resulting in the organisms with successful genes being the ones to procreate and spread their genetics

pretty easy acually