The theory of evolution is wrong!

FOR SCIENCE!
User avatar
CatFish21sm
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:37 pm

The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by CatFish21sm » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:15 am

Ok so I created the title as clickbait :p
But the theory isn't that great to be honest. It's filled with issues. I'm not saying that the premise is wrong nor am I saying that evolution doesn't occur. Change over time (or generations would probably be a better word) is obvious. For example one of the main topics of debate is jump evolution (a species goes relatively unchanged for long periods of time, them boom speciates into several new species.) The biggest example (that I know of) being the Cambrian explosion. So it seems pretty obvious that evolution doesn't just occur slowly over millions of years, or does it? There is also evidence that DNA isn't even the largest factor in evolution. I forget what they're called but I might be able to find links for it later. Anyway there are chemicals similar to hormones that can turn certain genes on and off, so one species may have genes that aren't displayed because they are turned off. So it might be possible for a fully developed tail to just appear out of nowhere, even though that is very unlikely. We even see this in humans today, when people are starving while they are pregnant than the child will be born adapted to those conditions, and may have various health conditions but will be more likely to survive if there is a famine. There's also the matter of selective breeding, dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years the vast majority of dog breeds today only started appearing a couple hundred years ago, and some of them only recently.
So basically our current understanding of evolution is constantly changing, so our current theory is probably wrong, or at least in some parts. But the reason I made this post was to ask if anyone else had any other thoughts on the matter, or are there any new findings that I haven't mentioned? I find the topic very interesting.
PS. Just for kicks, who came to this thread with loads of sources ready to say "No way brah!"
"So players are walking along, one player is being a cock, magical rocks scream out of the sky and flatten them and due to the beauty and amazement of seeing something like that everyone else in the party levels up."

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by 20 characters! » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:58 am

CatFish21sm wrote:Ok so I created the title as clickbait :p
But the theory isn't that great to be honest. It's filled with issues. I'm not saying that the premise is wrong nor am I saying that evolution doesn't occur. Change over time (or generations would probably be a better word) is obvious. For example one of the main topics of debate is jump evolution (a species goes relatively unchanged for long periods of time, them boom speciates into several new species.) The biggest example (that I know of) being the Cambrian explosion. So it seems pretty obvious that evolution doesn't just occur slowly over millions of years, or does it? There is also evidence that DNA isn't even the largest factor in evolution. I forget what they're called but I might be able to find links for it later. Anyway there are chemicals similar to hormones that can turn certain genes on and off, so one species may have genes that aren't displayed because they are turned off. So it might be possible for a fully developed tail to just appear out of nowhere, even though that is very unlikely. We even see this in humans today, when people are starving while they are pregnant than the child will be born adapted to those conditions, and may have various health conditions but will be more likely to survive if there is a famine. There's also the matter of selective breeding, dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years the vast majority of dog breeds today only started appearing a couple hundred years ago, and some of them only recently.
So basically our current understanding of evolution is constantly changing, so our current theory is probably wrong, or at least in some parts. But the reason I made this post was to ask if anyone else had any other thoughts on the matter, or are there any new findings that I haven't mentioned? I find the topic very interesting.
PS. Just for kicks, who came to this thread with loads of sources ready to say "No way brah!"
Uuuugh, not this whole "jump evolution" that's not the phrase their is a proper phrase is punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution ... punct.html
I personally don't think either one of these is valid all the time, I really think it depends on the species, if a species is fairly well adapted to a relatively stable environment it's going to change slowly if the species is either not terribly well adapted then varmint still has numbers enough and is in the position working adapt then it will change quickly, there will be a lot of change after mass extinction because of newly opened niches, I really think it's a whole false dichotomy.

That thing you're talking about with mothers and infants, yeah that's epigenetic's, which isn't really evolution per se as it is the slate ability for individual organisms to adapt them selves within a single generation, can also Be seen bone growth muscle growth, development of reflexes, etc. some of these happened to be habitable, and yes this may be one mechanism but this only applies in case of readapted material, not really being applicable to novel traits and the like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I don't see how selective breeding shows that there's anything off with modern evolutionary synthesis, or the theory of evolution at any point this development in all honesty, if that one of the things that inspire Darwin side from the Galapagos islands was the extreme amounts of variation of domestic pigeons.
http://darwinspigeons.com learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/pigeons/whypigeons/
This whole Fallson to variation among species, the only reason you see this ridiculous amounts of variation is because of sapient intervention, or just intervention from another species in general as the vast majority of our domestic animals could not survive in the wild of us without us many of these varieties would not have evolved.
That being said even wild species… For how useful or irrelevant that terminates can show a significant amount of variation, for examples simply look at the nondomestic wolf, and our own species, all of which come in a wide variety of colours moderate amount of variation in bodily proportions and a decent range of sizes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspec ... anis_lupus ..... Which is not even considering the fact that gray wolves can interbreed and produce for tile hybrid offspring with coyotes meaning between coyotes are not really different species at all, but a very varied species complex. I don't think I truly need to post the link about human variation, but I'll do it anyway for your sake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_variability

Also, in case you think that rapid speciation is just something that happens under humans, you would also be wrong, … Well I mean technically humans cause this but it wasn't really intentional :https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm


P.S no I didn't think that you were seriously creationist, if you were I'm sure you would've posted in the debate section, they've all been polite enough to do that thus far. P.SS: I did not have this immediately but quickly put it together to try and see some of your misunderstandbugs
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
CatFish21sm
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by CatFish21sm » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:25 pm

combi2 wrote:So you are saying that creatures evolve by turning of and on genes,and you are basically rejecting mutation?
And that would mean that the first life form on earth had every gene that ever existed on earth,and just turned them of and on to evolve?
I might not be understanding this right,so please correct me on that.
No the theory is that genes can be turned on and off. So a gene that isn't beneficial now can be turned off instead of just completely removed from the population. That way if that gene ever becomes beneficial then it can be turned on again later removing the need for genes to re-evolve later on.
An example in humans would be the tail that occasionally appears. Instead of evolving a small stub and it getting longer over time, a small proto tail appears, kinda like a pigs tail. It can't exactly be used or anything, but it's one example. So it's not that species evolve by genes being turned on and off, it's more that genes being turned on and off accents evolution and makes it easier allowing a wider variety of animals to appear over a much shorter period of time in order to more easily adapt to new or changing environments. Like the dog example that I pointed out.
"So players are walking along, one player is being a cock, magical rocks scream out of the sky and flatten them and due to the beauty and amazement of seeing something like that everyone else in the party levels up."

User avatar
CatFish21sm
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by CatFish21sm » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:55 pm

20 characters! wrote: Uuuugh, not this whole "jump evolution" that's not the phrase their is a proper phrase is punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution ... punct.html
I personally don't think either one of these is valid all the time, I really think it depends on the species, if a species is fairly well adapted to a relatively stable environment it's going to change slowly if the species is either not terribly well adapted then varmint still has numbers enough and is in the position working adapt then it will change quickly, there will be a lot of change after mass extinction because of newly opened niches, I really think it's a whole false dichotomy.

That thing you're talking about with mothers and infants, yeah that's epigenetic's, which isn't really evolution per se as it is the slate ability for individual organisms to adapt them selves within a single generation, can also Be seen bone growth muscle growth, development of reflexes, etc. some of these happened to be habitable, and yes this may be one mechanism but this only applies in case of readapted material, not really being applicable to novel traits and the like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I don't see how selective breeding shows that there's anything off with modern evolutionary synthesis, or the theory of evolution at any point this development in all honesty, if that one of the things that inspire Darwin side from the Galapagos islands was the extreme amounts of variation of domestic pigeons.
http://darwinspigeons.com learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/pigeons/whypigeons/
This whole Fallson to variation among species, the only reason you see this ridiculous amounts of variation is because of sapient intervention, or just intervention from another species in general as the vast majority of our domestic animals could not survive in the wild of us without us many of these varieties would not have evolved.
That being said even wild species… For how useful or irrelevant that terminates can show a significant amount of variation, for examples simply look at the nondomestic wolf, and our own species, all of which come in a wide variety of colours moderate amount of variation in bodily proportions and a decent range of sizes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspec ... anis_lupus ..... Which is not even considering the fact that gray wolves can interbreed and produce for tile hybrid offspring with coyotes meaning between coyotes are not really different species at all, but a very varied species complex. I don't think I truly need to post the link about human variation, but I'll do it anyway for your sake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_variability

Also, in case you think that rapid speciation is just something that happens under humans, you would also be wrong, … Well I mean technically humans cause this but it wasn't really intentional :https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm


P.S no I didn't think that you were seriously creationist, if you were I'm sure you would've posted in the debate section, they've all been polite enough to do that thus far. P.SS: I did not have this immediately but quickly put it together to try and see some of your misunderstandbugs
Sorry, it seems you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that evolution is wrong, just that some parts of our theory are wrong. The theory (not the act (if thats the right word)) is constantly changing, I mean just look at darwins theory as opposed to the one today. It holds some basic principles that haven't changed but other than those it's basically different. I understand that my understanding of the topic is off, and a little outdated so I was pointing out what I know about new discoveries that relate to evolution theory in hopes that someone would help me piece it together a little better, and add any new discoveries that I don't know about to my repertoire. I wasn't saying that the theory is wrong, that was a joke of sort, like I said in the beginning, clickbait. None of my points were meant to discredit the theory in any way. When I said that it was wrong I meant as in how it's always changing so it only makes sense that some parts (no matter how small) are probably going to be found to be wrong in a few years from now. Our understanding of the matter is still very incomplete and we're constantly learning more. My post was more along the lines that I'm having a little trouble piecing everything together and I was asking what is correct and incorrect about my understanding and if there was any other new information on the topic or a similar topic that has been discovered, or only mentioned alot recently. I wasn't trying to start a debate or anything.
So sorry for the misunderstanding, it was a little late so I probably could have been a little more clear as to my intentions.

Anyway thanks for the info! I'll be sure to check it out! :)

PS. As for epigenetics, I know that it isn't actual a factor in evolution its self, I was just pointing out the possibility that it may support the evolution of certain traits and allow evolution to occur in a less random pattern (even if just a little). So it could potentially allow species to change faster to adapt to a new or changing environment or allow them to bring back old adaptations without the need to re-evolve those adaptations. This was meant to lead to the large number of dog breeds comment, which was meant to support the Punctuated Equilibrium part that I mentioned. So to say when looking at dog breeds, even if there is human intervention, it goes to show that such a thing is definitely possible. Obviously, I haven't researched the topic well in a while and I really need to catch up, for the past few years I've been just skimming new interesting findings that pop up and that's about where my understanding lies at the moment :p
"So players are walking along, one player is being a cock, magical rocks scream out of the sky and flatten them and due to the beauty and amazement of seeing something like that everyone else in the party levels up."

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by 20 characters! » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:16 am

My iPod crashed and my follow-up post got deleted. ;-;

Sorry I have to go, Just ask confrère questions and we will try to answer them, best of luck I'll be back in a few hours.
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by Prudentia » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:46 am

Epigenetics can actually be a factor in evolution, since it can hide genes from natural selection. For example, Fatal Familial Insomnia, FFI basically makes you unable to enter REM cycle and you basically waste away and are dead within six months. Most of the time. Die to being a dominant allele, it always affects you, but not until you are at least in your mid forties or early fifties. Hiding it from natural selection. Any sort of intolerance is the same, it hides those genes from positive and negative selection pressures alike. You can be able to eat lactose for a long time and then suddenly become lactose intolerance, such a thing can come and go at any time, aligned with hormone or environment cycles.
For example, I was able to eat blueberries for many years, now I can not without severe intestinal discomfort.

Epigenetics actually plays an amazingly important role. Salmon, particularly Pacific, life cycles are taught in the Northwest in very simplistic terms. Fry become smolt, migrate to ocean, become parr, then adults and head home to mate before dying.
It is much more complex than that, fish born from smaller eggs grow much faster than fish from larger eggs. Salmon can migrate to the ocean without undergoing smoltification, hatchery salmon are vastly different than wild salmon. Certain environmental cues early on can change the way a fish functions almost completely. Some salmon migrate after two years, while some do not migrate to the ocean at all. These are more likely to become sneaker males (jack males), and evidence indicate that hatchery practices may be increasing the amount of jack males.
Fry can either be movers or stayers, and that can dictate when they migrate. Fry who were from the parents and the same part of the tributary may migrate at different time, they can also either be surface, or bottom oriented.
For example, Chinnok salmon are known for their large spring runs, but also possess spring and summer runs. These are genetically distinct population, just individuals who responded to environmental cues in a different manner creation a distinct phenotype. Most species of animals that have alternative mating strategies are due to epigenetics, creating a ton of different phenotypes, and back ups in case of disaster.

Sadly epigenetics is a very complex, and very understudied mechanism. My own professor for one of my classes this term found that if raised in a structured environment, (add gravel and even a single stick) hatchery fish will behave and more physiologically resemble wild fish.

Epigenetic changes are triggered by hormonal shifts that can cause methylation of various DNA segments within a cell (also how a virus can lay dormant in your body for years or even decades before popping out to say hello), due to environmental cues. While predictable in occurence, not predictable in result. There is no predictability in what genes will be turned on or off. Becoming lactose or gluten intolerant is disadvantageous. A human tail is also a bad example. That is related to a failure of development rather than epigenetic, given that they are soft (they contain no bone). Similar to webbed digits, these developmental defects are caused more by genetic mutations than epigenetics.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
CatFish21sm
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by CatFish21sm » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:22 am

Prudentia wrote:Epigenetics can actually be a factor in evolution, since it can hide genes from natural selection. For example, Fatal Familial Insomnia, FFI basically makes you unable to enter REM cycle and you basically waste away and are dead within six months. Most of the time. Die to being a dominant allele, it always affects you, but not until you are at least in your mid forties or early fifties. Hiding it from natural selection. Any sort of intolerance is the same, it hides those genes from positive and negative selection pressures alike. You can be able to eat lactose for a long time and then suddenly become lactose intolerance, such a thing can come and go at any time, aligned with hormone or environment cycles.
For example, I was able to eat blueberries for many years, now I can not without severe intestinal discomfort.
I figured that it would play a big role for just that reason. But I wasn't sure of any actual real world example of positive or negative traits being hidden, this really helps put it into better perspective thanks!
I've entered into discussions before where we discussed the possibility (although small) for traits like limbs to be hidden for long periods of time and being built up. For example a stub wouldn't do you very good with walking and in some cases may even hinder it. So it might be possible for a functioning limb to evolve behind the scenes and then when it gets to the point where it's beneficial it starts to become more obvious. I'm aware that this is an extreme example, but what do you think of the possibility when considering this?
I don't mean just limbs bot organs or other body parts that may be useless or even detrimental, occasionally appearing but slowly growing under cover until they reach a state in which they are beneficial.
I've also read about certain genes that are set up in a way that make them more or less likely to mutate compared to other genes. But that's about as far as my knowledge goes, I can see the benefit to this, but can anyone explain it a little better and give me real world examples?

Oh and I didn't really mean it's not a factor... I can't think of the word and factor is just the closest thing... It's not a direct cause of evolution, something like that.
"So players are walking along, one player is being a cock, magical rocks scream out of the sky and flatten them and due to the beauty and amazement of seeing something like that everyone else in the party levels up."

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by Prudentia » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:06 am

CatFish21sm wrote:
Prudentia wrote:Epigenetics can actually be a factor in evolution, since it can hide genes from natural selection. For example, Fatal Familial Insomnia, FFI basically makes you unable to enter REM cycle and you basically waste away and are dead within six months. Most of the time. Die to being a dominant allele, it always affects you, but not until you are at least in your mid forties or early fifties. Hiding it from natural selection. Any sort of intolerance is the same, it hides those genes from positive and negative selection pressures alike. You can be able to eat lactose for a long time and then suddenly become lactose intolerance, such a thing can come and go at any time, aligned with hormone or environment cycles.
For example, I was able to eat blueberries for many years, now I can not without severe intestinal discomfort.
I figured that it would play a big role for just that reason. But I wasn't sure of any actual real world example of positive or negative traits being hidden, this really helps put it into better perspective thanks!
I've entered into discussions before where we discussed the possibility (although small) for traits like limbs to be hidden for long periods of time and being built up. For example a stub wouldn't do you very good with walking and in some cases may even hinder it. So it might be possible for a functioning limb to evolve behind the scenes and then when it gets to the point where it's beneficial it starts to become more obvious. I'm aware that this is an extreme example, but what do you think of the possibility when considering this?
I don't mean just limbs bot organs or other body parts that may be useless or even detrimental, occasionally appearing but slowly growing under cover until they reach a state in which they are beneficial.
I've also read about certain genes that are set up in a way that make them more or less likely to mutate compared to other genes. But that's about as far as my knowledge goes, I can see the benefit to this, but can anyone explain it a little better and give me real world examples?

Oh and I didn't really mean it's not a factor... I can't think of the word and factor is just the closest thing... It's not a direct cause of evolution, something like that.
An interesting idea, the only issue is that it would more or less be randomly expressed. Take for example, the parietal eye of the Tuatara. A highly developed structure, it even comes with a retina and lens. However, the optic nerve is highly degenerate, and would not be capable of a full image transmission, only light sensitivity. usually epigenetics do not hide whole structures, though it is the sole mechanism responsible of organ differentiation. So it is theoretically possible,in Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), an XY male possesses testes but is unresponsive to androgen. Causing the creation of a vagina, and in extreme cases, uterus and Mullerian tissue that remain intact even after the anti-Mullerian hormone. These genetic males are usually raised as females.
While not caused by epigenetics, something causes (a mutation the AR gene, 95% of the time) the body to treat androgen as estrogen and changes the epigenetic patterns in the developing embryo. Causing the creation of various feminine equipment, most of which is later dismantled by anti-mullerian hormone, though vaginas and breasts tend to remain.

Different genes are more prone to mutation, but # limbs and other vertebrate/ tetrapod defining traits are less prone. Especially when it comes to adding limbs. Genes that affect development are some of the most resistant. Though mutations do happen, most in those departments are fatal, around 30-40% of human pregnancies miscarry before they are even detectable. Most issues in development are not mutations but failure of apoptosis or results of chemicals that slow or stop some to all areas of development.
Most of our epigenetic patterns are still determined in the womb. For example, if woman (pregnant with a girl) continues to heavily smoke during pregnancy, she may elicit epigenetic changes that can make her, her unborn child, and her unborn child's eggs more vulnerable to certain types of cancer.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by 20 characters! » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:10 am

Prudentia wrote:
CatFish21sm wrote:
Prudentia wrote:Epigenetics can actually be a factor in evolution, since it can hide genes from natural selection. For example, Fatal Familial Insomnia, FFI basically makes you unable to enter REM cycle and you basically waste away and are dead within six months. Most of the time. Die to being a dominant allele, it always affects you, but not until you are at least in your mid forties or early fifties. Hiding it from natural selection. Any sort of intolerance is the same, it hides those genes from positive and negative selection pressures alike. You can be able to eat lactose for a long time and then suddenly become lactose intolerance, such a thing can come and go at any time, aligned with hormone or environment cycles.
For example, I was able to eat blueberries for many years, now I can not without severe intestinal discomfort.
I figured that it would play a big role for just that reason. But I wasn't sure of any actual real world example of positive or negative traits being hidden, this really helps put it into better perspective thanks!
I've entered into discussions before where we discussed the possibility (although small) for traits like limbs to be hidden for long periods of time and being built up. For example a stub wouldn't do you very good with walking and in some cases may even hinder it. So it might be possible for a functioning limb to evolve behind the scenes and then when it gets to the point where it's beneficial it starts to become more obvious. I'm aware that this is an extreme example, but what do you think of the possibility when considering this?
I don't mean just limbs bot organs or other body parts that may be useless or even detrimental, occasionally appearing but slowly growing under cover until they reach a state in which they are beneficial.
I've also read about certain genes that are set up in a way that make them more or less likely to mutate compared to other genes. But that's about as far as my knowledge goes, I can see the benefit to this, but can anyone explain it a little better and give me real world examples?

Oh and I didn't really mean it's not a factor... I can't think of the word and factor is just the closest thing... It's not a direct cause of evolution, something like that.
An interesting idea, the only issue is that it would more or less be randomly expressed. Take for example, the parietal eye of the Tuatara. A highly developed structure, it even comes with a retina and lens. However, the optic nerve is highly degenerate, and would not be capable of a full image transmission, only light sensitivity. usually epigenetics do not hide whole structures, though it is the sole mechanism responsible of organ differentiation. So it is theoretically possible,in Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), an XY male possesses testes but is unresponsive to androgen. Causing the creation of a vagina, and in extreme cases, uterus and Mullerian tissue that remain intact even after the anti-Mullerian hormone. These genetic males are usually raised as females.
While not caused by epigenetics, something causes (a mutation the AR gene, 95% of the time) the body to treat androgen as estrogen and changes the epigenetic patterns in the developing embryo. Causing the creation of various feminine equipment, most of which is later dismantled by anti-mullerian hormone, though vaginas and breasts tend to remain.

Different genes are more prone to mutation, but # limbs and other vertebrate/ tetrapod defining traits are less prone. Especially when it comes to adding limbs. Genes that affect development are some of the most resistant. Though mutations do happen, most in those departments are fatal, around 30-40% of human pregnancies miscarry before they are even detectable. Most issues in development are not mutations but failure of apoptosis or results of chemicals that slow or stop some to all areas of development.
Most of our epigenetic patterns are still determined in the womb. For example, if woman (pregnant with a girl) continues to heavily smoke during pregnancy, she may elicit epigenetic changes that can make her, her unborn child, and her unborn child's eggs more vulnerable to certain types of cancer.

Those "mostly stable genes" you speak of are mostly hox genes are they not?
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: The theory of evolution is wrong!

Post by Prudentia » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:13 am

20 characters! wrote:
Prudentia wrote:
CatFish21sm wrote: I figured that it would play a big role for just that reason. But I wasn't sure of any actual real world example of positive or negative traits being hidden, this really helps put it into better perspective thanks!
I've entered into discussions before where we discussed the possibility (although small) for traits like limbs to be hidden for long periods of time and being built up. For example a stub wouldn't do you very good with walking and in some cases may even hinder it. So it might be possible for a functioning limb to evolve behind the scenes and then when it gets to the point where it's beneficial it starts to become more obvious. I'm aware that this is an extreme example, but what do you think of the possibility when considering this?
I don't mean just limbs bot organs or other body parts that may be useless or even detrimental, occasionally appearing but slowly growing under cover until they reach a state in which they are beneficial.
I've also read about certain genes that are set up in a way that make them more or less likely to mutate compared to other genes. But that's about as far as my knowledge goes, I can see the benefit to this, but can anyone explain it a little better and give me real world examples?

Oh and I didn't really mean it's not a factor... I can't think of the word and factor is just the closest thing... It's not a direct cause of evolution, something like that.
An interesting idea, the only issue is that it would more or less be randomly expressed. Take for example, the parietal eye of the Tuatara. A highly developed structure, it even comes with a retina and lens. However, the optic nerve is highly degenerate, and would not be capable of a full image transmission, only light sensitivity. usually epigenetics do not hide whole structures, though it is the sole mechanism responsible of organ differentiation. So it is theoretically possible,in Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), an XY male possesses testes but is unresponsive to androgen. Causing the creation of a vagina, and in extreme cases, uterus and Mullerian tissue that remain intact even after the anti-Mullerian hormone. These genetic males are usually raised as females.
While not caused by epigenetics, something causes (a mutation the AR gene, 95% of the time) the body to treat androgen as estrogen and changes the epigenetic patterns in the developing embryo. Causing the creation of various feminine equipment, most of which is later dismantled by anti-mullerian hormone, though vaginas and breasts tend to remain.

Different genes are more prone to mutation, but # limbs and other vertebrate/ tetrapod defining traits are less prone. Especially when it comes to adding limbs. Genes that affect development are some of the most resistant. Though mutations do happen, most in those departments are fatal, around 30-40% of human pregnancies miscarry before they are even detectable. Most issues in development are not mutations but failure of apoptosis or results of chemicals that slow or stop some to all areas of development.
Most of our epigenetic patterns are still determined in the womb. For example, if woman (pregnant with a girl) continues to heavily smoke during pregnancy, she may elicit epigenetic changes that can make her, her unborn child, and her unborn child's eggs more vulnerable to certain types of cancer.

Those "mostly stable genes" you speak of are mostly hox genes are they not?

Those would be Hox, yes. Most mutations in those are highly lethal.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests