Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the presence of transitional forms needed to make evolution a valid theory?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the presence of transitional forms needed to make evolution a valid theory?

    No. Why? Because drastic changes can happen in one or a few generations, with only a few key chromosomes of DNA changing at all. 

    Of course that requires that large portions of populations all change these key chromosomes at the same time, if you want any chance of it sticking. But that's not so unlikely- often there is a common need or ability to evolve amongst a population that is either urgent or explosively beneficial. The onset or end of an ice age, a new source of food, a new environment due to migration or anything else really. All of these could trigger a drastic change in a population

    In fact it is only these kinds of scenarios which can trigger speciation, because otherwise the small mutations in DNA which occur amongst individual families would be washed out by the majority in a short time. Therefore it seems highly unlikely that we would find a perfect spectrum of mutations from one species to another, especialy when often times the transitional phase would render a weaker animal less likely to survive. 

    No, speciation occurs in time with major geographical and social events, at a rapid rate. This is possible due to the conic nature of DNA, and horizontal gene transfer. Evolution is sound

    My electronic music project, KHALIL, just released its first EP, "tell Us What Happened" on Thumbs Up Records in Florida. If you are into chill, experimental beat music with keyboards, saxophone and sample manipulation, check it out:http://khalilduo.bandcamp.com/Piano Interperetation of Fleedwood Mac's "Landslide" --https://soundcloud.com/ryan7585/landslide

  • #2

    link? 

    Comment


    • ryan7585
      ryan7585 commented
      Editing a comment

      yumpy wrote:

      link? 


      see sig


  • #3

    What do you mean by "transitional forms"?

     

     

    Comment


    • Tom Hicks
      Tom Hicks commented
      Editing a comment

      larry50 wrote:

      What do you mean by "transitional forms"?

       

       


       

      a republican who believes in science in general and evolution in particular.


  • #4

    ryan7585 wrote:

    No. Why? Because drastic changes can happen in one or a few generations, with only a few key chromosomes of DNA changing at all. 

    Of course that requires that large portions of populations all change these key chromosomes at the same time, if you want any chance of it sticking. But that's not so unlikely- often there is a common need or ability to evolve amongst a population that is either urgent or explosively beneficial. The onset or end of an ice age, a new source of food, a new environment due to migration or anything else really. All of these could trigger a drastic change in a population

    In fact it is only these kinds of scenarios which can trigger speciation, because otherwise the small mutations in DNA which occur amongst individual families would be washed out by the majority in a short time. Therefore it seems highly unlikely that we would find a perfect spectrum of mutations from one species to another, especialy when often times the transitional phase would render a weaker animal less likely to survive. 

    No, speciation occurs in time with major geographical and social events, at a rapid rate. This is possible due to the conic nature of DNA, and horizontal gene transfer. Evolution is sound


    you are talking about a localized mutation?

    that would mean the mutation would be so advantageous, that the mutated would spread and dominate the whole species all over the world. 

    fairly hard to believe at all.

    the whole species would have to mutate all over, at the same time. which means, the genes in the DNA of each animal would have to be triggered at the same time. (to start the evolution, not the end result)

    and there would be transitional forms. evolution doesn't happen overnite and it would strengthen the theory if they were found.

    the whole theory is complicated enough, that it casts doubts on it's validity.

    even at the DNA level, there is a lot of "junk" DNA or so they think.

    are all these changes timed to go off/on at a certain time? i'm not aware that organisims can grow more chromo's.

    it seems to be all "set in stone," just that which chromo or gene is on or off at this point in time.

    so is it really evolution? darwin noticed specialization/adaptation, more or less, not evolution.

    OTOH, palentologists have thrown out at least 6 species of dino's that are now classified as the young and juviniles of an adult species.

    and that's with phsyical evidence they had all along, let alone DNA 100mil yo.

    why haven't croc's changed or sharks or a miriad of other species in millions of years? they are perfect?

    adaptation is a good thing, species that don't, die out.  

    too heavy for 9:45 am. 

    i'll be bak!

     

     

    Comment


    • ryan7585
      ryan7585 commented
      Editing a comment

      yumpy wrote:

      ryan7585 wrote:

      No. Why? Because drastic changes can happen in one or a few generations, with only a few key chromosomes of DNA changing at all. 

      Of course that requires that large portions of populations all change these key chromosomes at the same time, if you want any chance of it sticking. But that's not so unlikely- often there is a common need or ability to evolve amongst a population that is either urgent or explosively beneficial. The onset or end of an ice age, a new source of food, a new environment due to migration or anything else really. All of these could trigger a drastic change in a population

      In fact it is only these kinds of scenarios which can trigger speciation, because otherwise the small mutations in DNA which occur amongst individual families would be washed out by the majority in a short time. Therefore it seems highly unlikely that we would find a perfect spectrum of mutations from one species to another, especialy when often times the transitional phase would render a weaker animal less likely to survive. 

      No, speciation occurs in time with major geographical and social events, at a rapid rate. This is possible due to the conic nature of DNA, and horizontal gene transfer. Evolution is sound


      you are talking about a localized mutation?

      that would mean the mutation would be so advantageous, that the mutated would spread and dominate the whole species all over the world. 

      fairly hard to believe at all.

      the whole species would have to mutate all over, at the same time. which means, the genes in the DNA of each animal would have to be triggered at the same time. (to start the evolution, not the end result)

      and there would be transitional forms. evolution doesn't happen overnite and it would strengthen the theory if they were found.

      the whole theory is complicated enough, that it casts doubts on it's validity.

      even at the DNA level, there is a lot of "junk" DNA or so they think.

      are all these changes timed to go off/on at a certain time? i'm not aware that organisims can grow more chromo's.

      it seems to be all "set in stone," just that which chromo or gene is on or off at this point in time.

      so is it really evolution? darwin noticed specialization/adaptation, more or less, not evolution.

      OTOH, palentologists have thrown out at least 6 species of dino's that are now classified as the young and juviniles of an adult species.

      and that's with phsyical evidence they had all along, let alone DNA 100mil yo.

      why haven't croc's changed or sharks or a miriad of other species in millions of years? they are perfect?

      adaptation is a good thing, species that don't, die out.  

      too heavy for 9:45 am. 

      i'll be bak!

       

       


      Not the whole population at the same time, and not a small individual mutation that spreads. A group amongst the population would mutate, not simultaneously but during a relatively short period of time, and if  the group is large enough and the mutation solves the crisis of survival faced by the general population, it spreads wildly. Not through the entire population, but through enough of it that the new species gains a population whose size is sufficient to survive for more than a few generations

      And there is not "junk" DNA, just DNA that isn't currently in use. 

      When I say "a relatively short period of time", I'm not being clear, I understand that. Which makes a debate difficult since the length of that time period is basically the crux of the debate. What I mean is a short period of time relative to the rate at which mutations normally take hold on a large portion of the population. That's nothing specific but relevant simply because it shortens the time period during which fossils, of the animals that were part of the transition, were produced and therefore makes it highly unlikely that we'll actually come across any. 

      Either way, it seems unlikely that if we did find these fossils, that they would be "transitional forms".. it would be a group that hasn't evolved living alongside a group that has for a while. 

       

      The point here is mostly that normally, mutations occur constantly, but because of the slow rate and small scale of mutation they are washed out by the majority... So it follows that speciation would require large scale rapid mutation of the same gene groups, which makes the idea of the need for "transitional forms" outdated. 

       

      Of course slow mutation has its effect too, and you will see transitions between some aspects of form over longer periods of time, but these are not the mutations that cause speciation. They're just not strong enough



Working...
X