That’s a brilliant observation. It’s been years since I’ve taken a course in evolution and your points conclusively prove that the theory of evolution is incomplete. Even the basic rudiments of the theory are slowly progressing to a more complex construct. I’m still amazed by an experiment conducted where a single codon was exchanged within Drosphila melanogaster, and the end result was the formation of new functional appendages. This particular mutation is astonishing at many levels because the organism had full control of the mutated appendages. This meant a complete set of new muscular, exoskeletal, and nerve tissue that was formed in just a single generation.
Another factor that is surprising in population genetics is when a particular allele exists in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium. In just a matter of a few generation times (t), a new allele can be expressed by the majority of the population. More interesting is the time it takes for the allele to be totally eradicated from the same gene pool. This adds an interesting dynamic that genes can be easily introduced but not easily lost. This phenomenon adds information to the genetic code rather quickly.
This discussion is fascinating. I have this feeling that we are still scratching the surface when it comes to evolution, and many other scientific fields. I mean, think about all the so-called scientific “truths” we hold now that people in a few hundred years will prove to be utter fallacies, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. That’s why it bugs me when people condemn religion, and then treat the theory of evolution like an unquestionable truth.
Nothing that was mentioned in this thread is even close to bringing into question the theory of evolution. What is argued are the very detailed specifics of different mechanisms which all fall under evolution.
Nothing that was mentioned in this thread is even close to bringing into question the theory of evolution. What is argued are the very detailed specifics of different mechanisms which all fall under evolution.
You’re right. My point is that the way we understand evolution will constantly change and develop (the “gradual” vs. “big leap” theories are one example). By treating scientific discovery as absolute, people can fall into the same close-mindedness that plagues religion. It always takes a very long time for paradigm shifts to occur in science, because everyone becomes so attached to the status quo. Darwin and evolution is a great example of this. And just because evolution is the the current paradigm does not mean this won’t change in the future. I think it’s valuable to keep the big picture in mind, because it is humbling and prevents you from treating the common knowledge as gospel. That being said, all a scientist can do is understand and accept the truth of his observations, and the theory of evolution certainly has the evidence to speak for it’s truth. Anyway…not sure if any of that made sense.
The only thing I can come up with (as someone who is graduating with a degree in molecular and developmental biology) is that for some reason these traits became sexually favorable. Obviously a mutation started, and for some reason sexual partners wanted those mutations.
The chicken egg, of what should be defined as a chicken, would have came first in the final stage in the biological production of a chicken. If you are going through the evolutionary process you would have various species laying eggs before in time it eventually becomes what we see as the chicken. It wouldn’t be so precise as an animal that’s 99% chicken lays an egg, and this egg is 100%, and the process is finished (and before that a chicken that’s 98% chicken giving life to the animal that’s 99% chicken). What came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, I think there was another animal entirely before the egg laying chicken that gave birth to the egg that gave birth to the chicken that’s trying to cross the road.
Thanks! The chicken vs. egg explanation was especially helpful. It’s easy to forget how gradual evolution is when to humans, 100 years seems like forever.