Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Electric Eel - more evidence against evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 101 (704333)
08-08-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Haldir
08-08-2013 8:06 AM


Now, what steps do we need for a non-electric eel to evolve into an electric one.
Electric eels didn't evolve from non-electric eels. Well, first, they're not really eels; they're fish (knifefish). And the fish they evolved from were already electric.
In fact, producing electric fields has evolved independently in many different fishes, including sharks and rays.
Now, if I have my list right (and I certainly may not), the question then is whether or not these things needed to arise simultaneously, or if they could have been advantageous individually. If they are advantageous individually, might we expect to see some of these changes individually existent in other creatures, or did natural selection just happen to always put all of them together each of the 5+ times it started down this path?
Its the former. Look into the Gymnotiformes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 8:06 AM Haldir has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 43 of 101 (704340)
08-08-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 3:07 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
Actually, probability/improbability is perfectly relevant, since it helps us determine how plausible a hypothesis is.
The probability of this calcium atom in my arm bone ending up there after being formed on the inside of a star and being blasted across outerspace, landing on the planet, going through the soil and the into the piece of broccoli I ate, and then being incorporating into that particular part of my body is so ridiculously low that I agree that it looks unrealistically implausible. But there it is and that's how it got there (more or less).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:07 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 101 (704343)
08-08-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
08-08-2013 3:13 PM


Re: Immediate or Gradual?
Can you explain what the source is talking about here?
The sensitivity of what?
Is the source claiming that a regular eel went to an awesomely electrical electric eel in one step?
Or are they claiming that they simply don't know what happened to take a regular eel to an awesomely electrical electric eel over a very long time?
Its not even talking about eels. Its talking generally about the evolution of the electric organs that many different types of fish have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 08-08-2013 3:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2013 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 101 (704348)
08-08-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
08-08-2013 3:32 PM


Re: Immediate or Gradual?
If they're just talking about how currently-existing-electrically-potent species are well beyond non-electrically-potent species...
Yes, they're talking about how the sensitivity of the sensory-cells had to go up a whole lot in order to go from a mechanical detection to an electrical one. That is, the little hair-like thingys that can detect, say water movement, had to evolve a very high level of sensitivity in order to detect electric currents instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2013 3:32 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Stile, posted 08-09-2013 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 101 (704349)
08-08-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 3:24 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
Yea, unfortunately that's not how molecular evolution specialists look at probability. The literature contains numerous papers on the limits of evolution...
But are they determining how plausible it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 3:24 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 52 of 101 (704351)
08-08-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 5:09 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
There are a number of papers in the literature that investigate the rate of emergence of complex adaptations, based on factors like, e.g., population size and the number of mutations the complex adaptation would require.
And they use that to question the plausibility of evolution?
If we accept your argument, then any adaptation is plausible
Actually, I was saying that "star calcium atoms to body calcium atoms" is not plausible. The point was that plausibility didn't really matter.
By that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that ERVs in specific genomic locations in humans and other primates share those same locations because of chance alone.
That is a possibility, but we have evidence suggesting that they're related.
You sure you want to go down that route?
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:09 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 101 (704451)
08-10-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Genomicus
08-08-2013 5:30 PM


Re: another rather typical misconception
And they use that to question the plausibility of evolution?
No, that is not the point here.
Then you're missing the point.
From upthread:
you writes:
jar writes:
you writes:
Well, if the evolution of a given trait is too unlikely, then you'll have to look for another explanation for the origin of that trait.
Uh, no. Why would I have to look for some other explanation?
Because the evolution of the trait is too unlikely, meaning that it is implausible to have originated through evolutionary processes.
That's not really the right approach. You don't raise doubt in a working theory by saying its explanation looks too improbable. What you do is provide your evidence for the alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Genomicus, posted 08-08-2013 5:30 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 100 of 101 (704452)
08-10-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Haldir
08-08-2013 6:24 PM


Yes, I guess what I would need to figure out is how many steps still separate those "electric fields" from the actual electrocution ability of the electric eel.
Why?
which part of my quoted paragraph did you mean by "its the former"?
"we expect to see some of these changes individually existent in other creatures"
There's all kinds of different ways that fish use electricity for a variety of reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Haldir, posted 08-08-2013 6:24 PM Haldir has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024