Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question on evolutionary Rates
Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 68
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 25 of 47 (393868)
04-08-2007 3:33 AM


ICANT its not so much a number issue really, what you're doing now is saying that the change from the first eukaryotic organismen to a human is a more complicated one then the change from a prokaryotic organism to an eukaryotic one.. Or atleast on the same level.
But that original statement is wrong in a very important way. And I'll provide a little example to explain it.
The Drosophilia fly is a bug of which we know all genetic information, we also know that (and this is well known for anyone dealing with the fly, ask around biologists and they'll explain it to you) the fly has many genes that are closely related to human genes, around 78% I hear and read in a lot of places. Yet if you look at it, it still looks like a simple bug.
And thats where the point lies, you can think about the first multicellular organismes and say "those would be so simple". But those first multicellular organismes would already have many of the genes that the humans would have in the future as well, minus and plus extra changes.. Just like the fly now, would those first organismes have many of the basic genes..
Which would take it less time in "speciation events" to get to the stage of what we call a human now.
Does that make sense ?
Add to this one more bit of information.. The genes from a prokaryote to an eukaryote was a big change, it wasn't something present in the organism and thus had to be created during a long process.. When the genes were there, you'd have eukaryotes, it is ofcourse a smaller step to go from one eukaryote to a different one..

  
Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 68
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 47 of 47 (396600)
04-21-2007 3:51 AM


Well, if after all of this, you still like your own theory better.. Or actually your hypothesis because you have no way to enforce your idea with any science whatsoever.
Then maybe you should completely move away from science, these people showed you again and again explenations of why it could and why it has happened that way, you just ignore it and say "not detailed enough, I won't believe it"
And the emphasis is on won't.. Because the rational part of the world does "accept".. You just won't because that means you have to change your mind on something, and this has proven impossible in any case.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024