Study biology for 3 years and now medecine since 5 years

Okay can you provide your example please? Anything should be fine

Are you saying that most offspring are biological copies of their parents?

Because that's actually impossible.

"Evolution by random mutation" is a meme. You have to think more about the variation among every gene in an entire population. The forces of natural selection cause a "drift" in the number of individuals expressing the different variants of each gene.

check this explain how the fuck the first proto-photoreceptors came, how the mutation created proteins to make pic related, how the mutation led IN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL to proteins to code neurons that connect this proto-photoreceptors to the brain.

like a fucking single animal got some many mutation it created a complex system to detect light and send it to the brain thought axons and this brain perfectly interpreted those chimical imputs!
that's mathematically impossible.

Right, the process of evolution obviously isn't random. This is stating the obvious.

OP's just arguing that the probability of adaptive mutations occurring randomly is too low to explain the plethora of adaptive mutations that we observe in life. And that point is completely orthogonal to the point you're making.

In species that reproduce asexually, yes, this is the case. In species that reproduce sexually, they obviously aren't, but the genes that offspring have which aren't shared by either parent are random.

Am I the only sane person in this fucking thread?
>variants of each gene
The point is that these variants arise randomly. And then of course selection comes into play.

I'm finding myself partly arguing on OP's side simply because you fuckheads cannot seem to wrap your head around this very fucking simple point.

>the probability of having several mutation that led to a functional new type of fiber/cells/ organ is very very very small.
>Not my best example, but the eye evolution can be a good one: the photoreceptors are so fucking complex, and only usefull
>look how many molecules, structures etc. are involved to create the first photorceptors and molecules of it. It's thoudsands of mutations at least even for the most proto-example of photoreceptors to make it usefull for the animal
See, this is where you are confused.

What do you think the "most proto-example of photoreceptors" is? It's not that thing we have in our eyes. The photorecepters in our eyes evolved from something more basic, which evolved from something more basic, which evolved from something more basic, which ultimately evolved from a SINGLE MUTATION yielding a single light-sensitive protein or something that functioned as a very basic, very simple, very limited, very unreliable light-sensory thingy, that nonetheless still had SOME benefit (more than zero). Everything after that were incremental improvements.

The key here is that every single mutation in the chain provided an immediate benefit on its own, giving whatever was already there. At no point did a large bunch of mutations happen in sequence that only TOGETHER formed a useful addition.

This is bait. Just ignore this shit thread.

op again.

but even this very simple basic mechanism : "capt light -> send to the brain" imply 3 things that a single mutation on one animal made:

-one single animal had mutation to create a "complex" more or less cell that can capt light, wich involve many proteins making a chimical reactions already, because capting light as information isn't easy

- that one single animal had developed specific neurons related exactly to to the specific area where

-the "mapping" of the body and nervs creations and happend in the embryon phase anyway, how could this neurons connect this cell, found this cell that capt light, how can this neuron even be there? this mutation involve neuron creation at the same place exactly that this new cell formed?

-how many cells were formed at this first individual? if a single one, then how the brain could interpret one single cell sending (by a magical neurons that happend to be formed in this mutation!) some chimical information? This mutation also made produce several cells? Those cells formed at the same place? How many of them? The zygote that had the mutation about this cell capting light also had the one that made specific neurons forms around it.

also how did the "brain" (540 millions years ago, proto brain probably) understood those inputs that those neurons sent for the first time in history?

you simply can't accumulate that and it doesn't explain

sorry for bad english. Ask me to clarify if needed.

>you simply can't accumulate that and it doesn't explain
It's not a big jump from chemoreception to photoreception. All the infrastructure is there, the only thing that needs to happen is that some molecule, instead of responding to e.g. nutrients, responds to photons. Molecularly, this is a small step. Pretty much all the steps you describe can occur in isolation, from the development of 'neurons' that allow for movement, all the way to a fully fledged retina.

It's kind of ironic that you chose one of the most studied systems as your example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Come back after you've read it.

op again.
Like I read this, and it clearly show that a single individual can't get so many mutation to form a proto-light detectors cell.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781858/

How can the first proto-opsin / light-sensitive protein be coded by a single mutation and connected to the neuronal system in one single mutation in on animal.

and it's can't accumulate because if it doesn't capt light and send it to brain, it's not usefull, he doesn't reproduce more.

>and it's can't accumulate because if it doesn't capt light and send it to brain, it's not usefull, he doesn't reproduce more.

See >It's not a big jump from chemoreception to photoreception.

interesting, we're reaching on something more accurate.
So some cells that already existed, were connected to the brain, sending information to the brain,

Well, first the question, what were those cells, and secundo, if the genomic code that had a mutation for those cells how *instead of doind what they were supposed to do* became cells that send information of light, then how could this individual survive? Because all the cells mutated.

And other point, those cells to capt light had to be on the outside of the body (to capt light), but the cells outside of the body are epithelium in all form of life almost, how can an epithelium turn to cells that capts lights? How can the basa lamina (that existed 540 millions ago when it appared) let that happend?

still not conviced desu.

This is what you are looking for:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#Development

I seriously doubt that you studied biology for three years, as you claim in the OP.

Anyway, the post above this one already points you in the right direction.

Are you being dense on purpose, or are you really that unimaginative?

>but even this very simple basic mechanism : "capt light -> send to the brain" imply 3 things that a single mutation on one animal made:
>-one single animal had mutation to create a "complex" more or less cell that can capt light, wich involve many proteins making a chimical reactions already
>- that one single animal had developed specific neurons related exactly to to the specific area where
>-the "mapping" of the body and nervs creations and happend in the embryon phase anyway, how could this neurons connect this cell, found this cell that capt light, how can this neuron even be there?
If I recall my evolutionary history correctly, photosensitive systems predate brains. And neurons. And embryonic stages of development.
IIRC, there are single-cellular organisms with a whiptail similar to a spermatozoon and a single photosensitive protein molecule that swim --roughly-- towards the source of the light.

>because capting light as information isn't easy
Capturing light as information *well* isn't easy. The very first photosensitive mechanism to evolve was undoubtedly some protein with an unrelated function, whose mutated form still did the same job as the original but as a side effect was influenced in some limited way by light -- maybe the protein was less efficient at doing its usual job when exposed to strong UV light, or something, which so happened to work out to the benefit of the organism -- maybe it had a metabolism that didn't work well in hot conditions, and the photosensory effect caused it to stop wasting valuable energy while in sunlight, or something like that. (This is just a guess I pulled from my butt, mind you.)
THAT is what a sensible candidate for the very first form of photosensation to arise by spontaneous mutation looks like. Everything after that is a matter of slow incremental improvements, all the way up to eyes that transmit detailed information to a brain.

Oh well you're not replying to me with good theories, I did study, but our biology isn't much about evolution, and now I'm a doctor anyway.

>points you in the right direction
No, it doesn't, wiki is about the complex modern-day photoreceptors after 540 millions years of evolution, the point is about the first proto-ones, and specially THE "first capting light and send info to brain" cell"

If you wanted to give me a good link, this article is very good, but sitll didn't reply to the main point, wich I said before.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632888/ (very good paper)

Basically all make sense after the first more or less complex structures, but the origin itself is obscure.
We can compare that to the origin of the universe somehow, all make sense after it creation, but no the ex-nihilo theory.

>ou're not replying to me with good theories
That's because I find your trivial questions boring. You can answer them in five minutes by simply using Google.

As an example:
>, if the genomic code that had a mutation for those cells how *instead of doind what they were supposed to do* became cells that send information of light, then how could this individual survive?
Because duplication. A mutation in an additional version of an existing gene does not produce loss of function, but does lead to a new trait.

Look, you clearly don't know anything about evolution because this is literally evolution 101. And I don't feel like spelling out this stuff for you, so I'll leave it at this. Educate yourself before you form an opinion.

(you can only the "but" part of this post, rest is just to summrise)

I know that light captation existed before our "brains", I also know that some bacteria can even capt the magnetic field around, it's trivial. I studied the origin of first cells too.

>photosensitive systems predate brains. And neurons. And embryonic stages of development

well it can't predate the DNA, chromosoms, RNA, crossing-over etc, this first animal got it mutation from when it "ancestor" that had to reproduce (sexually or not), the point is that happend in the very early stage and the "nervous system" or synaptic junctions or nerve net or whatever had to >exist in the dna code< when the animal was created as a zygote, and the proteins that coded

This first animal had to have some stimilus - nerve system to interpret the light information that was sent to him by the cell. This first cell had to be connected to the other systems so it can present an evolutionnary advantage.

Anyway, to go back to the point, this first cell, you explained the "if this cell mutated to became light captation cell the body can't survive because he lose important cell" by saying that it was just a minor side effect at first - why not, good point;
you explained the nerve part because it's a cell ,

BUT you still didn't gave me a single cell that is at the outside body because it's necessity for light captation (aka an epithelial cell) of the body that can transform into this
since when epithelial cells has proteins that can transform into photoreceptors woth few mutations in one individual..

also if this protein can start to capt light and influence in limited way by light, well this protein is everywhere in the outside membrana/"skin" epithlium, so it doesnt give evolutionnary advantage about light direction or anything to detect light everywhere.

so reading this, interessting, but it's the first optical eye and not really the first light detector system.
dx.doi.org.sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.optlastec.2008.12.020
I guess it's impossible to detect the first because they can't be fossilized, perhaps in amber?
if anyone get a good paper on the first receptors, would be cool.

Huh, interesting points OP. Reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>well it can't predate the DNA, chromosoms
It could, in fact. There was life before there was DNA (RNA predates it). But you are right that photosensation probably *didn't* predate DNA.

>this first animal
Not necessarily an animal. It could be a singlecellular organism.

>BUT you still didn't gave me a single cell that is at the outside body because it's necessity for light captation (aka an epithelial cell) of the body that can transform into this
I was thinking of a singlecellular organism in my story. I should have pointed that out. This assumption isn't essential though (see below).

>also if this protein can start to capt light and influence in limited way by light, well this protein is everywhere in the outside membrana/"skin" epithlium, so it doesnt give evolutionnary advantage about light direction or anything to detect light everywhere.
If we are going with my rectally-extracted story of a protein mutating into a version that is less efficient under strong light, this modified version of the protein could easily be present throughout the whole body of a multicellular organism, and only actually make a difference in the "skin" of the organism. Sure, that's wasteful, but it can easily be inefficient in that way and still be a net benefit -- maybe the presence of the mutated protein instead of the original throughout the body costs the organism 1% extra energy throughout, but the savings in the "skin" make up a 3% overall benefit.

Once this very basic version is there, of course, future evolution can then narrow it down into JUST the skin (thus saving 1% energy -- another win). Step by step by step, until you have a human eye.

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

>They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both.
No, that's not quite how it works. The shared ancestor between humans and chimps was a more basic apelike animal, having (more or less) those features shared by humans and chimps, and none of the features that set humans or chimps apart from other related apes. The ancestor was kinda like a "blank slate" generic template apelike animal, from which both humans and chimps evolved as different specializations.

When a prospective doctor goes through medical school, they graduate as a generic doctor with no specific expertise in any specialization topics; they then (if all goes well, anyway) start a further educational process to become a specialist in a particular specialization. The "common ancestor" between a cardiologist and a dermatologist is not a weird mixture between both; it's a generic blank-slate doctor. Similarly, the common ancestor between humans and chimps is a simpler, generic ape, of which humans and chimps are different "specialization branches".

Yes, I know that's a retarded analogy. Sue me.

>medical doctor
>knowing shit about evolution
don't make me laugh

>It could be a singlecellular organism.

I know that, it's more than it could, bacteria can capt light and can understand the quantity of light etc. => ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27159085
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriochlorophyll

so I can understand it at the level of a bacteria or a singlecellular organism, no problem, but a complex organism that is inter-connected, it simply involve too many structural, genetics etc issues. But I guess there's a simple way:
- Bacterial origin that I quoted before, with horizental gene transfert of those bacteriochlorophyll capacities on first animals or proto-animals. It make sense. And with time it obviously evolved into more complex structures.

I can also gave a second theory: vegetal origin.

I imagine an animal like Elysia chlorotica, this snail can capt light and use it to make energies because it absorbed an algua. This algua capt light and by horizontal gene transfer it gave this genes to the first animals. it also solve all the problems and issues I posted in this thread. (neurons, proteins etc.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

Bacteria or vegetals or micro organism has always helped animals in their evolution, cf: mitochondries so it's a good theory.

case pretty much close I guess.

0% of our program is about evolution. in biology class we had like 4 hours on that in 3 years.
you need to study very specific field to get more on evolution. It's pretty much a non science here.

europe =/= usa.

Yes, I know. that's why I'm laughing, because you're acting like an authority on something you were never trained beyond the basics in and you haven't trained in it for years.

You must live in some backwards ass shithole part of Europe if you aren't taught evolution in school. In all major and developed parts of Europe we get proper biology education, and it includes evolution.

I've some basis on personal lecture tho (red queen, haplogroups, co evolution, genetic drift, primitive soup etc.)
I said that I was studying med/bio so people don't think I'm a retard high schoolers.

Studying evolution is quit pointless imo in our field because knowing the origin of life isn't really that usefull in modern day doctor work, even if it can help to get some mecanisms. Can be usefull for searchers tho.

>so people don't think I'm a retard high schoolers.
We still do because you sound like one.

Live in Paris, so not really backward, we had few hours in high school iirc, nothing as complexe as this thread. It's just the very general principles.
In biology we studied animal/vegetal biology and a lot of chimistery for some reasons.

I did med school as well and though I couldn't explain to you the evolution of the eye, it is definitely something that we studied at some point, from the first cell with a single protein that was photosensitive. Instead of making this thread I think you should just look it up and then explain what you disagree with

>Bacterial origin that I quoted before, with horizental gene transfert of those bacteriochlorophyll capacities on first animals or proto-animals.
Even simpler, photoreception could predate the split between bacteria and eukaryotes. There was a time before bacteria and eukaryotes (including all multicellular organisms) diverged into separate branches, after all. (Note: I don't know whether photosensation actually *does* predate the bacteria / archaea / eukaryotes split, just saying that it could.)

>but a complex organism that is inter-connected, it simply involve too many structural, genetics etc issues.
That's the mostly separate question of how distinct organs evolved from more primitive undifferentiated functionality. I think a lot is known about this, but I don't know any of the details myself. But it is known, for example, that sponges are among the most evolutionary-primitive classes of animals, which have no discrete organs and predate that development.

>And with time it obviously evolved into more complex structures.
I suppose that is the essence of the reply to your thread. The very first hints of a from-scratch new evolutionary development can be very basic indeed, with the earliest hints doing a *very* poor, *very* limited job of their future function, while still having *some* benefit. This earliest version is a horrible design to which tons of easy and cheap improvements are possible, which leads to fairly rapid evolution of more sophisticated development of the new structure, until it starts approximating like a well-rounded whole which *looks* like every piece is an essential part of the machinery. But it still got there from far humbler beginnings.

it's true that there's like 1 billion year between the first cell and first eukarote, could happend during this time. So this first cells under the water got light receptors, and kept them until the animal stage.
Evolution is a slow process indeed.

question is if the origin is one or multiple one. there's no fossile for that.

erf, too bad time machine aren't real. maybe a global genetic study of the protein of the animal, bacterial etc involved in light captation to see common paterns and common origin would be great

>question is if the origin is one or multiple one. there's no fossile for that.
I believe that's generally a hard question to solve for evolutionary biologists. Sometimes there is clear evidence as to whether something evolved multiple times independently or just a single time of which all modern versions are descendants, but most of the time we simply don't know.

What do you propose then actually happened? Or do you just think we have no idea at all. In the latter case, that is true for anything at all in science. At this point, evolution is just the best current model just like much of the physics theories we see today. At least that's how I see it. In the former point, I'm open to hear unless you're only answer "God did it." In that case, you're not explaining anything and refusing to have any sort of debate.

what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).

Just give the trolling a rest dude, no one's buying it.

You're also forgetting horizontal gene transfer; i.e. microbes can share genes even between species (look up "natural competency"), viruses can carry genes between two different species, plants can cross breed, even some animals e.g. lions and tigers, different species of cavemen can cross breed.

Oh, also generation times of each species, since recombination events will occur even more rapidly when there are more generations in the same length of time.

Basically, it's not just the rate of mutation that affects evolution. Speaking of which, rate of mutation in what? Mutation rates are more rapid in some organisms.

You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.

NICE ALIENS

SO HEY!!!
OP (and other ANONs)
What is your alternative to evolution?

Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers

I SAID NICE ALIENS BEFORE YOU EVEN SAID THE QUESTION THAT MEANS I AM PSYCHIC THEREFORE I AM RIGHT.

Why do you cut and paste this ignorant answer in every evolution thread? It is not even good bait.

Simple.
The Human / Spider common ancestor had no legs.
(But we already explained that to you last week)

u want benis ? coz ill giv u benis

>tfw God was too incompetent to make the world work just by specifying the initial conditions, and has to constantly tinker with it like a fucking engineer

(HINT) THE VOID IS ACTUALLY A FORM OF INTELLIGENCE (you might even call it god if you want)

>VOID IS ACTUALLY A FORM OF INTELLIGENCE
Judging by some Veeky Forums posts, I really can believe that.

Amazing. Over 200 years since Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the frogs STILL can't wrap their heads around evolution by natural selection.

The French truly are on the same intellectual plane as women.

>The French truly are on the same intellectual plane as women.

OMG THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT I LOVE YOU

On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.

>mutation needed to produce something useful
evolution is not about "useful", fgt pls

>"Evolution can't be real"
>No counter-argument made
>No evidence provided

This is a troll thread my dudes

It was provided and was refuted and OP said well alright then and buggered off.

This is what happens when sub-100 IQ retards go into STEM.

Now that I've read all this thread I think that you are missing the most important fact about evolution and its logical problem. This is not about «how can it be possible to an animal to develop a mutation?» this is not the right question. The real issue about evolution is about those estructures that cannot be reducible to a simpler form, I mean, that you cannot subtract a piece of it because it wouldn't work. For example, we have a mousetrap, you need every single component of it to work, you cannot remove the platform, or the spring because it would not work. The same thing happens for example with the bacteria's flagellum, You cannot remove any part of it without making useless the rest of this system. Did the flagellum evolved with the rotor, stator... etc, at the same time? how can evolution explain the development of this system randomly without removing any part of it or making one part first than the whole system? Every single part of this system is extremely necessary and you cannot remove it without affecting its functionality. Therefore, evolution doesn't explain the whole picture of biology.

you can watch this video for a better explanation: youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8

>but most of the initial mutations (before the complexe structure of today) that led to the first complex cells and organism were random.

Entropy isn't random

This reeks of people that are reconciling their faith with their career. This was addressed a long time ago. They even showed all the different ways you can research each of those theories for production.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Also stop assuming this video is anything at all like what is actually going on, this is not what proteins look or act like. God I think the narrators voice is the same one for the lab safety video I watched that warned against mercury in thermometers.

youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
Are you aware that this are just assumptions about a way to explain the bacterial flagellum complexity? Because nobody nowadays has explained it properly. It is yet a mystery, as the wikipedia articule says:
>secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system
>hypothesis

If you resolved this problem, go and publish it and you will be famous my friend.

Nah there are hypervariable regions, mutations are governed by physical (random) events but the systems that regulate them do make some mutations/mutation locations more likely and others more conserved, regardless of selection after the mutation actually happens.

go home Veeky Forums

Then make a paper out of it where you explain your points and try to validate your thesis, what are you doing here? go, run!

why do i even read your thread, you lose all your points on me even by the start of each paragraph
my word of advice is:
go to here:
Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Biology_Textbook_Recommendations
later on read "On the Origin of the Species"
if you are too dumdum read Richard Dawkins.

>usefull
>2x

you're not studying anything, are you? you professors would be throwing your papers out.

samefag.

kind of funny that everyone agreeing with you OP writes in poor english, just like you.

>something I discovered recently related to evolution
>samefag
that's pasta, user

>
this reminds me of an observation I've had along similar philosophical lines concerning the "pehnomennon" of evolution. it is often argued that humans are descended from similar creatures that were not humans but also were not monkeys, and were not gorillas or chimpanzees. These were claimed to be existant around the earth around 1 million years ago, and they were supposed to have slowly developed into humans around that time. So what is the motivation for assuming such a thing? it is all because evolutionists want to fit the evidence to their "scientific" narrative. drawing a parallel to psychology, all the biologists are just attempting to follow along the lines of Darwinism, just like the psychologists are enamoured with Freudism. However it is not the case just because somebody is famous that they're ideas are correct. This is why many people have a problem with evolution: many of the fossils they discover could be explained in a pleathora of ways, and yet the darwinists apply their own biased analysis and claim for it to be the only one that is reasonable.

op go back to school or reel in your bait.

Little boy, evolution IS a fact and you can't say it doesn't happen. Now revise your knowledge because you are wrong.

>those cells to capt light had to be on the outside of the body

Confirmed trolling.

>now I'm a doctor anyway
Wow. Your country must have absolutely shit medical regulation.

quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.

Very funny, user.

>explain how the fuck the first proto-photoreceptors came
They might've been as simple as an excitable molecule, maybe not even specifically photo-sensitive.
>single animal
Bacteria have eye spots, vision precedes animals>proteins to code neurons that connect this proto-photoreceptors to the brain.
Again, the eyespots precede neurons and brains.
>how the mutation led IN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL
Bacteria share DNA amongst each other

>animal

>Study biology for 3 years, study medicine for 5 years.

You also imply that Darwin was wrong, but I mean, he was wrong about several things related to genetics, but all of his work was corrected, underwent immense skepticism, and continued to be built upon by thousands of other scientists to this day.

You should read a textbook completely devoted to evolutionary biology itself, if you are having this much trouble with it.

If there is anything that has been checked, double checked, triple checked, broken down, and inspected in every way imaginable, it is any field of science, and especially evolution. I don't think you'd find the alternative of "the Gods did it" completely descriptive of how everything came to be honestly.

I don't think reading any papers on evolutionary biology will help you if you lack the basics to begin with.

You have to understand genetics, gene flow, natural selection, what selective pressures are and are not, and all of this stuff before you can even begin to imagine how an eye can be formed.

Natural selection is a non-random process for example. You can argue some components of evolution are "random", whatever your definition of random is but the overwhelming majority of evolution is not random at all.

You need to review a textbook on the subject first if you have never been formally educated on the topic. Reading papers will only add to your confusion or lead you to false conclusions.

>You can't explain it?
>Then it must be A MIRACLE
>OF GOD'S CREATION, yes?
Actually, no.

>Study biology for 3 years and now medecine since 5 years
>write like a fucking 3rd-grader

wew

I can't believe how many posts went by before someone mentioned the mousetrap problem. Irreducible complexity is exactly what OP wanted to discuss and half the thread is just pure shit

>For example, we have a mousetrap, you need every single component of it to work, you cannot remove the platform,
If you mean the old standard generic mouse traps, just glue the spring, catch, and clamp to directly to the ground.

Irreducible complexity is a meme man. You can imply many systems are irreducibly complex because "you need at least this many proteins to complete the chain" etc. etc. But at heart the only problem is an implication of a teleological nature to evolution and the inadequacy of current tools and models to understand very small systems. The mouse trap problem isn't a problem for biology because of the capability for drift, a good example is feathers on birds.

The first birds were flightless for the most part and their fore bearers developed feathers as a means of runaway sexual selection. After a certain point there were enough feathers to support flight so the individuals that did gained a huge boost to probability of survival. They took something that had a completely different reason behind its emergence that was actual detrimental to survival until it reached said critical point. Evolution is based on whatever gets to produce offspring not on any conscious decisions like choosing things that make it easier to survive to allow it to have more kids.

Or maybe things aren't as complex as OP thinks it is.

And even if the chance that things have happened as they have is low, it is basically a non-argument.
It's like telling a powerball winner he didn't win the powerball because the chance is so low. He must have cheated.

You also make the assumption that the chance of a beneficial mutation is extremely low, which may not be true.
Judging by the massive amount of species who are all adapted to their environment in some way it should be pretty clear that there are countless amount of beneficial mutations.

Maybe some mutations are guided by the nervous system.

No, the closest thing you are thinking of is epigeneticcs which is just a way to reveal or hide different suites of genes. Mutations are not induced by the nervous system on purpose in any way because mutations cause cancer in most multi cellular organisms.

I see but are mutations the sole pushing force for change, evolution?

That seems dumb, I'm guessing the process is much more complicated.

Yes and no, there are many types of mutations which are all drivers of change and evolution. However what determines the actual path the evolution takes is based off of much different factors. Change is also determined by which genes are switched on and off and at what levels they are being activated. It is also determined by organelle concentrations and composition of the cellular membranes. These are all dynamic systems that have their own unique signatures separate from genetics and can be affected by more obscure and difficult to pin down mechanisms. We don't even know what most of the proteins in our bodies do let alone how they interact.

Mutations are a deposit of clay in a mountainside and people with simple goals determine if a building is going to be built on top of it and collapse later or if the clay is going to be collected and made into useful pots. Most times it might just be completely ignored too until it drips into the river and becomes/does something else.

I need help naming my maths group. What are some good suggestions?

You know why we don't have dinosaurs?

> the ark didn't have a big enough door

Los autismos.