Evolutionary Biology

Ok then, share em.

okay then, here is a tree detailing the phylogeny of genus Blastocystis, the naming convention for this taxa is quite distinct from other genera since subtypes are detailed rather than species (a peculiarity with this genus). Find me the wall. Find me the distinction between the species/subtypes. Speciation is not a dramatic jump from one species to another, it is a seamless transition with steps made up of numerous subtypes and genotypes, Blastocystis is a perfect example of how difficult it can be to define where a species starts and a interspecies strain ends.

N.B. tree assembled using ls16SrDNA sequence.

Here is a more general tree of the Stramenopiles, as you can see they define 3 different species in this one (under a different naming convention). This gives you a more broad overview of this particular monophyletic group. These trees and others like it have been contructed using various approaches and various gene loci. I, for example, construct them using the tandem repeat locus downstream of the GP60 locus of C.parvum. Spending all my time looking at the genome of different members of protist genera I can tell you that the distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is entirely trivial, just as is the distinction between one day and one millennia. They are measures of scale not a distinction of mechanism or phenomena.

A lot of evobio isn't about bird beaks, it's about using mathematical models to interpret genetic variation in a population.

For instance, there's a huge boom in cancer evolutionary biology now with sequencing tech which means it's possible to infer what mutations increase cancer fitness and reconstruct the phylogeny of a tumour.

This is kind of serious business.

>protist genera
>the distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is entirely trivial

Do any of those protist genera reproduce sexually?

It's just funny how ignorant/dumb evolution deniers are. I mean, evolution is literally used for industrial purposes (directed evolution) and in medical research
>b-but MUH MACRO-EVOLUTION
Lol.

fucking BTFO

sexual reproduction isn't necessary for evolution to happen. don't get stuck in one species concept.
and yes, Saprolegnia is known to reproduce sexually and asexually.

I have never understood how people deny macro-evolution on the basis that we don't see it, yet we see micro-evolution.

What is difficult to understand about small changes adding up over a very large period of time leading to larger overall changes?

I realize sexual reproduction isn't necessary for evolution to happen but with sexual reproduction there is a distinct mechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution, the formal requiring evolution of reproductive isolation and the latter not so much.

>8889
So close, yet so far.
Also, what the fuck are you talking about?

Do you understand anything about biological species concept, reproductive isolation, speciation etc.? Do these terms ring a bell? I don't know what part of what I'm saying confuses you.

This is why.

I find you ignorant OP

But what about fossils that prove that certain species can die out, thus allowing for the possibility (and some form of confirmation in specific cases) of intermediates?

they're all developed from the same thing. Why is it hard to understand?
Is there even another option?

Because of local maxima

Macro-evolution is just a longer form of micro evolution so although that cell was unrelated after million of years it would be considered "macro" evolution.

>Macro-evolution is just a longer form of micro evolution
It's not though. A longer form of micro evolution can be macro evolution but it doesn't have to be

most of them have some kind of sexual stage, yes

I dont think there is a distinct mechanistic difference. Macroevolution is just micro over a long time and isnt synonymous with speciation.

Just one population migrating across toward a different context over time and changing is the same result as when one population splits from another and speciation happens, and it is driven by microevolution.

Speciation is trivial to the actual process itself though it explains diversity.

Similar models don't indicaye certaib cars are related.

dictionary.com/browse/macroevolution?s=t

Macroevolution is evolution from one species (or higher taxa) to another. So how is macroevolution not just speciation?

authority is all fake here, it's just how many rules you can remember

>distinct mechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution, the formal requiring evolution of reproductive isolation and the latter not so much
YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSING MACROEVOLUTION WITH CLADOGENESIS/SPECIATION

speciation implies branching, which leaves out anagenesis

So is speciation then a subset of macroevolution or are you suggesting macroevolution is only anagenesis?

Speciation is under the umbrella of macroevolution, they arent synonymous

Bump

youre confusing macroevolution with speciation. speciation describes one population splitting from another to become another species. the process for why that happens is macroevolution i.e. microevolution over a long period of time.

all speciation over space. but if you do speciation over time then that is also completely undifferentiable from macro and microevolution.

no dumbass hes saying theyre subsets. all that evolution is is study of genetic change, it doesnt specify speciation.

I think the concept of Ring Species would blow a lot of minds.

I don't believe in macro evolution. Fight me.

>Our current array of dating methods agree with eachother which lends credence to them
>From our ability to date things we get that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old
>We also get that earliest life and signs of life we have found are 3.5-3.8 billion years old
>We have the fossil record that captures snapshots of species diversity over long periods of time (Due to the statistical chance of something fossilizing, despite being a rare occurance etc)
>Within this fossil record species diversity can increase and decrease dramatically and it's statistically unlikely for this not the be the case
>Homology of traits in fossil and extant species suggests common ancestry
>Genetic distances between homologous genes in today's extant species, suggest that these resulted from branching populations
>There are numerous things that can be observed make it credible that populations would branch and speciate into different species over time
>There's a known mechanism for this to happen with no hard boundaries once abiogenesis is established

you talk as if normal people or ones that dont believe in evolution will understand what you mean.

For the most part it seems pretty clear to me.

I think maybe I could clarify that:
Homology is generally when a trait of an organism satisfies homology criteria:
>Criteria of location (Means what it looks like it means: A feature is located in a similar place as another)
>Criteria of specific quality (Meaning that the feature is structurally similar)
>Criteria of transition (Meaning there's a phylogenetic or ontogenetic way to trace the trait to a different one)
Homology differs from analogy. An analogy being where there is no such connection between traits at all, such as the wings of an insect and the wings of a bird or the eye of an invertebrate and the eye of a vertebrate and this will typically not satisfy these criteria.

Additionally genetic distance occurs due to the Molecular Clock. The rate of mutation in DNA is statistically relatively constant and silent mutations (meaning no effect) are not affected by selective pressure so a gene sequence will deviate from the original sequence at a fairly constant rate. This is refered to as the molecular clock.
When a population diverges from another those populations will likely have similar genetic codes, meaning that specific sequences can be compared against one another.
Since both populations will continue to diverge at a constant rate there will be an observable genetic distance between populations, depending on when a divergence occured.
The closer two species are the smaller the distance and vice versa.

>you talk as if normal people or ones that dont believe in evolution will understand what you mean.
>People who don't care to do research into a topic or listen to spoonfed information before having an opinion on a subject will continue to ignore you
If the argument from ignorance fallacy is the only thing keeping these people from believing this then why should I care?
There's no way to reason with that kind of bait.

I started researching the origins of life and the theory of evolution. What I found was a severe lack of evidence for the theory of evolution and overwhelming evidence that life could not have come into existence by an undirected process. So here's a few things that I've compiled in no particular order.

Here's a little history about the theory of evolution:

Charles Darwin (founder of the theory of evolution) was not a scientist, he was an explorer with a vivid imagination and had no formal scientific credentials. He lived in the 1800s during a time when cholera was thought to be caused by polluted air and doctors took pride in performing surgery with filthy operating gowns. This was a time long before the genome was mapped or the complexity of the cell was discovered. Charles Darwin married and had ten inbred children with his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, He was also said to be racists. So why is it that the inane ramblings of this 19th century author have continued to be so pervasive in today's culture?¿?

So in regards to the origins of life and the theory of evolution, let's look at some facts here:

DNA:

DNA requires at least 75 pre-existing proteins to exist, yet proteins are only formed by DNA. Therefore, DNA and protein were created at the same time, they could not of come into existence by slow, random, evolutionary forces. That would be impossible because they both require one another to exist.

DNA functions because of an incredibly complex code, it is way beyond the complexity of what even the most brilliant computer programmer's have devised. This is a four character digital code that is embedded in the DNA molecule which directs the construction of all the micro machinery that the cells need to stay alive.

Bill Gates was even quoted saying:

"DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced."

Ask yourself:

Could an advanced computer program come into existence from random undirected forces, or does it require an intelligent designer?

There have been no reported observations where random mutation creates new functional genetic code and a new functional protein. The only thing that scientist have been able to find, is a mutation that re-combines already existing information or a mutation that results in the loss of information. Without a profuse abundance of observations showing the creation of new genetic code, the basic mechanism alleged to drive the theory of evolution is closer to that of a fairytale than it is to scientific fact. Mathematic calculations indicate that it is operationally impossible for random mutations to create functional new code, which correlates evolutionist failure to observe what they allege is their basic mechanism.

Again, in regards to the theory of evolution:

Statistically speaking, these genetic mutations that in theory, could result in the creation of new information, would be extraordinarily rare. Meaning, that in order for one species to transcend to the next level, as the theory of evolution dictates, they would of had to cycle through hundreds or probably more like thousands of generations in order for this genetic fluke to occur. The point is this, either these man-like apes should've been around for thousands and thousands of years, or at the given time that they did exist, there would've had to of been a huge population of them. In either case, the fossil record should literally be riddled with these bones, we should be finding them in abundance all over the world, as we do with dinosaur fossils.

The Cambrian Explosion:

If evolution were true, the fossil record should show one type of animal in the oldest layers then two, then four, and so on. But Darwin himself could not explain what we now call the Cambrian explosion of Life. The Cambrian rock layers contain nearly all the basic animal forms including Echinoderms, Chordates and Art with no trace of transitional fossils in the lower pre-Cambrian rock layers. The Cambrian layers show an amazing amount of diversity and complexity amongst the species. So, instead of the fossil record showing the gradual appearance of different species, it shows fully formed creature groups right from the start.

The Cell:

The probability of a simple cell evolving by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power, that's a 10 with 340 million zeros after it. Scientists generally consider anything with the probability of less than 1 in 10 to the 70th power to be operationally impossible.

Inside every cell in your body, there is a genome that is 3.5 billion letters long. Essentially, this is the longest word ever discovered. When you see a short message like "John loves Kate" written in the sand at the beach, you don't think that natural forces like the waves and wind, or some chemical reaction created it. You know that messages only come from minds, and that someone must of wrote it. So where did the 3.5 billion letter message in your genome come from? Natural forces or intelligence?
We've never been able to create life from nonlife in the lab. Despite millions upon millions of tests in the most favorable conditions possible, we've never observed one kind of animal turn into another kind, much less a human. Evolution in the sense that things change is obviously evident. Animals adapt, they change, this is observable, but a dinosaur has never turned into a bird anymore than a giraffe can turn into a hippopotamus. That is simply a belief based on faith, not based on the fossil record or lab findings.

Conclusion:

Life did not evolve out of a primordial ooze, and humans did not evolve from apes. That only leaves two options. Either life was intelligently designed by aliens or by God, but keep in mind, if you say it was by aliens, then you're also saying aliens created the seemingly endless universe. The universe cannot create itself from out of nothing because nothing produces nothing, i.e. (0+0=0). So because the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang Theory) it has a beginner, just as a computer program begins with a computer programmer, it cannot come from nothing. I for one believe that aliens, no matter how advanced, could not of created the entire universe and all life in it... Boom!

Evolution has also been used and abused for thousands of years in the breeding of domesticated animals.
It is really just common sense, anyone who denies evolution is just being a fucking idiot.
>yeah I believe that small changes can happen, but no way can bigger changes happen because of many smaller changes!
Yeah, because anything works like that?
I could use a chisel to take off a small sliver of a bit of wood, making a micro change. That's accepted, sure. So why can't you wrap your head around using the chisel to carve out a bird? Surely you can turn a log into a bird just using those micro changes? By simply taking sliver after sliver until it is no longer a log, but a bird?

>Ad hominems that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution
>What is needed for DNA today in the form of proteins may not be what was originally needed and RNA is likely the earliest stage of protolife in any case due to the fact that it possesses autocatalytic functions in relatively simple arrangements.
>The genetic code is a 3 position 4 letter code that codes for 20 proteins and 3 stop codons, it's not that complex. What matters is how the DNA/RNA interacts with itself and how the various constructed proteins behave. These could also be trial and error processes over many generations.

>What does it matter what Bill Gates says?
>An advanced computer program is only superficially similar to DNA. Likewise "Random undirected forces" is also oversimplifying matters.
>Your use of "Information" is poor as it can just move goalposts at a moments notice (As in the case of Richard Lenski's experiments). Gene duplication frequently creates new functional code and a new protein as evidenced by paralogous genes. These mathematic calculations are likely wrong and I wouldn't trust them at all without a source, given the breadth of possible mechanisms by which mutation can act.
>There are no levels and evolution works on the scale of populations so there are many individuals producing offspring with mutations at once. Fossilization is also very rare and we do not find dinosaur bones with extreme abundance in relation to them being around for millions of years. If a species exists for only thousands of years it may just vanish without leaving fossils.

>In the Cambrian explosion the introduction of Hox genes allowed for rapid permutations of body plans and as far as I'm aware this diversity is rushing to fill a recently created gap.
>Your probability numbers for the simple cell are likely unsubstantiated
>The 3.5 billion character message can easily be explained with mutations. Insertions, gene duplication, chromosome duplication etc.

Cont.

> I mean, evolution is literally used for industrial purposes (directed evolution) and in medical research
Wrong.

Say it with me. Mutation is NOT evolution. Oh sure, it may drive evolution, but you're missing 2/3 of the equation.

Micro evolution is PC bullshit. Creating a breed / race is not evolution. Changing the oriR of the gametes (and then having the cell merge DNA) is evolution. And that we cannot do successfully in vitro. Yet.

Stop calling a spade a hoe just to prove your point.

>Whether we can create life or not doesn't matter
>Kind is an arbitrary definition and even if it weren't modern species turning into other modern species isn't the type of thing that happens under evolution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution
>Because of homologies older species turning into newer species however is founded in the fossil record and lab finding of genetics (Genetic distance).

>Aliens would also need to come from somewhere and god requires intense special pleading to not be even more unlikely
>Muh nothing
>Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning any more than a beginning implies a beginner. The Big Bang theory says there was a Singularity.

This might be bait anyway but I don't care, so I'll point out some of the flaws with your reasoning:

Newton actually tried to study the philosopher's stone and yet his physics and other discoveries still apply today. Does that make those laws irrelevant?

DNA was probably not the first nucleotide chain to come into existance, but rather RNA (easier to make but more unstable), and after that said RNA could eventually create DNA. We know this can happen because AIDS exists.

Fossils are EXTREMELLY rare comparing them to the actual number of organisms that lived, we find all those dinosaur bones because they were all around the world and walked through he Earth for 100 million years.
The genus Homo is barely two million years old and mostly restricted to Africa and Eurasia.And yes, there is enough time for human evolution to occur.

There is something called Lägerstaten, which is a place known for well preserved fossils. Like I said, fossilizing a hard part is difficult, fossilizing a soft bodied animal is almost impossible and a miracle. Burgess Shale is a lägerstaten and thus, even soft bodied animals can be found.As far as I know there are two of these formations in the world that can be traced to the Cambric.
And if that wasn't enough, it wasn't until then there were only soft bodied animals, so have fun searching for those.
Darwin couldn't explain it, but he also couldn't explain how the traits where transmitted and (again) he was right about the process.

>Inside every cell in your body, there is a genome that is 3.5 billion letters long. Essentially, this is the longest word ever discovered.
Ayy lmao. At this point is where the actual ranting begins and confirms how little you know about the issue. I won't even bother with this paragraph.

Conclusion:
Your (((research))) is shit, come back when you have actual proof and not just misinformation

> We've never been able to create life from nonlife in the lab.
Untrue. Modern technology can create bacterial cells from ribonucleic acids, amino acids and fatty acids.

We don't do it because it's much cheaper to just isolate E coli from a pile of shit and work with it (the E coli, not the shit), but we can do it.

Sorry, creationists.

Prime example of the average /pol/-tard right here bois. Tries to use scientific jargon he does not understand in an attempt to appear like he actually knows what he is talking about.
Just kill yourself bro ;)

Underage, here.
I understand.
You should get some sleep.

where is your proof? source?

Not that user, but I think he refers to Mycoplasma laboratorium.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you first year bio frosh? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in evolutionary biology, and I’ve been involved in numerous studies, and I have over 300 peer reviewed papers. I am trained in DNA synthesis and I’m the top biologist in the entire US scientific community. You are nothing to me but just another undergrad. I will flunk you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of facuty across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, frat boy. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your career. You’re fucking dead in science, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can have your job interviews terminated in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in gene manipulation, but I have access to the entire grant review board of the United States NIH and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable publications off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and your career will drown in it. Prepare to work at McDonald's for life, kiddo.

Actually a lot of /pol/ love and accept evolution and evolutionary biology because it gives reason to race realism

literally cuntpasted directly from thecreationclub
brief rebuttal of key points:
>DNA requires at least 75 pre-existing proteins to exist, yet proteins are only formed by DNA.
bitches dont know bout my RNA, which has both archival and catalytic properties
>Darwin lived in relatively primitive times, therefore he couldn't be right
if things started out primitive, and nobody living in a primitive time could make scientific advances, how did we end up with this modern world? SOMEONE must have pushed things forward.
>Meaning, that in order for one species to transcend to the next level, as the theory of evolution dictates,
it doesn't, evolution is not teleological
>they would of had to cycle through hundreds or probably more like thousands of generations in order for this genetic fluke to occur.
not actually true

>If evolution were true, the fossil record should show one type of animal in the oldest layers then two, then four, and so on.
preservation bias. the earliest metazoans had no hard parts. and we do in fact find proto-forms of Cambrian-originating phyla in the Ediacaran; your memes are badly outdated

>messages only come from minds
whatisapulsar.jfif