callmeclean

Thanks for me helping me get my head around it a bit better. I still have a lot of questions but thats the fun of it. Seeing as you mention that program you made, I have heard a few people who have done it. I have some basic programming skills and might give it a go.

Ok so the environment affecting the genes is a pretty accepted theory I think. http://newswatch.nat...on_is_evolving/ I even learn it alongside polygenic inheritance at school. The mutations caused by the environment would have the same small chance of being beneficial to the organisms survival as random mutations do. Which shows the flaw in my logic so far; the fact that the environment does not have the logic to put the chemicals good for land adaption on the land. Now this is very hypothetical, just a crazy idea. If somehow there was a process of 'Natural Selection' for the mutation causing chemicals. Obviously not in the same sense of organisms, however the makeup of the atmosphere is not static, it does react and change over time and so do chemicals that are within certain areas I would assume. So maybe there is a possibility that often certain chemicals that aid a organism in adaption to a specific area, will be found mostly in the specific area. Obviously this is based on no evidence just a thought. UV light from the sun is a carcinogen that can mess with the cells ability to make melanin, and melanin has the ability to protect us from UV light. I'm not sure if there is information on why this very relevant connection between the two, or if it has just been shown to be a completely isolated coincidence. I would be interested to know. And now another thing has just popped into my head. I remember earlier from reading (http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye) that many organisms have developed 'eyes' things based on their common ancestors photosensitive proteins called opsins. (I didn't say it right I don't think) Maybe this could have something to do with the idea of Epigenetics. Where a high exposure to UV light might have increased the production of these opsin and therefor changed those effected cells function primarily to light sensing, and therefore would over time make the eye a more significant part of the organism as it is today. This might again show a deeper connection between the environment and the organism. Anyway again just a bunch of ideas. Destroy them as you wish. EDIT: So to reference one specific thing you said: "a series of mutations might occur that develop ... light-sensitive tissues on the roof of an animal's mouth..." Again from my very ignorant viewpoint, (I do find it hard to follow some of this stuff) Epigenetics might explain why the bulk or all of these light sensitive proteins are in a useful place making up the eye, rather than in random places where they are not as useful.

Thanks for the link. Interesting, the idea that eyes (or their equivalent) developed many times independently. Another thing I read "Sensory organs probably evolved before the brain did—there is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process." Is something I have never thought about before. I suppose that before consciousness there was pure instinct, which came about with the development of the brain. But even before just instinct alone there was organisms like bacteria, but maybe more advanced, that were purely reactive. They maybe had an eye-like device and were completely reactive without the slight bit of reasoning and help that instinct gives you. Anyway I will read further into this thanks.

Yes but what I am wondering is how they adapted. Being exposed to the free atmosphere periodically does not affect the chance of being able to breath in oxygen when in that atmosphere unless there a reactive aspect of evolution. And the probability that an organism by chance gained this ability to breath in is very slim, and the fact that it seems to have happened over and over again in different cases seems near-impossible. As I said before, I'm not very knowledgable in this. But I have been learning about Epigenetics recently. So maybe this process or a similar one could have influence on evolution. Obviously it would seeing as certain chemicals in the environment affect the inheritable gene, such as cancer causing carcinogen's. But to what extent? So maybe there is something in the atmosphere that had a certain affect on DNA that eventually evolved into (over a very long period of time), or helped in the evolution of, an ability to breath in that atmosphere. Just throwing out an idea. It's all very fun and interesting to think about.

Thanks. I guess that narrows it down one further. From water, to more muddy and shallow waters and then land. And I suppose one of the things scientists in this area are able do after finding evidence such as fossiles is to narrow down these transitional stages between species even further. The fact that it did happen I realise. However the extent to which seems impossible. Although I am not expecting a definite answer, I was thinking maybe there would be some more speculation and hypothesis' around the subject. Or maybe not. On a similar note, the complexity of the body which many may lazily credit a god for does seem somewhat reactionary. Not in the way of intelligent design. But rather than just Natural Selection, it seems from the way the body is designed that it does not just have successful features but knows what these features are and do and can therefor successfully build upon them. Definitely not in a conscious way, but there may be a reactive component in the evolution of life that could explain these seemingly impossible feats it accomplishes. Anyway just a thought.

Hello. I have always been confident in the fact Evolution based on the few bits of evidence I knew about and logical reasoning. However it is only recently it has started to amaze me even more, probably because of my studies of the complexity of the human body at school. And so I have started to read further into it. This is a question focused specifically to the Natural Selection aspect of Evolution. An organism that has a feature better suited to its environment that allows it to function will survive, while an organism that does not will die. And we see this everywhere, it is the whole basis of survival of the fittest. And the fact that the few organisms with these suitable features survived and the many without them did not is used as evidence for evolution. So it is unintelligence design (to quote Dawkins) that determined the species better suited is the species that survives. However what is it that determines that any organism has a feature like that in the first place. It is a near impossible chance that some organisms slowly gained legs and managed to crawl onto land. Why didn't they all just not develop legs and be stuck in the water or die on land. And the fact that something so suited to an environment seems to develop again and again seems absolutely amazing. So I really want someone to give me an idea of how this might happen. The best I can come up with is food supplies run short in an area of water and the creature is forced further and further into new areas, including land. Maybe only a few with a strange extruding blob of some sort could slightly drag themselves up and gather some food off the shore and then back into the water. And as generations went on these fish with strange blobs were the ones that survived, and the blob genes changed randomly and after generations again one with a slightly bigger blob went further into land. But then how does the chance of having a skeleton come into this? The fact that we have a skeleton, a completely impossible thing, to support our limbs and body, a completely impossible thing. And I assume there was a period of a species that could breath in both water and on land that allowed for this transition of habitat. As you might tell I don't know much, and a lot of what I say might seem a bit ignorant. But I am new, and if you could try and explain this idea to me that would be great. If it's just a wall of words, I guess what I am asking is this: Evolution is not reactive, the organisms that nature gets wrong die off, but how did so many seemingly get it right for their specific habitat in a universe of infinite possibilities. Thank you.