• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Evolution

Since this question is science related because its about biology I figured i'd post it here.

A Theory about evolution is that we originated as fish and came to land, now my question is this, what sparks evolution? what was it exactly that changed the fins of fish and turned them into limbs capable of walking on land? because if the original fish of the world even attempted to go onto land they would suffocate and die and would thus be unable to breed and even then I dont understand how a fish that tried to go onto land can cause alterations in DNA allowing evolution to take place, if you catch my drift.

What caused the formation of eyes? why did evolution create the eye? how can light kickstart an evolutionary process that over millions of years made an eyeball? I just dont get it.

Can someone explain it to me? :confused:
 
I read in New Scientist a few years back that during times of stress (eg starvation etc) there may be a release of a chemical that promotes genetic mutations within a creature, increasing the chances of a useful mutation occurring when it might be needed.
 
Some single celled organisms have 'organelles' for sensory purposes, or propulsion or whatnot. The better tools you have to gather food and escape things that would want to eat you the better your chances of living and reproducing. When multicellular creatures began to evolve, not all the cells in the multicellular structure needed all the organelles that the single cell needed when it was alone. So when a mutation happened that for example gave one cell light sensory abilities at the cost of mobility or defense, that cell was essentially the first 'eye'. When the creatures became more complex, groups of these sensory cells became a proper 'organ' in the creature, with specialization even within the specialized cells, other cells formed protective layers over these cells to protect them, etc.

Essentially it was chance, but a very logical path to follow assuming you have millions of years for mutation to sort out the good options from the bad.

IN the case of the fish, we have examples today even that can survive out of water for fairly long periods of time, or that breathe air properly rather than through their gills. Mutation that gave them skin better suited to the surface environment, and the ability to breathe out of the water, etc. all serves to one day be enough for one of these fish to one day chase a bug onto the surface and realize "Oh hey, I can survive out here. . . and no one else is here to fight me for food, HELLZ YEAH!"

As far as we know, there is no hand leading evolution, the universe isn't sitting there thinking about ways to change the next generation's DNA to make them cooler, and the DNA certainly isn't changing on purpose considering its entire purpose is to store data. Mutation causes adaptation, often in ways that would never be particularly useful to a creature or even questionable (like say, hair on a creature that doesn't require additional insulation in its current environment) but just happens to work its way into the genes either because of another desirable trait it is linked to or because it is dominant over the previous gene. Lets say we have some Whatsits, they're small fleshy rat things and live in earthy tunnels in a temperate forest, then one day all the whatsits find themselves in an ice age and the useless furry gene is suddenly useful and any without it the old Whatsits die off or are forced to find warmer climes, leaving the new form of Whatsits that survive very nicely in the cold to take over the niche. Evolution is messy and has lots of dead ends, nature does not always find a way and if there is a 'designer' he is doing a rather shitty job when it comes to the life forms on this planet.
 
There are two mechanisms that produce genetic change in multicellular organisms: the shuffling of genes that occurs in sexual reproduction, with the chromosomes of the parents being combined in new ways, and random genetic mutation resulting from replication errors or exposure to radiation or toxins. As a result of these mechanisms, different individuals in a population will have slight differences from one another. If those differences increase their ability to survive in their environment, then they will have more offspring, and their offspring will have more offspring, and so on. While those individuals whose genes make them less suited to their environment will have fewer offspring. So over time, the traits that improve survival and reproductive success will spread through the population until the whole species has them. (For instance, if a species of animal eats fruit and leaves from tall trees, then taller or longer-necked ones will get more food and have more babies, so eventually the whole species gets really tall. That's how giraffes happened.)

So the main mechanism behind evolution is adaptation to one's environment. But then how does a species develop a totally new attribute allowing them to move into a new environment, like fish moving onto land? Partly by adapting existing traits for different purposes. Fish have air-filled bladders that they use for buoyancy. Some fish that lived near the shoreline were able to escape from predatory sea creatures, it's believed, by swimming as close to the shore as possible, maybe even jumping out of the water altogether and struggling to get back once the danger was past. Eventually, a mutation allowed one fish and its offspring to take air from their flotation bladders into their bloodstream and survive off of that until they could get back into the water. They were therefore better at escaping predators than fish that couldn't do this, so more of them survived and had more offspring. Further mutations along the way gradually improved their ability to survive off air in their flotation bladders, so that those bladders gradually evolved into lungs.

Naturally, at first they were just dragging themselves along the ground with their fins. But mutations and reproductive mixing make anatomical change inevitable, and some random changes happen to give a survival advantage. In this case, some lungfish were born with slightly longer, stronger, stiffer fins and were able to drag themselves along better. And then some of their descendants had even longer, stronger fins, and so on, and so on, until eventually they had legs.


One aspect of this that's recently been discovered: once a species enters a new niche like that, its evolution can go faster. Why? Because as it dominates a new niche, its population grows. That means there are more genetic combinations being tried out, so beneficial changes come along more frequently, accelerating the pace at which the species adapts. For instance, genetic studies have shown that human evolution has accelerated greatly in the past 40,000 years as our population has grown. Nothing huge, but subtle adaptations like our metabolisms and teeth and digestive systems becoming better adapted to our changing diet as we developed agriculture and herding. There are just so many more of us that beneficial changes crop up more often.

So this process can accelerate a species' adaptation to a new environment, a new way of living. Of course we're still talking on the scale of hundreds or thousands of generations, because these are very gradual changes, but it does apparently help things along significantly.
 
Venardhi said:Evolution is messy and has lots of dead ends, nature does not always find a way and if there is a 'designer' he is doing a rather shitty job when it comes to the life forms on this planet.

But then that's the beauty of evolution, the scattergun approach is more likely to leave life with an unexpected positive mutation, that a "designer" might not think of.
 
LarsonEvolution.jpg
 
With the fish-tetrapod transition in particular, the older view was that limbs and lungs developed because fish were making small forays onto land (perhaps for predator avoidance or to travel between small pools as the rivers dried out during the dry season). However, that picture of early fish or tetrapods dragging themselves around on land no longer seems likely, for two reasons. First, air-breathing was already present in fish (the Devonian lobe-finned fish were relatives of the modern lungfish). Second, despite having limbs rather than fins, nearly all of the early tetrapods (like Acanthostega, [/i]Ichthyostega[/i], or [/i]Tiktaalik[/i]) were barely capable of terrestrial locomotion and were probably exclusively aquatic or nearly so.

So like many other anatomical features, the lungs and limbs probably were later co-opted for terrestrial life and initially evolved because of a different set of pressures. It seems likely that lungs had already evolved in the lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods because they allowed the organisms to withstand periodic anoxia in the rivers and lakes. Limbs enabled tetrapods to navigate shallow waters with a lot of tangled vegetation much better than fins did, and may have helped with predator avoidance. This phenomenon (also sometimes called "exaptation") is similar to that seen in the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs, which predated the ability to fly and evolved for different reasons.

-MEC
 
Fire said:
Since this question is science related because its about biology I figured i'd post it here.

A Theory about evolution is that we originated as fish and came to land, now my question is this, what sparks evolution? what was it exactly that changed the fins of fish and turned them into limbs capable of walking on land? because if the original fish of the world even attempted to go onto land they would suffocate and die and would thus be unable to breed and even then I dont understand how a fish that tried to go onto land can cause alterations in DNA allowing evolution to take place, if you catch my drift.

What caused the formation of eyes? why did evolution create the eye? how can light kickstart an evolutionary process that over millions of years made an eyeball? I just dont get it.

Can someone explain it to me? :confused:

Well, you may have evolved from a fish...but I evolved from an orangutan. A fat-ass ape. With the emphasis on the fat-ass part. :D

See for yourself...

Me:
Me.jpg


My ancestor:
orangutan.jpg


See the resemblance?
 
H.G Wells wrote a great little book called "History of the World" it is a very concise (not to mention condensed) history of the planet. His layman description of how evolution works is the best one I've ever read.
 
^^A description of evolution from H.G. Wells's day would probably get the broad strokes right but be lacking or inaccurate in the details. We've refined our understanding of evolution a great deal since then, especially with modern genetics brought to bear.
 
Fire said:
Since this question is science related because its about biology I figured i'd post it here.

A Theory about evolution is that we originated as fish and came to land, now my question is this, what sparks evolution? what was it exactly that changed the fins of fish and turned them into limbs capable of walking on land? because if the original fish of the world even attempted to go onto land they would suffocate and die and would thus be unable to breed and even then I dont understand how a fish that tried to go onto land can cause alterations in DNA allowing evolution to take place, if you catch my drift.

What caused the formation of eyes? why did evolution create the eye? how can light kickstart an evolutionary process that over millions of years made an eyeball? I just dont get it.

Can someone explain it to me? :confused:

Quite simple.
Fish that emerged from water adapted to the new environment.
Also ... what causes evolution is probably genetic mutation that could manifest itself under different circumstances and different environment after enough time has passed.

It's all interconnected.
An environment can influence any life-form to change their habits.
As time goes on, their bodies absorb numerous environmental factors (which include bacteria, viruses and everything else ...) that are recorded in the DNA and passed on from generation to generation, which also results in genetic mutations and so forth.
Btw, mutations don't have to occur through time from generation to generation.
Perhaps you could include environmental changes that affected numerous life-forms on the planet in certain areas that caused a change which later on mutated.
 
Deks said:
Quite simple.
Fish that emerged from water adapted to the new environment.

But the fish couldn't emerge from water until they'd already acquired the ability to do so -- which is the paradox Fire was asking about in the first place. The answer to the paradox is that the traits that let them survive on land originally arose for other reasons. As Plix explained above, adaptations that evolved for one purpose (such as improving the ability of fish to breathe in oxygen-poor lakes and rivers or to locomote in crowded shallows) created the opportunity for those fish to do other things (like breathe in air or locomote on land).

This is how innovation often works, whether in nature or in human activity. You invent something to fill one need, and that innovation creates new opportunities. The Internet was invented so scientists could exchange data, but that innovation created opportunities to go far beyond that original use and begin a whole new phase of technological and social evolution.

As time goes on, their bodies absorb numerous environmental factors (which include bacteria, viruses and everything else ...) that are recorded in the DNA and passed on from generation to generation, which also results in genetic mutations and so forth.

That's not true. The life experience of an individual organism does not alter its genes in the Lamarckian way you suggest, not for the most part. True, environmental factors like retroviruses (but not bacteria), ionizing radiation, and toxins can cause random mutations, but most of those mutations will either have no noticeable effect or cause cancer or birth defects. At most, a random mutation may occasionally have a purely coincidental beneficial effect, but that effect won't be a specific response to the need that created it. Genes don't "remember" life experience in that way.

Mutations are random, but their selection is statistical. If there are, say, fifty different random mutations within a given generation of a population, and one of those mutations happens to increase the reproductive success of the individual organism that carries it, then that mutation is selected for simply by the fact that the organism has more offspring, and they have more offspring, and so on and so on until eventually the new trait is spread throughout the population.
 
A Theory about evolution is that we originated as fish and came to land, now my question is this, what sparks evolution? what was it exactly that changed the fins of fish and turned them into limbs capable of walking on land? because if the original fish of the world even attempted to go onto land they would suffocate and die and would thus be unable to breed and even then I dont understand how a fish that tried to go onto land can cause alterations in DNA allowing evolution to take place, if you catch my drift.

1- Fish live in water.
2- A mutation occurs which allows fish to leave water briefly (could be a matter of seconds).
3- This gives fish a slight advantage over other fish, perhaps it allows them to catch prey or avoid predation.
4- Those fish survive, breed and pass on the mutation.
5- The mutation and gene is passed on with each generation and progressively allows them to spend more time out of the water, until eventually they are capable of living on land AND in water.

"Going on land" doesn't cause the DNA to alter. It's alterations within the genes that allow them to go on land if it's beneficial to their survival, in a process taking a very long time.

What caused the formation of eyes? why did evolution create the eye? how can light kickstart an evolutionary process that over millions of years made an eyeball? I just dont get it.

Just one possible example.

1- Animal is blind.
2- Animal can survive while blind but genetic mutation gives them a spot of their external structure which is sensitive to to light.
3- The light-sensitive spot gives them a slight advantage to others. Perhaps allowing them to catch prey and avoid predators.
4- This mutation is passed on from generation to generation with the light detecting spot progressively becoming more honed, focused and complex over time.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top