- Nov 17, 2010
- Reaction score
I don't know any intracellular parazite that lives in a bacterial cell or single celled organism. That's why I assume this. Your answer is another hypothesis. Let's summarize here what I'm trying to determine. I said Darwinism predicts as much involution as evolution. You gave me completely unsubstantiated response that in order to involute past environment should arise. Leaving aside how omniscient statement it is, I gave you an example which desproves your statement. Now you trying to give me rebuttal which actually has huge gape in it. Are you trying to say that a virus (bacteriophage) evolved as a cellular organism that continued to live inside cells?minasoliman said:I don't know how you made that assumption that intracellular parasites had to appear after multicellularity. Bacteriophages attack bacteria, so there might have been a very early time when the first viruses for instance appeared with the first cells. The extent of the evolution of viruses and intracellular parasites that we do know is that they co-evolve with the host. As the host gets more advanced, the parasites get more advanced, which always have been the problem for development of resistance.BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?
In case there's been found a prokaryote living in a single celled organism and I do not know it, that still does not change previous logic unless you tell me viruses evolved into these parasites. So, your only option is to agree with the question above and then we are going to go into another hypothesis how viruses turned into something.
Another irrelevant answer. What I said was against you statement "When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment." First this whole statement bags the question for a simplification why is it necessary to go back to an original environment while we know already that simple organisms has existed in all environments. Second, do you know detailed history of the Earth? Do you know detailed history of genetic codes of each existing species at any given time? How do you know that during the millions of years of existence of millions of genome none of them would fit in that environment if the genome was simplified? I seriously need to know this.As to your question, I don't know where to begin. We know there are extremophiles that live in extreme conditions, and we understand the Earth to have had extreme conditions billions of years ago. The complex organisms that live today could not have survived those conditions. That's science in a nutshell for you.Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.
Well, I need better answer not just hypothesis. First of all your example is actually against you. If a person with Down's produces normal human then this ostracized Down's population go back to wild type. That does not help you since you need ostracized genome which remains stable and give you whole new generation of this genome. Second, I'm curious where have you heard about fertile Down man or woman? Most importantly you are avoiding important question and trying to continue with you fallacious analogy. I gave you clear cut question. I will make the situation clearer and ask question again. We have some hypothesized 24 chromosome pair ancestors. You hypothesized that 2 of the chromosome in there could be fused. I gave you that point. Now in order to get a new population with 23 chromosomes we need to ostracize only individuals (both male and female) with 23 chromosomes (which have this fused chromosome) and isolate them completely from 24 chromosome population. Otherwise there's no way we can get new population (diffusion of this new genome back into wild type will prevent formation of new population). Now I'm asking you is it possible at all for this to happen? And if it is possible then give me some detailed answer? Are we not talking about science after all?I'm only giving you some ideas. For instance, if there existed apes at the time that are similar to those who are Down's Syndrome, then they might have been ostracized. Some people with Down's are still fertile, and some can give birth to normal humans.Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized? What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.
I can't give examples of people being ostracized. But surely, we have examples of species that may look very similar with different chromosomal numbers (like the beavers). The question of how this occurred is no different than asking how a murderer got in. Hence, why I don't understand why you think these questions can disprove evolution.
We need to know lots of things and at least have some current observational data. Say we have observed today that apes with 24 chromosome do produce offspring with 23 chromosomes after this fusion. But prevalence of this chromosome is practically 0, so that there's no given time when 2 individuals exists with 23 chromosome. Then certainly you hypothesis is even more baseless. In this case you have to hypothesize more things (like this particular mutations happened much much more frequently and so on). This is why I'm asking the numbers. I would like to know what's the frequency of viable 23 chromosome individuals in apes. I would like to know how many individuals are necessary to be ostracized to give us significant chance of survival of this ostracizeds. I would like to now what would be a chance of such happening. I would like to know how this isolation can be complete for a prolonged period of time so that this two subpopilation does not mix until they are sexually isolated. What's wrong with this questions and why do you not want to answer them?
Introducing beavers make things worse since same applies to them and this new population formation is going to be very rare based on calculation and observation, two rare thing happening would be more rare. Not to mention that we will have to expect hundreds of thousand of such "isolational" events.
So show me that at least in case of ape-to-human path is possible.