These are things we need to look into. Assuming you are correct, what did the sea squirt evolve from?
Ok enmos, i am only asking questions.
According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.
I am sorry Enmos, this is a discussion forum and the thread is about evolution.
Speaking as a complete amateur, I would guess that the first heart was formed at least with the first recognizable chordate, a small fishlike creature called Pikaia gracilens, the fossil of which was found in the Burgess Shale. The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on knowing every single detail of the evolution of every animal and plant.
I guess this is going to eat at me like a bug eats nylon.
The ideas in my head are difficult for me to articulate. The only thing i found in a quick search is this:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm
Uh, yes they do. They are the extra genetic material itself. And they provide sites for mutations less likely to prove immediately harmful, and available for future or present benefit - that is just one of several of the "augmenting mechanisms" you claim to seek, that have already been pointed out to you. We find traces of its past operations in every genome we study.
Again, you seek labarotory events that are almost impossible (and very expensive) to observe in a lab, and almost never sought in controlled circumstances.
We have thousands of events of extra genetic material introduced - by natural, artificial, and chance means - in controlled stiuations, that proved adaptive to those situations; seedless watermelons have spread all over the world, due to their superior adaptation to human consumption, for one example. They are very well adapted to their new environment.
We will almost never observe beneficial adaptation to wild conditions under controlled circumstances because in wild conditions we are not observing in controlled conditions. OK ?
According to Darwinian theory, there is no such thing as the "first fully functioning heart". You would know this if you understood Darwinian theory. The idea that there had to be a "first" af a complex thing is a Creationist idea, which Darwinian theory specifically replaces with the mechanism of evolution.
Thanks for the reply, James R. I'm curious, though, is the evolution of viruses simple natural selection or are they developing and passing on new genetic material to their progeny?
I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult. Scientists observe (and cause) augmenting mutations in people and other organisms every day. But all of these are fatal to the individual organism, or prevent them from reproducing... like your example of the seedless watermelon.
Did some organisms carry around a useless hunk of muscle for generations with the intention of delivering a heart to their ancestors?
Right James. BUT the Avian flu does not mutate into a whole chicken.
No, there would not. Darwinian evolution says there was no such thing.john said:Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today,
It is not a part of Darwinian theory. In Darwinian theory there is no such thing as the first functioning heart.aaron said:I did not bring up the idea of the first functioning heart, but it is interesting.
It's almost impossible, as fra as I can tell.aaron said:I don't think I'm asking for something so difficult.
It can be cloned. And it is exactly biological evolution, exactly what you ask for. You simply have an artificially limited notion of what "favorable adaptation" means.aaron said:That mutation must be artificially created every single time, since the resulting watermelon is sterile. It is the humans that are better adapted to their environment (by creating easier to consume food), not watermelons. And this adaptation is not one of biological evolution.
And you've been handed antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which has been observed in axenic culture in a test tube no less. End of story.aaron said:I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask.
Again?iceaura said:End of story.
Yes there would have to be an initial appearance of what we have today, what you are describing is an evolution from a less complex variant. What would you say it was and do you have any links that explain this? Then we need to consider the complexity, with valves and chambers. Do you believe that by simply by evolving that this was done, but the real question is...WHY?
Again?
Some people are having trouble with the words here. I mean words like "adapt" and "advantage", and the idea of "new" material.
There's another one, too: "purpose".
Purpose is behaviour; we see behaviour (like, everywhere); we also behave.
If you are having trouble understanding "purpose", try going somewhere where there are wild animals - wolves or bears say, or large predators like the big cats. Hang around long enough, and you will eventually become the object of purposeful behaviour.
Or you could try swimming somewhere there are lots of sharks.
Purposeful behaviour can be easily observed in humans (like, us). Try standing in the middle of a busy road, and you might get the idea.
I'm just looking for a single example of an observed mutation that is not "immediately harmful". I don't think that's too much to ask.