Evolution Theory

[pantheory]

Evolution Theories

Evolution theory in general concerns how heritable characteristics of biological populations can change over time with successive generations. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes and genetic drift act on various species of plants and animal variations, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less prevalent within a population over successive generations. The process of evolution, according to theory, gives rise to the biodiversity that we observe in plants, animals, and mankind. There were other evolution theories before Darwin proposed his theory of Natural Selection, which helped set the stage for the possibility of a proposal like Darwin’s theory.

Few know that theories of the evolution of plants and animals have a very long history. The first ideas and writings of the possibilities of changes in plants and animals over time go back to ancient Greece, to Rome, to the Chinese, to Islamic studies, and to what we now call Evolution theory history.  None of these theories however included mankind as an animal or related to evolution.

The beginnings of more modern biological evolution ideas started in the late 1600’s. Then there were primarily two opposing ideas concerning the evolution of life. The first was called Essentialism, whereby each species of plants and animals had essential characteristics that were unalterable, a concept that developed from Aristotelian metaphysics which fit well with theology that only minor characteristics could change. The Second belief was called Naturalism. It focused on the observable variability within each species, and how such differences could occur.

The new study of ancient life at that time was called paleontology beginning in the 1600’s which included extinction theory and taxonomy, the dissection of plants and animals, some ideas of which undermined static views of nature and also some religious Biblical interpretations.

In the early 1800’s prior to Darwin,   Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of the species, which was/is considered the very first fully formed theory of evolution.

1. Lamarckism. Lamarckism proposed that if an organism acquires traits during its lifetime different from its contemporaries, that that organism could pass down this trait to its offspring which could change the character and of a species over time. However, Lamarckism was later discredited due to the lack of verifiable evidence for the inheritance of lifetime acquired characteristics.
2. Catastrophism: Was an evolution theory that proposed Extinction and Replacement, popularized by French naturalist Georges Cuvier. He proposed that Earth’s history was marked by periodic catastrophic events that caused the extinction of some species, replaced by better adapted species. Cuvier suggested that after each catastrophe, new species emerged to replace those that were lost. This theory proposed that the Earth’s history was not static and that species were not fixed entities but rather subject to dynamic changes. However, catastrophism fell out of favor as scientific evidence for gradual changes began to win favor which included the lack of evidence for quickly changing species or replacements.  
3. Transformism: was proposed by the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, who posited that species gradually transform into new forms over time. Transformism proposed that existing species could change and give rise to a new species through a process called transmutation. They emphasized the idea of species as fluid entities, constantly adapting to their environment and evolving into new forms, via living entities adapting to their environment. Transformism laid the groundwork for the concept of species mutability and contributed to the acceptance of evolution as a dynamic process. Transformation by slow processes was also first proposed by Lamarch. Like Lamarckism, living species members changed by their environment passed on their changes to their progeny.
4. Natural Theology: Was associated with the theologian William Paley. He attempted to reconcile the existence of a divine creator with the observable natural world. The theory argued that the intricate complexity and design found in nature were evidence of a divine plan. Natural theologians pointed to various adaptations in organisms as proof of intelligent design. Natural theology set the stage for future debates on the relationship between science and religion in the context of evolution that are still discussed today.
5. Uniformitarianism: Gradual Geological Processes was championed by Charles Lyell in the early 1800’s, who proposed that the Earth’s geological features and processes were the result of gradual, ongoing forces that operated over long periods of time. Lyell’s ideas challenged the prevailing view of catastrophism and emphasized the role of gradual change in shaping the Earth’s surface. Uniformitarianism provided a framework for the proposed slow, continuous processes that could account for the long-term changes the he proposed were required for evolutionary processes.

All of the above theories were in play and known by biological scientists including Charles Darwin. These pre-Darwinian theories of evolution played an important role in paving the way for Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of natural selection. Within a few decades Darwin’s theories overshadowed all prior theory because of the evidence he presented. The huge difference in his theory from all other theories was how all life was related to all other life, and that mankind was included in the theory, which was not discussed in detail concerning any prior theory.

Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection:

Natural selection is one of the primary mechanisms of modern evolution theory. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time. Proliferation via breading is one of the most important processes of natural selection in that the plants and animals that can more easily bread in greater numbers will proliferate over their competitors for the same resources. Natural defenses against predators are another very important inherited characteristic.

There is a mountain of evidence which now supports the theory of natural selection and natural mutation. Darwin did not know of the genetic mechanisms involved. The theory of genetics was sent to Darwin by Gregor Mendel its inventor, during Darwin’s lifetime but since it was written in German and involved plants only, Darwin did not respond to this information not knowing its importance to his own theory.

Another lesser known important characteristic of evolution theory is called Epigenetics. All plants and animals have a number or genes but not all are operational. They can be turned on and tuned off by the folding of the genes which can vary slightly between individuals, causing different abilities and behaviors in some cases, even for identical twins.

Although polls have claimed that between 2-6 percent of practicing western biologists question the theory of evolution, I would expect that it would be nearly impossible today for such a biologist or student to get a PhD in biology from any prominent secular university, who openly opposed natural selection as being a prime agent of evolution.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:13 PM, pantheory said:

Another lesser known important characteristic of evolution theory is called Epigenetics. All plants and animals have a number or genes but not all are operational. They can be turned on and tuned off by the folding of the genes which can vary slightly between individuals, causing different abilities and behaviors in some cases, even for identical twins.

 

Great post, pantheory! 

Hope you don't mind, but is this evolution too? 

Why is the Y chromosome disappearing? – Deseret News (arc-cdn.net

 

 

 

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Great post, pantheory! 

Hope you don't mind, but is this evolution too? 

Why is the Y chromosome disappearing? – Deseret News (arc-cdn.net

 

 

Yes, Epigenetics is definitely part of evolution, but little known to the general public. It is a rare factor in modern human evolution but it has been seen in identical twins where one identical twin genetically, is very different from the other twin because of just one epigenetic change -- which again can be the result of  slightly different gene folding.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

which again can be the result of  slightly different gene folding.

I've never heard of this. Can you elaborate? 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

I've never heard of this. Can you elaborate? 

 

Not only you, but few people except scientists and researchers are aware of the effects of epigenetics in plants, humans and other animals, etc. More than 50%, up to 90% of all plant and animal genetics are non-functional. Most are strands of genetics, mostly from our animal ancestors, originally coming from bacteria and viruses. When a plant or animal gets a fungal, bacterial, or viral infection, very rarely they can also infect the reproductive cells of sperm and ova. With very extreme rarity such infected cells can remain fertile and part of the reproduction process. Almost always no offspring will result. But if they do survive, some may have the same infection as the parent, but sometimes just a piece of the infections genetics becomes a nonfunctional part of the off-springs genetics. 

 

If we only took the part of our own genetics that make us human, we would have the same amount of chromosomes, but each would be much much shorter. This would cause some minor genes to be turned on and others turned off because of their new shortness and foldings. The length of our genome and those of plants and other animals is what makes them the entities that we observe today. So our epigenetics (gene folding) also determines who and what we are because it determines which genes are turned off, turned on, and also how these genes function with the whole.

 

https://www.mpg.de/16725487/the-architect-of-genome-folding

 

As to the 'Y' chromosome in humans, the link is discussing possible degradation. I think most geneticists would disagree with their conclusions, which is that men are becoming less "manly,' aggressive, less tall, less muscular, leaner, less body fat, hair, smaller features, etc. because the supposed need for these characteristics has decreased. In some animals it also could be an advantage when the aggression between males decreases. They suggest in millions of years that other genes could take over the reproductive function of the ''Y' chromosome in some animals and maybe humans.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

21 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As to the 'Y' chromosome in humans, the link is discussing possible degradation. I think most geneticists would disagree with their conclusions, which is that men are becoming less "manly,' aggressive, less tall, less muscular, leaner, less body fat, hair, smaller features, etc. because the supposed need for these characteristics has decreased. In some animals it also could be an advantage when the aggression between males decreases. They suggest in millions of years that other genes could take over the reproductive function of the ''Y' chromosome in some animals and maybe humans.

 

But, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without loosing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there.

 

And if these evolutional changes do happen, in millions of years we might look like extraterrestial "grays"!!  Maybe there are some beings out there that are millions of years more advanced than us.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

But, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without loosing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there.

 

And if these evolutional changes do happen, in millions of years we might look like extraterrestial "grays"!!  Maybe there are some beings out there that are millions of years more advanced than us.

 

 

Howdy again Weez,

 

"But, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without loosing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there."ut, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without losing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there.

 

It depends on the theory we are discussing, In my own model/ theory that unwinding ability is an integral part of all matter; it unwinds and rewinds. The meaning of this is simply that our world right now is in essence the same as it was in the beginning. There is this additional characteristic within it (presently unknown as being essential) that causes it to change; in matter they call it particle spin but presently cannot explain it. And yes, as far as reproduction goes, one small particle via unwinding becomes two smaller particles, becomes three even smaller particles etc. until there are long stings of these particles (with no more substance than the original particle had. This coiled spring-lke entity breaks after a certain number of unwindings, becoming two coils, then three coils etc. With this substance and its energy, matter is eventually created, having the continuous energy of its unwinding spin.

 

"And if these evolutional changes do happen, in millions of years we might look like extraterrestial "grays"!!  Maybe there are some beings out there that are millions of years more advanced than us."

 

Here we are talking about billions and probably trillions of years for all of this to happen in my own theory. My own theory is a theory in physics so it does not address life or its source or cause. That would be a different hypothesis. The logical problem can be explained by the Fermi Paradox. Why haven't we seen and have proof of extraterrestrial aliens as yet. Of course some, like yourself, may believe that we have already encountered them here on Earth. If we haven't however, then why not if there is so much time involved and so many countless billions of habitable planets in our galaxy? If we haven't encountered them, it could be because intelligent life to our extent may be an extremely improbable event. With the hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy that could have produced life, if it has only happened on Earth and its vicinity, then that could explain why we have never seen other intelligent life in our galaxy, if in fact there isn't any other.

 

But our little galaxy is only one of quadrillions of other galaxies, with almost countless other habitable planets. So it seems to me that it would be impossible if intelligent life of some kind did not exist at least in another  galaxy. But since the distances to other galaxies is so great, maybe even the closest life would have almost impossible odds to contact us if they are not within our own galaxy.

 

Right now it is known that human intelligence has been going down since the 1960's and birth control. The smart have a better chance of breeding smarter kids, and those less intelligent have a better chance of producing less intelligent children. The not-so-smart are winning the breading contest on Earth.

 

As to evolution, it is not necessarily a forward progression of intelligence. It's the survival of the fittest involving the most proliferate and healthy breeders. So for the distant future we could not predict whether we will look different of not. With our present technology we could look the same  if we wanted to IMO. Roughly 1.5 million years ago Homo Erectus may not have looked that much different than we do today.

 

 

Turkana Boy, about 1.6M BC.