Posts Tagged ‘Species’


Lack of any intermediary forms in any epoch would be the rule, not the exception to the rule.

This cannot be treated in complete form without writing a whole book about it. We can understand some aspects in simple thought processes, which I can cover in a few pages.

Imagine, if you will, that the earth, suddenly, and violently became frozen in ice. Both, you and your partner are showering to go to a party, clean and freshly shaved. You step out of the shower, which is turning ice-cold and freeze before you can cross the room. The entire planet hits one-hundred degrees below zero and all life freezes.

Further imagine, that some alien species, in the next million years discovers that life existed on this planet and began to explore that life, frozen in time. What would they conclude?

I will only look at three species: the entire dog family, the entire cat family, and the entire primate family. In the dog family, we would have wolves, whence dogs were bred from, every species of (dog) house pets, and foxes, and any other animal that resembled dogs, related or not. In the cat family, we would have lions, tigers, pet cats, from every possible bread, including some with six toes, seven toes, and naked cats. In the primate family, we would have monkeys, and apes of every shape and size, along with humans of every color and size.

It is the twenty-first century, so we must include that men shave their beards and some women shave their pubic hair, arm pits, and legs. Some don’t shave anything—male or female.

What would you make of this evidence? Would you conclude that there was only one subfamily of each specimen? Would you conclude that every individual specimen was a separate species? Including that shaved humans differ from unshaved humans as a species characteristic? Assume you could not acknowledge that shaving was invented.

Looking at the Precambrian or Cambrian explosions with the same information available would soon lead you to difficult thinking and some unanswered questions.

Advocates of Intelligent Design, or Creationist, are asking these questions, fervently, and drawing the conclusion that these “frozen moments” in time do not support species divergence. There is not one single intermediary specimen to show evolution of species. They all appear fully functional and complete. Proof! They must have been designed!

What should one do to find the truth? Look at the evidence for what it is! Difficult to assess. This bring us full circle to our frozen world. Do you insist on every specimen being a separately catalogued species? Did naked man evolve hair, then a tail, shrink in size, and then take to the trees as the temperature dropped?

There is one place we can enter and claim as designed. The cats and dogs, which were, in fact, selected for by agency—human agency! One could apply this same thought process for the selection of primates. They must have been selected for by an intelligent designer as not one intermediary is present to conform to evolution. Ergo, they could not have evolved without leaving a single missing link.

One, in this case, would be completely wrong. The intelligent agent that selected for the different dogs and cats were frozen in time with them—they were the primates, human in species. The many varieties of dogs and cats, including naked cats, were selected from a parent stock which still exist. In the case of the dog, we know the wolf to be the progenitor. The aliens would not know this until it was, if even possible, discovered. I have no doubts that discoveries will be made to better understand the Precambrian and Cambrian explosions.

Applying this last paragraph to these two explosions might help us understand something about the species frozen in time. Natural selection works to promote the positive characteristics. Competition for life acts as a selector. If one species of the explosion was a predator, it would, no doubt, influence selection for the perfect prey: one would expect the imperfect to be consumed by the predators, while the best at defence or escape would prosper and become frozen in time as well. The same rule would apply. One species selected for the other species at some level. It is called niche change as well. Lack of any intermediary forms in any epoch would be the rule, not the exception to the rule.

 

©copyright 2011-2018 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

 

We see constant reminders of bringing back the dinosaurs. There is a misconception of what that actually means in real terms. If you reverse the evolution process, then you can only get the original version and not any version that you want. A chicken will not produce both a tyrannosaurs and a triceratops by example. Reverse engineering will only produce the dinosaur that evolved into the specific bird being used.

If a scientist decided to manipulate DNA to create a dinosaur from scratch it is unlikely to yield the accurate results that have happened naturally. This, in the extreme, is very unlikely to ever happen! Equally difficult, would be for a scientist to obtain actual DNA, unpolluted, from dinosaur remains and piece them together to create the unadulterated true version. Unless, of course, the dinosaur was an asexual reproducer. Otherwise, they would need to obtain two separate genomes and combine them into an egg stripped of its DNA content for recombination. What most of these scientific articles refer to when they say return of the dinosaurs, like this one [here] is that traits will be produced that resemble the dinosaurs in general.

We need to remind ourselves that birds have evolved into many species since the dinosaurs went extinct and there is no way of actually telling which specific dinosaur was the predecessor of birds in general. It should go without saying, that not every biped dinosaur must have evolved feathers and flight. More likely it was a specific group of dinosaurs and probably did not include the family of dinosaurs that already flew. This is what the evidence actually suggest. There are actual fossils of feathered dinosaurs found in China.

What do these scientists actually mean by dinosaurs? They mean that they can tweak out features that the predecessors of birds had in general terms. They can cause a dinosaur tail to grow on a chicken and alter the legs into dinosaur looking legs by changing the development of the embryo with DNA manipulation. These are the current hopes anyway. It will be considered a work of wonder, something to marvel at, and a starting point for greater things to come in DNA manipulation.

I have no doubt that someday, step by mighty step, man will be able to reproduce the original dinosaur from whence the chicken evolved. This will not create dinosaurs of every type and size that originally existed and roamed the earth.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

If multiple orgasms were strictly for pleasure, then every woman would have multiple orgasms. It has been greatly speculated that the female multiple orgasm phenomena have no basis in evolution by natural selection. It is claimed to bequeath no advantage to survival. Another problem is the lack of orgasms at all with many women. Neither of these are a serious problem for natural selection.

The easy problem first. If a woman does not have an orgasm, there is still a good chance that she will conceive. As long as the male has an orgasm and ejaculates into her. This should be a no brainer. It leaves a critical question though. Why would any woman ever need to have an orgasm, except for pleasure? So was sex selected for pleasure? I expect that answer to be partially yes, but not completely so. Depending on who you read, female Bonobo’s—smaller chimpanzees—have orgasms too. As an appeasement, often, two female Bonobo’s will stimulate each other into orgasm as a way to make peace. Depending on who you read, human females are the only species who actually have orgasms. I will not contend with why women have them, but it is a good thing!

The harder problem seems to be the question of why multiple orgasms arose in the first place. This has a clear and distinct answer. Males, as it is well known, are forced to stop copulation after having an orgasm, or ejaculating as it is called. Interestingly, I have read an article that implies that some men can also have multiple orgasms. As well, male orgasm and ejaculation, are supposedly, two different things. At any rate, these are rare! The vast majority of men must stop copulating and loose their erections.

What if a woman, after reaching orgasm, had to stop copulating as well? If the male did not ejaculate, then the chances of impregnating her would become very low, but not zero. Some sperm could still leak out. As with everything else in evolution? “May the odds be ever in your favor.” (The Hunger Games) Only men who could ejaculate would produce offspring. Only women who could continue until the male ejaculated would produce offspring. This would mean that selection for stamina in females would become much needed. What better way to produce stamina than to promote the ability to have multiple orgasms?

To balance this, any woman who reached an orgasm too soon and had to stop copulating would leave no descendants and not pass on her traits. She would be what is known as an evolutionary dead end. There might be some women alive today that do have to stop after they reach orgasm, but it is rarely reported in any articles. One thing is for certain, multiple orgasms are selectable for and do convey an advantage. The advantages are more than reproduction, they also include the release of hormones which aid in pair bonding and feeling good. Why would one not select for pleasure if at all possible?

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: