/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10741986
amphibious creatures like frogs live in both the water and the land. suppose a change that benefited survival on land happened. if it was that beneficial then they would drop their water part and go fully on land. fun fact, whales and dolphins used to live on land

>>10741986
There were findings of simplified eyes in starfish and others, which helped them survive. Others too develop different features over tons of generations. This is basic evolution, anon, come on.

>>10741986
populations living far apart evolve apart enough so that they can't breed, then just add time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>10741986
They don't nigga. Evolution is a very very long term process of adaptation. Of course it's going to look like a big leap if you compare a divergence of millions of years. It's not hard to understand.

>>10741986
OP, are you seriously so unimaginative that you can't imagine a single pathway of incrementally useful development of wings, or legs, or lungs? That honestly sounds hard to believe.

The phenotype of a recessive gene increases with the gene prevalence. 1% requires 10% of the resistant gene. 20% resistant gene will result in 4% of the resistant phenotype, 40% of resistant gene will result 16% percent resistant phenotype. This effect may get even more dramatic with multiple genes needed for strong resistance.

So full resistance is expected to appear rather rapidly after a long period of slow accumulation of resistant mutations.

Assortative mating can also increase it rather suddenly. (and assortative mating has been observed among autistic people)

With ten genes, five with a recessive resistant allele, five with a dominant one, the rarity of a fully resistant phenotype will be (x^2)^5*(1-x^2)^5, which gives us (assuming 100% random mating) only 2.476099 × 10^-14, with 10% of each resistant allele, exceedingly unlikely to happen even in one person in the world. With 20% of each allele, this rises to 6.19174×10^-10, less than one person in a generation. With 25% prevalence, it's 1.52859×10^-8, several people per billion. 30% gives us 2.03734×10^-7, about one in 50 million. 35% roughly 1.7 in a million. 40% one in 88818. 45% one in 17789. 50% one in 4315.

60% one in 359
65% one in 142
66% one in 117
67% one in 97
68% one in 81
69% one in 67
70% one in 57


This is how polygenic, highly advantageous traits may appear rather suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, arising from a particular combinations of genes that were never particularly uncommon.

evolution is just a theory, there isn't any proof.

>>10741986
Then there’s stuff like nest-building, web-building, the bombardier beetle, etc. Like how does a creature such as a spider think to itself,” I’m gonna make a web and catch my prey.” And how does that behavior become woven into all web-building spiders?

People will say things like “well given millions of years it will happen you retard” but this doesn’t answer the question. There’s a difference between questioning the theory of evolution and wondering how certain organisms evolved to gain remarkable traits

Speciation and natural selection. During evolution, species usually get separated by natural events such as natural catastrophes or mass exoduses and immigration. When the species separate, they encounter different conditions in their environment, which as selective pressure will pressurize the population with natural selection: In the sense where it favorises the individuals with the most advantageous characteristics and kills the ones with the disadvantageous ones, in a gradual process. Since they're going to be favoured, they will survive the new conditions and transmit their characteristics to their descendants, as in effect the population of the next generation will possess them. For example, think of how fish evolved to frogs: Suddenly, there's a drought and the water levels in earth get very low, the fishes that have the ability to breath on air for a short amount of time will be more susceptible to survive and pass their characteristics to their descendants as the others will die. In effect, the next generation of fishes will possess the ability to breathe out of water for a short period of time. And so on and on, natural selection will be selecting the most adaptive individuals to survive and lead the characteristics of their descendants to evolve the population of the species, as they might segregate themselves from each other from how they will differ after so many changes.

>>10741986
Accumulated mutations, mutations are not as simple as a gay gene or a big dick gene its more like a clusterfuck of genes contribute to one single big change when put together. Reminder it is possible for humans to develop functional extra limbs but that rarely happens because the mutations necessary for such are big so you need something that accelerates celullar mutation like nuclear radiation to make extra limbed humans more common.

>>10742592
Are you imply we should (very softly) nuke the planet so humans can grow extra limbs?

>>10742532
>>10742592
These niggers the only useful ones.
Yeah I saw a story about some mutant family with an extra opposable finger which they could operate and had its own muscles and everything.

>>10741986
>How do significant leaps in evolution occur?
The best way to define "significant leaps" is relating them to time and closely related organisms. It's useless to just wonder about millions and billions of years of evolution without following the infinitesimal changes along the way (e.g. asking how single-celled life became humans is a fairly useless question because the scope of the question is too broad without first studying single-cell micro>multi-cell micro>multi-cell macro evolution in further depth.)
>How does an aquatic life form grow legs and lungs to breathe and walk on land?
Amphibians. Just the existence of amphibians makes this question absolutely fucking retarded.
>At no point, except the final point, is the addition of lungs or legs beneficial to survival or reproducing.
This is an illogical and unreasonable position to take with a massive assumption being it's root: that evolution is not a continuous mechanism but has some sort of "final point." Have you only read criticisms of evolutionary theory from the 19th century?
>Similarly for flying creatures.
You know, "flying creatures" includes more than just those pesky little things you and I call birds.
There are more creatures that fly without feathers than there are that do.
Just google convergent evolution or something, fuck you're so ignorant about the thing against which you argue that I'm really at a loss as to how you could further elucidate yourself without just becoming more retarded and confused.
>Giraffes getting longer necks makes sense.
Evolution exists regardless of whether you, personally, can make sense of it.
t. actually read a book on evolutionary biology once and suggest you do the same.

>>10742644
I'm not arguing anything you absolute ass wipe. And you haven't explained anything, just acted like a twat. I never said I didn't believe in evolution, just that I didn't understand how big leaps occur. Which you still haven't explain because you're so triggered that your delusional ass misinterpreted an innocent question to be an attack on science which you took as an attack on yourself.

Also, I never said all flying creatures had feathers. I simply used feathers as an example of a smaller leap of evolution which I didn't understand how it came about. And clearly, neither do you. You're just a brainlet pretending to be smart and accepting everything you read without wondering about it on a deeper level. Otherwise, you would have answered my question like >>10742532 and >>10742592 instead of being a cunt.

>>10742650
Nah, I just felt like being a cunt and hurting your little feelings.
Go read a book and get off 4chan, faggot.

>>10742654
lmao imagine being this brainlet.

>>10742658
Imagine getting wrecked in your own thread then getting so booty-blasted about it that you resort to one-line, infantile insults.
Would you like me to rewrite my post to make it less harmful to your sensitive feelings?
I don't have to time, nor want, to do so.
Read my original post again, but first take the dick out of ass so reading it won't make you cry because of the mean words I used.

>>10741986
>At no point, except the final point, is the addition of lungs or legs beneficial to survival or reproducing.
Incorrect, try again.

>>10742666
>keeps replying to 1 liners
Lmao imagine being this brainlet.

>>10741986
>How do significant leaps in evolution occur?
First, a significant leapin evolution occurs.
Then, if it is advantageous, it stays.

>>10742481
Yes, please detail it to me in small enough steps that random chance and mutation could probabilistically allow in the time given

>>10742650
>feathers
https://youtu.be/hPLgfGX1I5Y?t=85

>>10742955
https://youtu.be/hPLgfGX1I5Y?t=2m40s

>>10742560

>A spider’s DNA doesn’t “know” anything about web building, it has no kind of map of the physical world, but it builds a spider brain with a set of web-building subroutines ingrained.

>If: You have no web, Then release silk type A

>If; You are walking on silk type A, Then: Reinforce silk with type B

>If: You are walking on silk type B, Then: Walk forward 5 paces, turn 20 degrees

>That’s not a map of the world, it’s a set of simple instructions that manifest themselves as a spider web. Those instructions exist because at some point a slightly simplified version worked better than other spider versions in existence. A spider is a robot, its brain is a computer, and its DNA is raw code.

I think we think of engrained habits as being "internal" for us. Like you could easily ask, "how does my stomach know how to process all these different foods that enter it". The point is YOU don't know anything about that process. It's hardwired. Seeing that in an external way (with webs for example) seems weirder for some reason, or more "amazing"