Evolution

[Brainlet No.9688615]

Hey guys, I'm a brainlet Christian here who is trying to understand evolution.

Pic related is a paramecium.
How does bacteria exactly evolve into a paramecium? Is it by obtaining cilia? Is it no longer bacteria anymore when it obtains cilia, or are all paramecium bacteria?

[Anonymous No.9688861]

Not a microbiologist; my understanding of evolution relies more on DNA than categorizing what the thing is called. Actual micro people would be able to answer more directly.

But evolution is basically when a change in DNA sequence gives new characteristics, and its heritable, and some kind of selection over time causes changes across generations. It's hard to perceive it happening because it can take a tumultuous event to really kickstart things; like unless you have organisms suddenly dying due to calamity you might not really have all that much selection; you just have varieties of a trait. But if say some animal naturally avoids predators by hiding in forests, and deforestation occurs, some random mutant who can hide in the deforested environment won't get murdered by predators as much as the other, naked prey. Fast forward a few years and all the non-mutants might be extinct. That species is now only alive in that new mutant form.

Repeat that for a few million years and you get all kinds of shit. Things diverging based on available niches and chance events. Higher organisms kinda piggybacked off of previous events; like you don't have to reinvent the wheel when you make a new organism; you just tweak the last iteration.

[Anonymous No.9688917]

>how does a bacterium evolve into a paramecium
It does not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. It's the same problem as when people ask how chimps evolved into humans, they did not. Extant lineages do not evolve into other lineages, the paramecium you see today did not evolve from the bacterium you see today. They had a common ancestor, which likely looked more like the bacterium than the paramecium, and then a branching event happened where the eukaryotes split from the prokaryotes. Each lineage keeps evolving though, the bacterium of today IS NOT the ancestor that experienced that branching event. They have exactly the same amount of evolutionary distance from that ancestor as every other extant species, including humans. By evolutionary distance I mean time since that branching event. See this picture. So to answer the rest of the stuff you typed
>is it by obtaining cilia
no
>is it not longer a bacteria when it obtains cilia
super no
>are all paramecium bacteria
mega no
They aren't even in the same domain.
If your question is really "how exactly did this happen" then the answer is random mutation, which is the primary driving force that gives the genetic variability to which natural selection can act upon, and therefore drives evolution.

[Anonymous No.9688921]

>>9688615
Paramecia, though single celled organisms, aren't the great-great-great grandchildren of "a" bacteria.
They're a fusion of several.
>https://www.livescience.com/55178-paramecium.html

We are multi-cellular beings but the principle is the same. Inside each of our cells are specialized organelles. Mitochondria, for example, are the "powerhouses" of the cell. They provide the energy for all the other functions.
But mitochondria are not, genetically, part of us. They have their own DNA. It reproduces whenever we make new cells, but it never mixes with the rest of our DNA.
When we make gametes, sperm and eggs, DNA from both parents go into the new individual, thus promoting genetic variation. But mitochondrial DNA comes only from the mother. The notion of "mitochondrial eve" comes from this
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
though it should not be taken in the Biblical sense.

I've digressed.
The point is that mitochondria were, once upon a time, independent, free-living, no-relation-to-us bacteria. They "invaded" larger cells. They WERE a disease. But the two organisms came to a mutually beneficial agreement and now neither can survive without the other.

>>9688861 makes the point that evolution happens slowly and over immense spans of time.. A microbiologist could trace the major steps but never be able to say precisely when it became what we'd call a paramecium.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The egg. Every chicken came out of an egg which hatched into a chicken. But the first chicken egg must have been laid by not-quite-a-chicken. When and where that happened is largely an arbitrary definition.

[Anonymous No.9688922]

>>9688917
Oh I meant to explain the colors on the cladogram. Blue is bacteria, red is your paramecium. You can see they had a common ancestor that diverged into both lineages.

[Anonymous No.9688930]

>>9688917
>the paramecium you see today did not evolve from the bacterium you see today. They had a common ancestor
While this is usually the case, it doesn't have to be. There's no reason the common ancestor has to no longer exist.

[Anonymous No.9688931]

>>9688615
Paramecium has a wide variety of semi-symboitic lifestyles with algae and bacteria. It makes it quite likely that endosymbiotics underlies evolution of protists.
https://www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Biology-Concepts/section/8.2/ and https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_04 and https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ocelloid/the-protists-and-i-are-back-bringing-cells-evolution-and-fossils/ Possibly also DNA tranfer via viral inclusion. Protists contain organelles- with DNA and membranes different from the host. Protoparamecium started by engulfing another bacteria, but not digesting them. The bacteria inside provided energy or other benefits. It lost functions it no longer needed but kept things that helped in inside the host cell and also helped the host cell.

[Anonymous No.9688942]

>>9688615
I will explain the premise of evolution through anecdote. Suppose that you have a petri dish teaming with the bacterium E. Coli, and then introduce a toxin to the environment. The vast majority of the E. Coli will die, but some are bound to have the correct genes for immunity. Because only those cells lived, and offspring share the genes of their parents, the next generation of E. Coli will be immune to the poison.

Macro evolution happens for the same reason as this, but is slower because the rate of reproduction for individuals of certain traits is only marginal. For example, say I have a lizard species and put it on a secluded island. The island has three sources of food: ground dwelling insects, shrub dwelling insects, and canopy dwelling insects. Assuming that the initial lizard population has adapted to eating ground insects, this is the food source that they will initially compete for. Because there are a large number of other lizards competing for this niche, the ground dwelling insects will grow scarce, and some lizards will need to find another food source to survive and reproduce. Lizards which have slightly longer toe pads will be slightly better equipped to climb trees and get insects near the canopy, and will be able to survive and produce more offspring with slightly longer toe pads. The lizards with normal sized toe pads may try climbing the tree to get food, and may even succeed, but those with longer pads will be able to reproduce MORE OFTEN because they have a smaller chance of starving. Others may end up competing for the shrub dwelling insects, favoring lizards with a certain limb length. Over time, these slight advantages will become more and more apparent, as better adapted lizards further adapt to their niche environment.

There was a study that did something very similar with anoles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZOwyDbyL0

[Anonymous No.9688951]

>>9688930
Yes there is, because otherwise you would imply that the ancestor species has not changed since the divergence point, which is not a possibility. We may still arbitrarily call it the same species but it is indeed genetically different. The two latimeria species are different than the ancestor that gave rise to them, even if they have phenotypically changed very little over those millions of years.

[Anonymous No.9688971]

>>9688615
Has science ever recorded any species evolving into another species.

[Anonymous No.9688981]

>>9688615
No. No. No. ITT: Bait

[Anonymous No.9688982]

>>9688951
Crocodiles are the same as prehistoric crocodiles.

[Anonymous No.9688983]

>>9688951
>which is not a possibility
Why not?

What if a population is split from some event, like part of a river being dammed. Fish on one side can no longer breed with fish on the other. What if only one of those two populations faces new evolutionary pressures?

[Anonymous No.9688986]

>>9688971
I've heard rumors of tapes that record your mother evolving into a fuckpig.

[Anonymous No.9689001]

>>9688951
Why is long term genetic stability an impossibility?
I agree it's quite unlikely, but I know of no rule forcing it to happen.

To take an extreme (an un-natural example) we keep bacteria in a petri dish, give it food and comfortable conditions and let it multiply.
Before starting the experiment though, we sequence the DNA. Every few generations we take another sequence. If that particular bacterium has mutated, we throw it away and keep looking until we find a "pure strain". We keep that and dump all others.

"Survival of the fittest", in this case, selects AGAINST changes. Quite artificial. There are always going to be a certain number of mutations. But nothing says they have to force out the original strain.

It just so happens that most branch-point species are extinct -- but I'm not dogmatic enough to say "all".

[Brainlet No.9689013]

>>9688921
>Mitochondria actually were free roaming, independent
Um, what the actual heck?

[Anonymous No.9689014]

>>9688986
so that's a hard no, evolution is theoretically at best, blasphemous as well.

[Anonymous No.9689015]

>>9689013
This is well established and accepted. Where have you been?

[Anonymous No.9689020]

>>9689014
Bait harder.

[Anonymous No.9689025]

>>9689020
facts are bait on the science board

[Anonymous No.9689037]

>>9688982
This is veritably false. The big jaw many teeth float just below the waterline niche was a good one and they have retained many features from their ancestors but they have changed.

[Anonymous No.9689039]

>>9689014
Evolution is fully proven scientific fact, just look at the extensive writings on the fossil records.

[Anonymous No.9689040]

>>9689025
No. Opinions ('blasphemous as well') are.

[Anonymous No.9689047]

>>9689037
I'd agree that they have changed. But have the evolved? Are they no longer crocodiles, or were they not crocodiles to begin with?

[Anonymous No.9689066]

>>9689047
This is a "Ship of Theseus" problem crocodile is just a name for a thing we saw. The "proper" definition was invented by some taxonomist based on an arbitrary metric of what a crocodile is.

Yes they have evolved, every animal evolves.

[Anonymous No.9689069]

>>9688982
They are not
>>9688983
This is an argument on the semantics of speciation. In your example they would both face new evolutionary challenges because they both inhabit a dammed river, just on either sides. A better question would be if I just took some of a fish species and put them into a river on the other side of the world, without changing the source population (think of an invasion event). After time, we would get two separate species (after they could no longer breed to produce viable offspring). The source population has seen no changes in evolutionary pressure in this scenario, but they HAVE changed genetically and are the same evolutionary distance from the original source species. We may still arbitrarily call them the same species but they are different. Again, any other implication would be the total stoppage of genetic change.
>>9689001
Here is an example of this idea of total stoppage of genetic change. This is not possible in the real world and here's why that matters. Changes to the genotype can include things that natural selection cannot act upon. What I mean to say is, even under the most intense selection pressure to maintain a stable genome, there WILL BE changes to it that natural selection cannot act upon because they are not expressed phenotypically. In this lab experiment, we change the rules and act in a way that selection cannot.
>>9689047
They were not what we currently call crocodiles. More specifically, they are not any species of extant crocodile.

[Anonymous No.9689072]

>>9689040
>Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, to religious or holy persons or sacred things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Anonymous No.9689074]

>>9689072
Citing a book of fairy tales to make an argument. Yep. This is /sci/

[Anonymous No.9689080]

>>9689072
If evolution is blasphemy, how have many scientists managed to reconcile their religious and scientific beliefs?

[Anonymous No.9689089]

>>9689080
>how have many scientists managed to reconcile their religious and scientific beliefs
By leaving their religious beliefs where they belong, in the trash.

Plus you don't "believe" in science you verify it.

[Anonymous No.9689098]

>>9689039
The fossil records contradict most of the assertions that evolutionary biologists make

[Anonymous No.9689099]

>>9689089
I disagree. When you review a paper, do you "verify" someone's analysis and interpretations as they are based on a P-value? Or, do you instead "believe" their analysis and interpretations and then seek to "verify" them?

[Anonymous No.9689106]

>>9689080
they only think they have

>>9689074
This is also blasphemous.


Has any species ever changed into any other species?
Which ones? Where? When? Citations?

[Anonymous No.9689108]

>>9689106
Has anyone proven the existence of a deity? Where? When? Citations?

[Anonymous No.9689109]

>>9689099
You look at their methodology data and calculations for errors.

[Anonymous No.9689115]

>>9689109
Ah...so you have to believe they did something correctly and accurately, right?

[Anonymous No.9689125]

>>9689098
Normally I disregard posts like this as bait but you bothered to save a screenshot from what appears to be /pol/ so I have to tell you that you're an idiot. You have a bad understanding of what "theory" means, some of the claims in that greentext are just flat out wrong, and the final assertion that evolutionary theory hasn't changed overtime is a clear lack of reading.
>fossil records contradict most of t he assertions that evolutionary biologists make
That's super wrong. Like, the most wrong you could be in one sentence I think.
>>9689106
This right here is why I'm so adamant on saying that extant species cannot arise from other extant species.

[Anonymous No.9689126]

>>9689108
I'm not the one with the theory to prove. I am the one with the ears, listening to the theory of evolution, awaiting the proofs from all of science.

[Anonymous No.9689128]

>>9689126
Meanwhile accepting religion based solely on faith...

[Anonymous No.9689131]

>>9689115
You can't determine the truth of a statement without ever reading or hearing the statement.

[Anonymous No.9689133]

>>9689125
>This right here is why I'm so adamant on saying that extant species cannot arise from other extant species.

Here's a (you), I like you.

[Anonymous No.9689142]

>>9689128
hey, i've just stated that your opinion is blasphemous to certain religions, not that I've accepting their opinions either, shall I rant abou the jews the arabs and the christcucks on a science board. No. I come here to take swings at "scientists"

[Anonymous No.9689156]

>>9689106
>Has any species ever changed into any other species?
>Which ones? Where? When? Citations?

Best question ever. Darwin BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9689161]

>>9689125
>This right here is why I'm so adamant on saying that extant species cannot arise from other extant species.
But some extant species arose from extinct species?
Which ones? Where? When? Citations?

[Anonymous No.9689166]

>>9689142
Whatever you say, anon.

[Anonymous No.9689173]

>>9689161
>Which ones?
All of them.
Where?
Here on earth.
When?
Right now.
Citations?
The entirety of zoology biology and botany.

[Anonymous No.9689174]

>>9689161
All extant species diverged from an ancestor species. This is fundamental. Go read Pough's Vertebrate Life, any edition is fine but 8th has some nice pictures.

[Anonymous No.9689192]

>>9689173
Do we have one specific example?

Just one.

I'm sort of serious, one animal with it's direct evolutionary ancestor.

I didn't think y'all would get so mad and pissy.

[Anonymous No.9689218]

Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom, power, and love
Our God is an awesome God

[Anonymous No.9689237]

>>9688971
Yes, many cases of vertebrates, many more of bacteria and protozoa. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058 and http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

[Anonymous No.9689250]

>>9689237
>http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074
Be prepared for this to be tossed aside in favor of faith-based arguments.

[Anonymous No.9689256]

>>9689192
All of them. If you wan't a specific example I can let you pick.

[Anonymous No.9689268]

>>9689250
>faith-based arguments
are not arguments
people who lead their 21st century life bowing to a character from a 3,000 years old megalomaniacal psychopathic sandnigger fairytale deserve nothing but endless mockery

[Anonymous No.9689276]

You theists would be well served to read Deist ideas from the age of Jefferson.
"Deists, which means that they held the cosmos to be the complete and satisfying expression of the divine personality." Or that any man may write a book, but to understand the mind of God you needed to look to the creation and natural laws. "The human species, said the Jeffersonians, formed one link in the universal scheme of things, and therefore being born a member of that species was automatically to be given the role assigned to man. There was no separate species of rulers appointed to wield power, and therefore monarchy was unnatural. All other differences between human beings were traced to environmental influences. Thus though the Indian was descended from the same Asiatic couple to which the white man was indebted for his origin (said Jefferson), he had acquired certain group characteristics by reason of having lived long in a specific environment. Men were equal because they couldn’t help being so, and therefore they had a “right” to equality." Likewise, life is changed by conditions and environments.

[Anonymous No.9689279]

>>9689268
Oh, I agree. I was just trying to be polite in labeling them as "arguments".

[Anonymous No.9689285]

>>9689268
not him but can we expect to mock the ignorant into being less ignorant, regardless of what they deserve? I struggle with dealing with some of these folks but I feel like calling them morons just makes them double down on calling themselves martyrs for the cause

[Anonymous No.9689291]

>>9689285
Then let them continue to do so. Their "God" will take care of all through his divine will, right?

[Anonymous No.9689292]

>>9689268
You will be sad when you stand before God and learn your fate anon. I'll pray for you

[Anonymous No.9689297]

>>9689292
Oh man. The thoughts and prayers train has arrived.

[Anonymous No.9689300]

>>9689297
It's a train that requires no effort or fuel whatsoever truly economical.

[Anonymous No.9689308]

>>9689291
No I mean like I think they cause societal problems. There are people who make US policy who cite the bible as justification for shitty decisions. Maybe we'd still have shit to sort through even without the religious problem, but I think it kinda makes life worse for everyone when bad ideas prevail. I don't really know how feasible it is but sometimes I wonder if it falls people to know better to take on greater responsibility, if they ever want to live in a better world than they've got right now

[Anonymous No.9689309]

>>9689292
>christfag shows up at the gates of heaven
>"My Lord! I am here after an entire life in devotion to you!"
>"Yes my child, I have seen your devotion and paid close attention"
>"Thank you! May I now enter heaven??"
>"No of course not, you worshiped Christ as God, he was but a mere prophet just like Abraham and Muhammad, the latter you spent your entire life denying."
>christfag sent to hell for worshiping the wrong god
Better luck next time :)

[Anonymous No.9689338]

>>9689292
who gave you the slightest idea that I want to spend eternity anywhere near your inconsistent jealous vain sadistic monster of a god, who instructed Moses to carve THOU SHALT NOT KILL on the stone tablet and told him to also tell Levites to kill everyone who doesn't believe in him in the same breath?

[Anonymous No.9689376]

>>9689338
It's my make-believe God, I do what I want.

[Anonymous No.9689385]

>>9689237
Where has >>9688971, >>9689106, and >>9689126 gone? Funny...almost like this person >>9689142 was a troll all along.

[Anonymous No.9689388]

>>9689385
Is it fair to ask for proof of their God now?

[Anonymous No.9689413]

with fossils we have proof of evolution, species changing and this is seen, at least to some amount. Unfortunately, the cause for evolution does not fossilize which leaves it all up for speculation. You could guess that natural selection and mutation is the cause but you can't show it is statistically likely because the calculations are way to massive and chaotic. So you are left with a hunch and for most scientists, this hunch is elevated to an absolute truth.
"Here's 600 million years worth of observations and here's my mechanisms, except I have no way to show this mechanism is likely to have produced these observations, but since these observations exists, my mechanism must be the cause.", just a circle argument, yes?
Produce the math or shut up evolution fags.

[Anonymous No.9689420]

>>9689413
>with fossils we have proof of evolution
>Produce the math or shut up evolution fags
Choose one of these bookends from your contradictory Oreo of a post.

[Anonymous No.9689435]

>>9689420
wow the meaning of the post clearly flies over your head, read it again and try to understand what the problem is

[Anonymous No.9689438]

>>9689435
Your claims that because a definite mechanism can't be mathematically defined it invalidates the mechanism sure make you sound smart.

[Anonymous No.9689444]

>>9689435
Uh oh...called out for a direct contradiction in my statement - direct all efforts to re-direction and ad hominem. Success!

[Anonymous No.9689445]

>>9689413
>ou could guess that natural selection and mutation is the cause but you can't show it is statistically likely because the calculations are way to massive and chaotic
Some Swede did a simulation for evolution of an eye from the most rudimentary photosensitive cluster of cells to spherical eye with lens on one unremarkable computer.
The process would - under most pessimistic conditions - take less than half a million years BTW

[Anonymous No.9689453]

>>9689445
that's not even close to simulating eco-systems of several billions of organisms spanning millions of years.

[Anonymous No.9689454]

>>9689453
Now we move the goalposts. This sounds like a productive discussion.

[Anonymous No.9689457]

>>9689444
what are you mumbling about?

[Anonymous No.9689458]

>>9689457
See >>9689435

[Anonymous No.9689468]

>>9689454
I'm not moving it, we have 600 million years worth of fossils, clearly showing adaptation. If you have a mechanism, shouldn't you at least try to show it is a likely mechanism by simulating 600 million years of this mechanism in action and draw conclusions at the end?

[Anonymous No.9689475]

>>9689458
But your post indicated that you had not understood the post at all. I tried to have you re-read it but not even this you understood. Please, just leave it, we probably have little to discuss you and me.

[Anonymous No.9689478]

>>9689468
>guess that natural selection and mutation is the cause but you can't show it is statistically likely because the calculations are way to massive and chaotic
Then comes >>9689445
Then comes the new goalpost of
>that's not even close to simulating eco-systems of several billions of organisms spanning millions of years
Yep...you're not moving a goalpost. How silly of me.

[Anonymous No.9689480]

>>9689475
Yet here you are. Again, see >>9689435.

[Anonymous No.9689487]

>>9689413
Which mechanism is more likely than evolution?

[Anonymous No.9689491]

>>9688615
>create a thread asking a question
>get your question answered even though you're deliberately baiting through ironic self-deprecation
>no i have to prove that my opinion is right and your answer is wrong because that's the only reason i made this thread

what kind of person enjoys this

[Anonymous No.9689492]

>>9689475
>I can't understand why you don't do more mathematical calculations than can be done by every computer on the planet to prove to me something that the majority of science agrees on.
HAHAHAHHAA

[Anonymous No.9689493]

>>9689445
Or do you think localized experiments are sufficient to explain 600 million years of data, okay if so I can make up a mechanism on the spot, let's say the mechanism of changes is caused by sentient beings. Okay, I start up a kernel and eventually only produce white dogs, it worked, my mechanism is true and now it explains 600 million years of fossils, congratulations!

[Anonymous No.9689496]

>>9689468
It is a likely mechanism by virtue of it explaining everything we observe and being built on nothing but already known scientific facts. Goddidit on the other hand is not built on any scientific facts.

[Anonymous No.9689501]

>>9689493
There is no evidence of other sentient beings. Plenty of evidence of random mutations though. The latter is more likely to be the cause.

[Anonymous No.9689502]

>>9689492
to bad about the computers, but I guess you think it is statistically speaking 100% certain, so it's not really necessary to do anything right?
You have a strong hunch I give you that but to me, it's worth nothing, it's just your hunch.

[Anonymous No.9689504]

>>9689496
How likely is your calculations telling you it is, is it 100%, 99%, 50/50?

[Anonymous No.9689505]

>>9689502
>Talks about statistics like he/she knows something
>Wants results that are supported by statistics with 100% confidence
Whew lad.

[Anonymous No.9689506]

>>9688615
The first thing to know is that evolution is often not presented properly

Those images showing a couple of steps are bullshit, there is not clear line. Rather, the different things that make us call on thing a chicken and one thing a dog are are quite numerous. Two similar bacteria alone have hundreds of thousands of differences that have evolved one by one.

Simply put, if for some reason some human kid has a mutation that allows him/her to breathe under water, his kids are going to be the only ones alive when the earth is flooded. (unless someone build a big boat and a bunch of phishing rods).

Later it so happens that all the water is turned into rocks or something, now the only kid that survives is the one that can eat rock, and his children will be the only one around after a while. More and more will change like this until the new kids don't look like humans anymore.

For just a single simple change, like darker skin in places where there is a lot of sun, over several generations, almost all of the individuals that are still carrying the bright skin color gene have to have died early because of sunburn

That takes hundreds of generations and thousands of years

The shortest way to evolve an eye step by step takes 1836 steps, and that's a thing that evolves quite often.

[Anonymous No.9689510]

>>9689496
Gods?
I just made up a mechanism involving myself, to let you know that localized experiments, such as mutating cells to produce an eye is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9689512]

>>9689510
>Localized experiments are irrelevant
What a fun game of spot the non-scientist.

[Anonymous No.9689513]

>>9689502
>it's a hunch
You don't seem to know what a hunch is.

[Anonymous No.9689517]

>>9689505
I will be very happy to be shown a statistical likelyhood above 0.1%, if you could produce it, which you can't right?
Okay, then my hunch is that it is 0%
Good bye!

[Anonymous No.9689520]

>>9689517
See >>9689505 again. Your comments amuse me.

[Anonymous No.9689522]

>>9689517
>then my hunch is that it is 0%
see>>9689513

[Anonymous No.9689523]

>>9689520
I'll settle with 0.00000001% final offer.

[Anonymous No.9689525]

>>9689523
Keep it up. I'm tearing up here at your lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.9689568]

>>9689504
Close to 100%. There is no reason to think sentient beings existed before us and created the entire fossil record.

[Anonymous No.9689575]

>>9689510
Yes you made up a mechanism, instead of finding a likely explanation.

[Brainlet No.9689596]

>>9689089
What is
>Isaac Newton
>Albert Einstein
>Robert Boyle

[Anonymous No.9689598]

>>9689596
What is cognitive dissonance?

[Brainlet No.9689603]

>>9689506
>Simply put, if for some reason some human kid has a mutation that allows him/her to breathe under water, his kids are going to be the only ones alive when the earth is flooded. (unless someone build a big boat and a bunch of phishing rods).

How in the world he mutate?
Would his body evolve after he drowned?

[Brainlet No.9689607]

>>9689598
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change

[Anonymous No.9689635]

>>9689568
That mechanism was made up to show it can be true in a small experiment, yet wrong considering the whole.
Without having the possibility to simulate the dynamics of natural mechanisms on grand scales, you are left to guess the outcome. You don't really know it's close to 100%, this is just your guess. I guess it's close to 0%. It's fun to guess.

[Anonymous No.9689643]

>>9689635
>Sentient beings
>True in a small experiment
Do you edit your posts before you submit them? You sound like someone who should frequent /x/ moreso than /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9689683]

>>9689643
Like a human running a kernel.

[Anonymous No.9689685]

>>9689683
Oh, my mistake, you're the same anon who has been touting his misunderstanding of statistics and moving argument goalposts. I shouldn't have expected anything less from you.

[Anonymous No.9689699]

>/sci/
>burger education

[Anonymous No.9689706]

>>9689699
how does it know this shit?

[Anonymous No.9689721]

>>9689706
"Surveys"
Google knows everything, mate. Alexa buys information from google i think.

[Anonymous No.9690041]

>>9689635
If it's closer to 0%, There must be some extremely likely causes making up the rest of the probability space. What are they?

Or are you just confusing the chance of winning the lottery randomly with the chance that a lottery winner won by random chance?

[Anonymous No.9690079]

First you need to understand natural selection in regards to genetic mutations. Let's say you have an area with a volcano. There live white mice and occasionally you will get black mice, but most of them are white. The volcano erupts, and suddenly the whole area is now very dark and the white mice are very visible to predators like hawks. The black mice, however, are difficult to see, and so the white mice now become the very rare breed as they die off quickly, and eventually are eradicated from the gene pool as they are all killed due to their fur color.

That's a basic understanding of natural selection at the macro level. At the micro level, you have various proteins and signaling pathways that naturally selected for.

Now to answer your questions:
>How does bacteria exactly evolve into a paramecium?
Over a very long time, features that the paramecium has currently were naturally selected for based on viral infections and environmental cues. Cilia is an example of this: One precursor to paramecium had obtained cilia in a small population, and suddenly it was the main way to survive and so only those cilia bacterium thrived.
>Is it no longer bacteria anymore when it obtains cilia, or are all paramecium bacteria?
There are many more differences between bacteria and paramecium beyond just cilia. Mitochondria, chromosomal DNA, a nucleus, etc., to name a few. Many of those are specific to paramecium, while some like those that I named are very conserved, meaning that they are very old mechanisms that have worked for so many organisms, that is prevalent in almost all animals. It's when the bacteria evolved to have all those essential elements that makes eukaryotic cells that a bacteria really does become a eukaryotic organism. But before that, if they only have parts, it is just how we classify them.

[Anonymous No.9690148]

>>9690079
>and eventually are eradicated from the gene pool
What if the aren't and they become considered recessive traits?

[Anonymous No.9690175]

>>9690148
What if there are multiple recessive traits in a population?

[Anonymous No.9690180]

>>9690175
What if there are multiple populations with multiple recessive traits?

[Anonymous No.9690181]

>>9689706
Captchas are tied to your google account.

[Anonymous No.9690239]

>>9689098
There isn't anything wrong with testing the hypothesis that "genome size would increase over time", but it's really easy to see why that isn't the case. The genome of organisms changes based on natural pressures. Natural pressures do not necessarily favour larger genome. Why would they? Polio has an incredibly small genome and it works just fine for polio. The polio genome would likely destabilize if it got too long due to how polio replicates.

Again, testing that hypothesis is fine. It not being true DOESN'T mean evolution isn't real or provable. All it means is "bigger != better".

I feel like you should be able to see the really apparent flaws in your if you have a even cursory understanding of biology.

[Anonymous No.9690832]

>>9690148
Then they stay in the gene pool and you get the possibility for those traits to show up in the population. We have a lot of variations on human facial appearance alone, likely from facial features not really mattering much from natural selection.

[Anonymous No.9691291]

>>9688615
Here you go, brother. God bless.

[Anonymous No.9691326]

>>9688615
>thinking evolution is real

Yep, you're a brainlet alright

[Anonymous No.9691402]

>>9688615
well if you have a fuckton of cells that exist spread over a planet mutations occur, one nigga gets lucky and goes full genhkis khan and gobilions of offspring and thus evoluctuin