No, an unsuccessful organism will reduce in number, until it is forced to inbreed.
That causes mutations, which are always recessive, to possibly manifest.
That allows the next generation to be significantly different from the past failing ancestors.
A successful organism can not possibly evolve, since mutations are always recessive by nature.
But the "origin of life" IS by evolution as well.
Lifeless chemical reactions will always exist, but not be as efficient as organic chemical reactions.
So natural selection will pick organics, and eventually lead to what we consider life.
That is evolution.
More importantly though, people misunderstand the words they read. Language is imperfect. Lots of scientific papers start out with a punchline, and then take the next two pages to explain what it means. Sometimes people don't read the two pages, they just look at the punchline and move on.
We are starting to understand how stem cells work. We can already coerce them into behaving differently. People used to think nerve cells can't regenerate, and now we know they can and do. Embryology is fascinating. A cell will broadcast its identity, it'll say "I'm a brain cell", and scientists already know how to say "no you're not, you're a liver". The interesting thing is, the liver always looks like a liver, it never looks like a brain. The shape is part of the programming.
Once again, it boils down to simple math. Check out "space filling curves". Most of them are simple recursion equations. The instruction will be something like "remove the middle third" or "double size and turn left". But what results is complex and beautiful.
I could be wrong, but I believe all cells have the exact same DNA so do not start as differentiated, such as liver or brain.
I believe that what happens is neighboring cells send out exosome that use a spike protein to enter the ACE2 receptor of the new cell, and tell the new cell what kind of cell they are supposed to change into.
There are no proofs in science. Sorry, to say you are correct. However, if you cared about science and truth, you'd say all the EVIDENCE in the fossil record supports Darwin's theory of descent from a common ancestor.
There can be an infinite number of "minor mutations" until eventually it no longer can crossbreed with its original ancestors.
Once that happens, you have a new species.
Whether it will still be like a moth and able to fly, all depends upon what works best.
There can be an infinite number of "minor mutations" until eventually it no longer can crossbreed with its original ancestors.
Once that happens, you have a new species.
Whether it will still be like a moth and able to fly, all depends upon what works bemother.
1. Primordial chemicals contain carbon compounds that are more efficient in using surrounding energy as they accidentally form organic compounds. As this process continues, it forms "first life". And the Miller-Urey experiments confirmed it.
{...
The Miller–Urey experiment,[1] or Miller experiment,[2] was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from inorganic constituents in an origin of life scenario. The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), in ratio 2:2:1, and water (H2O). Applying an electric arc (simulating lightning) resulted in the production of amino acids.
It is regarded as a groundbreaking experiment, and the classic experiment investigating the origin of life (abiogenesis). It was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Nobel laureate Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year. At the time, it supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that the conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.
...}
2. All fossil records show the slow change of one species into another.
3. There has NEVER been any species that did not have a precursor fossil record.
4. It is obvious science that the ancient world was vastly different than the current one, and yet the transition is almost tediously slow and slight. There is no possible way for that to happen except evolution.
If you go back far enough, moths were aquatic worms.
The fact they no longer evolve much is due to their current success.
{...
Scientists believe caddisflies and lepidopterans evolved from the same ancestor, perhaps more than 200 million years ago. Given that insects presumably evolved from crustaceans, which are primarily aquatic, moths that have aquatic larvae have, in effect, returned to their far distant origins.
...}
Speciation is usually defined by reproductive isolation. It's not the shape or behavior of a moth that matters, it's whether it can mate with its own kind.
Reproductive isolation has been achieved in the laboratory, and also observed in the wild.
In the lab, scientists created Drosophila pseudoobscura, and in the wild there is the famous example of Howe Island.
Now, one could say that one fruit fly is just like another, but the fact is pseudoobscura can't mate with melanogaster. They are in fact different species. They can only mate with themselves, not each other.
Saying they're the same would be like saying a carp is the same as a goldfish.
And conversely, there are plenty of examples of interspecies mating.
The lesson is, that what we SEE is an artifact, an illusion. Just because something looks like something else (or behaves like it) doesn't mean it's the same species.
Some scientists consider reproductive isolation to be a prerequisite for speciation. I don't. I think what we call "species" is a mostly arbitrary classification. To the best of my biological understanding, a tiny change in a stem cell can create a new species.
Evolution occurs at a biophysical (molecular) level. We can't "see" any of it, we can only see the results. The story of stem cells is basically "how cells become specialized". Note species <=> special
All organisms depend on stem cells for their survival. As a result, stem cells may be a prerequisite for the evolution of specific characteristics in organisms that include regeneration, multicellularity and coloniality. Stem cells have attracted ...
You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be wrong.
"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
Wrong.
Almost all domestic animals can no longer interbreed with their origin wild ancestors, so are proof of evolution of new species.
We do it in labs with short lifespan microbes all the time.
No, an unsuccessful organism will reduce in number, until it is forced to inbreed.
That causes mutations, which are always recessive, to possibly manifest.
That allows the next generation to be significantly different from the past failing ancestors.
A successful organism can not possibly evolve, since mutations are always recessive by nature.
But the "origin of life" IS by evolution as well.
Lifeless chemical reactions will always exist, but not be as efficient as organic chemical reactions.
So natural selection will pick organics, and eventually lead to what we consider life.
That is evolution.
There was no matter in the universe prior to the big bang.
Before the hot Big Bang occurred, our Universe was expanding at an enormous and relentless rate. Instead of being dominated by matter and radiation, our cosmos was dominated by the field energy of inflation: just like today's dark energy, but many orders of magnitude greater in strength and expansion speed.Jul 27, 2023
Not how it happens.
What does happen is when deep water slowly becomes a shallow swamp, the fish with the gills most capable of processing air will increase in number, while the more deep water fish will decrease.
This keeps being selected for over thousands of generations until you get amphibians.
No morphing.
Not how it happens.
What does happen is when deep water slowly becomes a shallow swamp, the fish with the gills most capable of processing air will increase in number, while the more deep water fish will decrease.
This keeps being selected for over thousands of generations until you get amphibians.
No morphing.
Speciation is usually defined by reproductive isolation. It's not the shape or behavior of a moth that matters, it's whether it can mate with its own kind.
Reproductive isolation has been achieved in the laboratory, and also observed in the wild.
In the lab, scientists created Drosophila pseudoobscura, and in the wild there is the famous example of Howe Island.
Now, one could say that one fruit fly is just like another, but the fact is pseudoobscura can't mate with melanogaster. They are in fact different species. They can only mate with themselves, not each other.
Saying they're the same would be like saying a carp is the same as a goldfish.
And conversely, there are plenty of examples of interspecies mating.
The lesson is, that what we SEE is an artifact, an illusion. Just because something looks like something else (or behaves like it) doesn't mean it's the same species.
Some scientists consider reproductive isolation to be a prerequisite for speciation. I don't. I think what we call "species" is a mostly arbitrary classification. To the best of my biological understanding, a tiny change in a stem cell can create a new species.
Evolution occurs at a biophysical (molecular) level. We can't "see" any of it, we can only see the results. The story of stem cells is basically "how cells become specialized". Note species <=> special
All organisms depend on stem cells for their survival. As a result, stem cells may be a prerequisite for the evolution of specific characteristics in organisms that include regeneration, multicellularity and coloniality. Stem cells have attracted ...
Marx is a German philosopher and predates all the others you listed.
He discussed economic problems and suggested theoretical solutions.
Bolsheviks were more anarchists and socialists than communists.
But the colonial imperialists paid people like Lenin and Stalin to murder them all and take over.
Maoists are best identified as Stalinists, as they were not Marxist or communists.
Nazis were a front for the monarchists actually, and had all the anarchists, socialists, and communists killed in the "Night of the Long Knives".
Democrats vary.
Before Lincoln, they the wealthy elite.
After around 1880, the wealthy elite switched over to the Republicans.
With the Depression, the democrats switched to the working poor majority.
With LBJ and Vietnam, democrats like LBJ were again the wealthy elite.
Clinton seemed to be back with the working poor?
Obama and Biden seem to be back with the wealthy elite?
The family line that is most successful will propagate and evolve if the gene pool is small enough to force inbreeding.
I am not an organic chemistry expert:
{...
The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted by American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. The experiment was designed to test ideas introduced independently in the 1920s by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British physiologist J.B.S. Haldane, both of whom suggested that organic molecules, such as amino acids and sugars, could be formed from abiogenic materials when acted on by an external energy source within the context of a reducing atmosphere, that is, one with low levels of free oxygen (see alsooxidation-reduction reaction). At the time, it was thought that the atmosphere of early Earth between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago was primarily composed of ammonia and water vapour. Oparin and Haldane noted that from this “primordial soup” of materials the first organic molecules arose, which became the precursors to molecules of ever-increasing complexity that resulted in the development of living cells (see alsoabiogenesis).
...} Miller-Urey experiment | Description, Purpose, Results, & Facts | Britannica
