• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 26
    Like Tree14Likes

    Thread: A Paradox in evolution?

    1. #1
      Member WhiteWolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Posts
      72
      Likes
      0

      A Paradox in evolution?

      Okay so I will start off saying this thread is not here to prove or disprove evolution. All it is here is for our understanding. Okay so here is what I think is a paradox in the theory of evolution. My wording may be bad because I'am known at being a very bad ex-plainer, so please bear with me. We call all body parts that are movable (hands, arms, legs, neck etc...) plus all of our five senses (these five senses aren't that important in the paradox) group1. My question is which one evolved first the brain or group1?

      For instance if we take the stance that group1 evolved first and the brain afterward. Than this won't make sense because why would group1 evolve when it's movement is dependent on the brain.

      But than if we take the stance that the brain evolved first, than this also won't make sense because for the brain to have an affect on the evolution of itself it needs group1.

      The last stance is both of them evolved together but I find that one hard to believe.

      I'am sorry if it is not understandable, just ask and I will try to be more clear.
      Silence & smile are two powerful tools.
      Smile is the way to solve many problems & Silence is the way to avoid many problems.

    2. #2
      Banned
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      4,571
      Likes
      1070
      When the first brain came out of the sea the first thing it grew was a pair of lungs.



      Wait a second... DO they teach evolution in school? Jeez.
      tommo likes this.

    3. #3
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      <s><span class='glow_9ACD32'>DeletePlease</span></s>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Posts
      2,685
      Likes
      2883
      DJ Entries
      12
      I suggest you read a book or two, you don't seem to know much about evolution.

      It works differently in real life than it does in Pokemon btw.
      Indeed, tommo and Solarflare like this.

    4. #4
      Flailing chicken barnacle Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Tagger First Class 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Indeed's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2010
      LD Count
      10
      Gender
      Location
      Earth
      Posts
      567
      Likes
      118
      DJ Entries
      15
      As mentioned before, the brain evolved first, and the appendages evolved from older appendages used for something else. Srsly, buy a book.

      EDIT: That's not a paradox.
      Alex is greatest. He <i>is</i> the Master Flan.

    5. #5
      Banned
      Join Date
      Apr 2007
      Location
      Out Chasing Rabbits
      Posts
      15,193
      Likes
      929
      The brain. It's not a guess either, it's easily shown in the fossil record. The first fish, looked like this:


      Fish have brains. Not very complex ones, but they need one to move that "tail." Fins came later, fins evolved into legs. Actually, there are plenty of fish that can use their fins as legs on dry land.
      Solarflare and Supernova like this.

    6. #6
      Czar Salad IndieAnthias's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2010
      Gender
      Location
      Texas
      Posts
      707
      Likes
      491
      you guys suck. Your answer is "read a book"... the guy's asking a question here.

      The precursors to both the brain and the sense organs were extremely simple versions of both. If you define them as being separate, than think of them as both growing out of the same original nervous system in different, mutually beneficial directions.
      sloth and tommo like this.

    7. #7
      Haunted by entropy. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      sloth's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      LD Count
      20 years worth
      Gender
      Location
      Deep in the woods
      Posts
      2,131
      Likes
      584
      Quote Originally Posted by IndieAnthias View Post
      you guys suck. Your answer is "read a book"... the guy's asking a question here.

      The precursors to both the brain and the sense organs were extremely simple versions of both. If you define them as being separate, than think of them as both growing out of the same original nervous system in different, mutually beneficial directions.
      The theory of evolution does not say that an animal just suddenly grew arms and legs, or suddenly grew a brain. That's what creationists think that the theory states.
      Indie is right, and I will really just be repeating what he just said.
      There was some sort of creature with some sort of mode of transportation. This is needed in order to live. It also had some sort of thinking aparatus. This is needed in order to utilize said mode of transportation. If the animal did not have these things it would be like a sponge.
      A sperm cell has a whiplike tail for moving around, and has some sort of intelligence in order to move that tail. It may not have a brain, or a foot, but it has the basic concepts of these things.
      As the creature evolves, this thinking aparatus, and mode of transportation become more and more complex.
      ---o--- my DCs say I'm dreamy.

    8. #8
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      It's true that simultaneous emergence of brain and motor capabilities is not realistically possible. As is always the case of evolution, a feature must exist in some useful capacity beforehand, and a change gives that feature a new and very useful function.

      In the case of nervous systems, there is a likely solution. Organisms do not need nervous systems to perform motor functions; they can happen autonomously (in fact our heart still largely works like this). For instance, imagine an early simple sea creature that constantly automatically wriggles its body to produce forward motion. This will allow it to eat a lot more food and so would have evolved in the usual manner. Now, all cells have a voltage across their membranes (due to constantly pumping ions in and out). It is extremely telling that this accidental feature of all simple life happened to become the mechanism by which the nervous system worked: there were very few new components used; they were just changed. All that has to happen is for these pumps to go wrong somehow so that they leak some ion or other, and this could cause a wave of depolarisation across the organism. This in turn could produce a jerky movement which could again be advantageous because it makes the organism harder for prey to catch. Now you could have a mutation that causes this to happen when a shadow falls across the creature, and now we already have the rudimentary seed of a responsive nervous system. The rest we can see in existing animals. Jellyfish have no brain but rather a decentralised nervous system used for coordinating motion. This would then have become more and more centralised and specialised until you have a simple brain, and then it's just a matter of the thing gradually increasing complexity. The acquiring of new sensory organs and limbs can easily happen by a similar process of the nervous system expanding into a feature of the organism and altering its function. For a good example of this, look up the evolution of the eye. Another good example is that of bird wings, which were initially evolved not for a motor function but for thermoregulation.

      Quote Originally Posted by GavinGill View Post
      I suggest you read a book or two, you don't seem to know much about evolution.

      It works differently in real life than it does in Pokemon btw.
      If you can't answer the question then it's a good idea to show some humility and be quiet, not make an immature and hypocritical accusation of ignorance. The OP shows no ignorance of evolution and his question is completely valid and interesting. Same for Indeed and Solarflare. Not sure what Mark is talking about.
      Last edited by Xei; 07-19-2011 at 05:05 PM.
      sloth likes this.

    9. #9
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      <s><span class='glow_9ACD32'>DeletePlease</span></s>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Posts
      2,685
      Likes
      2883
      DJ Entries
      12
      I'll keep that in mind.


    10. #10
      Lurker amyl33's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2011
      Posts
      2
      Likes
      0
      DJ Entries
      4
      Darwin's theory of evolution would state that the correct answer is neither. both would have evolved together as you need the brain to augment the movement of limbs as well as to learn new skills.

    11. #11
      Haunted by entropy. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      sloth's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      LD Count
      20 years worth
      Gender
      Location
      Deep in the woods
      Posts
      2,131
      Likes
      584
      Wow. Welcome, amy!

    12. #12
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      Single cell organisms don't have brains but they are still capable of moving around. Moving really isn't all that difficult, and you don't need a brain for it. If you are in water, you don't even have to move, you will float around with water currents.

      Also you might not even need a brain for things like seeing. A primitive eye might not be able to see like we can today, but maybe it just sensed light. It senses light then sends a chemical response to the body to move towards or away from the light. You wouldn't need a brain for that, just a sensitive area that releases a chemical when light touches it. Then you could imagine such an sense organ possibly evolving to pick up more information and as it becomes more complex the brain evolves with it.

      Think for a moment about trees. Trees can sense light without having a brain. They can also draw food and water from the ground and spread it through its body without having a brain. Not everything needs a brain. You can also have simple nerves systems that transmit singles around the body, without having a brain as well.

      Your problem is you are thinking of complex fully created body parts, and complex fully created brains. When you picture very primitive systems, it makes more sense, and of course that is how things started, very simple.
      tommo likes this.

    13. #13
      Member WhiteWolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Posts
      72
      Likes
      0
      Thank you for the guys who replied with some valuable information, especially xei.
      I understand it now but I find it hard to just believe that all of this happened , but that is for another time.
      But if those sea creatures just randomly wriggle in the sea, couldn't we also look at it as a disadvantage and say that this sea creature
      could of also just been wriggling inside it's preys mouth :s

      There is also one other thing that doesn't make sense, before this random wriggling could of mutated in one of these creatures, they were
      probably just stationary, but than how could they have survived without any movement? Unless some wriggling creature comes into there mouth? (I think I'am
      taking a little too far with this last statement).
      Silence & smile are two powerful tools.
      Smile is the way to solve many problems & Silence is the way to avoid many problems.

    14. #14
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      Amoebas are single cell creatures that can move. They just kind of like stretch out and drag them self along. Then when they encounter something them wrap their body around whatever and pull it inside them. Can't get any more simple than that.
      Meakel likes this.

    15. #15
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Dthoughts's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      LD Count
      A few
      Gender
      Posts
      1,468
      Likes
      767
      DJ Entries
      72
      Quote Originally Posted by WhiteWolf View Post
      Thank you for the guys who replied with some valuable information, especially xei.
      I understand it now but I find it hard to just believe that all of this happened , but that is for another time.
      But if those sea creatures just randomly wriggle in the sea, couldn't we also look at it as a disadvantage and say that this sea creature
      could of also just been wriggling inside it's preys mouth :s

      There is also one other thing that doesn't make sense, before this random wriggling could of mutated in one of these creatures, they were
      probably just stationary, but than how could they have survived without any movement? Unless some wriggling creature comes into there mouth? (I think I'am
      taking a little too far with this last statement).
      The reason u don't understand is because you think consiousness is in the brain. It's not. Just because a jellyfish doesn't have a brain doesn't mean it has no sense where it's going. It's in the water so some senses aren't needed. A jellyfish has an electrical defense system. And probably when it gets close to something it senses it and flees/attacks.
      PhilosopherStoned likes this.

    16. #16
      Lurker amyl33's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2011
      Posts
      2
      Likes
      0
      DJ Entries
      4
      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      Single cell organisms don't have brains but they are still capable of moving around. Moving really isn't all that difficult, and you don't need a brain for it. If you are in water, you don't even have to move, you will float around with water currents.

      Also you might not even need a brain for things like seeing. A primitive eye might not be able to see like we can today, but maybe it just sensed light. It senses light then sends a chemical response to the body to move towards or away from the light. You wouldn't need a brain for that, just a sensitive area that releases a chemical when light touches it. Then you could imagine such an sense organ possibly evolving to pick up more information and as it becomes more complex the brain evolves with it.

      Think for a moment about trees. Trees can sense light without having a brain. They can also draw food and water from the ground and spread it through its body without having a brain. Not everything needs a brain. You can also have simple nerves systems that transmit singles around the body, without having a brain as well.

      Your problem is you are thinking of complex fully created body parts, and complex fully created brains. When you picture very primitive systems, it makes more sense, and of course that is how things started, very simple.
      The question required that we think about complex organisms, an amoeba has no senses as such so therefore wouldn't fit the original description given in the proposed question leading the thread.

      Hiya Sloth!! thanks for the warm welcome, it was my first post, figured id see who else was hanging around in here!

    17. #17
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      Well that is the problem, you can't think about it in complex organisms. Once you have a complex organism, you already have all the pieces. If you already have a basic brain and a basic sensory organ and basic modes of movement, then it is easy to imagine how it all evolved together at the same time, because really they are just all improving at the same time. Which is entirely possible and makes sense.

      If you want to understand how eyes and arms and brains all evolved together, you can't look at eyes arms and brains. You have to look at their precursors, which were far simpler organs.
      tommo likes this.

    18. #18
      Sleeping Dragon juroara's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Gender
      Location
      San Antonio, TX
      Posts
      3,865
      Likes
      1171
      DJ Entries
      144
      Some things to keep in mind: before the brain we had clumps of cells that told other cells what to do. Or ganglion. You can even find ganglia in plants. So the evolution of clumps of cells telling other cells what to do happened early on in evolution. Very early on. Single cells can be extremely complex, with thousands of micro-parts. They may not have brains, but like plants, they can still sense their environment and react. Even if their reactions are only binary.

      To really answer this question though, you gotta go way back in time. Actually you gotta go back to the single cells living as a cellular colony. Like a clump of algae.

      This is the part that I find so mind bobbling its magical. In these early clumps of cells, all the cells were the same. Like the clump of algea. Some how the cells differentiated, but remained living in the mass. It turns out a clump of cells with diversity is pretty effective for surviving. Some cells mutate and become the first epidermis. And with an epidermis holding a mass inside, that's really all you needed to create the first multicellular organism. The evolutions of arms and legs was underway.

      The reason why I call it magical, is because this evolutionary process is more than just random mutations. The single cells had to have been communicating to each other.

      Going back to the colony of cells, if a single cell mutated and become the first epidermis, how did it know to be the epidermis, as in, how did it know to move itself to the outside of the mass to protect the rest? How did the rest of the mass know that it belonged inside of the epidermis? What stopped the rest of the mass multiplying outside the epidermis defeating the whole purpose?

      An organism is composed of multiple cells that form different organs. Despite all these organs being different, they all share the same DNA. And since they all share the same DNA, you only need one cell to copy that organism.

      How did the first organism reproduce the second organism as an exact copy, when it was composed of different cells each with different DNA?

      The single cells had to be sharing DNA code with each other. As a colony, they differentiated and probably tried out all sorts of configurations. Maybe the epidermis goes on top, maybe it goes on the side, maybe it goes all over, maybe it leaves a hole. If the colony of cells lived, well the configuration must be working. To maintain this configuration the cells needed to know where they *a specific organ* belonged. So they shared each others DNA to create one DNA detailing the different organs and where they go and what they do. Now you truly have the first organism with one DNA.

      At least that's the only way it makes sense to me.

      Also, the development of the fetus nicely parallels our own evolution. While a clump of nerve cells develops early on, technically its the heart that forms first!

    19. #19
      Member Photolysis's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,270
      Likes
      316
      Actual answer to the 'paradox': you're wrong and there is no paradox, just a set of assumptions and misunderstandings. Alric's post is spot on; you're looking at a very complicated end product instead of the simple beginnings.

      Quote Originally Posted by Amyl33
      both would have evolved together as you need the brain to augment the movement of limbs as well as to learn new skills.
      Nein. Well, yes, they would have evolved together over time because there are clear advantages to that, but you do not need a brain to have evolved before the evolution of early limbs or senses.

      Quote Originally Posted by juroara
      You can even find ganglia in plants.
      ...

      No you can't! Fail! Plants do not have nervous systems. You know, that's why the hormonal-based communication systems found in plants are such an underlying and major component of plant physiology.

      if a single cell mutated and become the first epidermis, how did it know to be the epidermis, as in, how did it know to move itself to the outside of the mass to protect the rest?
      Fail. That's not how cells work, like they move house to take up residence near their place of work. Cell differentiation in modern organisms is a complex process, but fundamentally related to gene expression, which itself is triggered by certain chemical environments.

      It's no wonder you think evolution is magical if you believe that's how it works.

      Let's say the first epidermal cell was caused by a one-off mutation in a multicellular organism for the sake of argument (it wasn't). Assuming it would magically migrate to the outside where it 'should' be is nonsensical. It could easily have formed in the 'wrong' place, at best serving no productive use, or at worst causing the death of the organism. Such negative mutations are removed by evolution.

      How did the first organism reproduce the second organism as an exact copy, when it was composed of different cells each with different DNA?
      Fail. Aside from the obvious fact that this is wouldn't actually be reproduction of a single organism because it would be several organisms in a symbiotic relationship, if a 2 cluster set of cells A-B undergoes binary fission then it has reproduced despite both cells being different.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei
      For instance, imagine an early simple sea creature that constantly automatically wriggles its body to produce forward motion.
      Even more basic example: the flagellum.

      The OP shows no ignorance of evolution
      Well, if it's what he thinks actually occurred, it does. It's not a paradox because it's not how evolution works. It's just plain wrong.

      Though some of the answers have gone off onto interesting tangents.
      PhilosopherStoned likes this.

    20. #20
      Web of dreams Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Tagger Second Class Created Dream Journal Populated Wall Referrer Bronze 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      dakotahnok's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2010
      LD Count
      Gender
      Location
      Miami, ok
      Posts
      2,196
      Likes
      724
      DJ Entries
      5
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Not sure what Mark is talking about.
      Do we ever?

      I was always a dreamer, in childhood especially. People thought I was a little strange.-Charley pride

    21. #21
      Haunted by entropy. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      sloth's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      LD Count
      20 years worth
      Gender
      Location
      Deep in the woods
      Posts
      2,131
      Likes
      584
      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      Even more basic example: the flagellum.
      I have one of these.
      ---o--- my DCs say I'm dreamy.

    22. #22
      Haunted by entropy. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      sloth's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      LD Count
      20 years worth
      Gender
      Location
      Deep in the woods
      Posts
      2,131
      Likes
      584
      Quote Originally Posted by ninja9578 View Post
      The brain. It's not a guess either, it's easily shown in the fossil record. The first fish, looked like this:


      Fish have brains. Not very complex ones, but they need one to move that "tail." Fins came later, fins evolved into legs. Actually, there are plenty of fish that can use their fins as legs on dry land.
      I believe that this fish's "tail" is classified, in this inquiry, as "group 1", which disproves what you are saying.
      ---o--- my DCs say I'm dreamy.

    23. #23
      Member WhiteWolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Posts
      72
      Likes
      0
      Okay I see what I did wrong, I explained it very badly (just like I said I'am bad at explaing)

      Let's go back all the way where movement of some sort just came in, what I want to know is
      how can a uncontrolled movement (moving for the sake of moving) be beneficial?
      Silence & smile are two powerful tools.
      Smile is the way to solve many problems & Silence is the way to avoid many problems.

    24. #24
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      A creature constantly roaming will patently spread out much faster. If they're just moved by the tide then overpopulation will cause a lack of food and the creatures will be stuck with that for a while. If they're moving all over the place this isn't a problem.

    25. #25
      Sleeping Dragon juroara's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Gender
      Location
      San Antonio, TX
      Posts
      3,865
      Likes
      1171
      DJ Entries
      144
      No you can't
      ! Fail! Plants do not have nervous systems. You know, that's why the hormonal-based communication systems found in plants are such an underlying and major component of plant physiology.
      The point that I was getting at was, a clump of cells telling other cells what to do happened way early on in evolution because we can find examples even in plants. Lets try to stay in thread context!

      But if you wanna get word anal, look up ganglion again: "a biological tissue mass, most commonly a mass of nerve cell bodies." This means its not necessary for a ganglion to be composed of nerve cells, its just commonly associated with nerve cells.

      Plants don't have nervous system like ours, true. But they do have clumps of cells that tell other cells what to do, functioning like an animal ganglion. That's probably why some biologist referred to this clump of cells as ganglia (I didn't start the trend). We tend to have different words to describe the plant versus the animal kingdom. But sometimes people use the different plant-animal terms interchangeably.

      In my horticulture book I can find pollen, sperm, seed and egg.

      Fail. That's not how cells work, like they move house to take up residence near their place of work. Cell differentiation in modern organisms
      Cell differentiation in modern organisms happens with one DNA code.

      It's no wonder you think evolution is magical if you believe that's how it works.
      The earth turning to meet the sun everyday is magical!!

      Let's say the first epidermal cell was caused by a one-off mutation in a multicellular organism for the sake of argument (it wasn't). Assuming it would magically migrate to the outside where it 'should' be is nonsensical. It could easily have formed in the 'wrong' place, at best serving no productive use, or at worst causing the death of the organism. Such negative mutations are removed by evolution.
      Yes..I sorta said that!! I just use my words differently.

      Fail.
      FAILURE IS ABUNDANT! Were not done studying the evolution of microbiology. Some biologists believe that viruses are remnants of a time when single cells literally tossed their DNA code around at each other. You then have to ask what was the purpose of single cells sharing DNA with each other.

      Aside from the obvious fact that this is wouldn't actually be reproduction of a single organism because it would be several organisms in a symbiotic relationship, if a 2 cluster set of cells A-B undergoes binary fission then it has reproduced despite both cells being different.
      I don't think you understand what I was getting at. Those different cells reproducing still wouldn't give us a modern organism. You would just end up with a replica of the colony, but you still wouldn't have a multi-cellular organism with one DNA code.

      I remember learning years ago that single-celled organisms were brewing up in colonies. First they were all the same. Then mutation occurs and you've got new species living in the colony. Symbiotic relationships are created. And eventually this colony of different types of single-celled organisms became the first multi-cellular organisms.

      Has the picture of microbiology evolution already changed?

      How do we go from these different DNA codes to one DNA code?

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Paradox
      By moskowfreak1111 in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: 11-17-2010, 09:07 PM
    2. Paradox?
      By RealityEnds in forum General Lucid Discussion
      Replies: 12
      Last Post: 03-27-2009, 09:29 AM
    3. Ask a Paradox
      By Reality_is_a_Dream in forum Senseless Banter
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 08-24-2008, 03:29 AM
    4. A paradox... as it were...
      By subzero364 in forum Dream Control
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: 07-05-2006, 09:23 AM
    5. My Paradox
      By Xei in forum Philosophy
      Replies: 15
      Last Post: 05-24-2006, 12:15 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •