[Onlyinterestednotdevoted (OP)]

As far as I know about evolution, it seems to be a pretty sequential process. That is to say that it starts in one spot and divulges from that origin. But here is an idea that I have in my skull--what if it also worked backwards? Could it be possible that a species (maybe not necessarily the humans, but a species) is the culmination of other lifeforms evolving into one single species?

[blakestyger]

That sounds to me as if it could be a decrease in entropy and therefore not very likely. One single species (or a reduction in the number) could be the result of extinctions though.

[_Stefan_]

Do you mean several different species converging and interbreeding to form a single species? The only way this could work is if the species were already closely related enough to produce viable, fertile offspring when they hybridised. Otherwise this could not work. The evolutionary tree grows from base to twigs, not in the reverse.

[Onlyinterestednotdevoted (OP)]

Then would that indicate that the platypus is one of the oldest mammals?

[_Stefan_]

Yes, together with the echidna they are the monotremes. The evolutionary path from reptile to placental mammal is becoming very well understood.

[LeeE]

Evolution is due to random mutation where the nature of the mutation gives an advantage to the mutated animal.  The failure rate is astronomical and the vast majority of mutations are not viable and die.  The possibility that the same random mutation could occur independently in two animals of the same species is 1:astronomical^2 and the possibility of mutations occurring in two different species such that they not only survive, but converge, approaches 1:infinity.

[Onlyinterestednotdevoted (OP)]

Alright thanks guys. I appreciate the answers.

[Asyncritus]

Yes, together with the echidna they are the monotremes. The evolutionary path from reptile to placental mammal is becoming very well understood.

Heh heh!

Did you know there's a marsupial frog? (Gastrotheca rhiobambae).

It's young develops in a marsupial pouch on the frog's back, with a placental structure remarkably similar to the mammalian placentals.

Collaborative evolution anybody?

[Asyncritus]

Evolution is due to random mutation where the nature of the mutation gives an advantage to the mutated animal.  The failure rate is astronomical and the vast majority of mutations are not viable and die.

The possibility that the same random mutation could occur independently in two animals of the same species is 1:astronomical^2 and the possibility of mutations occurring in two different species such that they not only survive, but converge, approaches 1:infinity.

Excellent, factual remarks. I've highlighted the most relevant one, which in my mind finishes any theory of evolution by random mutation.

Your statistical estimate is spot on. Now consider the probability of flight evolving 4 SEPARATE, totally different ways! (Pterosaurs, bats, birds, insects). What probability do you estimate there? 1 in (infinity)exp 4?

[_Stefan_]

You really don't know what you're talking about, Asyncritus.

Marsupial frogs arrive at those reproductive traits through convergent evolution. Their system is not identical to that of mammals, and as a whole, frogs are relatively distantly related to mammals.

Winged flight in Pterosaurs, bats, birds, insects, is also convergent evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080301_elephantshrew

The rate of beneficial mutations is not negligible. If it were, then instead of 99% of species to have ever lived having gone extinct, it would be 100%. Over 3.5 billion years, that's quite an impressive success rate when you consider that earth is such a hostile place with countless selection pressures. You've been shown numerous instances of beneficial traits arising in the modern day. You reject them because of your own misconceived creationist idea that only micro evolution occurs.

Stop spreading misinformation. This is a science forum. Creationism and creationist objections to science are NOT SCIENCE. I'm sure there are other places where people will gladly swallow your tripe unthinkingly and uncritically.

Your intellectual shortcomings are not grounds for disputing and misrepresenting science. Rather than employing almost every logical fallacy in the book, why don't you actually learn some biology before you even think of attempting a critique of it.

[Asyncritus]

You really don't know what you're talking about, Asyncritus.

Don't you wish that was true!

Marsupial frogs arrive at those reproductive traits through convergent evolution.

You've got this the wrong way round. Convergent evolution describes what has allegedly happened. It is not a mechanism you can appeal to! It's a description, not a mechanism.

Their system is not identical to that of mammals, and as a whole, frogs are relatively distantly related to mammals.

I know it isn't identical - but it's similar in concept, isn't it! So how did  it arise? And how come all the other frogs, which are equally successful, didn't evolve this technique?

And frogs being distantly related to mammals! Heh heh. Yeah, they've got the same number of legs and eyes...

Winged flight in Pterosaurs, bats, birds, insects, is also convergent evolution.

No, friend - that's a joke. Putting a name on something doesn't explain anything. What is the probability of flight occurring 4 times in entirely different groups? That was the question. Now what's your answer?

The rate of beneficial mutations is not negligible. If it were, then instead of 99% of species to have ever lived having gone extinct, it would be 100%. Over 3.5 billion years, that's quite an impressive success rate when you consider that earth is such a hostile place with countless selection pressures. You've been shown numerous instances of beneficial traits arising in the modern day. You reject them because of your own misconceived creationist idea that only micro evolution occurs.

You got any published estimates of the rate of beneficial mutations? Let's see them.

Stop spreading misinformation. This is a science forum. Creationism and creationist objections to science are NOT SCIENCE. I'm sure there are other places where people will gladly swallow your tripe unthinkingly and uncritically.

If you look back at the post by LeeE, you'll see that he raised the question. I'm merely going along happily with his comment.

And tripe? No, some reasonable statistical estimate of the probability of 4 most improbable events is what I'm after.

Unthinkingly and uncritically? No, that's you. Remember my famous saying: The brain is the organ of thought, not the oesophagus!

Your intellectual shortcomings are not grounds for disputing and misrepresenting science. Rather than employing almost every logical fallacy in the book, why don't you actually learn some biology before you even think of attempting a critique of it.

I'm asking a quite reasonable question. There's no need for your savagery - unless of course, you feel the cold wind of reality blowing down the neck of your lousy theory!

[_Stefan_]

I don't need to wish it. I have 141 individual pieces of evidence in the form of your posts to confirm your ignorance, and that number shows no signs of not increasing. What I do wish is that you actually did understand the topics you criticize.

Convergence is the name of the process by which organisms of different lineages arrive at similar characteristics. There are various lines of evidence for how specific organisms arrive at specific traits, including fossil, genetic, and embryological. You can do the research for the evolution of specific species yourself - I'm not your Google. I am also not a statistician. If you want to know the probability of specific convergences, do your own research.

There's a limited range of wing types that will function as wings. It's no surprise that 3 different lineages each sharing the same basic forelimb structure arrived at somewhat similar wing types after thousands of generations of selection to fly. The same is true for the insect.

Since there is no plan or foresight, and no goals in evolution, and different populations are subjected to different genetic variation and selection pressures, how can you expect all frogs to develop the same traits? There are too many variables for that to happen often. And you said it yourself - there are different ways for an organism to be successful.

Of course frogs are related to mammals. All the genetic evidence shows that all the species alive on this planet have a common ancestor. And surprise surprise, the biochemistry is shared between species, from bacteria to humans.

A very quick google presented this paper that gives a quantified beneficial mutation rate. Guess what? Your argument that beneficial mutations are practically negligible is utterly wrong. Isn't it pathetic that a simple search was sufficient to demonstrate the ignorance on which your favorite argument is based?

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/08/beneficial-mutations.html

Lee said nothing about beneficial mutations not arising.

Your famous saying? You should take your own advice.

Also, why do you keep starting new topics after the old ones back you into uncomfortable questions which you have yet to answer?

[BenV]

To be fair, he didn't start this one.

However, it's his usual stance, and evidence will not stand in the way of his insistence that an omnipotent imaginary man created everything.  He also ignores the vitally important role of genetic deletions, substitutions and translations, insisting that evolution is only based on mutations, and claiming (incorrectly) that mutations couldn't lead to speciation.

Asyncritus, please stop it now, we're all bored of it and frustrated by you - as I've stated before, there can be no sensible debate between evolution and creationism - it's like calling a foul in football according to the rules of chess.  You ignore the need for evidence and logic by claiming that god created everything, and that's your choice.

[Asyncritus]

I don't need to wish it. I have 141 individual pieces of evidence in the form of your posts to confirm your ignorance, and that number shows no signs of not increasing. What I do wish is that you actually did understand the topics you criticize.

You amaze me. You clearly can't recognise high intelligence when you see it, and that casts some doubt on your ability to recognise nonsense when you read it! Either way, you're not much of a judge. [B)]

Convergence is the name of the process by which organisms of different lineages arrive at similar characteristics. There are various lines of evidence for how specific organisms arrive at specific traits, including fossil, genetic, and embryological. You can do the research for the evolution of specific species yourself - I'm not your Google. I am also not a statistician. If you want to know the probability of specific convergences, do your own research.

Convergence is not a process. Here's an 'official' definition:

A kind of evolution wherein organisms evolve structures that have similar (analogous) structures or functions in spite of their evolutionary ancestors being very dissimilar or unrelated.

Examples are:

    * the wings of bats, birds, and insects evolved independently from each other but all are used to perform the function of flying
   
So basically, all that it means that there are different groups doing the same thing, like fly.

What it doesn't do is tell me HOW this happened. And do remember the original question: what is the statistical probability of flying occurring independently in 4 entirely unrelated groups?

You're the one making the claim, that evolution progresses by selecting out beneficial mutations, Stefan, not me. So justify it already.

Since there is no plan or foresight, and no goals in evolution, and different populations are subjected to different genetic variation and selection pressures, how can you expect all frogs to develop the same traits? There are too many variables for that to happen often. And you said it yourself - there are different ways for an organism to be successful.

I don't expect all frogs to develop the same traits. But this one is remarkable, wouldn't you say? That a frog could be marsupial? Not a mammalian marsupial, of course, but a marsupial nonetheless. I think that is nearly unbelievable, and if it wasn't so well attested, I wouldn't have believed it.

But it does pose enormous problems for evolution theorists. There's a very big argument evolutionists use, called 'homology' which I'm sure you've heard about. It says that similarity in organ structure means that there is some relationship. For instance, there is a common pattern in vertebrate fore and hindlimbs. Therefore, say they, they are all related.

But the marsupials, like the kangaroo, koalas, opossums and strangely, the wolf, Thylacinus are most remarkable animals:

Marsupials reproductive systems differ markedly from those of their placental mammal cousins (Placentalia). Females have two vaginas, both of which open externally through one orifice but lead to different compartments within the uterus. Males generally have a two-pronged penis, which corresponds to the females' two vaginae.[3] The penis is used only for discharging semen into females, and is separate from the urinary tract.

I don't know, in fact I can't imagine, how that arrangement could possibly have evolved!

But I digress. The marsupials have a pouch, in which the young grows after birth, and in which are the teats, to which they attach themselves for feeding. This is the case with the kangaroo, and also with the frog!!! Though of course, the frog doesn't have teats, because it doesn't produce milk.

So if homology means anything at all, the frog, the wolf, the kangaroo, the koala etc etc are all related! Design-wise I mean. I don't think even you would claim that they all evolved from one another, or even a common ancestor! They all possess systems which MUST have been completely functional right from the word go. Hence, I argue, they were created.

Of course frogs are related to mammals. All the genetic evidence shows that all the species alive on this planet have a common ancestor. And surprise surprise, the biochemistry is shared between species, from bacteria to humans.

This is no proof, really. If all the species come from a common ancestor, that common ancestor must have been the most amazing organism EVER! Mustn't it? Because it contained the genes which would later produce trees, seaweeds, bats, whales, birds etc etc. But that is completely against every known evolutionary concept I've ever heard.

A very quick google presented this paper that gives a quantified beneficial mutation rate. Guess what? Your argument that beneficial mutations are practically negligible is utterly wrong. Isn't it pathetic that a simple search was sufficient to demonstrate the ignorance on which your favorite argument is based?

Did you understand what the writers said? The said that antibiotic resistance, and Kettlewell's moths are the sort of beneficial things produced by mutations.

That's probably perfectly true - but does it help us to produce any new species, genus, family, order or phylum? Don't be silly.

And never forget Lenski's experiment! 31,500 generations of bacteria didn't produce a single new species! Heh heh! So what do you make of that then? Here's a reference:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/08/beneficial-mutations.html

Lee said nothing about beneficial mutations not arising.

Lee said: The failure rate is astronomical and the vast majority of mutations are not viable and die.

He was right!

Your famous saying? You should take your own advice.

I do, I do! Promise!

Also, why do you keep starting new topics after the old ones back you into uncomfortable questions which you have yet to answer?

Um, I didn't start this one, merely agreed with some of Lee's points. You're the one jumping up and down on one leg all over me.
[

[_Stefan_]

I don't need to wish it. I have 141 individual pieces of evidence in the form of your posts to confirm your ignorance, and that number shows no signs of not increasing. What I do wish is that you actually did understand the topics you criticize.

You amaze me. You clearly can't recognise high intelligence when you see it, and that casts some doubt on your ability to recognise nonsense when you read it! Either way, you're not much of a judge. [B)]

WOW. This says it all. Someone who thinks so highly of himself despite evidence to the contrary can't possibly be persuaded that his thinking about scientific topics is wrong. Your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. You're told to learn the topic properly before you engage in criticizing it, but you don't, and then expect others to find the information for you... so you can reject it with further bad logic.

Asyncritus, I've wasted enough time on you. There's no hope you'll stop spewing your ideology-based bullshit. I hope innocent readers can see your posts for what they are.

Enjoy your life in the darkness of a mind devoid of knowledge and understanding.

[EvolutionInquisition]

Why do so many Evolution Scientists resort to insults and name calling?

[Don_1]

Why do so many Evolution Scientists resort to insults and name calling?

Why do so many creationists ignore evolutionary fact?

[blakestyger]

Winged flight in Pterosaurs, bats, birds, insects, is also convergent evolution.

The mechanism in each case is different, so there is a good chance of flight evolving separately - which is what happened.

[lyner]

which is what happened.

If you make statements like that, you appear no better than a Creationist.
All you should say is that there is plenty of evidence that it happened that way. That's a that you need.