Evolution

[Calo Nord]

Those of you still calling evolution "just a theory" should probably go read a book which sums up the advancements of science in the last several decades. Evolution is not considered "just a theory" any more, it is largely a fact now. All that changes is new evidence in support of it, which alters various models and the such.

 

[Danzaivar]

We can't really evolve from apes when we are apes. That is a bad statement to make. To say we evolved from apes is more to say we evolved to monkeys ie have tails. I do see what you are but it is badly put across.

Also I would like to say that thinking something is fine just because it is fact by science is not a good idea. We should always strive to improve on theories like Evoultion so we can build a more complete model of what it is. Building on previous theories is necessary. Without it we wouldn't have relativity or the idea that light is a photon.

I hope I made what I was trying to say a lot clearer.

We evolved from what apes evolved from. Evolution isn't change, it's specialisation.

Ye but that still isn't evolving from apes. Evolution is change eventually. In some cases like the banana. Yes it is more specialised things like say the artic fox and the red fox in places like Ireland.

"Evolution is change eventually"

No. It isn't. You thinking that means you don't understand evolutionary theory.

It's like branches off of a massive tree, with branches coming from those branches. It doesn't matter how many 'branches down' you go, you're still part of that branch. You can specialise to the point of unrecognisability, but there's still a common point before the branches forked, which we current think is some single cell proto-bacteria that was in primordial goop.

Thinking it's anything more is just overcomplicating the whole process, and is probably why lots of people don't get it.

 

[Ketsuban]

I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.

Roast dinners aren't living organisms.

 

[Ben Hussong]

I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.

Roast dinners aren't living organisms.

And evolution takes millions of years.

 

[Ranorak]

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the enviroment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop it'self being food?

If the first paragraph above were true, then there would be no evolution. To my knowledge it is not.

That isn't how evolution works. You take an existing animal and nature keeps killing off the members of its species that are the worst at surviving. The result is that ones with traits which are better suited to the environment live and give those traits to their children.

I'm not sure where you got this idea of evolution, but it isn't good. If my explanation isn't good enough, I suggest you find some entry level text and read that.

I just don't buy it... look at the complexities of a human heart and explain to me how natural selection and random genetic mutations created such a perfect organ. Chiefly, explain to me how come "evolution" chose such a complex mechanism when a whole host of other systems could work. Every loop, crevis, nook, cranny, detail (both large and small) has a unique purpose in the heart. Not to mention over a single individuals life the heart "evolves". The heart of a fetus is RADICALLY different from the heart of an adult... How does that spring up from natural selection? I sincerely makes about as much sense to me as my creamy mashed potatoes spontaneously covering themselves with butter, gravy, pepper, and salt... and then giving me the steak and broccoli too.

It's not necessarily that I believe in anything else, I just don't understand how this could happen.

I guess life's a miracle... but aren't miracles from God? hmmm...............

Okay there are SO many explanations for this i almost didn't bother posting this since you broadcaster either " troll" or " didn't bother to see if my argument was valid" Seriously google "The evolution of the human eye" or watch the video series " why people laugh at creationists" as i recall it explains this sort of thing pretty well.

ok, will do, I'll get back to you in a moment.

Heck, Darwin explained it way back when he wrote origin of species

ok, so I watched the video, and the basic problem that I have with it is that it's a narrow minded view of how the biology of a developing animal works. To put it simply, you can't just have a single layer of cells that suddenly develops into an eye simply because it gets more "concave" or lens grow over it or whatever. each part of those things are created from entirely different segments of a developing fetus. The human eye, for example, is composed of several different materials, ranging from muscles to nerves to dense connective tissue. There are also distinct differences in eye structure from a "primitive group of light sensitive cells" as compared to a complex eye. For example, how is it that a nervous system developed with all its intricacies that it would be able to connect to the brain to process the information? And don't get me started on hormones, which in a developing animal turn "on" or "off" a variety of different genes. Oh and there's the different layers of cells in a fetus. and and and... There's just too much for something to spontaneously be created like that. it's not like we're talking about "the dampening of the light sensitive patch, creating an area better suited for movement". We're talking about thousands of different processes that have to change simultaneously in order to achieve a simple result. I just don't see how it could logically happen.

And I'm not a troll and I'm not an idiot. I'm actually a bio-engineer major. In order to make these accusations on the evolution of something as "simple" as an eye, you have to make a lot of assumptions... and I'm sorry if I'm skeptical that I don't think the other 999 things have to also be changed for the change in the 1000th thing to work properly.

Look at it this way.
Plants are keen to grow towards the light. They have no eyes but clearly can detect light.
These traits might have been present in a simple organism millions of years ago.

The ability to sense light could be beneficial to survival. Thus it created offspring.
During the course of time the light sensing parts became more stronger, because every generation that had better light sensing would have a higher chance of survival. Over time the light sensors might start to differentiate colours, later shapes, adjusting to depth, and the makings of a functional eye are setting.

It's not like suddenly there is a lens, or suddenly a muscle in the chest becomes hollow and has valves. It slowly forms over a period of time, so long it's almost impossible to imagine.

Also:

 

[Aurgelmir]

The ability to sense light could be beneficial to survival. Thus it created offspring.

I think you should rephrase that to:

"Sensing light was beneficial to survival, thus it could survive ling enough to gain offspring."

You made it sound like having the light sensor meant it could reproduce
But your your concept is sound I think.
Detect Threats -> Survival -> Higher Chance of Reproducing -> Trait gets carried on.


Now it needs to be said that in later stages of evolution the concept of Fenotype Traits have become more prominent in Mate selection.
It is no longer just the surviver that gets to reproduce, he also need to have traits which the females find attractive. And there are many animals where the "looks" are hindering the survivability of the animal. (Think there was a deer species that died out because the female deers preferred men with big antlers, in the end the antlers became to big so the males had problems walking around...)

 

[Ranorak]

The ability to sense light could be beneficial to survival. Thus it created offspring.

I think you should rephrase that to:

"Sensing light was beneficial to survival, thus it could survive ling enough to gain offspring."

You made it sound like having the light sensor meant it could reproduce
But your your concept is sound I think.
Detect Threats -> Survival -> Higher Chance of Reproducing -> Trait gets carried on.


Now it needs to be said that in later stages of evolution the concept of Fenotype Traits have become more prominent in Mate selection.
It is no longer just the surviver that gets to reproduce, he also need to have traits which the females find attractive. And there are many animals where the "looks" are hindering the survivability of the animal. (Think there was a deer species that died out because the female deers preferred men with big antlers, in the end the antlers became to big so the males had problems walking around...)

Thank you, In my attempt to keep the post short and simple I might have missed out on that point.
Much appreciated.

 

[master m99]

It doesn't the species just dies, it's called survival of the fittest for a reason, the weakest die while the animals more suited to the environment live on and produce offspring therefore passing on its genes.


I have oversimplified it a bit but if you want more details use Google.

The weakest dies is the worst kind of view on evolution there is. Insects don't have the strength you find in most vertebrates, yet they are the rulers of the world in diversity and biomass. Counting all the ants there are more ants (in weight) than the weight of all vertebrates combined. The logic is also flawed since evolution makes the "weak" ones able to survive in various ways. It got to do with the conditions around the organism. Plants gain secondary metabolites to either make poison or look like plants that are poisonous, are they strong? No, not at all. Are they fit to survive in the selected habitat? Yes!

It seems like half the time, its not "Survival of the fittest," its "Survival of the sexiest."

this is kinda true, because what we, or any other animal think of as "sexy" is actually something usefull to there survival, usualy anyway, for example a slender and fitter girl tends to be seen as more attractive then one who may be overweight, this could be because the slender fitter girl can run for longer periods of time possably after prey or away from preditors. and ya i guess posting this in responce to what was obviosly a silly and funny post might not have been propper but i just wanted to expand upon what you said =)

Again, flawed logic. As soon as a disaster happens the slender girl is less likely to survive in a crisis because she can't survive without food for as long as the fat one. A slender girl could probably survive for 10-20 days with water. Let the fat girl (let's say this is a real whale) have water and vitamin pills and she can survive for a year because there's enough energy stored in the fat to let her survive. Remove the vitamins and she can survive for around 30-40 days. A really slender girl would survive less than 10.

Evolution is one of the most complex procedures in the world, and the original poster clearly haven't read too much about it. I haven't read nearly enough of it, and I've read 4 books mostly about it, and I've had a bit of it in my time in university.
For everyone who is interested, read The Selfish Gene. It's much better than any text book on the subject because Richard Dawkins want you to understand what he's saying, not just say what he already knows. Everything is explained so you are meant to understand it despite having no knowledge of it prior to reading it.

i see what your saying but i dont think it actually disagrees with my point im saying that animals are attracted to these desirable traits on a physical and conciouse level ie we find them "sexy" so that means that our tasts change as the contions change for example if a disaster where to hit such as the one you proposed the fatter gilr would be more suited to survive and so in a few generations efficiant use of food energy will be a desired trait and so we would begin to preffer fatter mates. im sorry im not getting this accross very well and ofc my knowledge is kinda lacking as i am only studying A2 biology atm but i still feel my point is valid.

 

[Yopaz]

i see what your saying but i dont think it actually disagrees with my point im saying that animals are attracted to these desirable traits on a physical and conciouse level ie we find them "sexy" so that means that our tasts change as the contions change for example if a disaster where to hit such as the one you proposed the fatter gilr would be more suited to survive and so in a few generations efficiant use of food energy will be a desired trait and so we would begin to preffer fatter mates. im sorry im not getting this accross very well and ofc my knowledge is kinda lacking as i am only studying A2 biology atm but i still feel my point is valid.

Actually, the slender girl is more likely to reproduce in our western culture, in the poor world the fat girl is more popular because her weight indicates wealth. Several kinds of birds (usually rhe kind close to oceans) gain on being fatter. There is more to gain on being smarter, than being sexier, in some cases even more to gain by intelligence than being strong. Eliminating competetors have made some species evolve in ways to prevent other males from mating in various ways. Destroying eggs, or even looking like females to make them atempt to mate and make that atempt a complete waste. Survival of the sexiest is also flawed because there's no objective definition of sexy, and several species reproduce with no patterns at all.

 

[Ranorak]

i see what your saying but i dont think it actually disagrees with my point im saying that animals are attracted to these desirable traits on a physical and conciouse level ie we find them "sexy" so that means that our tasts change as the contions change for example if a disaster where to hit such as the one you proposed the fatter gilr would be more suited to survive and so in a few generations efficiant use of food energy will be a desired trait and so we would begin to preffer fatter mates. im sorry im not getting this accross very well and ofc my knowledge is kinda lacking as i am only studying A2 biology atm but i still feel my point is valid.

Actually, the slender girl is more likely to reproduce in our western culture, in the poor world the fat girl is more popular because her weight indicates wealth. Several kinds of birds (usually rhe kind close to oceans) gain on being fatter. There is more to gain on being smarter, than being sexier, in some cases even more to gain by intelligence than being strong. Eliminating competetors have made some species evolve in ways to prevent other males from mating in various ways. Destroying eggs, or even looking like females to make them atempt to mate and make that atempt a complete waste. Survival of the sexiest is also flawed because there's no objective definition of sexy, and several species reproduce with no patterns at all.

Modern concepts of sexy are less about natural selection, and more of media portrayal and cultural views.

 

[Yopaz]

Modern concepts of sexy are less about natural selection, and more of media portrayal and cultural views.

Yes, but the modern concepts of survival is pretty objective. Not dying = survival, dying = not survival.
As I said though, the smart one (not the first pick) often gets to reproduce because that one eliminates competetors. Also clams survive because they got the strenght to keep their shell closed. Clams reproduce by spraying sperm and eggs randomly into the water. There are countless species that don't have sexual selection, thus the sexiest doesn't exist.

 

[master m99]

i see what your saying but i dont think it actually disagrees with my point im saying that animals are attracted to these desirable traits on a physical and conciouse level ie we find them "sexy" so that means that our tasts change as the contions change for example if a disaster where to hit such as the one you proposed the fatter gilr would be more suited to survive and so in a few generations efficiant use of food energy will be a desired trait and so we would begin to preffer fatter mates. im sorry im not getting this accross very well and ofc my knowledge is kinda lacking as i am only studying A2 biology atm but i still feel my point is valid.

Actually, the slender girl is more likely to reproduce in our western culture, in the poor world the fat girl is more popular because her weight indicates wealth. Several kinds of birds (usually rhe kind close to oceans) gain on being fatter. There is more to gain on being smarter, than being sexier, in some cases even more to gain by intelligence than being strong. Eliminating competetors have made some species evolve in ways to prevent other males from mating in various ways. Destroying eggs, or even looking like females to make them atempt to mate and make that atempt a complete waste. Survival of the sexiest is also flawed because there's no objective definition of sexy, and several species reproduce with no patterns at all.

right thats acctually what im trying to get across our few of what is attractive changes with the enviroment and ya i know survival of the sexyest is flawed but it was actully just started as a joke by another poster im just saying theres actually some logic to the joke =)

Modern concepts of sexy are less about natural selection, and more of media portrayal and cultural views.

well i think that our idea of sexy is baced on natural selection but is deffinatly played to and exadurated by culture and the media , thought it may also be worth noting that natural selection doesnt really apply for those of us in the developed world as we dont really have a stuggle to survive a key part of natural selection, that isnt to say that there is no natural selection im just saying we can be pickyer then most other animals.

 

[jawakiller]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

 

[Aurgelmir]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

First of all. You seem to misunderstand what a Theory is. I have explained this earlier in this thread, so I will not repeat myself. Basically Science is Theory.

All in all you are as empty in your argumentation as the rest of us that you claim have no proof of Evolution. You have yet to come up with a counter proposal to explain the differing life on this planet.

So lets for arguments sake say Evolution is a Hypothesis instead of a Theory:

Now lets Falsify this Hypothesis about Evolution: Disprove me.

THAT is how science work, disproving, and you have yet to disprove Evolution

 

[Lukeje]

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Which part of science isn't based on theories? You seem to have a mistaken impression of what science is.

 

[Ranorak]

There's not enough proof to support the theory of evolution so I try to avoid conversations that assume it's a fact. To many holes too. Its worse than a George Lucas film.

Could you back those claims up with some Literature?

OR!

Show me literature with an alternate Theory that is supported by factual studies, and not just religious Zealotry?


You can't just say "There isn't enough proof, therefore it isn't real" without presenting a counter argument as to why there isn't enough proof.

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Oh dammit, not another one!

There are literally mountains of evidence that point directly to evolution being a fact. It's not that a large part of the evidence does, all of the evidence does. We are even directly observing evolution taking place at this very moment. The evidence is piling up by the minute. The only reason not to believe in evolution is plain woeful ignorance and completely ignoring all facts.

Just because you don't understand the issue doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. Try to read up on the subject before making up your mind.

Believe me, I understand this theory, its not really rocket science. I'm thinking you're the one ignoring the evidence. Have you looked beyond what your highscool teacher told you? Yes, that sounds haughty but you talk of this as if it were fact. Those geniuses are paid to tell you thats the truth. Exactly the thing I was talking about. No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. Provide the evidence and I'll talk about the subject, prove it and I'll believe it.

And if you're a biology teacher, I'm sorry I just flipped off your career but its true.

If this proves to much of a challenge, I understand. It's hard to prove something like this.

Wait.... so you want proof, but nothing that was already considered proof, because that's just the smart people talking to convert us?

Well, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Go ahead, look at the generic sequences of animals and see that their DNA becomes less and less comparable the further away you move from each family of species.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Here you go

That's a really good video, thanks for putting it here.
If anyone's interested in what the Theory of Evolution is really about, or just wants to brush up on it, this video is for you. It's only ~10 minutes.

I'm not sure why it took 4 different comments on the video in a row to make me finally click it, but yours happened to be the one to do it. You win grabbing my attention.
Good video, btw.

Haha, glad I could be that guy.
And, yea. I hadn't seen it before this thread, but it's probably going to be my go-to video for any future topics about Evolution from now on.

 

[lawrie001]

Ok im a undergrad student studying biology and evolution is as follows:
. Firstly science is based on theories yes, but until you can prove those theories are wrong then they are accepted as being true. So because no one can disprove evolution or any modern scientific theory its taken to be fact.
. Evolution consists of three main processes Natural Selection, Genetic Drift and Sexual Selection. Genetic Drift is the sort of background mechanism that causes genes to accumulate in a population, so for example in humans the male left testicle has its tube (connecting to the penis) go all the way up and around the kidney, whereas the right testicle tube just goes straight to the penis, why is this? it is a random mutation which hasn't lessened any males chance of reproduction. Now natural and sexual selection are the two titans in evolution, Natural selection is the process by which favoured traits which help the creature survive to reproduce are passed on (e.g. if you can run faster then other members of your species then your going to survive better from predation), Sexual Selection is basically how attractive you are to the other sex (e.g. Bigger antlers in deer make you 'sexier' to the females so you reproduce more). However they do contridict eachother multiple times, taking the deer example, if you had no antlers at all then you could run much faster away from wolves and therefore survive to reproductive age, however no female would want to mate with you since you have no antlers so thats no good. If you have huge antlers then females would jump at the chance to mate at you, however the likely hood of you out running a predator with huge antlers weighing you down and restricting your movement is low so you might never reach the age to reproduce. However if you have medium sized antlers then you have a good chance of out running predators and good chance of mating.
. Finally the proof of evolution is all around us and its in real time, bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics, why? because the individuals that have the mutation that makes them more resistant will be selected for and soon the entire population will be resistant. Why do we have to update the flu vaccine every year? because it adapts and evolves into a new strand. Even some vertebrate animals are undergoing evolution as we speak, a species of gecko gets predated on by a snake species, several geckos have adapted to live in the cave systems that occur in that environment, and they are successful due to the snakes not hunting in those caves, two species are now developing from the one species of gecko.
. Fittest means reproductive success not strength, you may be able to squash a few ants but they reproduce and adapt alot faster then you to changing environments which is why insects are the most abundant form of life on the planet.
. Any further questions do no hesitate to post and I will answer.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

I really hate to sound like this but whatever; Science shouldn't be based on a theory. I never said it was false but people who treat it as a proven fact, I believe, are truly ignorant.

Just quickly, from the first page...

...

*facepalm*

Yes, evolution is a theory. D'y'know what else is a theory? Gravity. Relativity. Thermodynamics.

Here's a rule of thumb: In science, theory is another word for proven concept.

(I put the most pertinent part of that post in bold so you know the specific part of that post I'm referring to with my admittedly vague "Just quickly, from the first page...")

Also,

Here's what you should do; go to Wikipedia, then look up every single work cited, as well as all the works under the topic "Further Reading". THEN, if you still believe there is no evidence, you can whine about it.

Of course, the real problem is that you're too lazy to bother to read through all that boring real science, but that's not really my problem, is it?

So, you check out the piles of evidence, or sit down and be quiet.

I agree with this guy 100%. jawakiller, have you looked past what your highschool teacher told you?
If you have a mere 10 minutes, I highly suggest the youtube vid shown on the first page. It explains the Theory of Evolution rather well.

Now, if you want evidence, go look up some of the well known and documented evidence for Evolution. It's not up to anyone else to do that for you.

Finally, watch out about saying No one I've ever met has provided even a little evidence (real evidence, not what some biology professor told you in the eighth grade) supporting evolution. They can't. because it doesn't really prove anything.
If I were to start going around saying that no one I'd met could explain to me how some other theory works, it doesn't mean that the theory has no evidence. It just means that everyone I'd asked about it so far was uninformed on how that theory went from hypothesis to scientific theory, as well as the fact that they didn't really know about the evidence to back up that particular theory.

 

[Ben Hussong]

just for fun http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2105#comic BTW, Jawakiller, seriouslery go on youtube, look at " why people laugh at creationists" Go on Phyrangula.com honestly people are getting tired of explaining this stuff over and over, or heck, read Darwin. That's THREE sources of evidence for you, okay?