Evolution

[Shoqiyqa]

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

Right off the bat, he makes the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.

 

[WolfEdge]

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.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not proven with undoubted certainty, the same as ALL other scientific theories. Because knowing anything with undoubted certainty is completely impossible, when regarding anything other then you're own existence( and that's a hole other discussion.) Nothing can ever be proven 100% however they can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence available to us at the moment and in that regard evolution is one of the most air tight theories there are. We understand evolution in much greater detail then we understand gravity( to use your own example)or indeed a lot of scientific theory and I can't think of any reason for people to contest it as virulently as they do.

True enough, though I personally put some value on opinions like his. It's important that we as a thinking race are reminded to never take the information and truths we gather for granted. After all, once upon a time the world was a flat mass of land in the middle of the universe.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Quelle coincidence! [http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Please don't quote ...

 

[Jonluw]

You can observe evolution by simply looking at the nearest busy highway. See the cars on it? They're the ones that worked. They're the most fit models. They're the ones that succeeded. The ones that didn't work didn't sell well and were either canned or they took their parent company with them.


Same thing applies to animals. Certain models work, certain models are a piece of shit, and only the working models survive.

You need to come up with what the ones wrapped around trees by the side of the road are an allegory for though.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Correct me if I'm wrong (or sound stupid)

.....

but I think a perfect example of evolution (at least the kind I was taught) is when conceiving a child. It starts as two single cells (or however many cells a sperm and egg have) then it becomes a zygote annnnnd then whatever happens next (I've forgotten most of sex ed, or at least the beginning) and in the end it becomes a human, so yeah, sounds like evolution to me.

No.

Nein, non, nyet, iye, la, no.

That's a cell dividing and specialising. The DNA within it is the same. Look at DNA fingerprinting and stem cell research.

Evolution is the change in species over time. For example, finches on two islands are so similar that a casual inspection would lead one to believe they're the same. They have the same facial and wing markings, the same flight patterns, the same songs, the same nesting habits and so on. However, on closer examination, it turns out that they're slightly different. The finches on one island have shorter, heavier beaks better suited to cracking the tough seeds of plants found on that island while the finches on the other island have longer beaks housing longer tongues better suited to getting nectar out of the deep flowers of plants found on that island. Darwin's hypothesis was that there had once been only one kind of finch, but the different flora of the two islands had favoured different individuals of that species and the ones that had most grandchildren on one island were the ones with the more seed-cracking-suitable beaks while the ones that had most grandchildren on the other island were the ones with the long-enough tongues in long-enough beaks, and the ones with long, heavy beaks were carrying too much weight on their faces and kept getting sore necks, looking down and crashing into trees, so they didn't have enough grandchildren to keep that beak style going.

We've found rather more than that [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/] to back it up since then.

 

[Jamous]

"The secrets of Evolution are time and death." - Carl Sagan
Basically, change in species happens over a VAST amount of time, as species adapt to an ever more effective level to their environment. This happens by the fact that those who are suited to the ecosystem end up surviving longer and producing more offspring than those that aren't suited to it, who tend to die off. Eventually there will only be the organisms that are suited to the environment left. Occasionally, new things will evolve due to a lucky (and I mean incredibly lucky) mutation; lucky because mutations are usually bad rather than helpful. Things such as the eyes are thought to have evolved gradually, with it simply being something that can register light at first, a photosensitive cell, before gradually growing more and more effective until we eventually get the eyes we have today. All in all, evolution is FUCKING AWESOME. And the concept of natural selection becomes even more-so when you realise you can apply it to literally everything.

This is my thinking aswell, surely there not admiring the more adapt mates, there admiring the more "sexy" mates. So is it just pure fluke the "sexiest" mates are also the most adapt?

The reason we find various qualities attractive are because they exhibit features that denote health and/or fertility. I'm pretty sure that may be an oversimplification, so go Google "Sexual Selection". You should find you answers there.

 

[Ampersand]

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.

You obviously haven't looked very far. Did you ever think to ask any biologists rather then just randomers on the internet.
Anyways, I would think that the fact that evolutionary biology is the main basis for our understanding of immunology and genetics as well as many other fields of biology, would be more then enough evidence that it's an effective model for how species change over time, but if that doesn't do it for you there's still the entire fossil record in addition to every bit of geological research done up until this point.

I would pause before calling people ignorant since it's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what a theory is. It doesn't mean the same thing in scientific parlance as it does in colloquial language. In other words it's not just a guess but rather the highest form of proof that can be reached with the scientific method and the amalgamation of all of the knowledge pertaining to the subject it concerns, that has been collected so far. Saying that facts should be used in stead of theory is really quite backward because facts are what theories are constructed from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

He isn't saying evolution isn't true, he's saying we've yet to prove it with undoubted certainty. The same can be said for MOST scientific theories, like, for example, gravity. It's the fact that most people see this idea as factual without the research to discuss it in any real sense that probably has him miffed.

Though I would agree that we shouldn't be calling random strangers ignorant.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not proven with undoubted certainty, the same as ALL other scientific theories. Because knowing anything with undoubted certainty is completely impossible, when regarding anything other then you're own existence( and that's a hole other discussion.) Nothing can ever be proven 100% however they can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt based on the evidence available to us at the moment and in that regard evolution is one of the most air tight theories there are. We understand evolution in much greater detail then we understand gravity( to use your own example)or indeed a lot of scientific theory and I can't think of any reason for people to contest it as virulently as they do.

True enough, though I personally put some value on opinions like his. It's important that we as a thinking race are reminded to never take the information and truths we gather for granted. After all, once upon a time the world was a flat mass of land in the middle of the universe.

I hole-heartedly agree, but I would argue that if people are curious or uncertain about scientific ideas, or anything for that matter, then they should go and look for information themselves and try to enlighten themselves on the subject rather then just blindly defying the status quo. Because that's the opposite extreme and it doesn't help at all either.

The scientific community isn't impenetrable after all, there's no reason that someone who's not a scientist can't learn whatever they want about any subject they can think of.

 

[Jonluw]

You need to come up with what the ones wrapped around trees by the side of the road are an allegory for though.

Stupidity. A car wrapped around a tree is a result of stupidity just the same as a healthy animal that drowns where it should be able to swim, and has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good or bad design.

Aah, stupidity. The true enemy of progress.

 

[Chrono212]

Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Quelle coincidence! [http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm]

Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Please don't quote ...

That's also the text book definition I learnt.

 

[Chrono212]

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Four bad arguments against evolution [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php#more]

Right off the bat, he makes the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple.

Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT A CREATIONIST!
I was trying to play devils advocate and argue the other side, which I quickly gave up on because I forgot this was the Internet.

 

[fenrizz]

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete

Oh God no. No no no no no.

No?
No.

Are you really going to argue like that?

I wasn't aware I was arguing at all. I was just telling you you're wrong.

How am I wrong. Are you going to sit there and tell me that things like Relativity and Evolution are full and complete because they are not. That is the beauty of Science. We always get one step closer to fully understanding the universe but we will probably never get there so there is always one more step to take. As I said we would be quite ignorant of various things if we just took a theory as true without trying to build on it.

Apparently you're wording it in a way that makes you seem hostile towards the theory, as in being ignorant and uneducated. Next time be vary of how you word yourself to avoid unnecessary conflict.

I see that now but I didn't think I was particular hostile to the concept of Evolution when I read over it. I am just against the idea that it is a solid complete work that doesn't need to evolve no pun intended.

All that is well and true, but for the sake of this discussion there's not much point in debating this. The theory is so well founded that there's no harm in assuming it's completely right, because it always has proven to be. So far.

Yes I never intended it to be debated really but it should not be taken as 100% true which is what I was trying to say. It can always evolve itself and be improved upon.

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete

Oh God no. No no no no no.

No?
No.

Are you really going to argue like that?

I wasn't aware I was arguing at all. I was just telling you you're wrong.

How am I wrong? Are you going to sit there and tell me that things like Relativity and Evolution are full and complete because they are not. That is the beauty of Science. We always get one step closer to fully understanding the universe but we will probably never get there so there is always one more step to take. As I said we would be quite ignorant of various things if we just took a theory as true without trying to build on it.

Calling it "just a theory" implies it's not fact.

Taken straight from wiki about theory of evolution although this more an aside. so feel free to ignore it if you want.

fact is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms.

I am not saying it is not a scientific fact. I never said that. I said it was only a theory and thus incomplete which is true. I never ever said in my original post it was not a fact. It is incomplete and you can't really dispute that it is complete because it isn't. What I don't agree with is when people take Evolution to be a finished work when it is not.

I think the problem here is this:

When you say "it's only a theory" people assume that some rant about creationism will come next.

 

[RuralGamer]

snip

I'll admit, I don't know everything (no one can; its a physical impossibility because you don't live long enough to learn everything), but from what I've come to in conclusion, evolution is not the truth. A couple of points for you though;
1) At school were were never taught the difference/distinction in any of the sciences; I studied all three at one point or another.
2) There is no evidence of evolution in dogs; they are all still the same species, thus they have not evolved, only been adapted by humans to serve certain purposes. Yet this is still used, along with numerous other "proofs" as basis for the theory of evolution; I posted a few of them a page or so back.
3) I believe in natural selection; that the environment allows beneficial traits to be promoted in animals, but fail to understand how that is automatically a part of evolution or has anything to do with the creation of new species, even over however long evolution is now thought to have taken.
4) As I mentioned previously on this thread, scientists have been proven in the past to have altered the evidence to fit the theory. How do you know that any part of the rest of the evidence hasn't been altered? They're still humans with an agenda.

As I said, I don't profess to be a man of science. I can't say that you're intelligent or not because I don't know you. Obviously you are learned though. All I have to ask (and these are rhetorical questions);
Have you ever considered (or read) the counter arguments? If not and don't care, then you can ignore the rest of what I have say.

Spoiler

Ten years ago, you asked me if I was an evolutionist, I would have said yes. Now, I would say definitely no. What changed? I became a Christian, but that was not what caused me to become anti-evolutionist. Now I've seen a few of arguments against evolution; one that did ring strong was The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by a scientific journalist called Richard Milton. His reason for writing the book was because one day his daughter asked him questions about evolution he couldn't answer, so decided to go away and look it up. He found there to be some arguments and evidence that could be posed against evolution, but were ignored by the evolutionist community. Response to the book was hostile and it actually lists a few of them in the new editions; notably Richard Dawkins, who called him "an unqualified hack" and spent most of a review slanting him and the publishers for printing it; he only criticises a small portion of the book and ignores everything else as if it weren't written. You can read it yourself;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17464072/Review-of-Richard-Milton-The-Facts-of-Life-Shat

Does that sound professional?
I'm not saying you're an idiot; I'm just saying that counterarguments are ignored and shouldn't be. If you're interested, there is a three-part series by an evangelist preacher called Michael Penfold which explains why Darwinism is both scienfically and philosophically (his words not mine) bankrupt. I don't have the link immediately available, but if you want, PM me and I can look it up for you. If not, don't bother replying, because I have better things to do than fight with someone when I'd rather not; this argument is solving nothing.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or though a mathematical equation, which most of what science has discovered can.

It can and it has. Just because you haven't/couldn't be bothered to read up on it doesn't mean the information and proof aren't there.

Ok then, present me with an experiment that definitively proves it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Check that out then, it's only an overview form New Scientist of a wonderful experiment set up to hopefully catch evolution in action. Which is precisely what happened. It's written in simple enough language so you should have no problem understanding it even if you know nothing about biology/science.

 

[Ben Hussong]

"There is a three-part series by an EVANGELIST preacher" that right there is a warning sign of a conflict of interest personally. And these counter arguments aren't "ignored" they've been dealt with soo many times it's just not worth the time almost anymore, since the people who listen to these arguments aren't likely to be swayed by scientific facts at all..

 

[Shoqiyqa]

oooh reading richard dawkins is enough to put me off evolution. he comes off as such a twazzock

Can't disagree there. Calling a fraction of a long molecule "selfish" pissed me off right from the start, and then someone got me a book called "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots" and ... actually I think I binned the book and gave up on the person who bought me it, because ... well, if you really want to know how pretention a twat an author can be, read the preface!

If a hippo feels threatend it will breath on you, ...

The verb is BREATHE. The word BREATH is a noun. A BREATH is what you take when you BREATHE.

The abbreviation of YOU ARE is YOU'RE. The word you used, YOUR, is the second person possessive pronoun. To illustrate: YOUR mother was a hamster and YOU'RE an elderberry!

As for hippos, **** not with the hippos.

Hippos are actually easily scared, and their response to being scared is to get into the water. Where you don't want to be is between the hippo and the water.

Sick of google throwing up shite, can't be arsed seeking science, posting this. [http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/animals/news-africas-most-dangerous-animal]

If there is one thing you hear when you go to Africa it's: "Never get between a hippo and the water!" An angry or threatened hippo is a pretty intimidating adversary, weighing between 1.5 and 3 tons and able to run at up to 30 mph - that's three times faster than most of us). If hippos are threatened on land, they'll run for water... and believe me you don't want to be in the way! It's no wonder that the most deaths by wild animals in Africa are caused by hippos.

If you thought you had thick skin, think again. Hippo skin is two inches thick! It has historically been used to make ferocious whips capable of killing a man in 10 blows. The whips are called kiboko, the swahili term for hippo. That's not the only weird thing about hippo skin.... it doesn't contain any sweat glands! During the day hippos hang out together in the water or cover up in mud to keep their skin from drying out and cracking. They also secrete an oily red liquid as an additional protection from the sun, giving rise to the myth that hippos sweat blood.

Hippos are among the most irascible creatures on the continent. While they are typically content to sleep away the day on the shore of a river or in the shallows, when alarmed they are quick to show their hostile side. Hippos are reputed to cause more human deaths than any other large animal in Africa (though some claim the cape buffalo holds this honor).

Although an adult hippo has no natural predators, it quickly retreats to the safety of the deep water when it encounters the unexpected, such as a canoe coming around the bend. Most human deaths occur when the unlucky victim finds himself between a startled hippo and the deep water. Females with young are especially dangerous.

Apart from snakes and insects the hippopotamus kills more people in Africa than any other! It?s a statistic which many find shocking especially because they?re not actually meat eaters. So what makes the hippo so dangerous ?

Well to begin with they?re large, extremely bad tempered and surprisingly quick on both land and water. If you combine these factors with a strong set of jaws and large tusks you have an animal with an extremely destructive bite.

Most attacks seem to occur at watering holes or near to water where humans either come too close or simply disturb the hippo from a distance. So just remember next time you?re in Africa it?s not only the lions, cheetahs and crocidiles you need to worry about. Beware of the bad tempered hippo!

Though it has a placid and goofy-looking demeanor, the hippo is actually one of the planet?s grumpiest creatures. In Africa, hippos are as feared as crocodiles, and for good reason. Despite their rotund cuteness and adorable teddy-bear-like ears, startled hippos are quickly enraged. They can easily outrun a human being; they capsize boats and maul passengers unfortunate enough to fall out. Angry hippos rely on bulk (they can weigh up to 8,000 pounds) and surprising speed (they can run up to 30 miles per hour) to take down and destroy anything that annoys them?including enormous Nile crocodiles.

et cetera

 

[Shoqiyqa]

... 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.

Actually, that's more likely a plasmid than a mutation within the bacterium, although the plasmids themselves could be the result of a mutation within a bacterium, and have some interesting overlaps with bacteriophages, too.

 

[omega 616]

The verb is BREATHE. The word BREATH is a noun. A BREATH is what you take when you BREATHE.

The abbreviation of YOU ARE is YOU'RE. The word you used, YOUR, is the second person possessive pronoun. To illustrate: YOUR mother was a hamster and YOU'RE an elderberry!

As for hippos, **** not with the hippos.

Yeah, I am not going to read all that crap since I know all about them ... didn't I say that all ready?

Oh my gosh, how dare I typo the "E" at the end, I am so so sorry.

Your is the same as you're. While reading that in your head did it sound different? No? There we are then. There is also just one "were" "to" (unless with the number) and "there" 'cos life is just to short to be bothered by semantics like all there verious speelings of the same word!

Also ...

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I learned at university that most of the mutation which occur are either repaired by cell mechanism and never show up, or they are lethal, or almost insignificant.
Why there are some that make that big diffence, I do not know.

Let's take some arbitrary figures.
0.1 mutations per generation (0.3 according to one site I checked, but let's use 0.1).
90% of mutations are corrected immediately by internal mechanisms.
60% of mutations are immediately fatal.
80% of non-fatal mutations weaken the organism and thus gradually die out.
40% of the rest do some good.
0.00000001% of those do huge amounts of good, like allowing it to see in 3D or fly.

Let's take a hypothetical example of a small early animal that reproduces once per day and exists in fairly small numbers in a very limited area, like maybe only one million of them in total.

That's 0.00003232 beneficial mutations per generation, or 11804 per year across the whole population. Clearly I was too generous with my figures, so ...

0.01 mutations per generation
99% of mutations are corrected immediately by internal mechanisms.
99% of mutations are immediately fatal.
99% of non-fatal mutations weaken the organism and thus gradually die out.
1% of the rest do some good.
0.00000001% of those do huge amounts of good, like allowing it to see in 3D or fly.

0.0000000001 beneficial mutations per generation.

One every 10,000,000,000 generations.

One every 27.4 years, across the population, and actually 3D vision or flight would take 2.7 billion years by those figures.

Given that the Earth has room for rather more than one million amoebae and has been around for a bit more than four billion years ...

As for big changes, take the example of birds. Feathers are freaky, to be sure, but the first coelurosaur [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html] to grow feathers probably got a really big advantage out of it, like staying a fair bit warmer after sunset and being able to catch the endothermic mammals and/or stop them stealing its eggs. There's been a video about the evolution of flight posted already, so I'll defer to that for now, but feathers of suitable lengths make for a really nice aerofoil with shape adjustment for steering and speed control, which is probably why birds tend to be doing better than bats.

Bats? Oh, hey, sonar! Hearing's handy. Really good hearing's better, so once something randomly got the ability to detect sound it had a huge advantage and every refinement helped, and once things could hear vocal communication became useful so things that could deliberately make sounds and found ways to use that ability were more successful, and that made hearing all the more valuable to everything else ... and then something realised it could use the echoes of its own sounds to find its way in the dark, and DUDE I CAN FIND MY WAY IN THE DARK! Interesting note: birds all recognise each other's alarm calls, and we recognise them too. Even though they've been separate species for a very long time and we evolved from a different branch of the tree going back much further than that, we know an alarm call when we hear it. Did anyone have to tell you what it was? Did you have to see a bird flying away in fear and hear it making that sound to know it was an alarm call, or did it just sound alarmed? Blue tits and coal tits have so much in common they're natural rivals in a lot of ways, but neither benefits from the predators getting the other as much as they do from the predators being unable to feed their own chicks this year.