Evolution

[Loop Stricken]

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.

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution...

Nooooooooooooooooo.

 

[moretimethansense]

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

No matter how sexy you are, you can`t reproduce if youre dead.

Yeah, but not everyone who survives is at the peak of perfection. Once animals get old enough to mate, its often the attractiveness that takes precedence. Animals are designed to prefer to mate with what they find attractive, and being attractive is not always the most adept at existence.

It IS however the most likely to bear healthy and strong offspring.

Attractiveness is (mostly) determined by a subconciouss desire to ensure the production of progeny that is likely to survive and pass on it's genes, IE. we, as a rule, find fertility sexy.

Snip

Ugh, I hate that monkey arguement, we most certainly fucking CAN explain it, it's just that when someone says that and theyu arent THREE, we end up dumbstruck at how anyone copuld possibly have such a poor grasp on logic and the evolutionary theory.

I know you weren't making that arguement and were in fact mocking it but I will now place in to simple words that only the kind of idiot that would make that arguement to begin with would be unable to understand:

We, didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor, we are of two seperate evolutionary paths.

I'm sure that there are people smarter than I that could talk for hours about the details of it but, those kind of people wouldn't get it anyway.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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? You know what was a theory and I have already stated before? The plum pudding model of an atom. You know what was wrong the plum pudding model of an Atom. Even the name of an atom is wrong because of what we thought it was. Atmos meaning undivisible. We even thought electrons, protons and neutrons were elementary particles(well electrons are to our current understand of leptons). Taking one single theory as true or complete or finished is stupid.

Once again to restate what I have already said. If we just accepted all theories put before we would think light was a beam of particles. Then we would of just accepted light as wave. At our current understanding we think light is made up of photons or comes in packets of waves. Even that is a bad explanation as light is not really a classic wave.

 

[viking97]

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.

actually survival of the fittest is a really bad term for it that was actually coined by a guy who wanted to prove evolution wrong

survival of the best adapted makes much more sense

-_- thats what fittest means

 

[microhive]

Snip

This series should explain to you how various animals developed their complex, and simple, features.

 

[Jonluw]

The key here is time and large populations. Lots of time.

Imagine if there is a race of horse-like creatures living in fields. They do not eat grass, instead they eat the leaves off trees. Now say there are other creatures living with these creatures in their fields, eating from the same trees. Neither of the two species of creatures are tall enough to reach the leaves at the top, so they all have to compete for the leaves at the bottom of the trees.

Now, just like all humans are different, all (advanced) animals are different as well. This means that - just like with humans - some of the creatures that are born will have a longer neck than the others. Reaching leaves that haven't yet been eaten by other creatures will be marginally easier for the taller animals. This means that specimens with a longer neck will have a slightly higher rate of survival, and will therefore have a higher chance of procreating successfully.
Over the course of thousands upon thousands of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.

And then you have giraffes.

Thats the bit I am not getting. You have these horsies trying to much on the bottom leaves, they all have necks roughly the same size (your not going to be having one horse with no neck and one 20 foot long), are the females walking round thinking "oooh his neck is 1 mm longer than all the others, I shall mate with him!" and the males are thinking "yeah, shes into me but her neck is short as hell! Now her over there has a really long neck but shes not a looker!".

What seems to be the problem here is that you're focusing on sexual selection (the process of traits evolving because individuals think they're sexy).
The reason that the taller horses have more kids isn't that the females are more likely to mate with them. It's that they have an easier time finding food, so they have a greater chance of surviving, and then in turn a greater chance of mating. You can't have kids if you're dead.

Consider this scenario:
A tribe of humans live in a desert. The sand in the desert is very light in colour; almost golden.
Now in this desert lives a species of carnivorus birds, large and strong enough to eat humans. Indeed, humans are one of their main prey. They will circle in the sky, looking for humans, and if they spot one, they'll dive down and snatch it.

Do you agree that if you in this scenario were to have a child with black hair, it would be really easy to spot him from above against the golden sand?
He would be eaten long before he'd get a chance to procreate.
Since practically noone who doesn't have blond hair gets to grow up to have kids in this scenario; all the humans of the tribe would have blond hair in the end.
Thus, over time, a separate race of humans whose natural colours blend in with the sand would appear.

Why did the jumping spider decide to make wasps it's main meal? How did it get the ability to jump so far? Why didn't it stick to building a web? How did it learn how to get hold of the wasp but avoid it's sting?

That part can be puzzling. How did it go from A to B when it seems like the area between A and B wouldn't have been evolutionary beneficial.
It's to specialized for me to answer though.
Try reading this article:
http://peckhamia.com/peckhamia/PECKHAMIA%2075.1.pdf

 

[Loop Stricken]

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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Smooth Operator]

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 environment? 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 itself being food?

You seem to have the idea evolution happens over night, animals ring up a friend and then they grow extra limbs till the morning? Not how that works...

It takes millions of years for evolution to truly show changes, in the mean time animals/humans adapt their abilities/behavior to suit their living environment.

 

[microhive]

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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Worgen]

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.

actually survival of the fittest is a really bad term for it that was actually coined by a guy who wanted to prove evolution wrong

survival of the best adapted makes much more sense

-_- thats what fittest means

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.

actually survival of the fittest is a really bad term for it that was actually coined by a guy who wanted to prove evolution wrong

survival of the best adapted makes much more sense

Actually, those are the same thing. Fittest, in this case, not being "strength" but "fit for the environment". Sooo, the guy who was trying to prove it wrong, came up with a very good way to describe it with a short phrase.

technically fittest isnt wrong but it tends to imply strength and people tend to be very stupid about what strength means

really what it comes down to is that you will never have someone try to make a master race based on survival of the best adapted

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

ok I was wrong about who coined it, it was Herbert Spencer who read the origin of species and decided it would work well in economic theories

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

In an extremely dumbed down form here it is.

There are monkeys living in a forest. A few of the monkeys are born with more fur than the rest. Winter comes, and all the monkeys with less fur die. Now there are only monkeys that can withstand the cold better. The end.

 

[TheDist]

Great thanks for taking what I said completely out of context. Just to restate what I have already said. Yes I know theory is the best we can but stopping at one theory and deciding not to improve on it is a bit stupid. For example(restating again) we wouldn't of known about subatomic structure or the structure of a proton or neutron if we just deciding to take one theory as true or complete. 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.

I will appologise for taking you out of context.

Here though I think something need be pointed out, there is the theory of evolution and it as with ALL of science will change and update as we learn more. However, with that there is also evolution as a fact, that is to say it is observed, and indeed demonstrable. The thoeory is about what causes evolution and shall change as we learn ever more.

Also the comment about why stop at one theory, only the how's are theory, and indeed there a lot of ideas on that table. Genetic drift and sexual selection are just two such examples, each of which can go into massive details with in some cases good debates about how valid they may or may not be.

I tend to react badly to "it's only a theory" as it usualy is followed by a lot of stipid stuff that drives me crazy.

 

[Loop Stricken]

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.

 

[Nimcha]

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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Great thanks for taking what I said completely out of context. Just to restate what I have already said. Yes I know theory is the best we can but stopping at one theory and deciding not to improve on it is a bit stupid. For example(restating again) we wouldn't of known about subatomic structure or the structure of a proton or neutron if we just deciding to take one theory as true or complete. 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.

I will appologise for taking you out of context.

Here though I think something need be pointed out, there is the theory of evolution and it as with ALL of science will change and update as we learn more. However, with that there is also evolution as a fact, that is to say it is observed, and indeed demonstrable. The thoeory is about what causes evolution and shall change as we learn ever more.

Also the comment about why stop at one theory, only the how's are theory, and indeed there a lot of ideas on that table. Genetic drift and sexual selection are just two such examples, each of which can go into massive details with in some cases good debates about how valid they may or may not be.

I tend to react badly to "it's only a theory" as it usualy is followed by a lot of stipid stuff that drives me crazy.

Well that is fair enough I know Evolution is a scientific fact but I don't like it when people consider it true fact and 100% complete. I do personally I agree with it I just don't think it is complete. Same as I agree with a degree with the Big Bang due to the evidence around it but I don't think we should stop improving on it. I am sorry if I worded what I said originally badly.

 

[Jonluw]

You are underestimating just how long a time frame we are talking about here. If a horse has a neck a few MM longer, which helps it eat leaves, it will be more successful. Were talking, like, able to avoid starvation 1% more often then the shorter necks. Maybe, when there's a food shortage, 101 longer necks survive, 100 shorter necks. A tiny, minuscule difference that we would dismiss, but is still there. When that generation mates, any individual horse may be 1% more likely to mate with a longer neck. 51 times out of a hundred, it will choose the longer neck. The weaker of the long necks get stuck with a short neck slightly more often then half. Give this a few dozen, maybe hundred, maybe more, generations, and then you will have some horses with necks a whole couple centimeters longer. Maybe they are 5% more likely to not die of starvation. Well now its very obvious who the horses are with longer necks, and animals are programed to not like creatures that are different. So Long necks mate with long necks much, much more often (Maybe the difference percentage wise is all the way in the teens!), short necks with short necks. Over millions of years, those 1%'s accumulate and compound endlessly, and you start getting real change. Its like compound interest: It adds up fast, even if fast by evolutionary standards is thousands of years. Eventually, you get a change that we can see.

You know, I think we're underestimating the individual differences in a species here.
It's not like the length of the horses' necks vary only by 1 mm between individuals. That would be silly. Take a look at humans: Some are nearly 4 feet tall, some are 6 feet.

I agree with you, yes. I just felt the need to point out that there are significant differences between individuals with animals as well, because I was afraid it might all seem a little too far fetched if 1 mm was to have a significant impact.
I mean, it might, but maybe not.

 

[archvile93]

The key here is time and large populations. Lots of time.

Imagine if there is a race of horse-like creatures living in fields. They do not eat grass, instead they eat the leaves off trees. Now say there are other creatures living with these creatures in their fields, eating from the same trees. Neither of the two species of creatures are tall enough to reach the leaves at the top, so they all have to compete for the leaves at the bottom of the trees.

Now, just like all humans are different, all (advanced) animals are different as well. This means that - just like with humans - some of the creatures that are born will have a longer neck than the others. Reaching leaves that haven't yet been eaten by other creatures will be marginally easier for the taller animals. This means that specimens with a longer neck will have a slightly higher rate of survival, and will therefore have a higher chance of procreating successfully.
Over the course of thousands upon thousands of years, the species as a whole will obviously end up with longer necks, since a long neck is an inheritable trait.

And then you have giraffes.

Thats the bit I am not getting. You have these horsies trying to much on the bottom leaves, they all have necks roughly the same size (your not going to be having one horse with no neck and one 20 foot long), are the females walking round thinking "oooh his neck is 1 mm longer than all the others, I shall mate with him!" and the males are thinking "yeah, shes into me but her neck is short as hell! Now her over there has a really long neck but shes not a looker!".

Say all animals are like that, there are no great or very weak, there just all kind of samey. How does the female spider, with venom so weak a flea wouldn't even get dizzy from it choose a mate with slightly stronger venom, how does she know? Same for the male? How do they know "If only I had more powerful venom I could eat that lizard".

Why did the jumping spider decide to make wasps it's main meal? How did it get the ability to jump so far? Why didn't it stick to building a web? How did it learn how to get hold of the wasp but avoid it's sting?

Because the ones with the stronger venom and longer necks are the ones that are still alive, and look the healthiest because they ate the most.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.