Evolution

[moretimethansense]

I know dears are fast, I never said otherwise. I said an elephant and a hippo can run fast so it's not exactly a great defense.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

You owe me a new desk by the way.

First, Elephants and hippo's are not well known for hunting deer so I have no idea what you are trying to get at with that statement.
And yes, running fast is a very good defences, try escaping a predetor without running, you won't get far.
As I said, get a knife and try killing a deer that has seen you coming, perhaps then you'll have a greater appreciation for running like a ***** as self-defence.

Who said it was the first thing it saw?
It randomly developed over time the ability to absorb sustinance from a source other random protiens floating about in the water, over time they got better at it developed a digestive system and a method to forcefully extract sustinance from plants and/or other life forms.

And NO IT DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE!

I can't say it any other way so go to your nearest institute of learning that teaches evolutionary theory, ask them these questions and watch as they reach for something to bash your head in.
This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp you know.

 

[teebeeohh]

read Richard Dawkins
or better yet, read him AND Carl Sagan

 

[Jonluw]

I don't know if I class being brown with a white tail as camo, sure they live in the woods and wood is brown but a white tail? How they aren't the same as a dodo I will never know.

Like I said to somebody else, running isn't that great of a defence either. Elephants and hippos can run at like 30 MPH, so it's not that good. Agility might be a better word but it's not like whatever eats dear isn't agile aswell 'cos otherwise dear would be over populated.

Running is a pretty damn good tactic for surviving. And when I was talking about Camo, I mainly referred to does. The little bambi bastards. Their mothers will leave them in the grass to hide and then go off on their own, that's how heavily they rely on their child's camouflage. And it works.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

No. When the first organism developed the ability to consume other organisms, there was no proper distinction between plants and animals. Everything happened on a single-celled level.

"Plants" would be the creatures with clorophyll that fed off the power of the sun, and inorganic material. "Animals" would be the ones that, by endocytosis presumably, consumed other organisms, both plants and other "animals".

The reason some animals eat meat and some eat plants is that it isn't beneficial for everyone to eat the same things.
I explained this a little while back: If everyone can eat everything there'll be a lot of competition between species, and the ones that aren't the best at it will die out or - and here's the clue - evolve to find food in a way that the others don't, so that it can survive with it's own niche and habitat.

Interspecific competition causes smaller niches, while intraspecific competition causes broader niches.
A niche is what you call all the resources an organism consumes and depends on in its habitat.

Edit: I'm beginning to wonder if you're just trolling now dude.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Species evolve, organisms don't. Your ability to survive from a genetic standpoint does not change in your life. Traits that are ill-suited to an organism's environment make that organism bad at surviving, thus it will die, and cannot pass on its traits. Those that survive reproduce, and when the genetic material is being copied in the production of sex cells, that's where crossing over happens, which changes the genetic material, and this change is random. It's like spinning the wheel of genetics, and those who get dealt a good set of genes get to pass on what made them good, with some variations in the next generation.

NOT TRUE!!! just look at spiderman. his DNA reacted to a toxic event, and BOOM. parker evolved.

And I forgot Pokemon too! I'm not doing very well today!

 

[kromify]

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

 

[omega 616]

I don't know if I class being brown with a white tail as camo, sure they live in the woods and wood is brown but a white tail? How they aren't the same as a dodo I will never know.

Like I said to somebody else, running isn't that great of a defence either. Elephants and hippos can run at like 30 MPH, so it's not that good. Agility might be a better word but it's not like whatever eats dear isn't agile aswell 'cos otherwise dear would be over populated.

I know dears are fast, I never said otherwise. I said an elephant and a hippo can run fast so it's not exactly a great defense.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

The white tails are a defense mechanism. They only show the white when they are scared by something, and it serves to warn the rest of the herd about predators or other danger.

As to your point about herbivorous creatures, you're assuming that they arose in an area with plentiful meat and plants. However, deer evolved in an area where plants were much more prevalent. There was no real advantage to being carnivorous. Think about it this way, the chances of a deer taking down another animal and eating it are low. It might come up occasionally, but not often enough that it means the difference between life and death.

I am only saying dear so people know I am talking about relativly weak animal, if you think of the thing that started the evolution to a dear, why couldn't it evolve to use it's urine like a skunk? Or instead of ruining it's camo by flashing a white tail make a noise,which is only giving it's rough position away rather than the hunter seeing a flash of white and knowing exactly. There alot better than "I can run fast and I am brown with a white ass".

I know dears are fast, I never said otherwise. I said an elephant and a hippo can run fast so it's not exactly a great defense.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

You owe me a new desk by the way.

First, Elephants and hippo's are not well known for hunting deer so I have no idea what you are trying to get at with that statement.
And yes, running fast is a very good defences, try escaping a predetor without running, you won't get far.
As I said, get a knife and try killing a deer that has seen you coming, perhaps then you'll have a greater appreciation for running like a ***** as self-defence.

Who said it was the first thing it saw?
It randomly developed over time the ability to absorb sustinance from a source other random protiens floating about in the water, over time they got better at it developed a digestive system and a method to forcefully extract sustinance from plants and/or other life forms.

And NO IT DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE!

I can't say it any other way so go to your nearest institute of learning that teaches evolutionary theory, ask them these questions and watch as they reach for something to bash your head in.
This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp you know.

Yeah, thats what I said elephants and hippos hunt dear ... happens all the time. I said elephants and hippos can run fast, it's not a great defensive measure. Agility might be a better word for it.

Who says you have to escape by running? If a hippo feels threatend it will breath on you, a skunk will spray you, a squid (I think) will leave oil behind, all these are better than "leg it!" so how come it never evolved to have that? Just 'cos isn't a good answer.

I am not 100% on the whole strawman thing but I am guessing your throwing them out there like the straw is on fire.

I am not surprised your on probation so much. I am just generally interested in science and I seem to be struggling getting my head round this. No need for the insults/arrogance/being condescending, if your getting mad at me leave this thread, nobody is forcing you to be here quoting me.

 

[GodofCider]

Animals aren't guaranteed to simply survive - plenty of species simply die out.

My understanding is that the ones that survive have some advantage initially simply by way of luck, and over time the species adapts further to the environment.

I'd rephrase that to: almost all species simply die out.

 

[omega 616]

I don't know if I class being brown with a white tail as camo, sure they live in the woods and wood is brown but a white tail? How they aren't the same as a dodo I will never know.

Like I said to somebody else, running isn't that great of a defence either. Elephants and hippos can run at like 30 MPH, so it's not that good. Agility might be a better word but it's not like whatever eats dear isn't agile aswell 'cos otherwise dear would be over populated.

Running is a pretty damn good tactic for surviving. And when I was talking about Camo, I mainly referred to does. The little bambi bastards. Their mothers will leave them in the grass to hide and then go off on their own, that's how heavily they rely on their child's camouflage. And it works.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

No. When the first organism developed the ability to consume other organisms, there was no proper distinction between plants and animals. Everything happened on a single-celled level.

"Plants" would be the creatures with clorophyll that fed off the power of the sun, and inorganic material. "Animals" would be the ones that, by endocytosis presumably, consumed other organisms, both plants and other "animals".

The reason some animals eat meat and some eat plants is that it isn't beneficial for everyone to eat the same things.
I explained this a little while back: If everyone can eat everything there'll be a lot of competition between species, and the ones that aren't the best at it will die out or - and here's the clue - evolve to find food in a way that the others don't, so that it can survive with it's own niche and habitat.

Interspecific competition causes smaller niches, while intraspecific competition causes broader niches.
A niche is what you call all the resources an organism consumes and depends on in its habitat.

Edit: I'm beginning to wonder if you're just trolling now dude.

Thanks, I think I get it now.

I don't see the point in trolling, seems that ... insult gets throw around alot though. I am/was just having a hard time getting my head round this. People learn at different speeds, what can I say?

 

[Arrogancy]

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?

Your thinking is off. Animals do not decide for themselves to reproduce to make better offspring. It just happens. The gene pool gets limited by natural factors (predators, food scarcity, etc.) those who were too ill-equipped to survive didn't live to pass on their genetic information. Those who were better equipped had that opportunity. The successive generation then shows more of that (or those) gene(s) that allowed the parent to survive. Now, in the hypothetical that you posit, yes, it is possible for two certain traits to negate each other, but that doesn't stop genetic anomalies and variations from cropping up and diversifying the gene pool.

 

[fates_puppet13]

random variations in genetic code build up in organisms making suptle and frequently beneign changes to a species
if it helps them survive then they are more likely to live and reproduce
over very long periouds of time circumnavigating several generations this can result in a new species that is seperate from the original all those generations ago

 

[moretimethansense]

Yeah, thats what I said elephants and hippos hunt dear ... happens all the time. I said elephants and hippos can run fast, it's not a great defensive measure. Agility might be a better word for it.

Who says you have to escape by running? If a hippo feels threatend it will breath on you, a skunk will spray you, a squid (I think) will leave oil behind, all these are better than "leg it!" so how come it never evolved to have that? Just 'cos isn't a good answer.

I am not 100% on the whole strawman thing but I am guessing your throwing them out there like the straw is on fire.

I am not surprised your on probation so much. I am just generally interested in science and I seem to be struggling getting my head round this. No need for the insults/arrogance/being condescending, if your getting mad at me leave this thread, nobody is forcing you to be here quoting me.

For the last time, running IS a great defensive measure, it is in fact one of the most important defensive measures on the planet, if you don't run, you get eaten by things that are bigger than you.

A hippo feeling threatened?
That's a laugh, you realize the reason that hippos don't run is because they are th single most dangerous animal in africa right?
After the skunk has sprayed the predetor, it legs it, a squid's ink is used as cover for legging it.
Running is essential for any species that can cocieveably fit in to another creatures mouth.
And "just cause" IS the fucking awnser, there was no plan, there was no divine hand(probably), shit mutated, what worked, worked, what didn't, died.

Nope no strawman here, you are assuming that creatures plan out their evolutionary paths, I am pointing out that that is fucking stupid.
For future referance, a strawman would mean that I was presenting a weakened and flawed version of your arguement then striking it down without refering to your actual points.
Your points are plenty weak enough that I don't need to do so.

I'm on probation because I have a short fuse and the mods apparantly take blunt speaking to be an insult.
Honestly though, if you are having genuine trouble understanding this and aren't just trolling seek out a natural history museum or something because no matter how ofeten or how elequently it is explained you don't seem to want to get it.

For simplicity's sake:

A multicelular organism randomly mutates, the mutation is passed to its desendents, over time the change becomes more pronounced, if the change is beneficial to the speiceis' continued existance theuy tend to breed more and the change carries on, if not they tend to die out.

That's all there is to it, if you can't understand at this poiunt I think you need a liscensed teacher of the evolutionary theory to explain this to you in the same way you'd explain to young childeren(no offence) because the fact that you don't get it at trhis point indicates that you are either frankly kind of dumb (again, no offence) or are willfully ignoring what is being said to you.

EDIT: Typical,a few posts before I finish typing and he seems to finally get it.

 

[Peteron]

Evolution is determined by many factors...mainly Darwin's theory involving isolation of species, survival of the fittest, and genetic mutations. This process takes huge amounts of time to witness any actual change in most cases. A prime example is the fact that we used to be hairy monkeys and after years of evolution became hairless, bipedal freaks.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

Well, a theory is simply an idea with a wide range of evidence supporting it that someday may be truly and fully accepted into the scientific community. As you stated, we have a similar common ancestor with apes. Technically making apes our cousins. And I never really thought about it like that. The whole ancestor things, usually stops at the first lifeform ever to exist on this planet. A.K.A every species TRUE common ancestor. BUT if you take it apart, break down the cells, dismantle the eukaryotes, sort the smaller prokaryotes, dismantle the planet, unhook the star system and simply keep going and going and going...You pretty much get the source for EVERYTHING in the universe. Nothing but dust...

Well that is more what I was saying. I don't agree with people stating things like Evolution as truths when they are not. There is plenty of evidence around to suggest such scientific facts like Evolution and the Big Bang theory(red shift of universes for one thing, certain radio static). That was more what I was saying with just a theory.

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

I hate when people who obviously don't understand science try to disprove science. "'?noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." Theory does not mean unproven, unless your stupid enough to think that we can fly because " gravity is just a theory, herp derp"

Did you even bother to read past the first page or do you just jump on something without even bother to read the thread? I have already answered this already. I never disputed evolution and said it was wrong which what you seem to be thinking. I said it was only a theory and not a truth like some people think which it is. In fact Relativity is just a theory and not a complete one at that. The great thing about Science is there is always something else to add always one more step to take. Being happy with one theory is stupid.

If we were content with the first theories we would still think light was particles and would of never found out it was a wave(Young's slits[dirty experiment name]). If we stuck at that Einstein would have never of found out light is not really a wave in the classical sense but made up of packets of waves or photons. We also wouldn't have Quantum Physics or Relativity. Something I have also already said but the plum pudding model.

If we didn't look into things we wouldn't know that Atoms(a bad name as it comes from Atmos meaning indivisible in Greek) are made of protons, electrons and neutrons and mostly empty space. If we didn't look into that we wouldn't know Protons and Neutrons are made of Quarks. Even to our current understanding things like Electrons and other Leptons and Quarks are elementary particles but this may in time prove false. Our understanding is always changing

So I am not saying Evolution is wrong just an incomplete work that still has evolving to do. Saying otherwise is a bit stupid.

So I do think I understand science I just don't think you understand what I was saying in my post.

 

[omega 616]

Yeah, thats what I said elephants and hippos hunt dear ... happens all the time. I said elephants and hippos can run fast, it's not a great defensive measure. Agility might be a better word for it.

Who says you have to escape by running? If a hippo feels threatend it will breath on you, a skunk will spray you, a squid (I think) will leave oil behind, all these are better than "leg it!" so how come it never evolved to have that? Just 'cos isn't a good answer.

I am not 100% on the whole strawman thing but I am guessing your throwing them out there like the straw is on fire.

I am not surprised your on probation so much. I am just generally interested in science and I seem to be struggling getting my head round this. No need for the insults/arrogance/being condescending, if your getting mad at me leave this thread, nobody is forcing you to be here quoting me.

For the last time, running IS a great defensive measure, it is in fact one of the most important defensive measures on the planet, if you don't run, you get eaten by things that are bigger than you.

A hippo feeling threatened?
That's a laugh, you realize the reason that hippos don't run is because they are th single most dangerous animal in africa right?
After the skunk has sprayed the predetor, it legs it, a squid's ink is used as cover for legging it.
Running is essential for any species that can cocieveably fit in to another creatures mouth.
And "just cause" IS the fucking awnser, there was no plan, there was no divine hand(probably), shit mutated, what worked, worked, what didn't, died.

Nope no strawman here, you are assuming that creatures plan out their evolutionary paths, I am pointing out that that is fucking stupid.
For future referance, a strawman would mean that I was presenting a weakened and flawed version of your arguement then striking it down without refering to your actual points.
Your points are plenty weak enough that I don't need to do so.

I'm on probation because I have a short fuse and the mods apparantly take blunt speaking to be an insult.
Honestly though, if you are having genuine trouble understanding this and aren't just trolling seek out a natural history museum or something because no matter how ofeten or how elequently it is explained you don't seem to want to get it.

For simplicity's sake:

A multicelular organism randomly mutates, the mutation is passed to its desendents, over time the change becomes more pronounced, if the change is beneficial to the speiceis' continued existance theuy tend to breed more and the change carries on, if not they tend to die out.

That's all there is to it, if you can't understand at this poiunt I think you need a liscensed teacher of the evolutionary theory to explain this to you in the same way you'd explain to young childeren(no offence) because the fact that you don't get it at trhis point indicates that you are either frankly kind of dumb (again, no offence) or are willfully ignoring what is being said to you.

EDIT: Typical,a few posts before I finish typing and he seems to finally get it.

I said running isn't that great, which it isn't. If you add in something like spraying urine (which it could do, although I am not 100% on where a dear pisses from) to confuse or even distract the hunter then running away would be more effective.

Baby hippos being protect by there mother, yes I know all about hippos. There bulletproof to most handguns, there skin makes up a third of there wieght etc etc etc.

I think you just invaidated your own point, "just cause IS the fucking awnser, there was no plan, there was no divine hand(probably), shit mutated, what worked, worked, what didn't, died", what worked is the answer then.

I didn't assume they planed out there paths, I was saying dear 'cos compared to alot of other things it's a sitting duck. Besides colour and legging it, theres not alot going on. I meant it like other things have all these defensive measures, why couldn't the dear have one?

Thats kind of what you were doing, saying I was saying elephants and hippos eat dears? Do they even live near each other? Plus aren't both herbivores?

Yeah, I noticed the short fuse ...

That guy with the spinning cow head explained it to me, I think I get it know.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

I've read through some of the posts, and I fear that I am going to regret that, but: evolution theory is quite a weak theory. It is quite applicable when describing acts of modifications of a species, but as a description as the origin of species, it is still not usable.
The evolution theory has several weak points when examined from the point of view of several scientific fields like information theory, macro molecule chemistry and paleontology. I do not want to say that the theory is completely wrong, as I said several mechanisms in bio chemics can be sufficiently described by it. But it is not the "one big truth" as which it is presented.
I get really annoyed, if someone writes things like

Are we still seriously arguing about evolution in this day and age? This is 2011 and people still are going WAAAAH WAAAH! I refuse to acknowledge science because of the big invisible man in the sky?!

Pointing out the weaknesses in this theory is not refusing science, it is, in fact, a process of science itself. It stumps me every time someone tries to tell Christians, that their beliefs are wrong, by using evolution as an argument (or better: slapping the term into their faces without even knowing the facts). That is not scientific thinking, that is just plain ignorance and intolerance. I know, there is much intolerance from religious people as well, especially in the USA, but this should be no reason for doing the very same mistakes and calling it "scientific reasoning".
If you really want to know the truth, you should always ask yourself if you are wrong. Get a broad base knowledge on the field you are researching (or reading about), and don't neglect facts, because you think, that they are not applicable (you might be wrong).
Using the evolution theory as an argument against a creator god is wrong, because it is not founded enough for this (try using string-theory instead ;-) Argumenting like this is not scientific.
Using the holes and weaknesses in the theory as a proof for a creator god is wrong as well. There are far better arguments for that. And in the end it is up to you to belief. It is a decision everybody has to make, since no one will prove or disprove god for you.
I hope, that some will read my post and try to understand what I am trying to say. Please don't just read up to the point that goes against your opinion and start a rage repost.

@Topic:
"Survival of the fittest", fittest as in "to fit into sth." not as in "fitness". The creature that fits best into its habitat tends to survive. I don't know if anyone already cleared this misconception, please excuse me if this was already stated.

The rest of the facts about the evolution theory have been very well summarized in the first video post, but as I said, those are only the mechanisms proven for modification of an existing species (like dog breeding or the darwin finches). It has never been proven to be a mechanism for the origin of a new species. It is up to this day only assumed, that the same mechanisms would also apply there.

Sry for WoT, I hope that someone reads it ;-) If something is unclear, please ask, I may have used the wrong terms since I am no native speaker.

 

[Ben Hussong]

That is, in fact, very wrong. An individual organism, like a single human being, cannot "evolve." Only species can evolve.[/quote]

Are we still seriously arguing about evolution in this day and age? This is 2011 and people still are going WAAAAH WAAAH! I refuse to acknowledge science because of the big invisible man in the sky?!

I can tell you read the OP, you caught me, thats exactly what I was doing. For future referance, read the OP before posting.

I was asking how it works, not if there is such a thing.

So why isn't every animal an omnivore? Yeah plants grow everywhere but so do animals, why not double your chances of living by eating both? While there evolving they can evolve the ability to eat the other thing.

That would be because of niches and habitats.
Say there's a field with two kinds of flowers on it. In this field there are two different species of animal. If both species were to eat both kinds of flowers, they would have to compete with each other to get food, and that makes surviving far harder. Indeed, one of the species might die out.
If each species ate different flowers though, they wouldn't have to compete with each other, and it would be easier for both species to survive.

When different species live together, evolution favours specialization. If there are a lot of different species around, your specie should find a niche for surviving and stick with it.

However, if only one specie lives by itself in this field, those individuals that could eat other things than the rest would have an easier time surviving, and would multiply. Over time, the specie's niche would grow broader. It would become a generalized specie: one that can survive in lots of different conditions, like for example crows can.

Except if your a dear, then you don't develop anything to protect yourself and get eaten by just about eveything.

Thats another thing I don't get, if it's survival of the fittest or most adapted, by aren't things like dears extinct?

Deer are pretty well camouflaged. They are also good at running from predators, and can fight if it comes down to it.

Edit: Funny theory about deer. The irish elk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk] which lived in fields could have antlers as wide as nine feet. When the vegetation started to increase and what was formerly fields became forests, the antlers made it impossible to navigate between the trees, and the irish elk died out.

So the guy is ok shooting dear but not ok stabbing or kicking it? Serves the guy right. I know dear can kick ass against some things (I saw it attack a dog) but against something more serious it's not got alot.

I don't know if I class being brown with a white tail as camo, sure they live in the woods and wood is brown but a white tail? How they aren't the same as a dodo I will never know.

Like I said to somebody else, running isn't that great of a defence either. Elephants and hippos can run at like 30 MPH, so it's not that good. Agility might be a better word but it's not like whatever eats dear isn't agile aswell 'cos otherwise dear would be over populated.

From a survival point of view it just makes sense to expand your eating prefrances. If your a veggie trapped on a desert island (like lost) do you stick hardcore to your veggie diet or do you eat fish with the rest of your party?

What animal can't run? An elephant, even a hippo can run faster than human. Running isn't real a defence, not when comapred to almost every other animal. Other animals have things like camo (moths and stone fish), firing something off (oil or hairs) or snapping off a leg like that lizard.

Even zebras have one up on dears, atleast they camo with themselvs. Being brown isn't really a camo ... especially when your tail is white.

Okay now I'm certain that you are either a troll or a creationist that simply refuses to read what has been typed out right in front of him.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Please try to get that through your skull, it is not something that is chosen, it just fucking happens.
And because I am almost positive that my eyes are bugging the fuck out, did you just compare an omnivore making a conciouss choice to not eat meat with a species that has never developed the ability?
Because I'm pretty sure five year olds can comprehend what is wrong with that concept.

Try chasing down a deer sometime, I fucking dare you.

Yes it is, but since you are having such a hard time grasping the concept of evolution being a natural event that in no way is decided concioussly I'm not going to waste my fingers trying to explain the myriad ways that a deer's colour scheme helps it survive.

I know dears are fast, I never said otherwise. I said an elephant and a hippo can run fast so it's not exactly a great defense.

Are you saying it was just random chance that the first animal ate the first thing it saw? I would just guess it would just eat anything. If it has no specialized eating system has formed (like sharp teeth to rip flesh or flat teeth to grind leaves) it basically has a choice what to eat, so why not eat everything?

I was replying to all the people within the thread using the inevitable " but... it's only a theory!" bullshit" not your original post

 

[Twilight_guy]

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

*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.

Actually Gravity is a law. We can show that Gravity exists by observation. What causes gravity is a theory because although we can speculate and make very educated guesses we can not observe it happening and prove that our theory is right, just very likely. Law is the most solid thing in science but only observable things can be laws. Theory are the next most solid and although we can show them to be almost undeniable we cannot prove them. Theories have an element where a they can be changed if we discover new evidence. Laws do not change because they are based on immutable certain events. Hot flows to cold, Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and things fall down.

 

[microhive]

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

*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.

Actually Gravity is a law. We can show that Gravity exists by observation. What causes gravity is a theory because although we can speculate and make very educated guesses we can not observe it happening and prove that our theory is right, just very likely. Law is the most solid thing in science but only observable things can be laws. Theory are the next most solid and although we can show them to be almost undeniable we cannot prove them. Theories have an element where a they can be changed if we discover new evidence. Laws do not change because they are based on immutable certain events. Hot flows to cold, Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and things fall down.

There is a theory behind gravity. The theory can change, just like evolution.

Same can be said about Evolution. It's a fact, evolution happens all the time, it is a law. Just because it isn't visible by your eye, or that it requires quite a lot of time to occur, doesn't invalidate it's status as a law.

Snip

Not sure if you saw the other comment of mine but this series should help you understand how animals have evolved various features and survived.

 

[Ben Hussong]

I've read through some of the posts, and I fear that I am going to regret that, but: evolution theory is quite a weak theory. It is quite applicable when describing acts of modifications of a species, but as a description as the origin of species, it is still not usable.
The evolution theory has several weak points when examined from the point of view of several scientific fields like information theory, macro molecule chemistry and paleontology. I do not want to say that the theory is completely wrong, as I said several mechanisms in bio chemics can be sufficiently described by it. But it is not the "one big truth" as which it is presented.
I get really annoyed, if someone writes things like

Are we still seriously arguing about evolution in this day and age? This is 2011 and people still are going WAAAAH WAAAH! I refuse to acknowledge science because of the big invisible man in the sky?!

Pointing out the weaknesses in this theory is not refusing science, it is, in fact, a process of science itself. It stumps me every time someone tries to tell Christians, that their beliefs are wrong, by using evolution as an argument (or better: slapping the term into their faces without even knowing the facts). That is not scientific thinking, that is just plain ignorance and intolerance. I know, there is much intolerance from religious people as well, especially in the USA, but this should be no reason for doing the very same mistakes and calling it "scientific reasoning".
If you really want to know the truth, you should always ask yourself if you are wrong. Get a broad base knowledge on the field you are researching (or reading about), and don't neglect facts, because you think, that they are not applicable (you might be wrong).
Using the evolution theory as an argument against a creator god is wrong, because it is not founded enough for this (try using string-theory instead ;-) Argumenting like this is not scientific.
Using the holes and weaknesses in the theory as a proof for a creator god is wrong as well. There are far better arguments for that. And in the end it is up to you to belief. It is a decision everybody has to make, since no one will prove or disprove god for you.
I hope, that some will read my post and try to understand what I am trying to say. Please don't just read up to the point that goes against your opinion and start a rage repost.

@Topic:
"Survival of the fittest", fittest as in "to fit into sth." not as in "fitness". The creature that fits best into its habitat tends to survive. I don't know if anyone already cleared this misconception, please excuse me if this was already stated.

The rest of the facts about the evolution theory have been very well summarized in the first video post, but as I said, those are only the mechanisms proven for modification of an existing species (like dog breeding or the darwin finches). It has never been proven to be a mechanism for the origin of a new species. It is up to this day only assumed, that the same mechanisms would also apply there.

Sry for WoT, I hope that someone reads it ;-) If something is unclear, please ask, I may have used the wrong terms since I am no native speaker.

I didn't see, unless i missed them any holes aside from the age old "its just a theory " bullshit which i addressed in one of my other posts. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ this blog by a biologists has a lot of addressing to supposed to problems in evolution in its back catalogue throughout the years.
*edit* Heck the second post addresses a supposed issue in evolution.

 

[Flauros]

I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?

Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?

How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?

How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?

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?

Wow, thats pretty funny. Good job!

Oh, sorry. *ahem* What the hell is that crap? Go back to school kid, were not doing your homework for you...