Evolution

[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...

 

[Yopaz]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ben Hussong]

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

For everyone who is interested, read The Selfish Gene. It's much better than any text book on the subject because Richard Dawkins want you to understand what he's saying, not just say what he already knows. Everything is explained so you are meant to understand it despite having no knowledge of it prior to reading it.

This. Anyone who is interested in Evolution, I recommend any of Dawkin's books where he's not talking about religion * he's a bit vitriolic when he's going on about religion but he's a good biologist.

 

[Loop Stricken]

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.

No science is ever complete, we'll never know everything, everything's just a theory so fuck it I'm going to live in a cave and lick slime off rocks.

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

Okay, just saying that running isn't helpful does not make it true, but we're going nowhere here so I'm going to drop this particular point.

Precisly, they don't need to run, most everything else does.

... The fuck?
I'm not sure I'm reading that right so I'm going to skip it.

You mentioned several times that if one species has a usefull method of survival others should have it too, you even use the word decision at one point.
However I'm now going to explain how it is that deer are in no way a sitting duck:
1. As I've said, they can fucking run, fast.
2. They move in large groups, and warn each other when danger is nearby.
3. They breed like rabbits, thus ensuring that the species will pass on it's genes even if I were to take a Gau-8 in to the forest and go nuts, I wouldn't make a dent.
4. Apart from humans there arent any predeters that hunt deer in large numbers, and their predetorst arent all that big, they simply don't need lion seeking missiles to survive.

You claimed that deer being able to run was a crap defence because hippos and elephants can run too, the two have no bearing on each other in the slightest, in light of that I decided to make a funny.

Are you saying I have anger issues?
I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU!

Thank god for spinning cow heads!

Finally, because I'm sick of trying to defend the survival practices of deer:

Deer are still around, if they had no way to survive, there wouldn't be any left, not to mention that theyare still doing great despite the fact that they have come in to cantact with humans.
Now take a look at what happened to elephants and hippos after we got to 'em, their survival methods aren't looking so good right now are they?

 

[ProtonGuy]

I just throw a moon, fire, water, leaf, or thunder stone at it and hope for the best.

 

[JochemDude]

Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest. However you want to call it, it comes down to the weak species dying and the strong surviving. The only way to survive is to adept and the act of adapting to the environment is normally considered evolution.
Very interesting how some people here are under the assumption that it's only a theory, well they are apparently the weak species, since they're not adapting to reality.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

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.

The weaknesses in evolution theory are various.
For example: everyone is only debating only about the change of information in the DNA. But what about the mechanisms to read the DNA? Why do they even exist? The DNA is mainly encoded information, and it is useless without a device to decipher it.
Another point is, that the thermodynamic laws of entropy also apply to information. There might be a chance, that an accumulation of minimal genetic mutations lead to a trait, that is useful for survival. But it is also possible, that the new trait is useless (at best) or even crippling the organism (at worst). The probability for a useless mutation is significantly higher than the probability for a useful mutation. If you scramble the letters of a page in a book, you might end up with meaningful new words. In evolution theory you only keep the words, that make sense. But that means, that most of the time, the new text will just be scrapped.
Even if you happen to get a new word, it still has to be in context, or the sentence will make no sense.
This also (and especially) applies, if you let this progress work over several billion years. Information will gradually diminish, not formate and evolve.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

The thing is that the word theory means that it's almost 100% confirmed to be true. The problem is that most mix up the word hypothesis with theory.

I might not be 100% right here, but the scientific process goes like this:
Idea, someone thinks of something based on observation, hunches or something like that. Then he considers the idea and how it may be worked into tests.
Hypothesis, here the idea is presented and this idea is backed up by facts, calculations and possible ways to prove that it is correct. In this process the tests are designed to prove it wrong.
Theory, this is presented when they can't prove the idea to be wrong, and the theory is valid as fact until someone manages to prove it wrong.

Evolution isn't a theory because no-one can prove it. It's a theory because no-one can prove it wrong. Please, stop abusing the word theory and imagine you know what it means. It proves the arrogance of those who oppose it as that is the most common argument against.

 

[omega 616]

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.

Okay, just saying that running isn't helpful does not make it true, but we're going nowhere here so I'm going to drop this particular point.

Precisly, they don't need to run, most everything else does.

... The fuck?
I'm not sure I'm reading that right so I'm going to skip it.

You mentioned several times that if one species has a usefull method of survival others should have it too, you even use the word decision at one point.
However I'm now going to explain how it is that deer are in no way a sitting duck:
1. As I've said, they can fucking run, fast.
2. They move in large groups, and warn each other when danger is nearby.
3. They breed like rabbits, thus ensuring that the species will pass on it's genes even if I were to take a Gau-8 in to the forest and go nuts, I wouldn't make a dent.
4. Apart from humans there arent any predeters that hunt deer in large numbers, and their predetorst arent all that big, they simply don't need lion seeking missiles to survive.

You claimed that deer being able to run was a crap defence because hippos and elephants can run too, the two have no bearing on each other in the slightest, in light of that I decided to make a funny.

Are you saying I have anger issues?
I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU!

Thank god for spinning cow heads!

Finally, because I'm sick of trying to defend the survival practices of deer:

Deer are still around, if they had no way to survive, there wouldn't be any left, not to mention that theyare still doing great despite the fact that they have come in to cantact with humans.
Now take a look at what happened to elephants and hippos after we got to 'em, their survival methods aren't looking so good right now are they?

You don't get alot of people agreeing with you, do you? I can tell 'cos I clearly just said "I think I got it now" but you still keep quoting me trying to correct me.

Just another little thing, I was using dear in a different way that what you are thinking. I was using dear as something with very little in the way of defence, to talk about things before the dear that also had very little in the way of defence.

But whatever, this argument that you (yes you started it, I wanted to learn and you wanted to insult) started was over about 2 quotes ago.

 

[Ben Hussong]

*quoted post*

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.

The weaknesses in evolution theory are various.
For example: everyone is only debating only about the change of information in the DNA. But what about the mechanisms to read the DNA? Why do they even exist? The DNA is mainly encoded information, and it is useless without a device to decipher it.
Another point is, that the thermodynamic laws of entropy also apply to information. There might be a chance, that an accumulation of minimal genetic mutations lead to a trait, that is useful for survival. But it is also possible, that the new trait is useless (at best) or even crippling the organism (at worst). The probability for a useless mutation is significantly higher than the probability for a useful mutation. If you scramble the letters of a page in a book, you might end up with meaningful new words. In evolution theory you only keep the words, that make sense. But that means, that most of the time, the new text will just be scrapped.
Even if you happen to get a new word, it still has to be in context, or the sentence will make no sense.
This also (and especially) applies, if you let this progress work over several billion years. Information will gradually diminish, not formate and evolve.[/quote]
Okay I am not a biologist * I've studied evolution some, but i'm hardly a biologist, hard science is my girlfriend's thing she's double majoring in Biochem and pysch so i have no clue what most of those words are i will admit. I have a couple of videos that address 20 arguments against evolution, but im not sure if they would touch on what you said, all I can say is I think Phyrangula.com has addressed at least one of those, they deal with a ton of arguments against evolution.

 

[dkyros]

Its how we view survival of an organism on a time scale (years to millions of years). We see evolution happen much faster in more rapidly dividing organisms, specifically microorganisms. This is why a few years after an antibiotic is introduced into the market that can treat a certain disease inevitably becomes ineffective due to resistance(MRSA, MSSA, GISA, GRSA, VRE, MDR TB). On a larger scale we see certain phenotypes prevail in certain circumstances due to an inherent benefit of having that phenotype in the environment around it. Over time changes to the base organism are made again and again.
The theory does say that the earth is more than 6000 years old. All I have to say here is Flying Spaghetti Monster...

 

[Uszi]

The simplest answer is that populations evolve, not individuals. Any animal is born with a set of traits and it is stuck with it. But populations are fluid and constantly changing.

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

Simple.

All organisms reproduce, passing their traits on to their off spring.

All organisms have variable survival rates. Some organisms survive better than others.

All organisms have variable reproductive rates. Some organisms reproduce better than others.

Organisms which have traits that increase the chances of them reproducing tend to pass the those traits on to future generations, and conversely organisms which have traits which make it more difficult for them to survive/reproduce don't pass their traits on.

Over time, some traits pass throughout populations and become more common.

Given enough time, this produces significant changes within the population.

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

If you come up with a new strategy, then you don't have to compete with as many other organisms, and that increases your chances of surviving/reproducing.

For instance, the first life was cellular and produced it's own food autotrophically---using the environment and the sun to make their own food. Sometime along the way, cellular organisms learned how to "eat" other cells, and presto--they now have a new food source and don't have to compete with others for it.

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

You'd have to look up the evolutionary history of venom, which isn't exactly difficult. This is a much more specific question.

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?

How about you look up the animals in question?

The shortest possible answer is that evolution can only work with what it's given. For instance, if a deer developed a mutation or new adaptation that could launch quills or hairs, then that trait might spread throughout the population.

But I think you're looking at this wrong. You're comparing two distantly related animals--spiders (arthropods) are not very similar to deer (chordates) at all. How about, why did porcupines evolve the ability to launch quills but not deer? Or why did tarantulas and porcupines both evolve similar mechanisms?

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

I don't even know what your talking about?
Not every animal eats it's young.

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?

Depends. People plopped bunnies down in Australia, which have virtually no offense or defense, and they fucking took over the entire continent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia]:

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.

"Weakest" and "fittest" are a poor choice of words, and these aren't really the terms used in modern biology. Really, you talk about organisms which are better adapted to an environment replacing those that can't compete.

That doesn't mean that an organism which can't compete is inferior in some way.

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.

Exactly.

Just like gravity is "just" a theory.
And germs are "just" a theory.
And relativity is "just" a theory.
And atoms are "just" a theory.

Evolution, gravity, germs, atoms are all equally "just" theories. But the language "just" seems to indicate that you do not understand that in science a theory is a unifying body of valid hypotheses.