Evolution

[Gibboniser]

I always wondered how losing body hair gives us an advantage in survival - reproduction, else it wouldn't have turned out that way.

 

[Ben Hussong]

not only did we come from apes, we ARE apes.

Isn't the biggest misconception about evolution that we come from apes? If I remember correctly, the theory of evolution states that we did not evolve from apes, but that we do have a common ancestor from which we both originate. We are not apes, we are primates. Big difference there. Right?

Yes Apes are Simians, who are a sub-species of primates, humans are their own special sub group.

 

[Uszi]

I know it never happened over night, what I am getting at is how did it start? In my head there is a bunch of single celled organisms that are going to form horses, rabbits, tigers, rhino, ants etc how did it start?

I would suggest reading a text book, but there are some fairly well supported theories.

I.e.: Single celled organisms organizing themselves into colonial organisms, into bigger colonial organisms, into non symetrical, simple organisms likes sponges, into organisms with simple tissues like flat worms, into organisms with a body cavity, into organisms with true organs, etc etc.

It's hard to see when you keep look at rabbits, tigers, horses, rhinos, which are all mammalian chordates. It's easier to see if you look at some of the more simply designed organisms, like flat worms. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platyhelminthes]

Sure it's easy to go "horses grew into geraffs 'cos the longer necked ones got more food, so lived", but what about before the horse? How did the one cell go "in 3 billion years time I am going to be a horse!".

That's easy, it did no such thing. That's not how evolution works. There's no pre-planning or anticipation involved.

Cells do not have "desires." They just do what they do, and some of them do it better than others.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants.

Another problem you might be having is your tendency to anthropomorphize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism] cells and animals. There are no cells called "Frank." There are no cells with desires, or wishes, or plans.

Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Really, on the cellular level, cells that eat "plants" are not any different from cells that eat animals. Because we're talking about single celled things. Killing and eating and digesting a single celled photosynthetic autotrophic organism is pretty damn similar to killing and eating and digested a single celled hetrotrophic organism.

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves

Correct, because that would be creationism.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

Because evolution itself deal primarily with animals. It's defined as descent with modification.

Questions of how life got started in the first place are in the realm of abiogenesis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis], and not really important to the theory of evolution.

 

[Uszi]

not only did we come from apes, we ARE apes.

Isn't the biggest misconception about evolution that we come from apes? If I remember correctly, the theory of evolution states that we did not evolve from apes, but that we do have a common ancestor from which we both originate. We are not apes, we are primates. Big difference there. Right?

We are both primates and apes.

We are also mammals, tetrapods, chordates.

 

[GBlair88]

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.

Take your pick.

Edit: After glancing through some more of this thread I now know you understand the difference between theory and scientific theory, so these videos aren't directed at you.

 

[Ben Hussong]

not only did we come from apes, we ARE apes.

Isn't the biggest misconception about evolution that we come from apes? If I remember correctly, the theory of evolution states that we did not evolve from apes, but that we do have a common ancestor from which we both originate. We are not apes, we are primates. Big difference there. Right?

We are both primates and apes.

We are also mammals, tetrapods, chordates.

Okay that is an awesome chart. Thanks for clarifying that for us. BTW, where did you find that. * BTW, I know I've been somewhat rude earlier in this discussion, and want to apologize, I got out of surgery a few days ago and I'm still in a bit of a mood from the pain. I'll try to make sure i keep a civil tone for the rest of the thread.*

 

[Rickyvantof]

It might be easier to understand if you take into consideration the fact that these evolutions took millions and millions of years, if not billions. It's not like some little rat nibbled on a thunder stone and got the ability to shoot thunder...

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Whoever recommended Dawkins to you, don't listen. Don't support Dawkins. He's an anti-religious fanatic who needs a sanity check.

Anyway, those are my 2 cents on Dawkins, on to evolution. I guess I could summarize it as such: natural selection and mutation. Animals are under constant threat, whether by disease or other animals or random resource deprivation (drought, famine, etc.) or, frankly, dumb luck (you tripped over a rock, broke your leg in half, and died due to infection). Animals who are more fit to withstand this, or have some natural talent or advantage, will be less likely to die young than others.

In theory, the general pattern of natural selection is that animals whose genes allow them to live to reproductive age and produce viable offspring will pass their genes to the next generation, thus prolonging certain traits. If Gazelle A and B are almost identical but A has a gene that makes it run twice as fast as B, A will have a much easier time getting away from predators. This is a basic, oversimplified model, but yeah. So Gazelle B gets eaten by lions, and A gets to spread his genes, and now the new generation has a higher chance of picking up A's fast-running gene.

Genes are constantly mutating, and while most mutations are bad and result in the cell instantly dying due to faulty processes in the cell, a few of them actually do good things. Through enough iterations of these mutations, some sperm or egg cell will have mutations that allow the offspring to develop a variant on an old trait. This variant, if good, will allow better survival in the current environment and that animal will go on to mate a lot and make lots of superior babies. If it isn't, the animal will lag behind and get eaten, hurt, whatever, and die.

This is, in theory, how it works. Of course, the superior animal could get hit by lightning and die before sexual maturity. Sure. But over millions of years, this pattern averages out to a set of creatures that constantly changes to better suit their environment.

There are all sorts of sub-topics here, like how genes actually change and how sex cell creation and fertilization work, what animals evolved from what, ecosystems, human-induced evolution (did you know some moths have changed color to suit human environments?), how different species split off, all that.

 

[Ben Hussong]

Whoever recommended Dawkins to you, don't listen. Don't support Dawkins. He's an anti-religious fanatic who needs a sanity check.

Anyway, those are my 2 cents on Dawkins, on to evolution. I guess I could summarize it as such: natural selection and mutation. Animals are under constant threat, whether by disease or other animals or random resource deprivation (drought, famine, etc.) or, frankly, dumb luck (you tripped over a rock, broke your leg in half, and died due to infection). Animals who are more fit to withstand this, or have some natural talent or advantage, will be less likely to die young than others.

In theory, the general pattern of natural selection is that animals whose genes allow them to live to reproductive age and produce viable offspring will pass their genes to the next generation, thus prolonging certain traits. If Gazelle A and B are almost identical but A has a gene that makes it run twice as fast as B, A will have a much easier time getting away from predators. This is a basic, oversimplified model, but yeah. So Gazelle B gets eaten by lions, and A gets to spread his genes, and now the new generation has a higher chance of picking up A's fast-running gene.

Genes are constantly mutating, and while most mutations are bad and result in the cell instantly dying due to faulty processes in the cell, a few of them actually do good things. Through enough iterations of these mutations, some sperm or egg cell will have mutations that allow the offspring to develop a variant on an old trait. This variant, if good, will allow better survival in the current environment and that animal will go on to mate a lot and make lots of superior babies. If it isn't, the animal will lag behind and get eaten, hurt, whatever, and die.

This is, in theory, how it works. Of course, the superior animal could get hit by lightning and die before sexual maturity. Sure. But over millions of years, this pattern averages out to a set of creatures that constantly changes to better suit their environment.

There are all sorts of sub-topics here, like how genes actually change and how sex cell creation and fertilization work, what animals evolved from what, ecosystems, human-induced evolution (did you know some moths have changed color to suit human environments?), how different species split off, all that.

I think it's a bit overboard to tell people to completely ignore ALL of Dawkins work including stuff that has nothing to do with his stances on religion. He's an incredible biologist. Hell, the man INVENTED the word meme. So yes, his stance on religion is extreme, though he seems to be calming down a little in the past year or so. But that in no ways invalidates his scientific contributions.

 

[BioHazardMan]

There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.

There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.

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

Well there we go

 

[Nieroshai]

I unnderstand the concept through and through as far as microevolution and some interspecies evolution, but I still have a hard time grasping how an electrical storm forming amino acids causes any kind of anything actually turning into functional cells that can reproduce off the bat.

 

[Nieroshai]

There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.

There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.

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

Well there we go

Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.

 

[Canid117]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Either pay attention in Science class or read this. Those are your two best options.

 

[Ben Hussong]

There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.

There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.

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

Well there we go

Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.

They are allowed to speak hell in the US these people run for government office. It's just the scientific community has gotten so tired of dealing with the same arguments day after day after day, that they react violently when people bring up an argument they've heard hundreds of times and disproven. And no matter what, most times the opponents won't listen, so it's pointless hence a less than charitable reaction to opponents of evolution.

 

[BioHazardMan]

There is so much evidence for evolution that denying it is like denying the holocaust, most people just automatically deny it in the face of huge evidence because it would bring their faith to shambles.

There are actually more historians who deny the holocaust then their are biologists who deny evolution. Fun fact.

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

Well there we go

Then why is it that when for the sake of knowledge I ask questions like the one right below your last post, I often get yelled at for questioning the most stable scientific law ever discovered? The fact remains that anyone who questions evolution for any reason is given no chance to speak outside friends' circles and religious groups because we never even GET to the part where we counter the theory or propose amendmments. Like how the UN climate research department brags about every single member believing in global warming, when in fact they silently can everyone who disbelieves. I'm just saying, it would be fine if opponents got the chance to speak, but thaat will never happen unless in the name of the scientific method the theory be allowed to be questioned without a witch hunt.

It's not that you don't have a voice, but people like you take teaching both sides to an extreme. If we have to teach both Evolution AND Creationism, then we will also have to teach "Did the Holocaust actually happen?" or "World War 2, the non-existent hoax of the 20th century"

You do have a voice, but it's irrational, so stop trying to put your "theories" into a scientific classroom.

Though I have to agree with you to a certain point, it's important to remain skeptical, which I think you should re-examine yourself.

 

[Ben Hussong]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Merkavar]

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

well its a slow process with minor changes each generation.

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

this is just a guess here but i would think in the very begining things would basicallyy be omnivores. and through evolution they diversified into herbivores and carnivores.

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

last i heard vevom is actually expensive in evolution terms so if you can live with out it its better to not have it.

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?

my guess would be that having a deer shed its hair wouldnt be useful. and running fast is enough for it to survive.

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

evolution isnt about suddenly having an extra leg or horn. its little minor probably unnoticable things. so why would the mother eat a baby that is unnoticably different.

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?

the fact that it got killed is what spurs evolution forward. if it survied long enough to reproduce that its basically at a good stage. animals need to live long enough to reproduce to allow evolution. so the only animals that survive are the ones that are best suited to survival. so it can pass on it better suited genes. and after generations the population might have a different coloured fur in respose to a new enviroment.

anyway what i said might not be so coherent im watching scrubs.

 

[Ben Hussong]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[flamingjimmy]

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.

Actually that's not how Giraffe's long necks evolved. You can easily see this simply by observing Giraffes, and noting that most of their food isn't really that high, they don't have to use their full length necks to eat.

Also, think about it, what about baby giraffes? They do alright don't they? Otherwise there'd be no giraffes.

No, giraffes necks evolved for fighting to impress the ladies.

 

[yanipheonu]

If I learned anything it's that you should never take anything as pure truth, no matter how certain it seem.

Yeah, I accept evolution as the most likely theory, but I won't pretend it's only possible truth. But all we ever had was belief in theories, so it's what I gotta go off of XD