Evolution

[kingpocky]

A digestive system that only eats one thing is simpler, so if you can get away with that, it's a good thing.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

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

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

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

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

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

Fair enough, your wording in your previous post gave a very different impression of your view of Evolution ("It's just a theory" is usually coined by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to "discredit" Evolution and say that there is no evidence for it), so you can understand my reaction upon such an impression.

However, I would disagree and remark that "proof" and "facts" are mainly the same thing, although it can be very much argued that facts are the result of accumulated proof, and not the same thing.

I wondered if I was being, attacked is too strong a word but I can't think of an appropriate alternative, attacked because I was coming across as a creationist.
Clearly I didn't make my humourous point humorous enough.

 

[kromify]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

just an ingrained response. (of a student, zoology or no). we like to reference from scientific journals, ie peer reviewed empirical data. in fact if i think back to first year i can vaguely recall a never quote wiki lecture from one of the professors.

I would have quoted a more professional source, but I was distracted at the time and needed a quick source for my response to the person in question.

Sorry if I came across as excessively annoyed. I was a little, but not at you.

no worries, you didn't. it's a perfectly valid thing to rant for or against. ranting at ranters solves everything. not that you ranted now i'm just rambling... oh dear.

 

[Ben Hussong]

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?!

 

[omega 616]

So why aren't horses dead? They have short necks, compared.

Why is the daddy longs legs still alive? It has a very weak, almost water like (I guess) wenom.

Mainly because having long necks is not the only way to be successful. It helped giraffes mainly because of the environment they grew up in. A lot of parts of Africa don't have much grass, but do have trees that giraffes can eat. Horses evolved in a region that had a lot more grass, so there was no particular advantage to longer necks for them. What you have to remember is that evolution doesn't make an organism "better," just more adapted to its environment. Daddy long legs don't have great defense mechanisms, but they reproduce extremely quickly and have lots of babies. A lot of them will get eaten, but enough survive to continue the species.

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. 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?

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

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".

Actually, there is an outside influence that starts frank eating plants: Availability of plants. Animals need food. If plants are readily available, and other food is not, the single celled life forms will eat the plants. Then, as millions of years go by, they will become better adapted to it.

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.

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

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

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

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

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. 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?

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

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".

uhm... im going to explain this as simple as I can.

lets say the first bacteria thing is created.

Then a lot of bacteria thing get together and form a big animal.

Big animal finds that sun is good energy source and turns into prehistoric plant.

Other animal finds that eating plant gives good energy.

other animal finds that planteating animal is good energy.

Plant animal is getting slaughterd from meat animal and develops defense and grows in size to survive. Then meat eater does the same and it just goes on like that... VERY simplified..

Sry for VERY bad english

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?

1. And I'm not sure how many more ways this can be said, EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
A mutation that is beneficial becomes stronger in a species over time, a species DOES NOT think to it self "Eating both plants and meat would help my chances of survival", this has been explained often enough already, are you trying to vex the people here or are you genuinly incapable of understanding a simple concept and then applying the logic of it too you own questions?

2. Deer DO have defences, firstly they have developed the instinct to move in groups thus improving the odds that they will not be the one marked by a predetor and secondly they can fucking run.

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.

 

[moretimethansense]

I do smell a hint of troll here.

Never mind me..

If he were trolling, he would probably be more rude and say things more like, "Scientists are all morons" or "My grandpa ain't a Monkey!" this person seems to be genuinely confused/ curious.

Not true, most of the better trolls use subtle arguements, act like someone that is willing to learn and behave civilly because an unsubtle troll is quickly banned, whereas one that acts in a subtle manner can get people to react without breaking any rules.
Much like a bully at school that teases you over a long period of time with small repeated jabs, you know that he's doing it but you can't prove it and if you react you are the one punished.

I call it moretime's theory of Troll evolution.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

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?

I don't think most things eat their young because they are the weakest (or simply different, as you later suggest). Remember that natural selection is breeding and natural phenomena (flooding, natural disasters, etc.) as well as mutation over thousands of years for even the slightest change.

So all this "fucked up shit" is the product of benefit or luck. I'll take a good example I heard once.

Say there was a species of fish living in two shallow ponds. For one reason or another, one pond dries up fairly suddenly and fish are left to suffocate. Say there was one fish that could survive longer than other fish without air, or was able to filter some small amount of oxygen from the air. That fish might survive long enough to flip itself into the next pond over, thus surviving to breed and pass on whatever gene allowed it to survive longer on land. If that pattern were to repeat, the fish might eventually evolve to survive indefinitely on land. Conversely, that event might seldom or never happen again. That particular mutation might still exist, it might still even go on to produce fish that could survive on land, it might be discarded. It all has to do with the question of if the fish that shared the mutation were favourable mates.

From a human perspective, men are generally attracted to women with wider hips, in good health and not looking overweight or bony. These are considered favourable traits because wider hips suggests that offspring are less likely to be damaged in childbirth, good health implies that children will be healthy. Women, on the other hand, tend to be attracted to taller, well-built men and secondly not-douchebags because historically, males were protectors, for which height and muscle are a great benefit and not-douchebags don't have the fuck-and-move-on issue. Positive traits are good for survival, so a human is attracted to positive traits. Those that aren't tend to have offspring that die. Or used to. Humanity has killed natural selection (not that I really have a problem with that, my positive traits are kind of lacking).

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

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

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

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

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

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

Fair enough, your wording in your previous post gave a very different impression of your view of Evolution ("It's just a theory" is usually coined by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to "discredit" Evolution and say that there is no evidence for it), so you can understand my reaction upon such an impression.

However, I would disagree and remark that "proof" and "facts" are mainly the same thing, although it can be very much argued that facts are the result of accumulated proof, and not the same thing.

I wondered if I was being, attacked is too strong a word but I can't think of an appropriate alternative, attacked because I was coming across as a creationist.
Clearly I didn't make my humourous point humorous enough.

I would say "criticized". And "attack" usually involves a lot more cussing, name calling and excessively condescending behavior. Though if I did come across as a little too strong (though I wouldn't apologize if you had been), I apologize for that.

And no, internet humor is usually never obvious, due to the fact that this is the internet. Anything and everything that could ever be said today has been said at one point or many on the internet. Never clear if someone is being humorous, trolling, or utterly serious.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

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

 

[Feralcentaur]

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

Oh God no. No no no no no.

No?
No.

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

Nooooooooooooooooo.

Excuse me Sir/Madam, but we at the institute of letter distribution would like you to know what there is only a limited supply of Os, and you appear to be using quite alot of them, and as you know o is a vowel, and every word in the English language has at least 1 vowel, (I'm not even going to count all the languages with the same characters like Spanish and French...). So, I would like to ask you to refrain from using any more of our planets scarce supply of Os, instead of using several dozen Os, try to instead just say NooothisiswhertheOswouldgoiftherewasn'talimitedsupply or substitute many of the Os with Ys, like Noyyyyyy for as you know, y can be used to make the sounds of vowels. Thank you for your time, and remember, Os are a limited, scarce and valuble resource we shouldn't just be flailing around all willy nilly.

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

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

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

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

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

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

Fair enough, your wording in your previous post gave a very different impression of your view of Evolution ("It's just a theory" is usually coined by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to "discredit" Evolution and say that there is no evidence for it), so you can understand my reaction upon such an impression.

However, I would disagree and remark that "proof" and "facts" are mainly the same thing, although it can be very much argued that facts are the result of accumulated proof, and not the same thing.

I wondered if I was being, attacked is too strong a word but I can't think of an appropriate alternative, attacked because I was coming across as a creationist.
Clearly I didn't make my humourous point humorous enough.

I would say "criticized". And "attack" usually involves a lot more cussing, name calling and excessively condescending behavior. Though if I did come across as a little too strong (though I wouldn't apologize if you had been), I apologize for that.

And no, internet humor is usually never obvious, due to the fact that this is the internet. Anything and everything that could ever be said today has been said at one point or many on the internet. Never clear if someone is being humorous, trolling, or utterly serious.

Criticised is indeed a better word.
I'd say memebase is pretty funny

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

 

[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.

 

[kromify]

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.

 

[kane.malakos]

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

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

 

[omega 616]

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?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

You are right my friend, alone evolution makes no sense! Which is why we have an evolutionary CATALYST! An evolutionary catalyst is a REASON to evolve. AS some scientist put it, there are FAR too many of every animal born than can survive (except in people cus we totally cheat the system and thats eventually gonna crash down on our heads once over population becomes an issue), i mean hey even if an animal DOMINATES a system by being so perfect, it has to compete with its own damn brethren. TOo many of one animal. Thing is that you have 100 giraffes and 1 tree from your example. They all swarm that tree and DECIMATE its bottom branches. Now they have no food. Except mr taller neck. He can reach JUST above his fellows and grab the leaves further up. Maybe theres a drought, maybe the food is scarce, maybe theres TOO MANY GIRAFFES! One of these catalysts FORCES a contest between the giraffes over who can get JUST a little bit more than everyone else. The rest die, or are weak and malnurished. Now females dont care about neck length, but they care about health.

Spider jumping/poison. Here we go again. This requires MUTATION. The female spider, being larger and the carrier of eggs needs a LOT of food. Her venom kills knats as it is, tiny flies. The enzyme inhibitor in there (it stops enzymes from doing stuff in the body) blocks the flies nural enzymes and thus disabbles its nervous system. Now you see the inhibitor isnt that great, it works on everything (thats related a tiny bit or relies on that enzyme) to a TINY degree. This inhibitor changes in shape EVER SO SLIGHTLY. Now it fits better, and works on other animals, in fact, another inhibitor maybe present now, making it a venom mix of inhibitors (all venoms are a mix of shiz that disables a tonne of different stuff to have an effect, im just simplifying it for you). it now works on larger organisms, the inhibitor blocks neural transmission and paralyses larger bugs. It eats well, it survives out of its kin and grows larger. The largest. It mates with any old random male, and its offspring have awesome poison too. They survive better and breed.

Omnivores and why isnt everything one. Tricky.
Ill have a whack at it though, my A level in biology best pull me through this.

Everything was at first a plant. Understand? Algea, plants EVERYTHING used photosynthasis. I mean WHAT could it eat? Theres nothing but rock and shit. This is all dandy. Theres a lot of plants now, all soaking up sunlight slowly, absorbing it, slowly growing larger. They populate. Fast. Nothing eats them, and sun is pretty common. Now we have A LOOOOT of algea, all absorbing sunlight. Heres the thing, whats faster, gathering grass or finding someone whos gathered grass for 10 years, killing him, and taking his grass. Now heres where we get the first carnivores/eaters of other organisms. They all have enzymes to break down nutrients, nutruients that make up their bodies right? This means some of them mutated to be able to break down EACHOTHER and absorb energy/nutrients the faster way. Slowly evolution meant they got rid of their photosynthasis, why bother, this way is MUCH faster. Of course theres so much freakin algea, and SO much sun, that the algea is NEVER hungry, and breeds faster than the more complex eating bacteria, so it all balences out. Thus the first herbivore was born. Techincally, its kinda a carnivore as far as cells go. Repeat for carnivores.

 

[kane.malakos]

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.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

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

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

And now I know! And knowing is half the battle!! Gooooooooo JOE!!!