Evolution

[Yopaz]

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.

We can't in any possible way have more than one theory. If you got more than one theory you don't understand the word theory! If you got 2 theories (this is a hypothetical situation as it is impossible) those two would have to have been experimented and tested, if both reached the stage of theory, one of them, or even both would be invalid, because there can only be one theory! You think of hypothesis. Gravity is a theory, and that is a pretty strong one. It's not a fact, it's a theory, do you want to claim there might be a possibility gravity doesn't exist? If you can prove that theory wrong, you will win the Nobel prize in physics for sure. There's is nothing stronger in science than a theory, and saying that we need to improve the evolution theory... Yeah, do you know that we improve our facts EVERY day? Every year new discoveries are made, every book on evolution is outdated the moment it is published because the theory improves as we speak. The phylogeny is changed every month, if not every week or day. You clearly know a little, but not nearly enough to actually make a serious statement. I don't know close to what I need to make one. Science is complicated, but science is constantly trying to improve itself, it's what drives us. We may work entire lives to get an answer, and when we get the answer, we try to improve it.

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

I don't actually.
But I was trying to correct arguements that you made before you "got it", often people "get it" but still make erronius statements.
I'm not trying to be condesending here, I'm just not good at not being so.

And I was trying to point out that they have all the defence they need, but I think we're going in circles here.

I'm a bit offended here, check back a few pages, note that I made a number of posts trying to explain in clear and simple terms, I only started getting shirty when you seemed to be ignoring info, deliberately misunderstanding points that were being presented and putting forth the same kind of arguements and questions that hardcore idiot fundies use to "disprove" "eviloution", I frequent FStDT and your posts were remarkebly similar to some particularly bad anti-evolution arguements.
I took it to be trolling, or willful ignorance, I'm glad I was wrong, though I'm a bit incredulous that it took so long.

At any rate I think you're right that we should drop this now.

 

[Uszi]

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.

Theory is truth in science.
You're quibbling semantics, not science.

Are germs truth?
Are atoms truth?

Evolution is one of the best supported theories around. It draws great support from physics, geology, biology and chemistry.

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

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

There are a lot of evolutionary strategies that place sexiness above survival.

Look at male peacocks, or fire flies, or crickets or frogs/toads.

All of their sexy mating behavior attracts predators and gives away their position

Of course, you reach a balancing point between being irrisitably sexy and surviving long enough to reproduce.

 

[Uszi]

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

 

[omega 616]

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.

I don't actually.
But I was trying to correct arguements that you made before you "got it", often people "get it" but still make erronius statements.
I'm not trying to be condesending here, I'm just not good at not being so.

And I was trying to point out that they have all the defence they need, but I think we're going in circles here.

I'm a bit offended here, check back a few pages, note that I made a number of posts trying to explain in clear and simple terms, I only started getting shirty when you seemed to be ignoring info, deliberately misunderstanding points that were being presented and putting forth the same kind of arguements and questions that hardcore idiot fundies use to "disprove" "eviloution", I frequent FStDT and your posts were remarkebly similar to some particularly bad anti-evolution arguements.
I took it to be trolling, or willful ignorance, I'm glad I was wrong, though I'm a bit incredulous that it took so long.

At any rate I think you're right that we should drop this now.

To be totally honest, I got quoted so much I just couldn't keep up or remember what I typed to who. Also youtube is very distracting when your trying to make points.

No I believe in evolution and all that jazz. They were? I don't know what that site is but wow, how can you not believe in it? Seems pretty obvious (from fossils and stuff) to me that is happens, just wasn't sure how.

 

[CptCamoPants]

Whatever can survive the longest and make the most babies wins evolution.

 

[Danman1]

Here you go

That's a really good video, thanks for putting it here.
If anyone's interested in what the Theory of Evolution is really about, or just wants to brush up on it, this video is for you. It's only ~10 minutes.

I'm not sure why it took 4 different comments on the video in a row to make me finally click it, but yours happened to be the one to do it. You win grabbing my attention.
Good video, btw.

 

[Snowpact]

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?

 

[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.