EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Heneni]

No its not chance its about a species doing what it needs to do to survive

Like humans who destroy their environment to survive.... will we evolve quick enough to live for another million years? Or shall we dump this planet like a truck of garbage and move on to another planet and do the same thing there.

Evolution is very much an established reality. It is a fact.
Do your research (haha), Deists: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its a theory not a fact.

the same with natural selection, its on going, heck we even do it ourselves to domestic animals .we breed certain traits into them.

So natural selection is when some other specie interbreeds animals in captivity.... is that a new form of evolution.

Just a question....what did the first fish eat?

Heneni

 

[Jose Fly]

No Heneni, evolution is both a fact and a theory. You've had this explained to you before.

That evolution occurs is a fact. We see it happen all the time, right before our eyes.

How evolution happens--e.g. by what mechanisms and what pathways--is part of the theory.

As SJ Gould put it: "Theories don't become facts, theories explain facts". And that's true with evolution. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution (fact) occurs.

 

[ukMethodist]

yes yes i know this, but i'm just messing with everyones mind when i say that changes happen in short periods of time. the thing is, ok i'll make some sort of an example, it may be dumb but anyway:

everyone beleives that humans will live in the moon in the near future, ok. so know you and i very well know that there is no oxygen, so i'll ask 2 questions know, this is the dumb part but it is related to the changes that you speak of;

some milions of years have past since the first humans on the moon, so

1 will they addapt to the environment, by changing so much that they will not be required to breathe oxygen, they will become breathless, but still alive. this is in a very long time frame, milions of years

OR

2 humans will become oxygen producers, meaning they will not require special masks or trees or anything that produces oxygen since they will be the source. this is kind of like the first one, but anyway.
Well, we will pretty much always need oxygen, it just depends on how we get it. Fish still need oxygen, they just get it out of the water instead of out of the air. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll change, even in specific situations. Anything's possible, though, I guess.

One thing could be predicted. The muscle system would decline, so would our bone structure, because the gravity is far less on the moon (we already observe these effects on our astronauts). That means that generations from the moon, moon-humans wouldn't be able to walk on earth without mechanical help (exoskeleton etc).

This can be, of course to a degree, combated with extensive physical training, or the implementation artificial gravity.

 

[Gharib]

No, not stronger and weaker, just more or less able to survive. I'm sure you agree that if a specific individual does not survive to adulthood and reproduce, than any trait that has emerged in the individual dies out. If not enough individuals get to survive and reproduce, that species goes extinct. We see this all the time. You agree?

yes i agree, but other RF members have said that the strong and weak thing plays a part in evolution, so that is wrong right?

Yes and no. Do you see how this results in the emergence of a new species? How this could happen? It's not about an individual adapting, it's about the population changing over time--over thousands of years. Do you understand this process now? Do you agree that this can and does happen

yes i do agree with this

 

[Gharib]

leaving theology aside, esealm, do you believe farmers are able to "improve" their livestock and crops through selective breeding? Have you ever seen a litter of puppies where all were not identical to the parents?

yes i know this, seen it before.

 

[Valjean]

yes i know this, seen it before.

Well, a farmer pairing animals or plants with desirable traits, so that these traits will become more common or more pronounced in their offspring is doing exactly what natural selection does, except in natural selection the traits are chosen by an animal's environment rather than the farmer. Over thousands of years these small changes over many generations add up. Eventually you have an animal or plant completely different from the "original."

So if you have a herd of sheep and breed only the ones with long, straight black wool, your grandchildren will inherit a herd of all black, straight-wolled sheep.
See how simple it is?

Now there are many other, faster mechanisms of change, but this was the original mechanism described by Darwin. Why do you find this so inconceivable?

 

[Gharib]

Now there are many other, faster mechanisms of change, but this was the original mechanism described by Darwin. Why do you find this so inconceivable?

i do not have a problem with this, the big problem that i have is when the word 'chance' comes in. that is part of evolution isn't it

 

[Valjean]

i do not have a problem with this, the big problem that i have is when the word 'chance' comes in. that is part of evolution isn't it

Could you explain the chance that you're having trouble with?

The variation (EG: not all puppies in a litter look the same) that produces the material for natural selection to work with is chance.
The environment an organism's born in is chance.
The mutation that produces a change in form has a component of chance in it.

Chance doesn't mean random, undirected change. The changes over time are selected for; directed, by the fitness -- judged by reproductive success -- of individuals within a given environment. On sooty trees white moths are easily seen by birds and eaten. Soon white moths are rare and the species' typical colour has darkened. It didn't darken by chance. The color change was selected by the environment, just like the farmer breeding for black sheep.

 

[kai]

So natural selection is when some other specie interbreeds animals in captivity.... is that a new form of evolution.

No its an old form of animal husbandry, i was using it as an example to show esalam how animals can change.

Just a question....what did the first fish eat?
Heneni

I have no idea, what did the first fish eat?

 

[darkendless]

Its a theory not a fact.

Heneni

I laugh just a little harder every time i see this sentence. Especially when someone says it more than once. Perhaps i need to educate you on the geological time scale and a few things we can attribute to evolution that makes your house stand up? You should be a little more grateful for evolution, or you'd still be sleeping on the floor

 

[DarkSun]

I have no idea, what did the first fish eat?

Cell Theory states:

1 - Cells are the basic unit of life for all organisms.
2 - All organisms are composed of cells.
3 - Cells arise only from pre-existing cells.

Never-mind what the first fish ate. Where did the first cell come from?

Did a protein gradually evolve into a self-replicating prokaryote, or what? :areyoucra

 

[Autodidact]

i do not have a problem with this, the big problem that i have is when the word 'chance' comes in. that is part of evolution isn't it

It does--at the front end. Chance is what kinds of changes appear. Selection (the opposite of chance) is what kinds of changes survive. Chance is the raw material that is selected by a non-random, directed process.

Here's an example to show how it works. Imagine I have the word "GOOD" and I need the word "BEST." You generate changes each generation, each cycle. Using just chance, it would take millions of tries to generate "BEST" from "GOOD." But what if each time, if I happen to randomly generate a letter I need, it is kept, so if I get "QLSF", I get to keep the S, and then if I get BRSO I get to keep the B and the S. I would move from GOOD to BEST pretty quickly. There's a random element, and a non-random element. In nature, the mutations in our DNA resulting in differing traits in our offspring is the random element. Natural selection--only the ones that work are kept--is the non-random element.

Engineers have actually used this method to design things, especially software. Tehre was an experiment where engineers wanted to create a wing design for an airplane that would have more uplift. They programmed in numbers to represent a box, and let the algorithm generate numbers randomly from it. Every time it results in more uplift, they kept that part. Eventually, the computer "designed" a new wing shape that worked better. That's the way evolution works to "design" better animal and plant parts.

 

[Alceste]

Cell Theory states:

1 - Cells are the basic unit of life for all organisms.
2 - All organisms are composed of cells.
3 - Cells arise only from pre-existing cells.

Never-mind what the first fish ate. Where did the first cell come from?

Did a protein gradually evolve into a self-replicating prokaryote, or what? :areyoucra

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

Painted wolf posted that a while back, I think it explains things pretty well.

 

[Eddy Daze]

http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Life_Comes_From_Life.pdf

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so natural selction is about the species that have the abillity to reproduce as opposed to those who can't, right.

but isn't it also about stronger species surviving and weaker species diying out?
if so i have something to ask you about this.

Try to think of it in terms of better and worse adapted rather than stronger and weaker. Sometimes stronger does mean better adapted: it can help an animal overcome prey or win fights for mates or territory. Other times, though, stronger means more poorly adapted: for example, if food is scarce, the secret to surviving might be to need as little food as possible... then, it's the smaller and therefore weaker animals that have the advantage.

the main point is though that the overall species will not change as in to become some other animal, it is still similar to what it was but it just addapted to the new environment by changing it's diet, which lead to changing it's beack due to the food it was needed to eat,

But the thing is this: over enough time, these small, incremental changes really add up.

As an example, consider whales. They evolved from a land mammal that looked something a bit like a dog. Whales and dogs are very different animals, but think about the animals that we have around us today:

- dogs and beavers are similar in many respects
- beavers and otters are also similar
- so are otters and seals
- so are seals and sea lions
- so are sea lions and walruses
- so are walruses and manatees
- so are manatees and whales

Now... that's not the actual evolutionary path of the whale. The ancestors of the modern whale are now extinct (though we have a good fossil record of them). But my point is this: functionally, you can see how the evolution of the whale would have worked. While we the exact ancestor species of the whale haven't survived, there are still other animals alive today that fill similar roles... and conceptually, it's a rather smooth transition.

I'd like you to try something out:

- think of an otter. A typical otter. Now imagine the range of variation from that typical form you think would be reasonable: bigger, smaller, better swimmer in water, better runner on land... whatever.

- at the same time, think of a small seal. A typical seal. Now, imagine the range of variation from that typical form you think would be reasonable, just like you did for the otter.

- Now, picture two things in your head: an otter that's as seal-like as you think an otter might reasonably be, and a seal that's as otter-like as you think a seal might reasonably be.

I bet that the two pictures you now have in your head are so similar that it's hard to tell them apart.

i do not have a problem with this, the big problem that i have is when the word 'chance' comes in. that is part of evolution isn't it

As has been pointed out, the "chance" in evolution is in random mutation... the "raw material" that natural selection, one of the "non-chance" parts of evolution, works upon.

And this random mutation is also what allows animal breeding to work.

 

[DarkSun]

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

Painted wolf posted that a while back, I think it explains things pretty well.

Thank you. ^_^

I asked my lecturer this same question two weeks ago, and she said that there were multiple theories. I wonder if this is just one of them.

 

[Alceste]

Thank you. ^_^

I asked my lecturer this same question two weeks ago, and she said that there were multiple theories. I wonder if this is just one of them.

* shrug *. I dunno. I just watch and read whatever painted wolf tells me to, as s/he's the resident expert in evolutionary biology.

Nevertheless, in the absence of convincing evidence to support any given theory, multiple theories are better than one (and none is probably also better than one). Just my personal view.

 

[Valjean]

* shrug *. I dunno. I just watch and read whatever painted wolf tells me to, as s/he's the resident expert in evolutionary biology.

Nevertheless, in the absence of convincing evidence to support any given theory, multiple theories are better than one (and none is probably also better than one). Just my personal view.

An increasing number of observed facts always generates new theories to explain them. Multiple theories don't call the fact of evolution into question, they're more like an indication of active and fruitful research. There are also many different mechanisms by which evolution occurrs, each generating new theories as facts come to light.

 

[Alceste]

An increasing number of observed facts always generates new theories to explain them. Multiple theories don't call the fact of evolution into question, they're more like an indication of active and fruitful research. There are also many different mechanisms by which evolution occurrs, each generating new theories as facts come to light.

Totally agree! Not to mention the fact that all the various disciplines of science must agree in order for any particular theory in any discipline to be considered correct. You can't achieve this unity of empirical understanding if you adhere to one particular theory to the exclusion - whether through ignorance or obstinance - of all others.

 

[DarkSun]

* shrug *. I dunno. I just watch and read whatever painted wolf tells me to, as s/he's the resident expert in evolutionary biology.

Nevertheless, in the absence of convincing evidence to support any given theory, multiple theories are better than one (and none is probably also better than one). Just my personal view.

An increasing number of observed facts always generates new theories to explain them. Multiple theories don't call the fact of evolution into question, they're more like an indication of active and fruitful research. There are also many different mechanisms by which evolution occurrs, each generating new theories as facts come to light.

Agreed.

I'd just like to add that it would be good to know for certain excactly what happened two-billion years ago (or more). As far as I can tell, no one really knows for certain, because no one was really there. But we can make educated guesses.

By the way, in saying that, I am not against evolution. There is abundant evidence for that. I just haven't ever come across any definitive conclusions about the origin of life on Earth.