PDA

View Full Version : Evolution thread.



RoidRageZ
04-04-2013, 08:18 PM
You ask, I and my fellow evolutionists will try to answer. By you I mean those that don't believe it of course. Please keep it humane and on topic.

lasher
04-04-2013, 08:20 PM
why are there still monkeys if we evolved from fish?

RoidRageZ
04-04-2013, 08:26 PM
why are there still monkeys if we evolved from fish?

Lasher are you being serious or just trolling again? C'mon I know you have quality posts sometimes...

GreatOldOne
04-04-2013, 08:33 PM
what's your thought about altruism?

lasher
04-04-2013, 08:36 PM
Lasher are you being serious or just trolling again? C'mon I know you have quality posts sometimes...

trolling, sorry.

I have no beef with evolution.

Adrogeus
04-04-2013, 08:43 PM
What is the use of love?

Or as the French ask it "Ŕ quoi ça sert l'amour?"

ZtnTaUcMLjA

But seriously, what is the point of love? What's the darwinist explanation for it? Is there one that you feel comfortable in offering as someone who knows the theory of evolution well?

sawoobley
04-04-2013, 08:49 PM
What lessons about life and human nature can we learn by studying evolution? What does our study of other life forms teach us about ourselves?

stealth_swimmer
04-04-2013, 08:49 PM
I used to think "why are there still monkeys and humans living in the same place" till I realized - they live in different *parts* of the ecosystem (humans aren't tree-dwelling) and humans are more omnivorous.


What is the use of love?



But seriously, what is the point of love? What's the darwinist explanation for it? Is there one that you feel comfortable in offering as someone who knows the theory of evolution well?

From a human experience perspective - there are many...

From an evolutionary standpoint - it improves the chances of survival of the offspring since human children take so long to develop. If human children only took a couple years to develop into independent adults, it wouldn't be as much of an advantage in terms of survival and love would probably be less frequent since fewer women would select for those traits (finding a man who loves them and is father material)

lasher
04-04-2013, 08:52 PM
OP, I do have some thoughts. But I'd like you to state what exactly you mean by evolution.

RoidRageZ
04-04-2013, 08:54 PM
OP, I do have some thoughts. But I'd like you to state what exactly you mean by evolution.



Evolution by natural selection. Micro macro evolution.

RoidRageZ
04-04-2013, 08:55 PM
What lessons about life and human nature can we learn by studying evolution? What does our study of other life forms teach us about ourselves?

That we are a product of billions of years of mutations, and once you die, you will no longer exist.

RoidRageZ
04-04-2013, 08:56 PM
what's your thought about altruism?

The act of helping out another organism at the cost of your own life. Altruism is sometimes considered selfish, you help me ill help you. You don't help me, I won't help you.

stealth_swimmer
04-04-2013, 09:14 PM
The act of helping out another organism at the cost of your own life. Altruism is sometimes considered selfish, you help me ill help you. You don't help me, I won't help you.


I think that's only the most extreme case. In most cases, it costs the altruist *something*, but not their entire life. Randians, oh excuse me "Objectivists" (a name I lol at), typically don't understand this and/or don't acknowledge it. Also, I think there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, but that's just me. Maybe that's a little too much nuance or something.

unscannable
04-04-2013, 09:24 PM
If there are still monkeys then why aren't there still cavemen? Except the one in the car insurance commercial.

BTW how do religious schools explain evolution? Or they don't? IMO evolution costs me $$ because the human mouth is now smaller...causing my kid to have to get braces.

stealth_swimmer
04-04-2013, 09:26 PM
If there are still monkeys then why aren't there still cavemen? Except the one in the car insurance commercial.

BTW how do religious schools explain evolution? Or they don't? IMO evolution costs me $$ because the human mouth is now smaller...causing my kid to have to get braces.

I dunno, but seems to me that a lotta times, religious institutions don't really refute or argue genuinely against evolution but rather a strawman of evolution that is based in their lack of understanding of the theory. I'm Christian and believe evolution is real. I don't see how my faith is at odds with it. I see it as compatible.

ymer
04-04-2013, 10:02 PM
What are your thoughts about newborn mamals (and well every animal out there) being completely clumsy and alien to their bodies once they are born? shouldn't evolution have their brains pre-programmed to be ready and be fully functional once you come out of the uterus?

GreatOldOne
04-04-2013, 10:17 PM
The act of helping out another organism at the cost of your own life. Altruism is sometimes considered selfish, you help me ill help you. You don't help me, I won't help you.

altruism is you don't get anything in return and you know that in advance....not a threat. can this be selected for?

i think you get some interesting arguments in response. similar to the 'best of all possible worlds' crap christians spout off all the time with the evil problem. it's ironic.

before you get rustled i know we evolved. but yes i'm just curious what your thoughts are on bigger things like this which are somewhat out of the box for a simple model.

Reliance012
04-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Evolution by natural selection. Micro macro evolution.

Evolution is not synonymous with natural selection. Recent genome analyses suggest that in fact drift, at least in many populations, is the strongest driver of evolution.

Reliance012
04-04-2013, 10:30 PM
altruism is you don't get anything in return and you know that in advance....not a threat. can this be selected for?

i think you get some interesting arguments in response. similar to the 'best of all possible worlds' crap christians spout off all the time with the evil problem. it's ironic.

before you get rustled i know we evolved. but yes i'm just curious what your thoughts are on bigger things like this which are somewhat out of the box for a simple model.

The evolution of altruism has a multitude of explanations. It is best explained by the Hamilton's theory of kin selection and inclusive fitness.

Mr Beer
04-04-2013, 10:58 PM
What are your thoughts about newborn mamals (and well every animal out there) being completely clumsy and alien to their bodies once they are born? shouldn't evolution have their brains pre-programmed to be ready and be fully functional once you come out of the uterus?

Shouldn't we all have superpowers then?

ymer
04-04-2013, 11:03 PM
Shouldn't we all have superpowers then?

Thanks for the serious answer.

sawoobley
04-04-2013, 11:09 PM
That we are a product of billions of years of mutations, and once you die, you will no longer exist.

Keep spreading the good news of evolution my brother? lol

guyver79
04-05-2013, 12:49 AM
OP, I do have some thoughts. But I'd like you to state what exactly you mean by evolution.

Actually lasher, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe in "guided" evolution?

Could you expand on that a little? (srs)

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 01:02 AM
Thanks for the serious answer.

Facetiously couched maybe, but it was a meaningful response if you care to think it over.

Meatros
04-05-2013, 05:26 AM
Evolution is not synonymous with natural selection. Recent genome analyses suggest that in fact drift, at least in many populations, is the strongest driver of evolution.

Really? Do you have more on this? I find that extremely interesting.

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 05:50 AM
I think that's only the most extreme case. In most cases, it costs the altruist *something*, but not their entire life. Randians, oh excuse me "Objectivists" (a name I lol at), typically don't understand this and/or don't acknowledge it. Also, I think there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, but that's just me. Maybe that's a little too much nuance or something.
Sorry for being unclear, by own life I did not mean death.

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 05:51 AM
Keep spreading the good news of evolution my brother? lol


Lol :) I'm always here to guide !

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 05:52 AM
Really? Do you have more on this? I find that extremely interesting.

Yeah I was pretty surprised about his statement too...

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 05:55 AM
altruism is you don't get anything in return and you know that in advance....not a threat. can this be selected for?

i think you get some interesting arguments in response. similar to the 'best of all possible worlds' crap christians spout off all the time with the evil problem. it's ironic.

before you get rustled i know we evolved. but yes i'm just curious what your thoughts are on bigger things like this which are somewhat out of the box for a simple model.

Altruism is best described by kin selection. Increasing your indirect fitness while decreasing your direct fitness at an evolutionary standpoint point.

cross-trainer
04-05-2013, 06:43 AM
If evolution is real why aren't there any monkey-men running around?

BruceBruce325
04-05-2013, 06:50 AM
1. i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds. (science says dinosaurs evolved into birds).

2. why have whales not evolved to unbeach themselves yet and require our help? shouldn't we leave them beached in order for them to evolve into some creature with legs?

LeachGymRat
04-05-2013, 07:03 AM
evolution occurs when a mutation, no matter how insignificant, pops up in the DNA. this mutation can change the phenotype of a species until they evolve to become distinct species. keep in mind this mutation has to occur when a new organism is born. crossing over/alternative rna splicing/other biochemical tools are used within the system to express different genes in a new organism.

a simple google search could have put your problems to rest. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Penile_Dementia
04-05-2013, 07:21 AM
1. i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds. (science says dinosaurs evolved into birds).

See post above me for definition of evolution. And birds co-existed with non avian dinosaurs for at least 85 million years. Evolution branches off its species, but the ancestral order, family, genus, or even species does not necessarily need to go extinct for this to happen. Animals diverge to occupy different niches - mammals came from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish, yet fish are still around. Not the same fish species though. But you can have a new species in one area and its ancestral species still prospering in another, or even side by side, as long as there was some sort of environmental separation for a time period with more selective pressure on one group to speciate.


2. why have whales not evolved to unbeach themselves yet and require our help? shouldn't we leave them beached in order for them to evolve into some creature with legs?

wut

Meatros
04-05-2013, 07:22 AM
1. i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds. (science says dinosaurs evolved into birds).

No, evolution doesn't work in 'stages' like this. A portion of one population will typically adapt/mutate/evolve to fit another niche. So, some dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds, so-to-speak. While those dino's were doing that, there were still other dinosaurs. Just like how some Europeans migrated over to 'Merica, there were, and are, still some Europeans over there.



2. why have whales not evolved to unbeach themselves yet and require our help? shouldn't we leave them beached in order for them to evolve into some creature with legs?

The beach is not the whale's natural habitat. To put it another way, 'beaching' does not significantly reduce the whales reproductive population to an extent that any mutations that prevented beaching would take hold.

YuMadThough
04-05-2013, 07:26 AM
1. i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds. (science says dinosaurs evolved into birds).

No species has to die.
What happens is that one species becomes separated into two sub-groups for various reasons, these two sub-groups then have reduced gene flow between them so all of the individuals that once comprised that species can no longer mix as freely as they previously did. Once there's reduced gene flow between these two sub-groups then the individuals that comprise each sub-group can keep undergoing changes until the point is reached where the average individual within both sub-groups are so dissimilar that the gametes are no longer compatible (individual from sub-group 1 can't inpregnant an individual from sub-group 2 etc) at which point they're then labeled as different species. One group may die out while the other group carries on existing but it's not necessarily so, both can carry on existing alongside each other.

http://oi47.tinypic.com/m7gsq8.jpg



2. why have whales not evolved to unbeach themselves yet and require our help? shouldn't we leave them beached in order for them to evolve into some creature with legs?

Not enough selection pressure acting on them is one answer.
If there's a million whales but only 50 die from becoming beached every year then statistically there's not likely to be any benefit for an average whale to sprout some legs, so any mutation that could do that won't be selected for since the chances of any one whale becoming beached are so low.

Edit: wizards above^

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 07:26 AM
If evolution is real why aren't there any monkey-men running around?

Bro I said Srs posts only...

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 07:28 AM
Thanks to my mates above ^^^ for contributing to the thread.

ymer
04-05-2013, 07:41 AM
Facetiously couched maybe, but it was a meaningful response if you care to think it over.

Actually you just evaded the question with sarcasm, you should think over the question again.

cross-trainer
04-05-2013, 08:06 AM
Bro I said Srs posts only...

I AM serious.

iamarcin
04-05-2013, 09:15 AM
I AM serious.
Then you need to define what a monkey-man is. I am not familiar with that term.

or do you meant this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey-man_of_Delhi

Reliance012
04-05-2013, 10:36 AM
Really? Do you have more on this? I find that extremely interesting.

It's the basis for neutral (and nearly neutral) theory. Depending on the effective size a population (Ne), drift will have more or less of an influence on the change in allelic frequency relative to selection. This idea was postulated sometime before molecular evidence could solidify its validity. With advances in protein and gene sequencing, however, non-synonymous:synonymous ratio testing concluded that random sampling is actually driving evolution far more than natural selection in many populations, though certainly not all.

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 11:20 AM
Actually you just evaded the question with sarcasm, you should think over the question again.

Actually, no to both.

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 11:28 AM
1. i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds. (science says dinosaurs evolved into birds).

2. why have whales not evolved to unbeach themselves yet and require our help? shouldn't we leave them beached in order for them to evolve into some creature with legs?

1. No, it's when mutation combined with natural selection changes a species. In the context you're talking about, it's when a species changes enough to diverge from another one, which does not need to die off. A yardstick for divergence is that the two species can no longer mate and produce young. Also, there is no 'next stage' in evolution, it's not an attempt to evolve some ultimate form, Pokeman style, it's just naturally adapting to become fit for the environment.

2. Because not having legs makes them more fit for their environment i.e. energy saved swimming around all streamlined and sans legs is worth the 'cost' of the occasional beaching. Leaving an animal to die somewhere does not assist that creature to evolve appendages in order to save itself...I guess if you created an artificially shallow sea and kept the best food sources on the beach and chucked a pod of whales in there and maintained the environment for 20 million years or so, you might get divergence with 'beach whales' evolving.

boseador
04-05-2013, 11:40 AM
If ovulation is true, then how come all these animals evolved so quickly in 6000 years? What about Adam and Eve? Noah's ark had a pair of all the species of animals, how did they evolve so quick again into all these animals we have?

Not SRS.

Evolution is a fact.

Meatros
04-05-2013, 11:45 AM
It's the basis for neutral (and nearly neutral) theory. Depending on the effective size a population (Ne), drift will have more or less of an influence on the change in allelic frequency relative to selection. This idea was postulated sometime before molecular evidence could solidify its validity. With advances in protein and gene sequencing, however, non-synonymous:synonymous ratio testing concluded that random sampling is actually driving evolution far more than natural selection in many populations, though certainly not all.

That's pretty amazing. I just figured that it would be far less likely to 'grab a foothold' so-to-speak in the genetic frequency of a population.

ChickenDiapers
04-05-2013, 11:56 AM
If evolution is real why aren't there any monkey-men running around?
While both belong to the Primate family, monkeys and apes are distinctly different from one another.

BruceBruce325
04-05-2013, 12:18 PM
The beach is not the whale's natural habitat. To put it another way, 'beaching' does not significantly reduce the whales reproductive population to an extent that any mutations that prevented beaching would take hold.


the beach wasn't our natural habitat but we came from it(it being ocean)

ymer
04-05-2013, 12:25 PM
Well I can't take this thread seriously anymore. I'm off

boseador
04-05-2013, 12:41 PM
Why did we evolve eyebrows, nipples and hair on our heads?

Meatros
04-05-2013, 12:49 PM
the beach wasn't our natural habitat but we came from it(it being ocean)

I'm not sure what you mean by this or how this responds to what I wrote. Whales initially evolved from a quadruped similar to a wolf (if memory serves). They still have vestigial pelvic bones. How would the ability to 'unbeach' themselves proliferate through the gene pool? In other words, how would a group of whales which had a mutation that (if one were blessed with foresight) would eventually lead it's future descendants to be able to unbeach themselves? How would those initial mutations benefit the group?

pullupsbrah
04-05-2013, 02:18 PM
what's your thought about altruism?

I have always wondered what people have thought about this...

Is there a religious basis for it? Or is it a human thing?

BruceBruce325
04-05-2013, 02:38 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by this or how this responds to what I wrote. Whales initially evolved from a quadruped similar to a wolf (if memory serves). They still have vestigial pelvic bones. How would the ability to 'unbeach' themselves proliferate through the gene pool? In other words, how would a group of whales which had a mutation that (if one were blessed with foresight) would eventually lead it's future descendants to be able to unbeach themselves? How would those initial mutations benefit the group?

from wolves..... to whales.....


http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/incredibly-stupid.gif



done with this thread

Penile_Dementia
04-05-2013, 02:43 PM
from wolves..... to whales..... nope

done with this thread

What?

You "thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds."

You don't have the most basic grasp of evolution 101. I'd be a little more careful about casually just saying "nope" to things like Whales evolving from wolf like land quadrupeds (which is well attested in the fossil record, the current state of whales bodies and their genes) when you don't even know the most basic fundamentals of the subject.

Everyone wanna have an opinion but nobody wanna bother their ass to work for it

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 02:57 PM
from wolves..... to whales.....

done with this thread

Facts, Krytonite to creationists. Quickly, run away little creationist in case some information permeates your brain and you can't shake it loose! It's OK, just chant "La la la I can't hear you la la la!" - it's the creationist way.

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 03:02 PM
In my opinion the most common mistake creationists make with evolution is that they believe a dog turned into a horse. In order for evolution to occur, there must be at least one mutation. Think about this, HoxD genes, which are homeotic genes that govern position of body parts on an organism, one change in the HoxD genes can cause an organism to have a foot in place of an antenna. That's just one mutation, now imagine billions of years passing, imagine all the mutations accumulating, it's not mind blowing at all.

RoidRageZ
04-05-2013, 03:03 PM
Facts, Krytonite to creationists. Quickly, run away little creationist in case some information permeates your brain and you can't shake it loose! It's OK, just chant "La la la I can't hear you la la la!" - it's the creationist way.

Can't agree more with Mr.Beer. You guys deny the truth because of all the hubris and pride humans take, but at the end of the day, your just another hominin from the family hominidae.

ymer
04-05-2013, 03:12 PM
Can't agree more with Mr.Beer. You guys deny the truth because of all the hubris and pride humans take, but at the end of the day, your just another hominin from the family hominidae.

That's interesting because evolutionists ITT just ignored my initial question and denied going lalalalal I can't hear you lalala.

Penile_Dementia
04-05-2013, 03:12 PM
In my opinion the most common mistake creationists make with evolution is that they believe a dog turned into a horse. In order for evolution to occur, there must be at least one mutation. Think about this, HoxD genes, which are homeotic genes that govern position of body parts on an organism, one change in the HoxD genes can cause an organism to have a foot in place of an antenna. That's just one mutation, now imagine billions of years passing, imagine all the mutations accumulating, it's not mind blowing at all.

That's a very common one - of course such a propositon would refute the theory of evolution. I think the most common mistake is more fundamental: Being willing to proffer your position on a subject you haven't put in the slightest bit of effort to learn the first thing about.

2011:

"my only qualm with evolution is that if everything came from one single cell organism... shouldn't all organism be evolving at the same rate? "

Same guy 2 years later:

"i thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds."


Of course, like your suggestion of a common creationist strawman, if either of these things were true, all standard scientific perspectives of evolution would be completely false. Yet he will still happily assert "nope" to the suggestion that whales evolved from wolf like quadrupeds - while not having the faintest clue of how evolution supposedly works.

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 03:25 PM
That's interesting because evolutionists ITT just ignored my initial question and denied going lalalalal I can't hear you lalala.

LOL, OK Sparky

ymer
04-05-2013, 03:31 PM
LOL, OK Sparky

Yup typical response from an insecure evolutionist.

_Ryan_
04-05-2013, 03:54 PM
UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Mr Beer
04-05-2013, 04:01 PM
Well I can't take this thread seriously anymore. I'm off

Yup, typical untrue remark from a dishonest creationist.

shroomed
04-05-2013, 09:15 PM
Sciencebrah checking in. Can anyone of you explain the prevelance of homosexuality? Assuming it is genetical-On the surface it seems completely illogical seeing as it reduces an individuals probability of reproducing. Other factors such as altruism seem like they could work, but have yet to be explained. Interesting to say the least.

Austanian
04-05-2013, 09:26 PM
Explain how bats echolocation would evolve.

In order to be helpful for survival the specialized ears needed to hear it, the means of producing it, and the brains to process it would need to develop simultaneously. I am curious how this works sense evolution works in small steps towards the end goal...

ymer
04-05-2013, 09:40 PM
Yup, typical untrue remark from a dishonest creationist.

You are sad man, still relying on sarcasm and rhetoric to avoid answering.

Sublime82
04-05-2013, 10:21 PM
Explain how bats echolocation would evolve.

In order to be helpful for survival the specialized ears needed to hear it, the means of producing it, and the brains to process it would need to develop simultaneously. I am curious how this works sense evolution works in small steps towards the end goal...

It doesn't necessarily have to happen simultaneously. Adaptations may serve one function originally, but these functions may change over time as the species undergoes further adaptations. There is no 'end goal'.

ymer
04-05-2013, 10:25 PM
It doesn't necessarily have to happen simultaneously. Adaptations may serve one function originally, but these functions may change over time as the species undergoes further adaptations. There is no 'end goal'.

Don't pretend to know what you are talking about, from the link that was posted to "educate us about evolution" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Go to this link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50


Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?

Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?

How does evolution produce new and complex features?

Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

See unless you are able to answer it with Facts as you all love to claim, don't go with vague descriptions, it's accepted from evolutionists that there is no answer for that question.

Sublime82
04-05-2013, 10:49 PM
Don't pretend to know what you are talking about, from the link that was posted to "educate us about evolution" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Go to this link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50



See unless you are able to answer it with Facts as you all love to claim, don't go with vague descriptions, it's accepted from evolutionists that there is no answer for that question.


Austanian asked a very complex question. What I said is true in many other cases; it's not exactly a huge stretch to hypothesize that echolocation may have evolved in a similar manner.

Obviously science doesn't have all the facts. If you want absolute truths, I suggest you stick to religion.


And I do know what I'm talking about, thank you.

ymer
04-05-2013, 10:58 PM
Austanian asked a very complex question. What I said is true in many other cases; it's not exactly a huge stretch to hypothesize that echolocation may have evolved in a similar manner.

Obviously science doesn't have all the facts. If you want absolute truths, I suggest you stick to religion.


And I do know what I'm talking about, thank you.

But evolution is science and science can only be called science if it's backed up by FACTS (you guys love that word). What you said was vague and didn't explain anything, no facts no nothing, just an opinion.

guyver79
04-05-2013, 11:42 PM
What are your thoughts about newborn mamals (and well every animal out there) being completely clumsy and alien to their bodies once they are born? shouldn't evolution have their brains pre-programmed to be ready and be fully functional once you come out of the uterus?

Is this the question you wanted answered?

If you think every animal is born clumsy and alien to their bodies then you have a bit to learn.

If you're really interested:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#section_6

Not only that it sounds like you're asking why can't fully developed adults give birth to fully grown adults?

But isn't it the creationist that believe in some point in recent time God magically popped every single species of every animal, plant and bacteria, including every disease, all the millions of extinct species that has ever lived or will live all at the same time all as fully developed adults "fully functional" as you put it?

Then i ask you the same question, what's the creationists answer to some animals having more instinct than others and some needing more learning than others? If, as you believe every animal popped at into existence as fully developed adults, why doesn't that happen now? Why does life, which you believe is of a magical supernatural origin follow such natural rules now?

guyver79
04-05-2013, 11:51 PM
Don't pretend to know what you are talking about, from the link that was posted to "educate us about evolution" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Go to this link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50



See unless you are able to answer it with Facts as you all love to claim, don't go with vague descriptions, it's accepted from evolutionists that there is no answer for that question.

That's part of the index, if you had pressed "next page" a couple of times it answers you quite simply in a few paragraphs! Lol.

Looking at complexity
Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

some complex adaptations
Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.

Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?

There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

•Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.




A Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.



•Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 12:08 AM
Sciencebrah checking in. Can anyone of you explain the prevelance of homosexuality? Assuming it is genetical-On the surface it seems completely illogical seeing as it reduces an individuals probability of reproducing. Other factors such as altruism seem like they could work, but have yet to be explained. Interesting to say the least.

Homosexuals are pretty much useless evolutionarily speaking, unless they procreate with a member of the opposite sex for purely utilitarian purposes as some homosexuals in nature will do.

Homosexuals in nature are abnormal. During the process in which their brain should properly become identified with their genetic gender, something goes wrong.

Of course, some species, such as ants or bees, purposely breed sterile members. This happens very very rarely in species and the process through which this is possible isn't available to species such as us or any mammal as far I'm aware of.

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:16 AM
There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

•Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.

A Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.

•Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.

Those examples are over-simplyfing, a half eye that still senses is still an eye.

Let me come up with an example that has been puzzling me.

The evolution of a snake that can inject venom into the victim, in this case a "half" or intermediate adaptation would serve no purpose at all without the fully developed system, let me make the differences between the normal snake and what must have happened for it to be able to inject venom:

1. Development of a place to store the venom. (a mutation could have created this new organ accidentaly as evolution works)
2. Cavities in the fangs where the venom will flow to the victim.
3. A tube or connection from 1 to 2.
4. A new muscle that will be able to pump the contents of 1 into 2 through 3
5. The nerve connections to that muscle.
6. And Finally the venom.

See, a feature like that needs to be fully developed in order to be functional, 1/6 all the way to 5/6 of the function is useless, it would serve no advantage at all.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 12:18 AM
That's part of the index, if you had pressed "next page" a couple of times it answers you quite simply in a few paragraphs! Lol.

Looking at complexity
Life is full of grand complications, such as aerodynamic wings, multi-part organs like eyes, and intricate chemical pathways. When faced with such complexity, both opponents and proponents of evolution, Darwin included, have asked the question: how could it evolve?

some complex adaptations
Complex adaptions: bird wings, insect wings, vertebrate eyes, and insect eyes.

Science does not sweep such difficult questions under the rug, but takes them up as interesting areas for research. The difficulty is as follows.
Since many of these complex traits seem to be adaptive, they are likely to have evolved in small steps through natural selection. That is, intermediate forms of the adaptation must have evolved before evolution arrived at a fully-fledged wing, chemical pathway, or eye. But what good is half a wing or only a few of the elements of an eyeball? The intermediate forms of these adaptations may not seem adaptive — so how could they be produced by natural selection?

There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:

•Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.




A Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.



•Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.


I'm well aware of advantageous intermediates, but the intermediate steps for some parasites are just hard to imagine.

For example: pseudo-tongue fish parasites
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/28/tongue-eating-fish-parasites-never-cease-to-amaze/

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:20 AM
Is this the question you wanted answered?

If you think every animal is born clumsy and alien to their bodies then you have a bit to learn.

If you're really interested:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#section_6

Not only that it sounds like you're asking why can't fully developed adults give birth to fully grown adults?

But isn't it the creationist that believe in some point in recent time God magically popped every single species of every animal, plant and bacteria, including every disease, all the millions of extinct species that has ever lived or will live all at the same time all as fully developed adults "fully functional" as you put it?

Then i ask you the same question, what's the creationists answer to some animals having more instinct than others and some needing more learning than others? If, as you believe every animal popped at into existence as fully developed adults, why doesn't that happen now? Why does life, which you believe is of a magical supernatural origin follow such natural rules now?

Now that I have a response I will ask you the next question: wouldn't it be advantageous for mammals to have all nerve connections and expertise already programmed into them in order to have better chances of survival in the case of being born in a situation of danger?

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 12:21 AM
Those examples are over-simplyfing, a half eye that still senses is still an eye.

Let me come up with an example that has been puzzling me.

The evolution of a snake that can inject venom into the victim, in this case a "half" or intermediate adaptation would serve no purpose at all without the fully developed system, let me make the differences between the normal snake and what must have happened for it to be able to inject venom:

1. Development of a place to store the venom. (a mutation could have created this new organ accidentaly as evolution works)
2. Cavities in the fangs where the venom will flow to the victim.
3. A tube or connection from 1 to 2.
4. A new muscle that will be able to pump the contents of 1 into 2 through 3
5. The nerve connections to that muscle.
6. And Finally the venom.

See, a feature like that needs to be fully developed in order to be functional, 1/6 all the way to 5/6 of the function is useless, it would serve no advantage at all.

From what I've heard, snake venom is mostly just proteins and enzymes that used to inhabit the saliva of their ancestors, and has evolved from there. Also, there are theories that the ancestors of modern snakes were ALL venemous and some species lost most or all of their venom due to the ecosystem in which they have lived in.

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:24 AM
From what I've heard, snake venom is mostly just proteins and enzymes that used to inhabit the saliva of their ancestors. Also, there are theories that the ancestors of modern snakes were ALL venemous and some species lost most or all of their venom due to the ecosystem in which they have lived in.

That sounds to me like they are forcing parts of the puzzle to fit their agenda. In any case the "original" snakes from which the modern snakes come from should have evolved from a non-venomous, if they didn't it wouldn't have followed the evolution steps.

guyver79
04-06-2013, 12:26 AM
Now that I have a response I will ask you the next question: wouldn't it be advantageous for mammals to have all nerve connections and expertise already programmed into them in order to have better chances of survival in the case of being born in a situation of danger?

Before i answer anything else, are you actually reading my replies?

Read the links if you're really interested.

N4th4n
04-06-2013, 12:32 AM
That sounds to me like they are forcing parts of the puzzle to fit their agenda. In any case the "original" snakes from which the modern snakes come from should have evolved from a non-venomous, if they didn't it wouldn't have followed the evolution steps.
what agenda? what the fuk are you on about? Evolution is as fact as it gets.

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:32 AM
Before i answer anything else, are you actually reading my replies?

Read the links if you're really interested.

You obviously don't take me seriously and don't even read your sources:

The role of instincts in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system of an animal, the greater is the role of the cerebral cortex, and social learning and instincts play a lesser role. A comparison between a crocodile and an elephant illustrates how mammals for example are heavily dependent on social learning. Lionesses and chimpanzees raised in zoos away from their birth mothers most often reject their own offspring because they have not been taught the skills of mothering. Such is not the case with simpler species such as reptiles.

---------

Now please keep educating me, though I suggest you to take a different attitude.

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:33 AM
what agenda? what the fuk are you on about? Evolution is as fact as it gets.

Oh so you too are going to cherry pick little flaws in my statements and ignore the rest of what is being argued because you have no answer.

evolutionists please I thought you were superior to us skeptics. Teach me your ways.

guyver79
04-06-2013, 12:38 AM
You obviously don't take me seriously.......



Now please keep educating me, though I suggest you to take a different attitude.

For some reason i lol'd!!!

So you want to know why all animals aren't born fully developed and all knowing straight from the get go from birth?

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 12:40 AM
That sounds to me like they are forcing parts of the puzzle to fit their agenda.

Science is all about creating falsifiable theories that fit the evidence and trying to figure out which one is actually correct.


In any case the "original" snakes from which the modern snakes come from should have evolved from a non-venomous, if they didn't it wouldn't have followed the evolution steps.

Most animals have enzymes and proteins in their saliva that aid in digestion. Somewhere along the line, certain pre-snake species saw it advantageous to evolve saliva that helped kill/incapacitate their prey. Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

Somewhere along the line (where exactly is disputed), certain snake ancestors decided to go a different path that didn't use venom.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 12:51 AM
For some reason i lol'd!!!

So you want to know why all animals aren't born fully developed and all knowing straight from the get go from birth?

This. Many animals certainly do not know everything from birth. Instead they rely on a variety of different ways with which to learn important things.

For example, birds 'imprint.' You can imprint a bird on a human and it will be stuck somewhere in between thinking that it is a human inside of a bird body and thinking that we are birds stuck inside human bodies.

Natural instincts do often play a significant role still. A bird instinctually imprints as a baby. Many BOP (and perhaps some non, idk) 'scream' when they are around the individuals that they are imprinted on in particular. In the wild, this helps the baby birds get fed by their parents. When they are separated from their parents, they stop screaming. However, if they are not separated from their parents, they will most likely keep on screaming for the rest of their lives. This is why falconers try to avoid imprinting BOP on themselves. Because if they keep a bird that is imprinted on them, it will never stop screaming when they are around!

EDIT: BOP = bird of prey

ymer
04-06-2013, 12:59 AM
Most animals have enzymes and proteins in their saliva that aid in digestion. Somewhere along the line, certain pre-snake species saw it advantageous to evolve saliva that helped kill/incapacitate their prey. Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

Somewhere along the line (where exactly is disputed), certain snake ancestors decided to go a different path that didn't use venom.

I found this paper about the possible evolution of snake venom: Paper (http://public.wsu.edu/~kkardong/Web%20of%20KVK_06b/Publications/Evolution_venom_app82.pdf)

In short it's just ideas (somehow called theories for no apparent reason) of the what and why but doesn't have a real explanation and the conclusion is vague.

now this really got me interested and is one of the flaws that I always find on evolution arguments:

Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

My question to you would be, if snakes followed that path, is it plausible for you that somewhere along our evolution as humans would develop venom sacs somewhere along with the full apparatus to inject venom?. Here's the catch, we have no need for it but it wouldn't affect us either, remember that evolution is random mutations that in some cases cause an advantage which makes the species prosperous, we're already prosperous so such an advantage would make no difference BUT it wouldn't make us weaker either... anyway to my point, was the human evolution progress just unlucky enough to not have hit the venom jackpot? I mean we don't have the gland, the fangs nor the sack and passages to inject venom but this other species (snake) was lucky enough to have the 6 steps that I described earlier while we have none.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 01:18 AM
I found this paper about the possible evolution of snake venom: Paper (http://public.wsu.edu/~kkardong/Web%20of%20KVK_06b/Publications/Evolution_venom_app82.pdf)

In short it's just ideas (somehow called theories for no apparent reason) of the what and why but doesn't have a real explanation and the conclusion is vague.

now this really got me interested and is one of the flaws that I always find on evolution arguments:

Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

My question to you would be, if snakes followed that path, is it plausible for you that somewhere along our evolution as humans would develop venom sacs somewhere along with the full apparatus to inject venom?. Here's the catch, we have no need for it but it wouldn't affect us either, remember that evolution is random mutations that in some cases cause an advantage which makes the species prosperous, we're already prosperous so such an advantage would make no difference BUT it wouldn't make us weaker either... anyway to my point, was the human evolution progress just unlucky enough to not have hit the venom jackpot? I mean we don't have the gland, the fangs nor the sack and passages to inject venom but this other species (snake) was lucky enough to have the 6 steps that I described earlier while we have none.


Here's the catch, we have no need for it but it wouldn't affect us either, remember that evolution is random mutations that in some cases cause an advantage which makes the species prosperous, we're already prosperous so such an advantage would make no difference BUT it wouldn't make us weaker either..

Here's the error in your thinking. Our ancestors haven't killed things by biting it for a very very long time.

First off, biting prey is very disadvantageous to us because it puts us in a lot of danger. We are not supposed to to bite our prey while it is still living.

Second, fangs cause all sorts of problems. Humans already have enough dental problems without sizable fangs. If we're not intended to kill our prey through our bites, fangs would be more bad than good. Instead, our teeth are suited to eating dead things in an omnivorous manner.

Third, humans do have saliva glands. They are suited for digestive needs though.

Fourth, humans do not have venom and the associated organs/passages for a very good reason. All that stuff isn't useful to us since we are not killing prey with our bites. In fact, it would be very counterproductive. All those extra organs/passages are prone to infections and disorders. That's not to mention that we would have use up energy to develop the venom and glands/organs/channels associated. We'd also have to circulate the antibodies to our own venom.

guyver79
04-06-2013, 01:22 AM
I found this paper about the possible evolution of snake venom: Paper (http://public.wsu.edu/~kkardong/Web%20of%20KVK_06b/Publications/Evolution_venom_app82.pdf)

In short it's just ideas (somehow called theories for no apparent reason) of the what and why but doesn't have a real explanation and the conclusion is vague.

now this really got me interested and is one of the flaws that I always find on evolution arguments:

Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

My question to you would be, if snakes followed that path, is it plausible for you that somewhere along our evolution as humans would develop venom sacs somewhere along with the full apparatus to inject venom?. Here's the catch, we have no need for it but it wouldn't affect us either, remember that evolution is random mutations that in some cases cause an advantage which makes the species prosperous, we're already prosperous so such an advantage would make no difference BUT it wouldn't make us weaker either... anyway to my point, was the human evolution progress just unlucky enough to not have hit the venom jackpot? I mean we don't have the gland, the fangs nor the sack and passages to inject venom but this other species (snake) was lucky enough to have the 6 steps that I described earlier while we have none.

You mean as a vestigial organ?

If it was metabolically expensive organ then no probably not, natural selection would probably weed it out if it has no evolutionary advantage and as you put " no need for it" some of it might remain as a vestigial organ.

Other than that our big brains is our evolutionary advantage, it uses a chit load of fuel it wouldn't really be an advantage to start developing useless body parts that would require more fuel.

I think I've understood your question?

FeelTheFear
04-06-2013, 01:52 AM
from wolves..... to whales.....

done with this thread

Whales are mammals. Mammals originated on land.

FeelTheFear
04-06-2013, 02:10 AM
I found this paper about the possible evolution of snake venom: Paper (http://public.wsu.edu/~kkardong/Web%20of%20KVK_06b/Publications/Evolution_venom_app82.pdf)

In short it's just ideas (somehow called theories for no apparent reason) of the what and why but doesn't have a real explanation and the conclusion is vague.

now this really got me interested and is one of the flaws that I always find on evolution arguments:

Eventually, the snake ancestors had some ample venom sacs going on behind their fangs.

My question to you would be, if snakes followed that path, is it plausible for you that somewhere along our evolution as humans would develop venom sacs somewhere along with the full apparatus to inject venom? Here's the catch, we have no need for it but it wouldn't affect us either, remember that evolution is random mutations that in some cases cause an advantage which makes the species prosperous, we're already prosperous so such an advantage would make no difference BUT it wouldn't make us weaker either...


In the case you're discussing, if a characteristic that currently exists does not infer a selective advantage, but does not reduce our fitness either, then it will not disappear from our anatomy. That's why horses have canine teeth, because it's ancestors used it, then as the horse evolved it didn't need it anymore. It also didn't lose anything by having it, so it kept it.

Advanced structures do not appear by mutation. Mutations are generally nucleotide base substitutions, which change a single amino acid.. so changes will usually be affecting like 1 protein in an entire organism. The vast majority of mutations don't do jack ****, mostly because most of our DNA doesn't even get coded into proteins. And the vast majority of mutations that change a protein, are disadvantageous. However, if the mutation happened to change a protein in a way that it gained a very slight advantage, that's the beginnings of evolution. That characteristic would then evolve over time thanks to natural selection, and may turn into a venom sac over thousands or millions of years.

In order for us to develop a new organ like venom sacs, we would have to gain a selective advantage from the development of those over time (LIke the other guy explained, evolution happens in very tiny steps over large periods of time. So an individual might get some enzyme in his saliva that gives him a slight advantage.. and since he gained a slight advantage from that, he would make more offspring relative to the rest of the individuals of the same species, so the # of individuals with that characteristic would increase. Then that characteristic would progress over time, continuing to give the individuals carrying it a selective advantage. Eventually, they would develop venom sacs.


anyway to my point, was the human evolution progress just unlucky enough to not have hit the venom jackpot? I mean we don't have the gland, the fangs nor the sack and passages to inject venom but this other species (snake) was lucky enough to have the 6 steps that I described earlier while we have none.

It wasn't really luck. Snakes happened to be in a niche where developing venom sacs gave an advantage. It's way less less likely that apes would develop anything like that because it just doesn't happen to give them an advantage (one of the reasons could be large size of our prey, for example, but obviously there are thousands of factors)

Austanian
04-06-2013, 02:36 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to happen simultaneously. Adaptations may serve one function originally, but these functions may change over time as the species undergoes further adaptations. There is no 'end goal'.

For each mutation to be any benefit they would... And yes there is an end goal... To be better at what you do then anything else that is in your locality. There just happens to be certain ways it is done. (convergent evolution.) Even though evolution obviously has some truth to it complex evolution makes me skeptical hippo on several items.

hassel35
04-06-2013, 05:45 AM
Of course evolution is real,

God created it.

Regards,
Hassel

:-)

guyver79
04-06-2013, 06:08 AM
Even though evolution obviously has some truth to it complex evolution makes me skeptical hippo on several items.

Which would be?

ymer
04-06-2013, 08:40 AM
I was wrong all along, I thought all evolution was random mutations, not selective conscious changes.

FeelTheFear
04-06-2013, 11:01 AM
I was wrong all along, I thought all evolution was random mutations, not selective conscious changes.

It's called natural selection.. basically the whole thing that evolution is based upon lol. It's not conscious, it's merely small changes giving certain individuals a fitness advantage, they have success and reproduce, and the# of individuals in the population with that trait increase. Over time it makes the species different because ****y traits are cut out while advantageous traits add up (and change over time).

Sublime82
04-06-2013, 11:09 AM
For each mutation to be any benefit they would... And yes there is an end goal... To be better at what you do then anything else that is in your locality. There just happens to be certain ways it is done. (convergent evolution.) Even though evolution obviously has some truth to it complex evolution makes me skeptical hippo on several items.

Evolution in and of itself has no end goal. It is simply a natural phenomenon. The only time it has an 'end goal' is when it is directed, i.e. artificial selection for desired traits.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're getting confused with the semantics. Yes, organisms have an end goal of reproduction; evolution is the mechanism that facilitates this. It's just the result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity.


What you're talking about is natural selection.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 11:13 AM
I was wrong all along, I thought all evolution was random mutations, not selective conscious changes.

Genetic mutations AND natural selection.

Mr Beer
04-06-2013, 01:15 PM
You are sad man, still relying on sarcasm and rhetoric to avoid answering.

Do you lie because you are a creationist or are you a creationist because you are a liar?

ymer
04-06-2013, 02:25 PM
Here's the error in your thinking. Our ancestors haven't killed things by biting it for a very very long time.

First off, biting prey is very disadvantageous to us because it puts us in a lot of danger. We are not supposed to to bite our prey while it is still living.

Second, fangs cause all sorts of problems. Humans already have enough dental problems without sizable fangs. If we're not intended to kill our prey through our bites, fangs would be more bad than good. Instead, our teeth are suited to eating dead things in an omnivorous manner.

Third, humans do have saliva glands. They are suited for digestive needs though.

Fourth, humans do not have venom and the associated organs/passages for a very good reason. All that stuff isn't useful to us since we are not killing prey with our bites. In fact, it would be very counterproductive. All those extra organs/passages are prone to infections and disorders. That's not to mention that we would have use up energy to develop the venom and glands/organs/channels associated. We'd also have to circulate the antibodies to our own venom.

We could go forever debating how what you are saying is not just natural selection and mutations. Maybe this will be my last post because I think not even you fully understand the concept of evolution. But without the full system developed the snakes would have the same problems that humans would have if they developed small changes like you just described (some of the steps to become venomous), what you are saying is that maybe a snake developed those organs passages before having the full system and could have become infected and due to natural selection being cut off.

You see, maybe you should stop one second and realize that it's still a theory and there are a bunch of holes in it, don't pretend that you know it all because you don't, you are explaining things to me that other experts can't (like in the paper that I showed you or the evolution 101 link).

ymer
04-06-2013, 02:29 PM
Do you lie because you are a creationist or are you a creationist because you are a liar?

I'm a liar because evolution makes no sense to me, intelligent design is the only plausible explanation for me.

A lot of you discredit skeptics of evolution theory thinking that we are ignorant and uneducated people, well if you want to find answers you should stop a moment to think and maybe you will get a hint of why we haven't been able to explain many organisms and features with evolution even with all the modern technology and research, you can feel that you are superior because you are not a wishful thinker but you are still believing in it, just as a creationist or an intelligent design believer believes in design; you believe in evolution, it's an incomplete theory that is on a stall state.

guyver79
04-06-2013, 04:04 PM
I'm a liar because evolution makes no sense to me, intelligent design is the only plausible explanation for me.

A lot of you discredit skeptics of evolution theory thinking that we are ignorant and uneducated people, well if you want to find answers you should stop a moment to think and maybe you will get a hint of why we haven't been able to explain many organisms and features with evolution even with all the modern technology and research, you can feel that you are superior because you are not a wishful thinker but you are still believing in it, just as a creationist or an intelligent design believer believes in design; you believe in evolution, it's an incomplete theory that is on a stall state.

But you have shown yourself to be ignorant and uneducated in regards to evolution.

You discredit yourself by not being able to grasp the most basic facts.

so ask yourself, do random mutations occur? And does natural selection occur?

Put the two together and you've got.........

Dreasan
04-06-2013, 04:18 PM
You ask, I and my fellow evolutionists will try to answer. By you I mean those that don't believe it of course. Please keep it humane and on topic.

So you believe that man can evolve? Are you referring to physical, emotional or spiritual evolution? There are only a few people that have reach such evolution past and present. Mankind as a whole will never evolve.

_Ryan_
04-06-2013, 04:21 PM
I'm a liar because evolution makes no sense to me, intelligent design is the only plausible explanation for me.

A lot of you discredit skeptics of evolution theory thinking that we are ignorant and uneducated people, well if you want to find answers you should stop a moment to think and maybe you will get a hint of why we haven't been able to explain many organisms and features with evolution even with all the modern technology and research, you can feel that you are superior because you are not a wishful thinker but you are still believing in it, just as a creationist or an intelligent design believer believes in design; you believe in evolution, it's an incomplete theory that is on a stall state.


We "believe" in evolution because of its overwhelming amount of evidence backing it. All you have done so far is ignore this evidence and look at what hasn't been explained so far. You're simply relying on an argument from incredulity as your evidence for intelligent design. Doubtful anyone here is a Herpetologist so asking for a detailed evolutionary basis of reptile venom and concluding evolution is BS all because no one has given you a sufficient answer is absurd.

Sublime82
04-06-2013, 04:32 PM
I'm a liar because evolution makes no sense to me, intelligent design is the only plausible explanation for me.

A lot of you discredit skeptics of evolution theory thinking that we are ignorant and uneducated people, well if you want to find answers you should stop a moment to think and maybe you will get a hint of why we haven't been able to explain many organisms and features with evolution even with all the modern technology and research, you can feel that you are superior because you are not a wishful thinker but you are still believing in it, just as a creationist or an intelligent design believer believes in design; you believe in evolution, it's an incomplete theory that is on a stall state.

That's fine if you choose to believe in creationism instead. Just as long as you understand that ID is neither a scientific theory, nor is it based on the scientific method. As long as you're not trying to pass it off as science, I don't care.


So you believe that man can evolve? Are you referring to physical, emotional or spiritual evolution? There are only a few people that have reach such evolution past and present. Mankind as a whole will never evolve.


You're gonna have to explain that a little better there chap.

ymer
04-06-2013, 06:28 PM
We "believe" in evolution because of its overwhelming amount of evidence backing it. All you have done so far is ignore this evidence and look at what hasn't been explained so far. You're simply relying on an argument from incredulity as your evidence for intelligent design. Doubtful anyone here is a Herpetologist so asking for a detailed evolutionary basis of reptile venom and concluding evolution is BS all because no one has given you a sufficient answer is absurd.

Then please fill the holes for me and give me a sufficent answer, else you are also believing blindly.

As for the other responses, you are unable to admit that the theory of evolution is just a theory and are portraying it as a fact while it isn't, I can't prove intelligent design unless I'm able to contact the designer(s). While you have a bunch of stuff to gather the information from and still can't explain a simple question and you don't admit either that you are ignoring some of my arguments, if you need that for your egos that's fine, my world wouldn't crumple if evolution is proved but my opinion from what I have researched is that it's wrong and I have headed my self in another direction to find the answers, I WAS a believer of evolution.

So if I'm "ignoring" and are unable to "grasp" the "basic" concepts such as mutations and natural selection, why don't you come out and give me a definite answer for the snake problem, the paper that I showed before and I bet no one read about the snake has no conclusion and no explanation, it's just a compilation of a bunch of ideas about what the experts "think" about that problem. It's obvious that all the people that are responding to me have better understanding than the biologists and other people that participated on that paper... so please fill in the holes, if you can't then you don't understand mutations and natural selection.

Harbinger
04-06-2013, 06:33 PM
Then please fill the holes for me and give me a sufficent answer, else you are also believing blindly.


http://i49.tinypic.com/b6znd3.jpg

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 07:09 PM
We could go forever debating how what you are saying is not just natural selection and mutations. Maybe this will be my last post because I think not even you fully understand the concept of evolution. But without the full system developed the snakes would have the same problems that humans would have if they developed small changes like you just described (some of the steps to become venomous), what you are saying is that maybe a snake developed those organs passages before having the full system and could have become infected and due to natural selection being cut off.

Snakes do have infections and disorders in their venom systems. The venom is so valuable to snakes though, who mostly kill live prey by envenomating them, that the venom stayed.

Even the partially evolved venom systems were so beneficial that they stayed until they became fully evolved.


You see, maybe you should stop one second and realize that it's still a theory and there are a bunch of holes in it, don't pretend that you know it all because you don't, you are explaining things to me that other experts can't (like in the paper that I showed you or the evolution 101 link).

Evolution has been proven in laboratories.

There are holes in almost all scientific theories, because scientific theories are constantly changing to fit the evidence. That's how science works.

Reliance012
04-06-2013, 07:22 PM
For each mutation to be any benefit they would... And yes there is an end goal... To be better at what you do then anything else that is in your locality. There just happens to be certain ways it is done. (convergent evolution.) Even though evolution obviously has some truth to it complex evolution makes me skeptical hippo on several items.

Incorrect. The neural system is extraordinarily plastic.

sawoobley
04-06-2013, 07:57 PM
Evolution has been proven in laboratories.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9IsZ7_S2IsGE_ax7Tr9KiDraY5LO7W D-iItQ9tyI2nCw51jAI

Link to said proof? Be specific please.

Birdy69
04-06-2013, 08:08 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9IsZ7_S2IsGE_ax7Tr9KiDraY5LO7W D-iItQ9tyI2nCw51jAI

Link to said proof? Be specific please.

Testing of evolution in laboratories focuses on organisms that reproduce quickly.

Mice, yeast, microscopic organisms, etc. There are numerous studies out there of evolution in laboratories; you're going to have to be more specific.

_Ryan_
04-06-2013, 09:08 PM
Then please fill the holes for me and give me a sufficent answer, else you are also believing blindly.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2v1uv7m.jpg




As for the other responses, you are unable to admit that the theory of evolution is just a theory and are portraying it as a fact while it isn't, I can't prove intelligent design unless I'm able to contact the designer(s). While you have a bunch of stuff to gather the information from and still can't explain a simple question and you don't admit either that you are ignoring some of my arguments, if you need that for your egos that's fine, my world wouldn't crumple if evolution is proved but my opinion from what.....


Come back when you understand the difference between a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and the colloquial term of theory.


I have researched is that it's wrong and I have headed my self in another direction to find the answers, I WAS a believer of evolution.

Once again, you have ignored the mountains of evidence which proves evolution and choose to jump on what hasn't been explained. None of this proves evolution is wrong. Doubtful you really have done much research.



So if I'm "ignoring" and are unable to "grasp" the "basic" concepts such as mutations and natural selection, why don't you come out and give me a definite answer for the snake problem, the paper that I showed before and I bet no one read about the snake has no conclusion and no explanation, it's just a compilation of a bunch of ideas about what the experts "think" about that problem. It's obvious that all the people that are responding to me have better understanding than the biologists and other people that participated on that paper... so please fill in the holes, if you can't then you don't understand mutations and natural selection.

Just because you haven't gained a sufficient answer from the posters on these boards on how venom evolved does NOT conclude evolution is false. Not sure why you feel this destroys the whole theory (used in the scientific term). Surely, if you really DID do research, you could have done a simple scholarly search.

http://public.wsu.edu/~kkardong/Web%20of%20KVK_06b/Publications/Evolution_venom_app82.pdf

Reliance012
04-06-2013, 09:30 PM
Then please fill the holes for me and give me a sufficent answer, else you are also believing blindly.

As for the other responses, you are unable to admit that the theory of evolution is just a theory and are portraying it as a fact while it isn't, I can't prove intelligent design unless I'm able to contact the designer(s). While you have a bunch of stuff to gather the information from and still can't explain a simple question and you don't admit either that you are ignoring some of my arguments, if you need that for your egos that's fine, my world wouldn't crumple if evolution is proved but my opinion from what I have researched is that it's wrong and I have headed my self in another direction to find the answers, I WAS a believer of evolution.

So if I'm "ignoring" and are unable to "grasp" the "basic" concepts such as mutations and natural selection, why don't you come out and give me a definite answer for the snake problem, the paper that I showed before and I bet no one read about the snake has no conclusion and no explanation, it's just a compilation of a bunch of ideas about what the experts "think" about that problem. It's obvious that all the people that are responding to me have better understanding than the biologists and other people that participated on that paper... so please fill in the holes, if you can't then you don't understand mutations and natural selection.

Because you seem to genuinely care, I will elaborate on your issues with evolution. Unlike most on this site, I do have an advanced (and continuing) education in the specific field.

First, evolution is both a fact and theory. The fact pertains to changes in allelic frequencies. The theories explain why this observation happens. Natural selection is one theory that provides an explanation, often in congruence with neutral and nearly neutral theory.

We do not have sufficient answers for the evolution of every trait seen in the nature. Evolutionary biology is like all scientific fields, it continues to grow in knowledge. This doesn't put the theory in jeopardy, it simply means that we don't understand all the nuances of every system. You will find unexplained "holes" of knowledge in every scientific principle, from organic chemistry to plate tectonics. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm not an expert in herpetology evolution, but I imagine there are at least several peer-reviewed papers that speculate on your conundrum.

As numerous posters have pointed out, evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence. The molecular advances in studying it are incredible- allozymes, animo acid sequencing, mtDNA sequencing, RFLP among others have given us insight into the mechanisms of evolution and phylogenetics in exquisite detail.

sawoobley
04-07-2013, 12:29 AM
Testing of evolution in laboratories focuses on organisms that reproduce quickly.
Mice, yeast, microscopic organisms, etc. There are numerous studies out there of evolution in laboratories; you're going to have to be more specific.

Anything noteworthy that you think provides "proof" of evolution. I haven't looked into it in depth but when people post stuff the results are usually pretty yawn worthy IMO even though the actual experimentation and work put into the project is admirable. The scientists introduce a bunch of mutations into an enzyme and the enzyme becomes more efficient over time or something of that nature. From these observations they usually suggest what the implications might be.

If we are talking about "proof" of evolution like you stated above then there should be substantial evidence or proof of theory. I'd be interested in something that demonstrates that random mutations can lead to beneficial and new traits or abilities of an organism. If not that than something else noteworthy.

guyver79
04-07-2013, 01:02 AM
If we are talking about "proof" of evolution like you stated above then there should be substantial evidence or proof of theory. I'd be interested in something that demonstrates that random mutations can lead to beneficial and new traits or abilities of an organism. If not that than something else noteworthy.

http://www.phylointelligence.com/observed.html

1. Observed instances of new species forming


Observed beneficial mutations and macro evolutionary change in Anolis lizards



An excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, the lizards each adapted to their respective environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards each changed body shape in response to the flora in their environment. In fact, scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. Scientists estimate that this change was on the order of 200 darwins, which are measured units of evolutionary change. In comparison, the average rate observed in the fossil record is only 0.6 darwins.(Gingerich, 1983) (Image Source 1)

Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse



Irish monks originally brought the house mouse to the Faeroe Islands, where it has quickly diverged in different species, or possibly sub-species, in less than 250 years. (Stanley,1979) (Image Source 2)



Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.

Less than 5,000 years ago, a sandbar formed and cut off Lake Nagubago from the larger Lake Victoria. Since then, at least 5 new species of cichlid fish have evolved in Lake Nagubago, and these species are found nowhere else in the entire world.(Mayr, 1970)



Speciation in action among Larus seagulls.

Gulls of the genus Larus form an evolutionary ring around the North Pole, which acts as a geographic barrier for their population. Although some have argued that this is technically not an example of a ring species(Liebers et al., 2004), it is certainly an example of speciation in action.

In the image above, one can see the "ring" the sub-species of gulls make around the pole. The herring gull can interbreed with its neighbor, the American herring gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Vega gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Birula's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, Heruglin's gull, which can interbreed with its neighbor, the Siberian black-backed gull, which can finally interbreed with its neighbor, the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 4)



However, the populations of the herring gulls and the lesser black-backed gulls are genetically different enough so that, even though they now live in relatively the same area, they cannot reproduce together. Thus, they can not truly be the same species. As you move west around the pole, the genetic difference in each population becomes slightly greater and greater until the two ends meet, at which we have two separate species.

Examples such as the Larus gulls essentially show all the steps of speciation laid out in a ring. Each population is slightly different from the last, until the two ends meet and these populations are completely different species that will now continue to grow more and more genetically different. To the left you can see the two distinct species of gulls, the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull. (Image Source 5)

A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas



The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)




Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella



When a predator was introduced to the environment of the unicellular Chlorella algae in a lab test, scientists observed the algae cells bond together in colonies, and eventually became an entirely new multicellular species. One could even argue that this change extends past the species level. In the image to the left, FC is the unicellular chlorella algae, Oc is the predator introduced to the environment, and CC is the new multicellular algae.

This is not simply a "cell colony", but a new multicellular organism. The multicellularity was achieved by a mutation that fused the cell wall of the mother cell and its daughter cell together. Because these cells are thus dependent upon each other for survival, the new organism is multicellular and not a simple bacterial colony.(Boraas et al., 1998) (Note: The image is also from this source.)

A new species of mosquito in London


The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

Finch speciation in the Galapagos

The finch populations of the Galapagos islands have been famous ever since they were included as elegant examples of natural selection in Darwin's On the Origin of Species. In recent times, scientists have successfully observed a new species of finch develop after an extreme bottleneck in the finch population on the island Daphne Major, caused by a drought. This new species refuses to mate with its sister-species, and thus is reproductively isolated. Over time, it will genetically diverge; this is evolution in action just as Darwin predicted, in the very place where the formation of his ideas have their roots(Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant 2009).

BruceBruce325
04-08-2013, 06:13 AM
Facts, Krytonite to creationists. Quickly, run away little creationist in case some information permeates your brain and you can't shake it loose! It's OK, just chant "La la la I can't hear you la la la!" - it's the creationist way.

ummmm not a creationist

but go ahead and keep preaching your psycho babble

thanks sweet heart

BruceBruce325
04-08-2013, 06:20 AM
What?

You "thought evolution occurs when on species advances to the next stage but that means the old form dies off...becoming extinct. for example dinosaurs and birds."

You don't have the most basic grasp of evolution 101. I'd be a little more careful about casually just saying "nope" to things like Whales evolving from wolf like land quadrupeds (which is well attested in the fossil record, the current state of whales bodies and their genes) when you don't even know the most basic fundamentals of the subject.

Everyone wanna have an opinion but nobody wanna bother their ass to work for it

i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

or for example no they are saying neanderthals were KILLED of by homosapiens

how does that work with the theory of evolution

Penile_Dementia
04-08-2013, 06:31 AM
i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

Yeah, um, the post you just quoted, which you gave no hint of reading a single word of, is a pretty good reply to this.

If you don't know the most basic fundamental aspects of the subject, pontificating it about like this is idiotic.


or for example no they are saying neanderthals were KILLED of by homosapiens

how does that work with the theory of evolution

Just fine. Completely consistent with random mutations, natural selection, and the consequential change in gene frequencies and branching of species etc. I don't know where you could possibly see a conflict with the theory of evolution there, but it's already been established quite firmly that you have no idea what the fundamentals of that theory are. There's nowhere else to go in discussion until you have the intellectual honesty to withdraw such idiotically decided opinions until you learn the basics of the subject.

BrocepCurls
04-08-2013, 06:33 AM
i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

or for example no they are saying neanderthals were KILLED of by homosapiens

how does that work with the theory of evolution

Bro, read a high school biology textbook, for the love of god. Age: 28

You are arguing with yourself, no one here is saying that "apes move on the the next stage" like Pokemon or some **** and then the old form dies off. What the hell are you on about

ChickenDiapers
04-08-2013, 06:41 AM
A lot of you discredit skeptics of evolution theory thinking that we are ignorant and uneducated people
Aren't you?

Meatros
04-08-2013, 06:41 AM
from wolves..... to whales.....

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/incredibly-stupid.gif

done with this thread

No, not wolves, a quadruped similar to a wolf. This is not new, nor is it unknown. Frankly speaking I thought it was fairly common knowledge. Sure, some creationists reject it (Behe famously predicted that there wouldn't be any 'missing links' found, and something like two years later there were a number of intermediate fossils found).


UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Good stuff there.


Sciencebrah checking in. Can anyone of you explain the prevelance of homosexuality? Assuming it is genetical-On the surface it seems completely illogical seeing as it reduces an individuals probability of reproducing. Other factors such as altruism seem like they could work, but have yet to be explained. Interesting to say the least.

I have some thoughts about it, but nothing concrete. I think that in small groups of humans that a low threshold for homosexuals could be advantageous for the group. So, basically we have a number of 'breeders' and we have some homosexual brothers/sisters (whatever). Those homosexuals will be bound to the group because they are family, they will provide 2 adults to help forage for food, and they will be less of a drain on the resources (such as children under 10, for example).


Explain how bats echolocation would evolve.

In order to be helpful for survival the specialized ears needed to hear it, the means of producing it, and the brains to process it would need to develop simultaneously. I am curious how this works sense evolution works in small steps towards the end goal...

The same way an eye would evolve, through incremental steps.


Those examples are over-simplyfing, a half eye that still senses is still an eye.

Let me come up with an example that has been puzzling me.

The evolution of a snake that can inject venom into the victim, in this case a "half" or intermediate adaptation would serve no purpose at all without the fully developed system, let me make the differences between the normal snake and what must have happened for it to be able to inject venom:

1. Development of a place to store the venom. (a mutation could have created this new organ accidentaly as evolution works)
2. Cavities in the fangs where the venom will flow to the victim.
3. A tube or connection from 1 to 2.
4. A new muscle that will be able to pump the contents of 1 into 2 through 3
5. The nerve connections to that muscle.
6. And Finally the venom.

See, a feature like that needs to be fully developed in order to be functional, 1/6 all the way to 5/6 of the function is useless, it would serve no advantage at all.

You need to understand what an evolutionary arms race is. I'm not familiar enough with snakes to really give anything definitive, but I would guess that the first adaptation would be something that is harmful to the prey. Perhaps painful. This adaptation if further refined over the centuries to something deadly. It becomes very deadly because it's prey also develops an immune system that can fight the poison. When some *OTHER* animal gets bit by a snake, it has not developed such an immunity.

A few things to keep note: Evolution/natural selection is not 'accidental'. When I speak of 'developing' that seems to imply a teleology. What I mean is that in a group there are some individuals who have mutated this 'development'. These individuals survive and breed this mutation into the gene pool.




Of course evolution is real,

God created it.

Regards,
Hassel

:-)

Evolution is a process. Your statement doesn't make any sense.

Meatros
04-08-2013, 06:44 AM
i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

or for example no they are saying neanderthals were KILLED of by homosapiens

how does that work with the theory of evolution

Humans are apes. When you say 'ape' you are referring to a shorthand for a number of species.

As to Neanderthals being killed off by homosapiens, that was one hypothesis - I'm not sure if it's the dominant one anymore, to be honest. In any event, I'm not sure what your question is here.

Sublime82
04-08-2013, 07:04 AM
i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

or for example no they are saying neanderthals were KILLED of by homosapiens

how does that work with the theory of evolution

Checkmate Atheists

BruceBruce325
04-08-2013, 07:41 AM
Bro, read a high school biology textbook, for the love of god. Age: 28

ummm too busy working to actually sit down and worry about something that wont do a thing for me in my life


You are arguing with yourself, no one here is saying that "apes move on the the next stage" like Pokemon or some **** and then the old form dies off. What the hell are you on about

btw thanks for the neg

age:19

goes on about evolution like he is boss and then negs me even with low rep pwr

fcnz32
04-08-2013, 01:29 PM
At what point in the evolutionary process was the capability of free will introduced? i.e. the organism can choose its actions and is not merely a "slave" to its governing chemical processes.

Hint: It's a trick question. Free will does not exist, and it is not even a coherent concept. We have no more "free will" than an ant.

Everyone is welcome for the enlightening. Srs though, I have found that the answer to the debate on the illusion of free will is the answer to life. Certainly makes how you look at evolution even more interesting. Atheists, theists, everyone should be researching the topic. might sound crazy at first because we are all socialized to believe in the concept of free will. But research it and your mind might get blown or at the very least you will be entertained by the topic so just google illusion of free will. have fun

Mr Beer
04-08-2013, 03:28 PM
ummmm not a creationist


i juist think the idea of of mutatign from an ape to a human is idiotic

LOL!

Really though, not sure why you can't cope with the idea that humans have common ancestry with the other apes.

JFizzle23
04-08-2013, 03:32 PM
Checkmate Atheists
Not sure if srs?

It's called a branching point where the species separated.

Checkmate retard.

Sublime82
04-08-2013, 03:48 PM
Not sure if srs?

It's called a branching point where the species separated.

Checkmate retard.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnuhhwBXBD1qg945w.jpg