Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Some info on Evolution

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by GST_Nemisis, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. GST_Nemisis

    GST_Nemisis

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,600
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Hey to all, I haven't been here in a while!

    Just stopping by and I noticed a few threads here discussing Evolution and, without trying to be rude, I have noticed that a few people on both sides of the fence (presumably Evolutionists and Creationists) haven't got all the facts. Anyway, for anyone interested I have been spending the last few years learning about this very subject! Believe me there is ALOT to evolution! So people should make sure they have an understanding of the basics of Evolution, what it is, what causes it, why it happens and so on. To help with this, I though I would copy and paste a little bit of info that I wrote about 2 years ago on this ever-so challenging topic to get people into the feel of what Evolution really is! If you guys want to tear it appart with counter arguments and reasoning against what I've written thats fine, I really don't mind but take on board that everything written is true, none is speculation unless stated as so. I intend to give more of a "this is what we know" interpritation than trying to convert people, because honestly you all have the right to beleive in what you want, but for goodness sake don't try to construct a reasoned argument if you haven't got all the facts, so here are some of them:

    Definitions of terms can be provided if neccessary but if you cannot wait for a reply use google!!!

    Also, if this interests anyone I might have some more stuff on this topic, I also have lots of stuff on lipid metabolism!


    Understanding the Term “Evolution” – A Brief Interpretation

    Many, especially those who are not familiar with Darwinian evolutionary theory, think that the term evolution refers directly to speciation. This is a common misconception, and unfortunately bolsters support to the counter argument of evolution, i.e. intelligent design, within the creationist community. Religious views aside, evolution does not directly mean speciation. Instead we should know that speciation is a result of evolution. The definition of evolution is “modification by decent”, which strictly means “organisms change through their lineage”; alternatively Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “change of frequency of a gene within a gene pool”. These modifications are often very small and a result of variation within a gene pool but over many generations these variations can become more prevalent, depending on the driving or limiting factors behind the fixation of a particular variation. What makes a species “evolve” is mutation that leads to variation. So going down the generations of a species, that organisms offspring will change over time, be it big changes or little changes, and this is the essence of evolution. Natural selection and mutation are the “tools” of evolution; the driving force that results in speciation, but evolution itself is a much simpler concept. Evolution as an idea is generally taken as fact, what is less commonly agreed upon is the idea of macro evolution, which is where the big questions come in, such as “how does an organ as complex as an eye evolve?”; this will be addressed later.

    Richard Dawkins suggests that while modification by decent is an acceptable definition of evolution, a more suitable one is to say that evolution is a change, or shift, in gene frequency in a gene pool. This is good definition because it accounts for neutral mutations, and while modification by decent does also account for those mutations, it suggest more of a phenotypic change than a genetic change, and after all, evolution is modification of genes, which in turn results in modification of the organism.

    Evolution is a process that is driven by two factors, first by genetic mutation which is something we can observe in the real world. Genetic mutation is known as fact and understanding of the nature of genetic mutation has been firm for around 20 years now. In organisms we see the effect of mutation all the time; in drosophila experiments have shown that mutation is a spontaneous and random process, whether those mutations are positive, negative or neutral. In the view of an evolutionary geneticist, evolution is happening with almost every subsequent generation. Evolutionary geneticists may consider even single point mutations a form of evolution, despite that fact that these mutations may well be neutral as proposed by Moto Kimura hence code for the same amino acid due to the degenerate nature of the genetic code; in which case, evolution has happened as there is a definite change in the gene, but there is no phenotypic change. Mutation is a means of variation to be “added” to a gene pool which benefits the survivability of a species, as it avoids homozygous offspring for defective phenotypes. The second driving factor is natural selection. This factor is a discrete entity and it is not commonly known that evolution does not necessarily require mutation but this is a major argument for the factual basis of evolution. We can see modification by decent if there is a shift or “reshuffling” of genes within an already existing gene pool. While mutation leads to the variation in a gene pool that allows this “reshuffling”, the phenotype may not be present in great numbers in the population unless there is a selective driving factor for these genes to be present. Of course natural selection is when “nature”, i.e. the ecosystem itself be it biotic or abiotic factors, enable an individual to increase its fitness due to its genes, which may then result in a increase (or decrease if an individual has a low fitness) in the frequency of those genes in the gene pool with each subsequent generation that shares those genes. This simple idea states that variation can result in an increase of decrease of fitness, which in turn leads to a relative increase or decrease in presence of that variation in the gene pool.

    Dr John Endler studied many populations of guppies in mountain streams in Trinidad, Tobago and Venezuela, observing pheotypic change between guppies in different microhabitats. These microhabitats were formed of pools in the streams, separated by waterfalls, allowing guppies to travel down the river to lower pools but unable to reach higher pools in the river. The phenotype in question was the colour of the guppies, which varied depending on the selection pressures in the particular pool. The phenotypes observed were the sexually selected spotted guppies and the predatory selected drab guppies, which while clearly different, were of the same species. Endler noticed that the “drab” ones are camouflaged by spots as well, which blend in with the pebbles at the bottoms of their native streams. So he set up experiments in a number of pools, half with fine gravel and half with coarse gravel. He allowed guppies to breed freely. The number of spots per induvidual shot up, presumably since only sexual selection was at work. Then after six months, he left some pools predator-free; in others, a fairly weak predator (given that no natural stream is really totally predator-free); and in the remaining, he introduced a strong predator, a pike cichlid. In the pools with weak or no predation, the number of spots continued to rise, as sexual selection was still operating. But in the pools with the strong predator, the number of spots dropped sharply. Evidently males with lots of spots were easily seen by predators, so despite the females’ preferences, they had to be content with the survivors. Endler also observed that gravel size made a difference. Both strong and weak predators promoted larger spots in pools with coarse gravel, and smaller spots with finer gravel. The closer spot size matches gravel, the more camouflaged the fish are. But in ponds with no predators, the reverse happened: fine gravel promoted larger spots and coarse gravel smaller. Again, this makes sense, the less camouflaged males stand out better to the females. The work provides a real world field analysis of hereditary modification within a microhabitat. The guppies appearance change over 9 years, which equates to approximately 11 generations. Mutation rate for each individual gene is statistically to low for this phenotypic change to be caused by mutation alone, or for mutation to play even a small role in only 11 generations. Consider that the guppies were seen to have distinctly different colour phenotypes at year 4 and 9. It is likely to a polygenetic trait. This is example of evolution by natural selection and is synonymous with adaptive radiation; which again, has been well studied and even speciation has been seen amongst three spine sticklebacks in Canadian lakes. This phenotypic shift in the gene pool was not a result of mutation, but in actuality the result of a “reshuffling” of the gene pool. The genes were already there, but were suppressed by sexual selection. An alternate view of this is that the predation selection pressure actually suppressed genes that resulted in the guppy colouration. In this sense the colouration is the result of genes that produce a pigment and predation results in these genes being disadvantageous and thus become redundant. This is analogous of the human Vitamin C synthesis gene that is now redundant for whatever reason, likely because Vitamin C was actively attained from the diet and so energy was wasted creating enzymes for synthesis. Interestingly the Vitamin C redundancy is present in only two vertebrae species, humans and guinea pigs which have not shared any evolutionary history in millions of years; this is an example of convergent evolution (convergent redundancy)

    If we were to take an organism, and put it under a set of conditions, we can only speculate how that organism may change in its lineage by evolution. For example, we can take a plate of bacteria with discrete colonies, apply a selection pressure after a number of generations such as an antibiotic and predict that some bacteria will be able to resist the antibiotic and hence survive. The survivability of the resistant colonies will improve over time and this is essentially how antibiotic resistant strains have evolved in clinical conditions, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, aka MRSA. What would happen to the hypothetical bacteria is merely a prediction. It is likely all the bacteria die out, or they may all change in a single generation, but what is important here is that we can only guess what will happen and apply statistical prediction to it; it isn’t fact that the bacterial will become resistant to the selection pressure. If you take something such as evolution, it is impossible that even a simple experiment with bacteria will show the exact same results even if repeated using identical conditions. Of course one of the main reasons for this is the random nature of genetic mutation. Ultimately it is genetic mutation that leads to the existence of new genes and traits; but whether you are working with a complex organism or very simple one; these mutations are only predictable by probability. It is not possible to say that a mutation will or won’t happen given a set of conditions; part of the underlying ideas of evolution is that modification in an organism is random. This randomness is the essence of “the blind watchmaker” concept. While the example of an antibiotic being used as a selection pressure is purely hypothetical, experiments have been done to study the modification of bacterial colonies over time when applied to specific conditions. The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski. Lenski’s team has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual E.coli bacteria since February 24th, 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations on February 14th, 2010. Since the start of this experiment, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to utilise citrate (citric acid/citric esters) in the growth media as an energy source. This variation was a result of the bacteria changing to be able to transport the citrate across the plasma membrane, allowing it to be incorporated into the citric acid cycle. This example here is of course beneficial to the bacteria with this variation as it is an energy source, and many variations are the result of better utilisation of energy. This leads onto the argument of the eye, which many consider too complex to have evolved. Ultimately the evolution of the eye is not a complex process at all, focus is being put on the macro evolution of an organ that proves so beneficial to the organism that its evolution is no surprise. All sensory organs fall into the same category, should an organism have that ability, even if it is inefficiently, it still provides benefit to that organism. People say it is impossible for a light sensitive patch to become an eye, well; it’s quite easily possible, if evolution is to be believed. Being able to sense the environment in a simple way will develop up to the point that we are at now, the eye. Having an advantageous trait will cause directionality towards complexity and while this is not necessarily a set direction, depending on environmental factors being able to better sense the environment will be an advantage. Macro evolution of the eye has been a long process; ultimately it all comes down to energy, most evolution does. Having an ability to detect light and more-over, interpret and sense our environment in a complex way allows us to better attain energy. The origins of the eye likely lie in light sensitive proteins and phototropism in order to better attain energy. Once this starting point is reached the greater complexity of this organ is not an unbelievable notion. The unbelievable part is how such a protein evolves, how proteins evolve in general, the concept of molecular evolution. As described earlier mutations lead to variation, but these small mutations are a far cry from a protein that can do a novel function. How do complex proteins like that ATP Synthase evolve? Association between a proteins function and its evolution is not well understood, but obviously it happens. People shouldn’t be asking questions like “how does the eye evolve?” because really, that’s not a particularly difficult question, that’s just asking “how does macro evolution work?” but a much more challenging question is “how does a protein with a novel function evolve?”. Evolution really should be focused at the world of the very small, as ultimately it is the proteins that result in the function. If you really want to stump an Evolutionist, ask how did the NADH Dehydrogenase complex evolve!

    This work is copyright and is not to be used or plagiarized in anyway without concent of the author (me).

    Edit: Just on reading through this I would like to make one thing clear, the point of this writing is to display the importance of variation and mutation on evolution and the importance of molecular Evolution, which is something that is commonly overlooked. Evolution is not really a story told in a world of species but in the world of genes, and if you really want to see Evolution in action you need to look at the variation and mutation across the entire population of a species and how these result in modification over time. Here three main points are to be made, 1. variation in gene frequency in a population can lead to Evolution if there is a strong selection factor (Guppies) 2. Mutation can lead to Evolution if there is a pressure in the environment that is strong enough to lead to fixation of a mutation (E.coli) and 3. The question of macro evolution is not the hard one, the question of molecular evolution is where the challenge really is!

    Also some of the concepts are quite heavily worded due to the level it was written for, if any help is required in understanding these concepts it can be provided.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
  2. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Though I don't likely imagine you're still watching, I'll post anyway. :p


    I have found, in my reading, that when I go to find something I don't know, I face wall upon wall of text filled with the stuff I already know. Up until the very end of what you wrote, I knew, or could predict, what was said.

    One other thing I dislike about explanations of evolution is the lack of explanation of the (oft used) term, "Gene pool." I have written a [POST=1300114]post[/POST] in an attempt to explain what is normally happening with, "Natural selection." I think a better term to use would be the opposite: Natural Deselection.

    On molecular evolution, the furthest I can speculate is that is takes time. A whole lot of time. For example, multicellularism, or photosynthesis, I can't remember which, only came about after 1-2 (again, can't remember) billion years after the earliest fossilized life discovered on Earth, which I recall is only 3.5 billion years old. To my memory, it took roughly a third of the total time life has been around for multicellularism or photosynthesis to evolve.

    Of course, during much of that time, the original organisms were processing the oxygen and iron that were heavy in the environment on young Earth. It seems to me that photosynthesis simply did not need to evolve, nor could it, without the carbon dioxide that drives the process. Even then, if, when the need arose, photosynthesis arose relatively quickly, perhaps it was only able to do so given the genetic diversity built up from, literally, thousands, of thousands, of thousands, of years.
     
  3. GST_Nemisis

    GST_Nemisis

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,600
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I am still watching but atm I have alot of work on so I will not be putting together another formulated reply for a little while. I like your reply, you put forward some very interesting points, particularly regarding molecular evolution; and yes photosynthesis did take a very long time! Strangely enough I was reading "The Origin of Species" just yesterday, something I suggest any self respecting evolutionist should do at some point in their lives, and I reached a chapter titled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication" which gives an interesting 1800's take on evolution of the eye. If anyone is interested in macro evolution, take a look at that chapter; I believe it will be available free on the internet somewhere...
     
  4. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'd say you copy-pasted that wallblock of informational text, it seems to much to have not been simplified for forum posting if you made it yourself.

    To the extent of my knowledge, I can say that a misunderstanding of evolution results from a lack of aspect. People live in a "current" age, where most things pretaining to time is held to the standard of a lifetime. Generally speaking, people subconsciously equate organisms to the standard of a lifetime, and evolutions to organisms. Thus, people hold evolution to a standard of a lifetime and lose perspective. The more correct view, I belive, is to hold evolution to the standard development of an ecosystem. From the anaerobic enviroments of primordial earth to the complex-life dominated world of today.

    Evolution is an ongoing process of trial and error, driven by processes on a sub-cellular level. The orgins of life on earth, literally "born of the dust of the Earth," is hypothesized to be the cooperation of organic, but technically unliving, compounds created haphazardly of the dormant energy of primordial earth. These strands of life, in some way or another(data on this subject is limited), became the predcessors of simple life, initially anaerobic, adopting characteristics which are now standard in cellular life, Genetic material that allowed prolific growth, and organelles with which to drive growth. With the oxygenation of the earth, hypothesized to be caused by bacteria, much of the anaerobic life on earth went extinct, the surviving variants owing their survival to the unintended flexibility of diversification (unintended by the standard that genetic diversity results from imperfect duplication), thus the process predating the ages, evolution, presents itself on earth organics.

    Different Species result from "The need to be the best." It is virtually impossible for one organism to be the most effective at everything, everywhere, thus it is that organisms differ in order to be most effective in their position, anything less and the species risks extinction brought about by other natural causes.
     
  5. GST_Nemisis

    GST_Nemisis

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,600
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Yes I did copy and paste this, but I assure you I wrote all of it myself! I am actually currently studing for my PhD. in biochemistry and 2 years ago I studied "Evolutionary and Population Genetics" and "Genetic Divergence Between Species" as part of my degree. This is just a extract from an essay I wrote regarding the nature of our understanding of evolution, which from a social point of view, is a very interesting subject.

    I would certainly agree with this. The changes that drive evolution over time can make the whole process seem as if it's not happening at all. Whats more, change and variation is not necessarily good. The vast majourity of mutations are neutral, which are not seen to make any visible (phenotypical) change to the organism. These mutations have no effect due to the redundancy of the genetic code, which basically asserts that every three base pairs of coding DNA (codon) equate to a single amino acid. However there are only 20 amino acids incorperated into our proteins from the DNA code, so we know there are 4 different bases and combinations of 3 code for proteins, that means there is 4^3 different codon combinations (4 * 4 * 4 = 64) yet only 20 amino acids. The remaining codons often code for the same amino acids twice or more, and this results in many amino acids being coded for by several codons. This is known as the redundancy of the genetic code. What this means in evolutionary terms is that if one base within that codon is mutated, it is likely that it will code for the same amino acid, which will result in no change in the protein and so no change in the organisms phenotype.

    Heres an example:

    CAA codes for glutamine, if there is a mutation changing this to CAG, it still codes for glutamine, and hence there is no change = neutral. However, if there is a muation chaning it to CAC, it now codes for histadine.

    From the viewpoint of a molecular genetisicst, even CAA -> CAG is a form of evolution.

    Mutations can also be negative, which result in a worse phenotype for the organism. Most mutations that alter the protein coding sequence of the organism are negative and result in them being selected against (purifying selection). In the example above, the mutation of CAA -> CAC changes the amino acid sequence, this may result in the protein functioning less effeciently which will be selected against. Sickle Cell aneamia is an example of this, caused by a single base change in the globin gene.

    Finally mutations can, very very rarely be positive, which aides the organism and results in positive selection, where the organisms chance of survival is higher, possibly as the protein now has increased efficiency.

    Whats more is that over 90% of our DNA does not code for anything, so mutations in the DNA are almost always neutral.

    Now the reason im talking about this is in relation to time. We know that most mutations of this kind (single base mutations, or "point mutations") usually do nothing or kill the organism and that most of our DNA is non-coding. So lets look at this in real terms. We have about 3.5x10^9 base pairs (bp) of DNA from each single chromosome, humans are diploid, meaning we have two copies of each chromosomes, so our total DNA is 7x10^9 bp (7 billion). The mutation rate for human DNA is 2.5x10^-8 per base per generation, which I have no idea how they worked out but is taken to be true. What this means is that if you took a single base of DNA it has a 0.000000025% chance of mutating from one generation to the next, which is obviously very small. So the total amount of mutation from one generation to the next can be found by multiplying our total DNA by mutation rate:

    7x10^9 X 2.5x10^-8 = 175 mutations per generation. So statistically, you will have around 175 mutations different from your parents!

    however, 175 mutations in 7 billion is hardly anything, and seeing as 90% of the 7 billion does absolutely nothing, almost all of the mutations are likely to be in non coding regions, and as the majourity of the mutations that are in coding regions are neutral or negative it turns out that it is very very very rare that a mutation of this kind results in a variation that is good for the organism and leads to phenotypic change. It can take hundreds or thousands of generations to result in a mutation that is good for the organism and leads to evolution, and even then it may only be a very slight change, barely noticable. Even when this change happens there it is not certain the organism will survive to pass on these genes!

    So in other words, to sum all of that up, evolution takes a very very very long time! And people should bare that in mind when understanding the process of evolution. As Hakeem rightly said:

    There is something else that leads to evolution however. Something that acts much stronger and on a larger scale. Something that we have all heard in our lifetime but have perhaps have failed to recognise. Have you ever heard of a person being born with a extra toe or finger? What about a third nipple? Extra teeth? my dad has 34 teeth! These changes, when genetic, are not due to single bases being changed and altering the protein. Instead they are a result of genome changes of a much larger scale. These mutations are ones where entire genes are removed, doubled, moved to different places or altered in a large scale. To put it very simply, if you have a gene to grow your molar teeth (there is no single gene for this but we will take it as an example) and you double the number of copies of this gene, you will grow extra molars. What if you delete this hypothetical gene? This alteration is known as Copy Number Variation. It is believed that 95% of evoltionary change is driven this way. A class of genes known to cause extra growths are Hox genes, which can result in extra vertibrae (spinal segments) if deleted or duplicated. There are many hox genes and they effectively code for where a structure develops. Hox genes do not code for the structure itself, but does tell the developing animal "grow a leg there". Not only can hox genes be duplicated or deleted, but where they are expressed matters too. In flies (drosophila) if the Hox gene Antennapedia is expressed in the head, legs grow instead of antenna! It is believed that by altering where and how hox genes are expressed, and the number of hox genes, animals have evolved much quicker and have evolved recognisable structures, such as the long neck of the giraffe (less HoxC6 expression in the neck). These mutations are believed to happen much faster that point mutations, and also provide more benefit and so be the overall driving factor of evolution.

    So why have I talked about both? Well point mutations are much more long term, and help to answer the bigger question of "how to proteins evolve" while Copy Number Variation and expression mutations give an example of evolution in a more realistic time scale and setting.


    An interesting offshoot of this point is that an organisms is only adapted to survive in its current environment. Seeing as our environment is constantly changing, there is a constant pressure to adapt. It means that an organism become the master of its environment, and ultimately, it has to change to suit the environment, not some sort of holy grail such as "intelligence". Many people believe intelligence is the ultimate goal of evolution but its not. No organism, from human to slug or tree, is more evolved that any other. They have all been evolving constantly from the 3 billion year old starting point, and have adapted in different ways to survive. Intelligence is merely a survival technique, and a good one at that. Whats more, humans did not evolve from monkeys, or apes, or chimpanzees or whatever. We know this immediately as monkeys have been evolving too! We evolved from the thing that came before monkeys, and before humans. An anscestor different from both its modern counterparts but destin to become intelligent. What this means is that going back, we obviously did not come from monkeys, but and anscestor that evolved in seperate directions to give different outcomes. The best way to imagine this is as a timeline, everything here today came from something that was in the past, how can something here today come from something here today? Well it hasn't! All organisms have anscestors!
     
  6. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I wonder about this. It seems to me that a species only needs to adapt when the constant environmental changes are ones that affect the death statistic of the species. "Modern" humans (to use the most extreme example) do not need to adapt on a genetic level very much at all. This is partly because we change our environment to suit our needs, but we are also equipped to handle a large range of environments as it is. Of course, as we gradually pollute the world, we evolve a resistance to the pollution, just as many bacteria have evolve a resistance to antibiotics.

    While every cell alive today is the same distance from the most common ancestor, I do not think all species are equally evolved.

    Crocodiles (and/or alligators?) are pretty archaic as a species. Of course they have been adapting for the millions of years they have been around, but they haven't really evolved into new species the way mammals, for example, did. I was reading about some of the mass extinctions of the past, and what it appears to me has been happening, is that the new species that evolve after an extinction tend to die in the next extinction. Of course by sheer numbers there are many that survive, because the catastrophic environment changes that took place did not exceed their ability to survive. It seems to me that the reason most of the organisms die in a mass extinction event, is that the very adaptable species evolved to fill niches, became specialized, and in doing so, lost enough of their ability to adapt that they could not cope when catastrophe struck.

    That mass extinctions appear in the fossil record would seem to me to indicate that not all species are equally evolved.
     
  7. HINDYhat

    HINDYhat

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,594
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    It generally comes down to this. But specifically, evolution is the result of natural selection, population bottlenecks, mutation, and a couple other mechanisms. If the environment affects the population in such a way to favour certain individuals' fitness (or effectively to kill and prevent reproduction for other individuals), then by natural selection the population will evolve. Also, if a large part of the population is killed by some sort of environmental event, then the remaining gene pool will dictate the course of that population's evolution.

    This would only be true if the amount of human deaths due to environmental pollution were to increase dramatically. This would make the immunity genes highly favourable both in frequency and in acquired fitness. As of right now, most of the problems caused by environmental pollution have such a negligible effect on the human population as a whole, that we can just say in general that humanity is no longer evolving.

    Also, it comes down to the human life and reproductory cycles. Humans live for relatively long periods of time, and have relatively few children. This strings out the evolutionary pressures even more.

    If by this you mean that not all species are perfectly fit for their environment, then this is obviously true. Any organism which is somehow cut off from its natural environment, or which undergoes a sudden important genetic mutation, or which <insert mechanism here> is clearly still evolving.

    Perhaps they simply had no need to protect themselves from such catastrophic events, because their population as a whole had never lived through them. Or rather, perhaps their physiology had not yet been adapted to do so. Consider the alligators/crocs who survived their first mass extinction: they were already genetically adapted to have a higher survival rate than other species, likely due to random chance. From there, they should survive the next mass extinction.

    It's really just a matter of finding a species from today which is currently evolving. That would indicate, simply, that not all species are equally evolved.
     
  8. Devine

    Devine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,195
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Why can't you people see that evolution is a LIE?!
     
  9. Dr Super Good

    Dr Super Good

    Spell Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    26,131
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    2
    Resources:
    3
    The problem with that statement is that evolution has been proved 100s of times in labs and via analiseing real data. Thus it is not a like but a fact.
     
  10. Devine

    Devine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,195
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Charles Darwin made up a theory... but it was a theory.
    This theory was later "proved" by American scientists.
    America is trying to get people's self image to disintegrate so life would get relativized. If life is worth less, people would care less about the wars and all of the casualties these wars induce and the American gouvernment would get less criticism.
    You can't possibly believe think we were monkeys... right?

    I beg to differ.
     
  11. Fussiler1

    Fussiler1

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,897
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    My mistake, then.
     
  12. leet.firefox

    leet.firefox

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,121
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    So Eskimos look just like Nigerians I see. Because they didn't, you know, adapt to their habitat. It's not like evolution is merely stating that organisms change and adapt over time, and the evidence isn't all around you. Smart-ass.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2010
  13. HINDYhat

    HINDYhat

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,594
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    GTFO Medivh's tower. And let me remind you of what you sound like.

    Trolls
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Devine

    Devine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,195
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I was merely showing that Medivh's Tower is as bad as OT?
    Okay I failed but at least it was fun because I thought DSG would reply. Which was an awesome thought to hold while I was gone.
     
  15. leet.firefox

    leet.firefox

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,121
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Oh he will reply, he's still typing and most likely has not seen these messages.
     
  16. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Why can't you see that the people who told you evolution was a lie are merely saying that because it contradicts their beliefs? (Namely that a certain book is infallible)
     
  17. GST_Nemisis

    GST_Nemisis

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,600
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I presume Devine did not bother to read my first post and just saw "Evolution" and instantly switch to "shove fingers in ears and shout ITS A LIE" mode.

    The whole point I was trying to make in the first post I made was that people, like Devine, have a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Until you are willing to take the time to read and understand what Scientists are trying to tell you, instead of just what you think evolution is, you really have no right to comment on its validity. Thinking that humans came from monkeys is a rather rash concept, especially since evolution is not speciation!

    I've always thought that if creationists wanted to develop a strong argument against evolution, they should look at protein evolution and evolution of mechanisms like splicing. Macro evolution is pretty easy to grasp. Macro evolution is like getting a box of crayons, each colour being different genes/proteins, and drawing different pictures i.e. different organisms, by making slight changes until the picture is completely different. Protein evolution is like making a new colour......
     
  18. leet.firefox

    leet.firefox

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,121
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    May not have been who you were going for, Devine, but you got someone.