A Discussion About Evolution
Fire_Eel
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">For all athiests or believers</div> Yes, I know there is quite a few threads about whether you are a believer or so on, but here, we are to discuss about Evolution and not about whether theres God or not, no hard feelings. Also, believers may also feel free to discuss about the loopholes or suspicious areas which the teachings of Evolution did not mention.
Firstly, how did Aye-Aye or Pocupines evolve? I 've always wondered about how did the Aye-Ayes we see today evolve out the 3rd middle finger they have.......how did spiny animals beside Pocupines evolve the sharp spikes on their back.
" You got no shame if you simply read books which talks crap about Evolution and believe those books that evolution does exist and we were created by it. GOD CREATED US AND WE MUST BELIEVE IN GOD! " said my Aunty. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Firstly, how did Aye-Aye or Pocupines evolve? I 've always wondered about how did the Aye-Ayes we see today evolve out the 3rd middle finger they have.......how did spiny animals beside Pocupines evolve the sharp spikes on their back.
" You got no shame if you simply read books which talks crap about Evolution and believe those books that evolution does exist and we were created by it. GOD CREATED US AND WE MUST BELIEVE IN GOD! " said my Aunty. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo-->
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There have already been several evolution flamewars. Go on and dig one up if you wish to restart the whole thing.
There is no point arguing evolution in these forums, if you want to argue biology, then Aegeri will always win. If you want to argue philosophy, then it turns into a flamewar and dies. Either way its doomed <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Wow, I fail to see how my post could in any way be construed as a flame - I thought I was being quite tactful actually. I pointed out what I saw to be a flaw in the way he was directing the thread, then posted my reasons for which I will not be participating any longer in said thread, and then planned to leave it at that.
At which point did I ban either religion or biology? I merely stated that it was impossible to argue biol with Aegeri, and that religion usually lead to flames. Dont get me wrong, I am one of the most active religious posters in these boards, but I cant see this going far/anywhere the others went.
Dont let that stop you guys however, by all means continue.
Porcupines & hedgehogs are a pretty easy answer: their quills are simply modified hair structures. The porcupine's ancestor was probably a fairly coarse-haired creature (probably fairly short hair), and over time those animals with coarser, more prickly hair passed on their genes because predators were less likely to eat them. Once the spines themselves had evolved (probably producing a creature like a hedgehog), porcupines with *longer* spines were selected for because their coats were even more untouchable.
Why doesn't the hedgehog have long spikes? Simple: it's a burrowing animal. Selection for long spikes was evened out by selection for ability to hide & maneuver underground (i.e. short spikes).
marine01 go elsewhere, this is the discussions forum, thus we can discuss anything we feel like, flamebait or not.
Oh... topic... right...
'Let there be light' is a metaphor for the big bang, god creating animals from the chaos on earth = evolution of lilfe from primordial soup, god orchestrated evolution. Simple enough? Thats my view.
Porcupines & hedgehogs are a pretty easy answer: their quills are simply modified hair structures. The porcupine's ancestor was probably a fairly coarse-haired creature (probably fairly short hair), and over time those animals with coarser, more prickly hair passed on their genes because predators were less likely to eat them. Once the spines themselves had evolved (probably producing a creature like a hedgehog), porcupines with *longer* spines were selected for because their coats were even more untouchable.
Why doesn't the hedgehog have long spikes? Simple: it's a burrowing animal. Selection for long spikes was evened out by selection for ability to hide & maneuver underground (i.e. short spikes). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to reinforce Coil here: Rhino horns aren't horns: They're very very thickly matted hair.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The aye-aye has a very long middle finger and a very strong fore-finger to dig out maggots living under the bark of trees
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The aye-aye has a very long middle finger and a very strong fore-finger to dig out maggots living under the bark of trees <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Boggle inadvertantly answered the question as well <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
apparently.
On what grounds do you base your statement?
This is another Science vs Religion thread.
I will say my 2cents and then flee.
Is there any prove Creationism & Evolution can't co exist? Sure, creatures may be generated as the need demands (Creation) but who is to say then that those creatures don't find other niches they fit in? (Evolution).
RUN! IT'S THE ALMIGHTY HAND OF A TICKED OFF MOD!
What I'm asking for, Boggle, is a constructive argument against the theory, not a statement that it's only a theory. Show me some reasoning that refutes it. Think out loud about why it doesn't make sense in this case. DISCUSS. Temp, same to you. Shoving each other in the chest with "well you don't have any concrete 100% proof" and "well you don't either and plus you're a stupidhead" isn't constructive in the slightest.
[edit] And while I'm explaining the rules of civil engagement - Aegeri, if you come in here and start laying down the science (which I fully support), I request that you state everything in layman's terms, and if at ALL possible, provide links to online sources, since you know perfectly well that nobody's going to go and buy textbooks just to follow your posts. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
new species developing through constant change. The chance of a successful mutation is 1 in a million. If humans evolved from primates, why are there still primates? evidently we are more successful than the primates, so why are there still primates?
Where does the new DNA come from? less developed species have only a few chromosomes, we have got 26. You may be intersted to know that even the most hard-core evolutionists alive today, Richard Dawkins <i>could not</i> answer that question. He was being interviewed on TV (recorded, not live), and he asked for the cameras to be turned off
See below vvv
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The chance of a successful mutation is 1 in a million. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In 1 cell. Given that the human body is made of billions of cells you can assume theres a fair bit of mutation going on there, and then theres also the fact that the numbers of humans, even at a primative stage would have been in the millions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If humans evolved from primates, why are there still primates? evidently we are more successful than the primates, so why are there still primates?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no theory saying say that 1 species simply mutates into another species and then dies, many variants will form and while some will be more sucessful than others, the less sucessful ones may still be able to survive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where does the new DNA come from? less developed species have only a few chromosomes, we have got 26. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure on this but heres my theory: Chromosomes are made up of a single DNA sequence, this can mutate to form a new chromosome ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You may be intersted to know that even the most hard-core evolutionists alive today, Richard Dawkins <i>could not</i> answer that question. He was being interviewed on TV (recorded, not live), and he asked for the cameras to be turned off<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt this is true. Link to proof?
The best-adapted animal survives to reproduce... how is that circular? The best-adapted animal will have the best adapted offspring, and so on. Every time a mutation occurs, it "measures up" against the existing genome of the organism. A beneficial mutation will be more likely to survive, a deleterious one will be selected against.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->new species developing through constant change. The chance of a successful mutation is 1 in a million.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You and I cannot fathom the time scale on which evolution presumably (I say "presumably" because yes, it is only a theory) operates. If the estimated history of earth (~4.2 billion years) were compressed into a *year*, humanity would only exist in the last SECOND of that year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If humans evolved from primates, why are there still primates? evidently we are more successful than the primates, so why are there still primates?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speciation - the creation of a new species from an existing one - occurs when two populations of a species are exposed to *different* selective pressures. Humans theoretically evolved from chimpanzee-like animals, which were arboreal (tree-dwelling). The thought is that a population of chimp-like animals descended from the trees and moved out onto the plains. They were subject to different selective pressures than those apes that stayed in the trees, and thus developed a bipedal posture, stronger hind legs, better eyes... and the rest, as they say, is history. Those apes that stayed in the trees weren't subject to new selective pressures, and therefore did not need to evolve much further than they had already; thus, they remained ape-like and eventually became the chimpanzees of today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where does the new DNA come from? less developed species have only a few chromosomes, we have got 26. You may be intersted to know that even the most hard-core evolutionists alive today, Richard Dawkins <i>could not</i> answer that question. He was being interviewed on TV (recorded, not live), and he asked for the cameras to be turned off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's silly. The simplest (and therefore, by Occam's Razor, most likely) answer is an accident during genetic reproduction (that is, the copying of DNA during cell division). There are a series of genes called Hox genes that are key players in embryo development for most (if not all) organisms... some species have very few hox genes, others have as many as 15-20. And all of these genes (within one organism) are very similar to each other, suggesting a DNA-replication error that resulted in a duplication of that gene. Hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells) is coded for by four different genes, all of which appear to have originated from a single sequence duplicated 3 times.
DNA can duplicate itself, creating more genetic material. It can break, creating two chromosomes from one. Plant genetics are extremely malleable in reproduction - it is possible to hybridize two plants (even if they have different numbers of chromosomes) and create a viable new species. It's possible that other organisms (animals) were originally this flexible as well. Additionally, scientists have already successfully implanted mice with an extra "artificial chromosome" and had it successfully passed on to subsequent generations.
marine01 go elsewhere, this is the discussions forum, thus we can discuss anything we feel like, flamebait or not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For crying out loud people, where exactly did I say "NO ONE POST IN THIS YOU CANT MARINE SAID SO"?
I did say I thought it was doomed, but at NO POINT did I tell anyone not to post/discuss.
But yeah - Nova has it right, have a look down the bottom <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638&st=0&#entry718892' target='_blank'>Forum Rules addendum</a>
I still think Creationism/Evolution can co-exist, just a bit awkwardly.
Firstly, how did Kangeroos or other marsupials develop their pouch?
Secondly, this may seem a bit biased but please do not take any offense against this question. Why does it SEEM that highly-educated people like scientists or professiors believe more in evolution than in God? Please note that I am not saying that "why is it that all highly-educated people believes in evolution, I am merely saying in my opinion that it seems to be that way".
No flamewars please.....
V ^^ V
PEACE!
<b>Please review the new Discussion Forum rule located <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638&st=0&#entry718892' target='_blank'>here</a>. Your statements in this thread, while ostensibly questioning mechanisms of evolution, are clearly being posed in a way that simply continues the now-defunct topic of evolution vs. creationism.
Congratulations on your belief in creationism. You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion; now leave others to theirs. A basic assumption in this thread is that the posters within accept the theory of evolution. If you don't, please refrain from derailing the thread.</b>
Yeah it was great! The witch burnings, the rampant dogma, the supression of scientific thought, the flow of wealth to a few corrupt church officials, the massive plague diseases which shattered entire nations (I mention this because the primary cure for these diseases, science, was held back by religion), wife beatings, the oppression of women and of course, those wonderful, wonderful religious wars (they brought a tear to the eye didn't they).
[sarcasm]
Man, I wish we were back in those days. What bliss!
[sarcasm/]
Ok, first we need to decide where to start with this one. There are *tons* of marsupial mammals, from the kangaroo to the wombat to the koala to a marsupial mouse (etc)... as this is a very unusual adaptation, it's more likely that all of these animals evolved from a common ancestor than that marsupialism evolved several times in different species.
Next, let's see what exactly marsupialism entails. The offspring of marsupials are born extremely early, only partially developed. They then make their way to their mother's teat, lock onto it, and complete their development within the pouch. Essentially, "pregnancy" is split into two parts: internal and external. In addition to this, marsupials have evolved a pouch surrounding their teats, which serves to carry the developing baby and protect it.
Why would this evolve? Off-hand, I can think of three reasons for marsupials to give birth "prematurely" (i.e. before the offspring is fully developed). The first is that a premature birth is much less physically demanding of the mother. The second is that some aspect of a full-term labor would have been incompatible with the necessary way of life; perhaps a female heavy with offspring couldn't escape predators, or the large size of fully-developed offspring was increasing the number of complications during labor.
Another hypothesis involves the fact that there aren't many large predators in Australia (to my knowledge); one of the biggest is the dingo, which is a formerly domesticated dog brought by humans which then became wild again (probably *because* of the lack of other predators, but that's a different story). With no predators to threaten a helpless baby, females could give birth earlier - again, supporting the idea that earlier birth = lower energy requirement for pregnancy. In contrast, prey animals in the plains of Africa give birth to offspring that can run with the herd just minutes after birth, because a helpless infant would be caught by predators.
Ok, that's premature birth... the rest of the elements of marsupialism extend from that existing condition. A mother that gives birth to a helpless, under-developed offspring must tend to it and protect it from the elements (her energy savings are replaced by a requirement of additional care). A mother that could go out to forage was more likely to survive her child's nursing period, thus over time marsupials developed a way for the infant to be carried somehow. The most obvious of these is the pouch, which would have initially just been a fold of skin that protected and supported the infant. Another is the fact that many marsupials newborns have (compared to the rest of them) very well-developed forearms. In the case of kangaroos, this is absolutely vital because the offspring must climb, unassisted, through its mother's fur after birth to reach her pouch (I'm not sure how the child knows where to climb; experiments would have to be conducted to determine what its instinct is, after which hypotheses for the behavior could be suggested).
So there you have it - premature birth, selective early development of forearms, and formation of a pouch. I'll admit that my opinions on the reasons for premature birth are shaky, but I'm sure there are more informed opinions than mine out there. This is really just off the top of my head.