PDA

View Full Version : We will eventually evolve without legs


Pony Boy
06-30-2010, 09:46 AM
I want one of these ....

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cuIJRsAuCHQ"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cuIJRsAuCHQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

gyldenlove
06-30-2010, 09:53 AM
They need to make that thing a LOT faster for me to use it, I would prefer a 3-way with the 2 girls to be honest.

Kyle
06-30-2010, 09:54 AM
I don't think Honda gave that group a very good marketing budget. I'm thinking they gave them like 10 bucks and 8 free lunches in the company cafeteria.

Cmac821
06-30-2010, 09:55 AM
That looks sketchy to me

crush17
06-30-2010, 09:59 AM
Pretty awesome, but also feeds into everyone becoming more and more lazy.

Pony Boy
06-30-2010, 10:03 AM
I was wondering if they they could give you a DUI on this if used at a tailgate party?

Man-Goblin
06-30-2010, 10:38 AM
Awesom-O is still waiting for those two chicks to start making out...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mlPoGU4VqSk/SBnMkLhkoVI/AAAAAAAACQU/oAsNhf3x7wg/s400/awesomeo5to.gif

Smiling Assassin27
06-30-2010, 10:53 AM
Check out Wall-E. Disney's looking forward to that day.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 11:13 AM
Pretty awesome, but also feeds into everyone becoming more and more lazy.

I would love to have something like that to go to museums and Disney with my kids. I have chronic nerve damage and walking long distances is painful but I don't really need a wheelchair or cane. Just a place to rest everynow and then.

That said I wonder what the redundancy's are or how it works on uneven terrain like lawns or crushed gravel.

Meck77
06-30-2010, 11:41 AM
Yup that's just what this country needs. People riding these eating more Big macs.

Kaylore
06-30-2010, 12:19 PM
We might get fatter, but until someone starts killing everyone not born without legs, we will not "evolve" into not having legs.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 12:31 PM
We might get fatter, but until someone starts killing everyone not born without legs, we will not "evolve" into not having legs.

The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

bombquixote
06-30-2010, 12:32 PM
This thing reminds of me of that joke about the nuns with the bicycles and the candlesticks...Anyone? Anyone? Nevermind.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 12:37 PM
This thing reminds of me of that joke about the nuns with the bicycles and the candlesticks...Anyone? Anyone? Nevermind.

What was the cartoon where they had to insert something in their butt to drive the circle thing? Family Guy?

underrated29
06-30-2010, 12:38 PM
I was wondering if they they could give you a DUI on this if used at a tailgate party?




yES-

I got one on a go ped or whatever the hell those skateboards with a handle an mini motor on it are called.

Lev Vyvanse
06-30-2010, 12:42 PM
What was the cartoon where they had to insert something in their butt to drive the circle thing? Family Guy?

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/south_park_it.gif

gyldenlove
06-30-2010, 12:45 PM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

Only if there is a selective pressure. So if somehow people with smaller legs have more kids if we stop using them then yes, they would disappear or at least be reduced, but effectively evolution has seized to exist for humans simply because of modern medicine and mass food production.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 12:45 PM
http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/south_park_it.gif

South park...

Rohirrim
06-30-2010, 12:46 PM
Eventually, we all just evolve into floating balls of light able to traverse the universe at the speed of thought and people on other planets will see us and call us swamp gas.

BroncoLifer
06-30-2010, 12:47 PM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

Mendel > Lamarck

crowebomber
06-30-2010, 01:00 PM
I would love to have something like that to go to museums and Disney with my kids. I have chronic nerve damage and walking long distances is painful but I don't really need a wheelchair or cane. Just a place to rest everynow and then.

That said I wonder what the redundancy's are or how it works on uneven terrain like lawns or crushed gravel.

I was thinking the same thing. Two years ago at the ADA Symposium in St. Louis there were quite a few people using Segues instead of wheelchairs. It allowed them to be at eye-level with everyone else and they were easier to maneuver in certain circumstances. Don't know why I didn't see any this year in Denver. I wonder about the power, like can they carry a bigger person up a 1/12 accessible ramp? I can't imagine it having that much power.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 01:14 PM
Eventually, we all just evolve into floating balls of light able to traverse the universe at the speed of thought and people on other planets will see us and call us swamp gas.

Sadly Ray Kurzweil singularity will happen 1st.

Rohirrim
06-30-2010, 01:35 PM
Sadly Ray Kurzweil singularity will happen 1st.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

TheReverend
06-30-2010, 01:39 PM
I'm horribly uncoordinated off my feet. My descendents will lead the resistance.

Pony Boy
06-30-2010, 01:55 PM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

Be careful "McSkillet" will neg rep you for posts like that...

Que
06-30-2010, 02:50 PM
They need to make that thing a LOT faster for me to use it, I would prefer a 3-way with the 2 girls to be honest.

This

misturanderson
06-30-2010, 03:45 PM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

That's not how evolution works. That would only happen if there were some selective pressure for people with non-functioning or missing legs, which there will never be.

Requiem
06-30-2010, 03:50 PM
Never say never Mister Anderson. A black man is President.

Kaylore
06-30-2010, 03:56 PM
That's not how evolution works. That would only happen if there were some selective pressure for people with non-functioning or missing legs, which there will never be.

Exactly. This goes along with the myth "our pinky finger is disappearing." It's not like if you don't use a part of your body your DNA changes. Your finger can't change your DNA. Natural selection stopped when we started caring for the sick, the weak and the old.

Requiem
06-30-2010, 04:00 PM
You don't even know what is goin' on Kaylore.

Mogulseeker
06-30-2010, 04:02 PM
They need to make that thing a LOT faster for me to use it, I would prefer a 3-way with the 2 girls to be honest.

Thank you for being so candid. Your honesty is appreciated.

Mogulseeker
06-30-2010, 04:04 PM
Only if there is a selective pressure. So if somehow people with smaller legs have more kids if we stop using them then yes, they would disappear or at least be reduced, but effectively evolution has seized to exist for humans simply because of modern medicine and mass food production.

This.

Actually, evolution seems to have reversed itself, as intelligent people are having fewer children and the dumb ones are having more.

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2010, 04:07 PM
Only if there is a selective pressure. So if somehow people with smaller legs have more kids if we stop using them then yes, they would disappear or at least be reduced, but effectively evolution has seized to exist for humans simply because of modern medicine and mass food production.

Evolution is only valid in theory and not in practice... Also, one other thing about evolution is that there needs to be a genetic paradigm shift for it to work, that is, there needs to be a genetic freak happening like one person born without legs and then that person passes on those genes to the next generation so on and so on and so on... I forget the exact term for this, but this is how we "evolve" supposedly.

crowebomber
06-30-2010, 04:13 PM
This.

Actually, evolution seems to have reversed itself, as intelligent people are having fewer children and the dumb ones are having more.

Being intelligent does not guarantee that your species has positioned itself to survive evolutionarily. You just have to be able to find and adjust to changing food sources, have traits that help you to avoid predators (or multiply fast enough that they can't keep up) and live in ever-changing environments. Just ask cockroaches.

Paladin
06-30-2010, 04:33 PM
The US is so far behind in Innovative Engineering and related concepts. Most new things seem to come from Japan or the European countries. It is why this country will be reliant on fossil fuels for a very long time.

Another marker chronicaling the demise of American cultural and national identity.

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 05:11 PM
Exactly. This goes along with the myth "our pinky finger is disappearing." It's not like if you don't use a part of your body your DNA changes. Your finger can't change your DNA. Natural selection stopped when we started caring for the sick, the weak and the old.

So that is why I have trouble reaching all those exotic 7th and 9th chords with suspensions on the guitar!

I do wish the US would approve stem cell research. It would be nice to be able to regenerate the nerve that is chronicly damaged in my neck.

listopencil
06-30-2010, 05:30 PM
Evolution is only valid in theory and not in practice... Also, one other thing about evolution is that there needs to be a genetic paradigm shift for it to work, that is, there needs to be a genetic freak happening like one person born without legs and then that person passes on those genes to the next generation so on and so on and so on... I forget the exact term for this, but this is how we "evolve" supposedly.

Nope. Evolution is going on constantly and is easily witnessed in the last one hundred years. One of the most obvious is interbreeding between the so called "races", and interbreeding between peoples who are geographically disparate, which go hand in hand. If you look at the offspring of "mixed marriages" you will see a combination of physical traits that mostly did not exist 100+ years ago. Gene pools are now being mixed that weren't before and it is changing the face (if you will) of our concepts of ethnicity. That is evolution. It exists. It is self evident.

misturanderson
06-30-2010, 05:47 PM
Evolution is only valid in theory and not in practice... Also, one other thing about evolution is that there needs to be a genetic paradigm shift for it to work, that is, there needs to be a genetic freak happening like one person born without legs and then that person passes on those genes to the next generation so on and so on and so on... I forget the exact term for this, but this is how we "evolve" supposedly.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens all the time and can be witnessed first hand in bacteria and other single-celled organisms that can sometimes gain resistance to antibiotics over the course of hours to days via an evolutionary process.

Evolution in more complex organisms is harder to appreciate because it takes so long to show up as noticeable changes, but it isn't really something that can be questioned either. Dog breeds are an example of a somewhat artificial selective pressure causing a type of evolution. All dogs are decendents from wolves, from chihuahuas to bulldogs to great danes. Evolution is very much valid in practice.

People always associate evolution with the theory of humans evolving from a more primitive primate. That is an incredibly short-sighted and flawed view of a process that has been proven to exist. There is no question that evolution occurs in biological systems and the only reason we question it in humans is due to religious arguments with no basis in science and a lack of hard evidence proving that humans evolved from apes.

There is also further confusion because the word "theory" means something different in reference to science than it does outside of science.

DivineBronco
06-30-2010, 06:17 PM
Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens all the time and can be witnessed first hand in bacteria and other single-celled organisms that can sometimes gain resistance to antibiotics over the course of hours to days via an evolutionary process.

Evolution in more complex organisms is harder to appreciate because it takes so long to show up as noticeable changes, but it isn't really something that can be questioned either. Dog breeds are an example of a somewhat artificial selective pressure causing a type of evolution. All dogs are decendents from wolves, from chihuahuas to bulldogs to great danes. Evolution is very much valid in practice.

People always associate evolution with the theory of humans evolving from a more primitive primate. That is an incredibly short-sighted and flawed view of a process that has been proven to exist. There is no question that evolution occurs in biological systems and the only reason we question it in humans is due to religious arguments with no basis in science and a lack of hard evidence proving that humans evolved from apes.

There is also further confusion because the word "theory" means something different in reference to science than it does outside of science.

be careful your logic will anger the villagers and they have torches.....hehe

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 06:25 PM
Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens all the time and can be witnessed first hand in bacteria and other single-celled organisms that can sometimes gain resistance to antibiotics over the course of hours to days via an evolutionary process.

Evolution in more complex organisms is harder to appreciate because it takes so long to show up as noticeable changes, but it isn't really something that can be questioned either. Dog breeds are an example of a somewhat artificial selective pressure causing a type of evolution. All dogs are decendents from wolves, from chihuahuas to bulldogs to great danes. Evolution is very much valid in practice.

People always associate evolution with the theory of humans evolving from a more primitive primate. That is an incredibly short-sighted and flawed view of a process that has been proven to exist. There is no question that evolution occurs in biological systems and the only reason we question it in humans is due to religious arguments with no basis in science and a lack of hard evidence proving that humans evolved from apes.

There is also further confusion because the word "theory" means something different in reference to science than it does outside of science.

This is what I understood it to be but I am more into NASA **** than biology. Biology was the only class I ever failed.

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2010, 06:39 PM
Nope. Evolution is going on constantly and is easily witnessed in the last one hundred years. One of the most obvious is interbreeding between the so called "races", and interbreeding between peoples who are geographically disparate, which go hand in hand. If you look at the offspring of "mixed marriages" you will see a combination of physical traits that mostly did not exist 100+ years ago. Gene pools are now being mixed that weren't before and it is changing the face (if you will) of our concepts of ethnicity. That is evolution. It exists. It is self evident.

I don't think you are talking about evolution here my friend. Mixing different gene pools is not "evolution" but simply mixing different gene pools. If you have sex with a ape and the offspring actually lives, is that EVOLUTION? Nope, that's just mixing different gene pools together. That is NOT evolution.

How did giraffes evolve?

http://www.whyevolution.com/giraffe.html

That took me .002 seconds to find on the interwebz.

Point being that evolution fails to explain how giraffes got their long necks. Morons want to claim that "they got their long necks by stretching!" and that is bogus crap. The one key word that basically defines evolution is MUTATION. The theory of evolution is so convoluted and weak that it relies on RANDOM mutations at the genetic level to succeed.

Yep, only A GENETIC MUTATION can magically give the giraffes long necks. Then, throw in NATURAL SELECTION which takes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years and you get giraffes with long necks. What a crock of crap.

Giraffes haven't been around long enough for the "theory" of evolution to work. First, at some point and time and out of nowhere a RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION has to occur and then the species has to basically evolve over what--tens of millions of years after this RANDOM genetic mutation?

So, let me get this straight... it takes random genetic mutations and natural selection to evolve?

I'm so sorry I forgot the word "mutation" but it's one of those convenient excuses to validate evolution.

Where is the missing link for humans? Where did homosapiens come from? Hey, did we come from a random genetic mutation too?

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 06:43 PM
Where is the missing link for humans? Where did homosapiens come from? Hey, did we come from a random genetic mutation too?


Tebow did it?

Requiem
06-30-2010, 06:46 PM
All that response and you said absolutely nothing. Congratulations.

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2010, 06:46 PM
Evolution is a scientific fact. It happens all the time and can be witnessed first hand in bacteria and other single-celled organisms that can sometimes gain resistance to antibiotics over the course of hours to days via an evolutionary process.

Evolution in more complex organisms is harder to appreciate because it takes so long to show up as noticeable changes, but it isn't really something that can be questioned either. Dog breeds are an example of a somewhat artificial selective pressure causing a type of evolution. All dogs are decendents from wolves, from chihuahuas to bulldogs to great danes. Evolution is very much valid in practice.

People always associate evolution with the theory of humans evolving from a more primitive primate. That is an incredibly short-sighted and flawed view of a process that has been proven to exist. There is no question that evolution occurs in biological systems and the only reason we question it in humans is due to religious arguments with no basis in science and a lack of hard evidence proving that humans evolved from apes.

There is also further confusion because the word "theory" means something different in reference to science than it does outside of science.

So, are these cells mutating then?

broncosteven
06-30-2010, 06:57 PM
All that response and you said absolutely nothing. Congratulations.

There is a song called "Rock and Roll Creation" I think it explains how the universe and rock and roll were created:

When there was darkness and the void was king
and ruled the elements,
When there was silence and the hush was almost deafening
Out of the emptiness
Salvation, rhythm and light and sound,

Twas the rock and roll creation
Twas a terrible big bang
Twas the ultimate mutation
Ying was searching for his yang
And he looked and he saw that it was good.

When I'm alone beneath the stars and feeling insignificant,
I turn within to see the forces that created me
I look to the stars and the answers are clear
I look in the mirror and see what I fear
Tis the rock and roll creation
Tis an absolute rebirth
Tis the rolling of the ocean and the rocking of the earth
And I looked and I saw that it was good

Requiem
06-30-2010, 06:58 PM
Spinal Tap, nice.

cutthemdown
06-30-2010, 07:30 PM
They need to make that thing a LOT faster for me to use it, I would prefer a 3-way with the 2 girls to be honest.

Uh like that's a big surprise. You say it like we should be surprised. :welcome:

Donk
06-30-2010, 10:25 PM
We are devolving not evolving the proof is on the this Orange Mane!

listopencil
06-30-2010, 11:31 PM
I don't think you are talking about evolution here my friend. Mixing different gene pools is not "evolution" but simply mixing different gene pools. If you have sex with a ape and the offspring actually lives, is that EVOLUTION? Nope, that's just mixing different gene pools together. That is NOT evolution.



That's nice. You posted a link from a rambling, incoherent nutbag. It is entertaining but has nothing to do with science. Just the same tired cliches designed for people who want to stop thinking and need someone to tuck them back into their mythological comfort zone. Lets' see if we can drag you out of the Dark Ages with a few definitions of evolution from sites that aren't run by fringe lunatics:

Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2] To distinguish biological evolution from other senses of the term "evolution" used outside of the field of biology such as cultural evolution, technological evolution and the evolution of language it is sometimes referred to as genetic evolution or organic evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."


- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


The process by which the genetic structure of populations changes over time.

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-B/biological_evolution.html

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml






My search only took 0.18 seconds, by the way. This is just a few snippets from the first page of results.

broncocalijohn
06-30-2010, 11:43 PM
Let us see the models in 2 years doing the same thing but on the heavy duty Hondo Mobility Mover because these girls will then be heefers. WALL E is coming soon.

Kaylore
07-01-2010, 09:00 AM
I guess you could say cross breeding is created evolution. Carrots as they evolved naturally were not orange and then monks from the dark ages cross bred them to the orange color you see today. In fact all fruits and vegetables have been "genetically manipulated" to be better sources of food that they are today, whereas in the wild they would be much smaller and harder to eat.

So I suppose you could say races mixing is a form of evolution, but I don't think it's true to what people are talking about when they speak of evolution or really "natural selection." They're usually referring to the process where a species over several aeons develops mutations. The ones that hurt their ability to survive do not get passed on because those people die. The ones that make it easier to survive do get passed on because those people live and have babies carrying those mutations. Over time there are supposed to be subtle changes which lend to a new species.

I don't really consider me and my half Japanese wife "evolution" so much as cross breeding. If Listopencil wants to paint evolution with a broad brush, then you might as well include human medicine and chivalry a part of evolution too.

Pony Boy
07-01-2010, 10:03 AM
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any poof."

Ashley Montagu

listopencil
07-01-2010, 10:54 AM
So I suppose you could say races mixing is a form of evolution, but I don't think it's true to what people are talking about when they speak of evolution or really "natural selection."

You are referring to two different concepts, evolution and natural selection.

"Evolution" merely means descent with modification. A change that is passed down through offspring because it is genetically encoded.

"Natural Selection" is the concept that so many people have a problem with, especially religious people. It just states that random variations in form or structure, which turn out to be beneficial, tend to be more likely to be passed on in descent because the offspring with those changes have increased survivability. Over the course of millions upon millions of years, the accumulation of changes can be quite profound.

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 10:56 AM
That's nice. You posted a link from a rambling, incoherent nutbag. It is entertaining but has nothing to do with science. Just the same tired cliches designed for people who want to stop thinking and need someone to tuck them back into their mythological comfort zone. Lets' see if we can drag you out of the Dark Ages with a few definitions of evolution from sites that aren't run by fringe lunatics:

Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2] To distinguish biological evolution from other senses of the term "evolution" used outside of the field of biology such as cultural evolution, technological evolution and the evolution of language it is sometimes referred to as genetic evolution or organic evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."


- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


The process by which the genetic structure of populations changes over time.

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-B/biological_evolution.html

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml






My search only took 0.18 seconds, by the way. This is just a few snippets from the first page of results.


You took a lot of time to find people justifying evolution but how about the giraffe?

Phantom
07-01-2010, 02:01 PM
Not everyone who challenges or points out the holes in evolution are doing so because of religious beliefs. Accept that fact and your debates will be more fruitful. Micro evolution can be observed and proven with modern science. Macro evolution (inter-speciation) cannot.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2010, 02:47 PM
Not everyone who challenges or points out the holes in evolution are doing so because of religious beliefs. Accept that fact and your debates will be more fruitful. Micro evolution can be observed and proven with modern science. Macro evolution (inter-speciation) cannot.

omg no...
it is the same process, the only difference is time
if one group of animals undergo enough minor changes so that they can no longer breed with their former group, tada its a new species
this happens all the time

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

anyone still confused over this needs to start there, this is all done by actual scientists with actual science degrees who have forgotten more about the subject than anyone on this board will ever know

its stupid how in the 21st century some people are still debating established facts

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 03:17 PM
Not everyone who challenges or points out the holes in evolution are doing so because of religious beliefs. Accept that fact and your debates will be more fruitful. Micro evolution can be observed and proven with modern science. Macro evolution (inter-speciation) cannot.

Bingo. This is not a creationist vs evolutionist argument, my point is that evolution as an accepted "fact" is silly due to how many huge holes it has. Darwin himself claimed that if evolution did not work at the cellular level then his theory would completely fall apart.

If you want to argue that evolution is proven at the cellular level because cells are being exposed to synthetic medication then that is fine, but if you want to take that one small occurance and project it out over the entire universe and how everyone and everything came to be then you're fooling yourself.

I only took one stats class in college but even I know that truly RANDOM mutations along with eons and eons and eons of time with natural selection does not make a real strong case for how we got here.

One random genetic mutation alone is almost impossible to calculate, yet only by a random genetic mutation does evolution happen. It's so ironic it stupid.

Oh, here's another huge irony about evolution and science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Occam's razor says that when you have two theories then the simplest one is correct. That is, the shortest path between two points is a straight line. Evolution fly's the the face of Occam's razor. In fact, it butchers occams razor. You tell me what is more simple, theory that is based on complete randomality and billions and billions of chances and natural selection all coming from a big bang which in and of itself flys in the face of all we know (big bag is the biggest magic trick ever) or the possibility that we were created by a higher order of intelligence.

Which is the more simple theory? That's just one knock against evolution. I'd really have way more respect for proponents of evolution if they just came out and said "I don't believe in creationism but I have serious doubts about evolution as well because it has so many fundamental flaws."

But no, people have been too brainwashed by the evolutionists to think for themselves. Sad, but all too true.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2010, 03:31 PM
Bingo. This is not a creationist vs evolutionist argument, my point is that evolution as an accepted "fact" is silly due to how many huge holes it has. Darwin himself claimed that if evolution did not work at the cellular level then his theory would completely fall apart.

If you want to argue that evolution is proven at the cellular level because cells are being exposed to synthetic medication then that is fine, but if you want to take that one small occurance and project it out over the entire universe and how everyone and everything came to be then you're fooling yourself.

I only took one stats class in college but even I know that truly RANDOM mutations along with eons and eons and eons of time with natural selection does not make a real strong case for how we got here.

One random genetic mutation alone is almost impossible to calculate, yet only by a random genetic mutation does evolution happen. It's so ironic it stupid.

Oh, here's another huge irony about evolution and science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Occam's razor says that when you have two theories then the simplest one is correct. That is, the shortest path between two points is a straight line. Evolution fly's the the face of Occam's razor. In fact, it butchers occams razor. You tell me what is more simple, theory that is based on complete randomality and billions and billions of chances and natural selection all coming from a big bang which in and of itself flys in the face of all we know (big bag is the biggest magic trick ever) or the possibility that we were created by a higher order of intelligence.

Which is the more simple theory? That's just one knock against evolution. I'd really have way more respect for proponents of evolution if they just came out and said "I don't believe in creationism but I have serious doubts about evolution as well because it has so many fundamental flaws."

But no, people have been too brainwashed by the evolutionists to think for themselves. Sad, but all too true.

you lack even the most basic understanding of how science works
evolution is a fact, this is not up for debate, it can be observed and measured, this is not my opinion either, but that of every biologist worth their salt
mutations are random, but natural selection is the opposite of random, this concept is not hard to understand at all, its not chance like you make it out to be

read the link then if you have questions ask them
until then stop infecting threads with your ignorance

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 03:37 PM
you lack even the most basic understanding of how science works
evolution is a fact, this is not up for debate, it can be observed and measured, this is not my opinion either, but that of every biologist worth their salt
mutations are random, but natural selection is the opposite of random, this concept is not hard to understand at all, its not chance like you make it out to be

read the link then if you have questions ask them
until then stop infecting threads with your ignorance

Ok, fine. Here's one simple problem for you. Please calculate the probability of human existence using random mutations and natural selection.

It's completely up for debate. Anyone who denies that evolution is not up for debate is the ignorant one.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2010, 03:40 PM
Ok, fine. Here's one simple problem for you. Please calculate the probability of human existence using random mutations and natural selection.

It's completely up for debate. Anyone who denies that evolution is not up for debate is the ignorant one.

the answer to your question is provided in the site I referenced
read it

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 03:43 PM
the answer to your question is provided in the site I referenced
read it

I opened the link and I don't see where my question is directly answered. Can you please cut and paste the answer here?

gyldenlove
07-01-2010, 03:50 PM
I guess you could say cross breeding is created evolution. Carrots as they evolved naturally were not orange and then monks from the dark ages cross bred them to the orange color you see today. In fact all fruits and vegetables have been "genetically manipulated" to be better sources of food that they are today, whereas in the wild they would be much smaller and harder to eat.

So I suppose you could say races mixing is a form of evolution, but I don't think it's true to what people are talking about when they speak of evolution or really "natural selection." They're usually referring to the process where a species over several aeons develops mutations. The ones that hurt their ability to survive do not get passed on because those people die. The ones that make it easier to survive do get passed on because those people live and have babies carrying those mutations. Over time there are supposed to be subtle changes which lend to a new species.

I don't really consider me and my half Japanese wife "evolution" so much as cross breeding. If Listopencil wants to paint evolution with a broad brush, then you might as well include human medicine and chivalry a part of evolution too.

Conventionally it doesn't make sense to speak of evolution without natural selection. Evolution is the process of changing a species from a past state to some current state that is different and maybe incompatible with the original state.

Genetic changes is the basis of that change, in that the mechanism that drives phenotypic change ultimately can be matched to genetic changes although often in a complex way. What facilitates the genetic changes to take hold and over time cause a drift from one state to another is natural selection.

Natural selection in itself can take on many shapes, including bottleneck effects such as disasters or migration, food shortage, climate change, predatorial pressure, mate selection, disease and more. All of these phenomena apply an external pressure on a group of organisms limiting survival, the surviving organisms will then reproduce thereby increasing abundance of their specific genetic variants which over time causes the species as a whole to drift from one state to a state with new common genetics.

While genetic variation and change still occurs in humans, no natural selection can be said to occur, certainly food shortage is not an issue for a vast part of the human population, same goes for disease, climate change, disasters etc, and because of the even split between the genders mate selection is minimized since almost all males will match up eventually with a female. So even while there may be genetic variations in the population today that confer some benefit to the host, for instance higher than normal intelligence, strength, health, fertility or something else they may very well not be especially selected for since everybody else can multiply just as much.

My personal speculation is that human evolution is stopped dead in its tracks and will only resume if there is a global disaster eliminating the vast majority of humans or if a group of randomly selected humans are segregated for many generations, for instance through interstaller space travel and settling.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2010, 03:54 PM
I opened the link and I don't see where my question is directly answered. Can you please cut and paste the answer here?

no

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 04:15 PM
no

didn't think so...

Mr.Meanie
07-01-2010, 04:27 PM
Conventionally it doesn't make sense to speak of evolution without natural selection. Evolution is the process of changing a species from a past state to some current state that is different and maybe incompatible with the original state.

Genetic changes is the basis of that change, in that the mechanism that drives phenotypic change ultimately can be matched to genetic changes although often in a complex way. What facilitates the genetic changes to take hold and over time cause a drift from one state to another is natural selection.

Natural selection in itself can take on many shapes, including bottleneck effects such as disasters or migration, food shortage, climate change, predatorial pressure, mate selection, disease and more. All of these phenomena apply an external pressure on a group of organisms limiting survival, the surviving organisms will then reproduce thereby increasing abundance of their specific genetic variants which over time causes the species as a whole to drift from one state to a state with new common genetics.

While genetic variation and change still occurs in humans, no natural selection can be said to occur, certainly food shortage is not an issue for a vast part of the human population, same goes for disease, climate change, disasters etc, and because of the even split between the genders mate selection is minimized since almost all males will match up eventually with a female. So even while there may be genetic variations in the population today that confer some benefit to the host, for instance higher than normal intelligence, strength, health, fertility or something else they may very well not be especially selected for since everybody else can multiply just as much.

My personal speculation is that human evolution is stopped dead in its tracks and will only resume if there is a global disaster eliminating the vast majority of humans or if a group of randomly selected humans are segregated for many generations, for instance through interstaller space travel and settling.

Humans are evolving, just in smaller ways. Someone mentioned earlier about the trend for uneducated and poor people to crap out a ton of children... which breeds more uneducated and poor people. In the past, families needed to have many children because they needed help tending their fields and flocks, and because mortality rates for kids were much higher so the chances of survivability with more children increased.

Now, many higher educated people are choosing not to have kids at all, and when they do they tend to have only 1 or 2. They enjoy their lifestyle too much to be burdened by the responsibility of caring for kids. (There are exceptions, obviously)

Eventually the gap between the higher and lower classes will be huge, with the lower classes vastly outnumbering the upper. It could be the beginning of another period of feudalism, IMO.

Oh and also, people now are bigger, faster, stronger and have a longer life span than even just 100 years ago.

Br0nc0Buster
07-01-2010, 04:32 PM
didn't think so...

ok Im done with you
your question is stupid and it is a logical fallacy, called Hoyles fallacy
look it up
my entire point is that people who criticize evolution are people like yourself who know absolutely nothing about it, yet still refuse to learn about it

I offered you a link to a great website that explains it all including many of the "criticisms" you have, and instead you just spit out fallacies

you are hopeless

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 04:43 PM
Humans are evolving, just in smaller ways. Someone mentioned earlier about the trend for uneducated and poor people to crap out a ton of children... which breeds more uneducated and poor people. In the past, families needed to have many children because they needed help tending their fields and flocks, and because mortality rates for kids were much higher so the chances of survivability with more children increased.

Now, many higher educated people are choosing not to have kids at all, and when they do they tend to have only 1 or 2. They enjoy their lifestyle too much to be burdened by the responsibility of caring for kids. (There are exceptions, obviously)

Eventually the gap between the higher and lower classes will be huge, with the lower classes vastly outnumbering the upper. It could be the beginning of another period of feudalism, IMO.

Oh and also, people now are bigger, faster, stronger and have a longer life span than even just 100 years ago.

None if this is evolution. Are you suggesting uneducated poor people are less intelligent than educated wealthy people simply because the are uneducated and poor? Seriously? Simply because you cannot afford an education does not mean you have less capacity to comprehend and learn than people who can afford an education.

Also, we are more obese and have more health problems like diabetes than people who lived 100 years ago but does that me we are evolving or does that just mean we our fatter and lazier?

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 04:44 PM
ok Im done with you
your question is stupid and it is a logical fallacy, called Hoyles fallacy
look it up
my entire point is that people who criticize evolution are people like yourself who know absolutely nothing about it, yet still refuse to learn about it

I offered you a link to a great website that explains it all including many of the "criticisms" you have, and instead you just spit out fallacies

you are hopeless

Dude, don't get all bent out of shape. I understand evolution just fine, however I'm questioning it's validity, that's all. You are the one with the problem, not me.

Mr.Meanie
07-01-2010, 04:46 PM
None if this is evolution. Are you suggesting uneducated poor people are less intelligent than educated wealthy people simply because the are uneducated and poor? Seriously? Simply because you cannot afford an education does not mean you have less capacity to comprehend and learn than people who can afford an education.

Also, we are more obese and have more health problems like diabetes than people who lived 100 years ago but does that me we are evolving or does that just mean our fatter and lazier?

Changing/Evolving/Adapting...yes. We are getting fatter, taller, dumber and living longer.

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 04:57 PM
Changing/Evolving/Adapting...yes. We are getting fatter, taller, dumber and living longer.

So, is all of this mutations then? Are we mutants of mutants? Genetically speaking there is no difference between homo-sapiens. We are all homo-sapiens. Yet, for evolution to work we must have random genetic mutations. That's a fact.

However, people who are saying that we are evolving are saying that random genetic mutations do not have to happen for us to evolve, right?

So, let me get this straight. Random genetic mutations have to occure for evolution to happen. But on the other hand, random genetic mutations don't have to occur for humans to evolve, correct?

Ahhhhh...evolution... it makes so much sense that it breaks it's own rules in order to work...

Mr.Meanie
07-01-2010, 05:01 PM
So, is all of this mutations then? Are we mutants of mutants? Genetically speaking there is no difference between homo-sapiens. We are all homo-sapiens. Yet, for evolution to work we must have random genetic mutations. That's a fact.

However, people who are saying that we are evolving are saying that random genetic mutations do not have to happen for us to evolve, right?

So, let me get this straight. Random genetic mutations have to occure for evolution to happen. But on the other hand, random genetic mutations don't have to occur for humans to evolve, correct?

Ahhhhh...evolution... it makes so much sense that it breaks it's own rules in order to work...

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying genes don't mutate? Or they do, but those mutations cannot be passed on.

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 05:21 PM
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying genes don't mutate? Or they do, but those mutations cannot be passed on.

The theory of evolution encompasses random genetic mutations. In fact, the whole theory collapses without random genetic mutations. I know, it's confusing. Let me try to help:

It's completely false to boil evolution down to natural selection. That is, modern giraffes evolved into present form because some of the previous giraffes that stretched out their necks in order to eat survived over those dumb ole giraffes who refused to stretch out their necks in order to eat. So, the long necked giraffes passed on their genes while the short necked giraffes died off. Natural selection at it's finest, right?

Only wait... that's impossible... organisms can't change their genetics simply by trying harder, that is, a giraffe that stretches in order to obtain a leaf from a branch higher up will not magically change it's genetic make up. A giraffe cannot will its genes to change. A giraffe cannot think its DNA into changing or will it's DNA into changing, this simply does not happen, right?

So, how did giraffes evolve? I guess the short necked giraffes died off because they just died off. They couldn't hack it. Some how, some way over millions and millions and millions of years the longer necked giraffes lived and the shorter necked giraffes died off.

Well, evolution says "no." That's not how it works and this is probably the only thing that is right about the theory of evolution.

So how does a species change then? The change comes when you have a RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION. That is, at some point in time back in history there was a baby giraffe that was born with a hugely long neck. This MUTANT giraffee, then breeded and passed on it's mutant long neck genetics to all it's offspring which then passed on all of their long neck genetics to all of their offspring which then gets us to present day giraffes.

See, ain't it beautiful!

You have random genetic mutations which are the real causes of evolution, coupled with natural selection.

So again, are humans evolving, are we all just randomly mutating into bigger, fatter, stronger, dumber people?

uplink
07-01-2010, 05:41 PM
We might get fatter, but until someone starts killing everyone not born without legs, we will not "evolve" into not having legs.

Could also happen if men (women) started to have a strong desire for sex with
women (men) without legs. As for me a nice pair of legs on a girl is really quite attractive.

uplink
07-01-2010, 05:44 PM
I don't even think there is a porn genre for sex with leg less people, is there? Maybe in Germany or Japan.

TheReverend
07-01-2010, 05:49 PM
The theory of evolution encompasses random genetic mutations. In fact, the whole theory collapses without random genetic mutations. I know, it's confusing. Let me try to help:

It's completely false to boil evolution down to natural selection. That is, modern giraffes evolved into present form because some of the previous giraffes that stretched out their necks in order to eat survived over those dumb ole giraffes who refused to stretch out their necks in order to eat. So, the long necked giraffes passed on their genes while the short necked giraffes died off. Natural selection at it's finest, right?

Only wait... that's impossible... organisms can't change their genetics simply by trying harder, that is, a giraffe that stretches in order to obtain a leaf from a branch higher up will not magically change it's genetic make up. A giraffe cannot will its genes to change. A giraffe cannot think its DNA into changing or will it's DNA into changing, this simply does not happen, right?

So, how did giraffes evolve? I guess the short necked giraffes died off because they just died off. They couldn't hack it. Some how, some way over millions and millions and millions of years the longer necked giraffes lived and the shorter necked giraffes died off.

Well, evolution says "no." That's not how it works and this is probably the only thing that is right about the theory of evolution.

So how does a species change then? The change comes when you have a RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION. That is, at some point in time back in history there was a baby giraffe that was born with a hugely long neck. This MUTANT giraffee, then breeded and passed on it's mutant long neck genetics to all it's offspring which then passed on all of their long neck genetics to all of their offspring which then gets us to present day giraffes.

See, ain't it beautiful!

You have random genetic mutations which are the real causes of evolution, coupled with natural selection.

So again, are humans evolving, are we all just randomly mutating into bigger, fatter, stronger, dumber people?

Whoever taught you what you "know" about evolution should get punched in the face.

uplink
07-01-2010, 05:55 PM
Whoever taught you what you "know" about evolution should get punched in the face.

What part is wrong then? There is a mutation element to it.

Mr.Meanie
07-01-2010, 06:00 PM
The theory of evolution encompasses random genetic mutations. In fact, the whole theory collapses without random genetic mutations. I know, it's confusing. Let me try to help:

It's completely false to boil evolution down to natural selection. That is, modern giraffes evolved into present form because some of the previous giraffes that stretched out their necks in order to eat survived over those dumb ole giraffes who refused to stretch out their necks in order to eat. So, the long necked giraffes passed on their genes while the short necked giraffes died off. Natural selection at it's finest, right?

Only wait... that's impossible... organisms can't change their genetics simply by trying harder, that is, a giraffe that stretches in order to obtain a leaf from a branch higher up will not magically change it's genetic make up. A giraffe cannot will its genes to change. A giraffe cannot think its DNA into changing or will it's DNA into changing, this simply does not happen, right?

So, how did giraffes evolve? I guess the short necked giraffes died off because they just died off. They couldn't hack it. Some how, some way over millions and millions and millions of years the longer necked giraffes lived and the shorter necked giraffes died off.

Well, evolution says "no." That's not how it works and this is probably the only thing that is right about the theory of evolution.

So how does a species change then? The change comes when you have a RANDOM GENETIC MUTATION. That is, at some point in time back in history there was a baby giraffe that was born with a hugely long neck. This MUTANT giraffee, then breeded and passed on it's mutant long neck genetics to all it's offspring which then passed on all of their long neck genetics to all of their offspring which then gets us to present day giraffes.

See, ain't it beautiful!

You have random genetic mutations which are the real causes of evolution, coupled with natural selection.

So again, are humans evolving, are we all just randomly mutating into bigger, fatter, stronger, dumber people?

The way I understand it, random mutation is not the entire backbone of evolution.

For example, Dawkins uses an illustration in Greatest Show on Earth about the Ugandan elephants who have been relentlessly hunted for years for their ivory tusks. Hunters would target only the elephants with largest, most profitable tusks and leave the ones with little tusks alone. Well as you might imagine, the little ones had a survival advantage, and passed on the "small tusk genes" to future generations. What is interesting is the average tusk size in these elephants had steadily declined over the decades as the elephants with genes predisposed to smaller tusks were able to survive and pass them on.

That doesn't mean all the elephants were all randomly mutating into smaller-tusked mammals, it means the ones with a genetic predispostion to small tusks had a sudden survival advantage over their larger-tusked bretheren passed it along.

As far as humans go, I was using "evolve" more in the sense of gradual change over time, influenced by a ton of different factors - whether it's genetic (bigger), societal (dumber) or even the proliferance of fast food (fatter).

mhgaffney
07-01-2010, 06:05 PM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

Yes but a good old fashioned nuclear war would vastly speed up the process.

No legs here we come!

Tombstone RJ
07-01-2010, 06:11 PM
The way I understand it, random mutation is not the entire backbone of evolution.

For example, Dawkins uses an illustration in Greatest Show on Earth about the Ugandan elephants who have been relentlessly hunted for years for their ivory tusks. Hunters would target only the elephants with largest, most profitable tusks and leave the ones with little tusks alone. Well as you might imagine, the little ones had a survival advantage, and passed on the "small tusk genes" to future generations. What is interesting is the average tusk size in these elephants had steadily declined over the decades as the elephants with genes predisposed to smaller tusks were able to survive and pass them on.

That doesn't mean all the elephants were all randomly mutating into smaller-tusked mammals, it means the ones with a genetic predispostion to small tusks had a sudden survival advantage over their larger-tusked bretheren passed it along.

As far as humans go, I was using "evolve" more in the sense of gradual change over time, influenced by a ton of different factors - whether it's genetic (bigger), societal (dumber) or even the proliferance of fast food (fatter).

This is not "evolution." For evolution to occure you have to change at the DNA level. None of these elephants are changing at the DNA level. They are simply passing the small tusk gene on.

I really don't think people understand the complete theory of evolution. You have to think in huge terms. How did you and I get here from being a fish? This is where the "theory" of evolution comes into play. You can't look at the small picture. You can't look at elephants who have small tusks and are breeding and transpose that one small picture to how homo-sapiens or human beings evolved up from snails.

DOES.NOT.WORK.

In order for homo-sapiens to evolve up from primordial slime, you have to have the basic and key element of GENETIC MUTATIONS. After all, the "theory" of evolution relies on genetic change, right?

At some point and time, and over and over again (actually) there must have been genetic mutations at the DNA level for you and me to change from primordial slime into homo-sapiens.

There is no other way for the theory of evolution to work.

shaunroach
07-01-2010, 06:33 PM
Dude "The small tusk gene" is encoded in DNA.

listopencil
07-01-2010, 06:37 PM
You took a lot of time to find people justifying evolution but how about the giraffe?

No, as I said it took 0.18 seconds. Including your giraffe:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

listopencil
07-01-2010, 06:55 PM
It's completely false to boil evolution down to natural selection. That is, modern giraffes evolved into present form because some of the previous giraffes that stretched out their necks in order to eat survived over those dumb ole giraffes who refused to stretch out their necks in order to eat. So, the long necked giraffes passed on their genes while the short necked giraffes died off. Natural selection at it's finest, right?



No. That's not it at all. Giraffes didn't stretch out there necks. As far as I know it goes like this:


Giraffes graze. They need a somewhat constant food source to achieve maximum efficiency. The giraffes with longer necks were able to reach more food sources. This means that they lived more healthy lives and were more likely to produce offspring. They passed on their genetic material more often and eventually this had a profound accumulative effect on the physical structure of what we today consider to be a "giraffe".

In this example you can say that the first giraffes with slightly longer necks were the mutation that happened to enable the process of natural selection. There were no "dumb old giraffes". It's a natural process that doesn't require conscious effort on anyone's behalf to create change. Neither an Intelligent Design nor an intelligent giraffe.

misturanderson
07-01-2010, 07:19 PM
This is not "evolution." For evolution to occure you have to change at the DNA level. None of these elephants are changing at the DNA level. They are simply passing the small tusk gene on.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the elephants with the shorter tusks do have a genetic difference (a gene is coded by DNA you twat) from those with longer tusks, it was most likely due to a minor mutation in the DNA code of one or more of their genes.

OABB
07-01-2010, 08:32 PM
my penis Evolved from 5 inches to 7 in the lastfive years. Not sure how it happened, but I'll take it. Who cares anyways?

Cool Breeze
07-01-2010, 08:39 PM
As to the choice of the word you capitalized
I'm sure there is some Freudian image invocation rule I'll have to bust you on!

Lev Vyvanse
07-01-2010, 08:42 PM
This is not "evolution." For evolution to occure you have to change at the DNA level. None of these elephants are changing at the DNA level. They are simply passing the small tusk gene on.


I think you are trying to be ****ing obtuse so I dont know why Im trying, but evolution occurs on a species wide scale so a change in gene frequency is evolution. On a side note, if a gene did randomly change on the smallest level how many outcomes do you think there are?

OABB
07-01-2010, 08:46 PM
As to the choice of the word you capitalized
I'm sure there is some Freudian image invocation rule I'll have to bust you on!

It's my stupid iPod... It always does that. Although maybe my iPod is tryig to tell me something...

Lev Vyvanse
07-01-2010, 10:57 PM
In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its.....mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this...retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!

TheReverend
07-01-2010, 11:06 PM
Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!

There's no way he really posted that... please tell me you made that up and didn't quote it before he could delete it?

Lev Vyvanse
07-01-2010, 11:43 PM
There's no way he really posted that... please tell me you made that up and didn't quote it before he could delete it?

I was paraphrasing.

Hotwheelz
07-02-2010, 12:20 AM
Ok, fine. Here's one simple problem for you. Please calculate the probability of human existence using random mutations and natural selection.

It's completely up for debate. Anyone who denies that evolution is not up for debate is the ignorant one.

Please calculate the probability that all the events in your life lead you to read this post.

Lev Vyvanse
07-02-2010, 12:40 AM
Please calculate the probability that all the events in your life lead you to read this post.

Is it seven?

Hotwheelz
07-02-2010, 12:47 AM
Is it seven?

no, 42

UberBroncoMan
07-02-2010, 02:11 AM
The way I understand evolution if we stopped using them eventually they would disappear but your talking 100's of thousands of years.

Correct. Our pinky toes are fading away because of shoes replacing the traction that those tiny toes provided barefoot.

Phantom
07-02-2010, 07:34 AM
This MUTANT giraffee, then breeded and passed on it's mutant long neck genetics to all it's offspring which then passed on all of their long neck genetics to all of their offspring which then gets us to present day giraffes.


But let's not forget, that the mutant long-neck giraffe was a baby giraffe at one point. How did it survive until adulthood if the only leaves were too high for the short neck giraffes?

How does a one-chambered heart evolve into a four-chambered heart by a process of random mutations over a long a$$ time that somehow served beneficial to its host enough for the host to have an advantage over the rest of its species and hence would reproduce more.

How did an eye evolve? Until all the working pieces are in place, it serves no advantage.

When did it become beneficial for an asexual amoeba to become separate sexes? Wouldn't it be advantageous to reproduce on your own.

The fossil record does not support macro evolution. However everything stated here about natural selection (a tenant of micro evolution) is certainly valid.

Phantom
07-02-2010, 07:46 AM
All I see from the pro-evolutionists are examples of changes within a species - elephants are still elephants, giraffes are still giraffes. The argument against is not at this level.

UberBroncoMan
07-02-2010, 08:32 AM
http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/south_park_it.gif

Seth MacFarlane couldn't come up with genius though provoking **** like that.

uk bronco
07-02-2010, 08:53 AM
This is not "evolution." For evolution to occure you have to change at the DNA level. None of these elephants are changing at the DNA level. They are simply passing the small tusk gene on.

I really don't think people understand the complete theory of evolution. You have to think in huge terms.

Seriously cant beleive you've managed to make those comments one after the other.

So here comes the biology lesson. (HYPOTHETICAL)

Small tusks are a ressesive gene to Large tusks so lets call the dominant large tusk gene T and the recessive small tusk gene t. For an elephant to have small tusks it must have the phenotype tt now if its small tusks make it more attractive as a mate because they now possess a selective advantage. With increased breeding of these small tusk elephants even if the elephants they breed with are TT dominant for both copies of the allele they will create a heterozygous population with Tt alleles. This shows a clear change in the genetic structure of the population. If these Tt elephants bred with the tt small tusk eephants 50% of them should be pure bred short tusk and may go o to forjm their own separate population away from the larger tusk elephants and eventually become different enough that the two groups can no longer interbreed and form a new species.

I have studied animals all my life prtty much and i beleive so strongly in evolution i am always baffled by those who do not beleive it. But i do accept everyones right to their own opinion not matter how stupid i think it is.

Phantom
07-02-2010, 09:08 AM
So we have different breeds of Elephants until one suddenly became a Bison. Oh, I see now.

HAT
07-02-2010, 09:14 AM
The fossil record does not support macro evolution. However everything stated here about natural selection (a tenant of micro evolution) is certainly valid.

/thread.

gyldenlove
07-02-2010, 10:04 AM
But let's not forget, that the mutant long-neck giraffe was a baby giraffe at one point. How did it survive until adulthood if the only leaves were too high for the short neck giraffes?

How does a one-chambered heart evolve into a four-chambered heart by a process of random mutations over a long a$$ time that somehow served beneficial to its host enough for the host to have an advantage over the rest of its species and hence would reproduce more.

How did an eye evolve? Until all the working pieces are in place, it serves no advantage.

When did it become beneficial for an asexual amoeba to become separate sexes? Wouldn't it be advantageous to reproduce on your own.

The fossil record does not support macro evolution. However everything stated here about natural selection (a tenant of micro evolution) is certainly valid.

The answer to your first question is so simple even you should understand it. Do you know when Giraffs birth their babies? They birth when food as abundant so babies can eat grass and scrubs, the long neck advantage only manifests itself during times extreme drought when individuals with longer than average necks will have an advantage. This is called a bottleneck and is one of the very basic methods of natural selection. Being that extreme droughts and severe forest fires occur regularily in Eastern sub-saharan Africa neck length is very effective selected for.

The 1 chambered heart became the 2 chambered heart as seen in fish, 1 atrium, 1 ventricle, that in itself is a very small change, but very beneficial in that a 2 chambered heart is much more efficient than a 1 chambered heart. Lung fish have what is in essence two 2-chambered hearts in parallel, they both feed blood to the gills, some of which then goes to the lungs and back to one heart and and the rest goes to the body and other organs. Duplication is inherently a not too tricky mutation since all the genes already exist, they just need to be copied and expressed twice. From this simple dual heart system, the only change that needs to happen to move to the 3 chamber heart found in reptiles is to eliminate the gills and remove the seperation between ventricles, the latter is most likely to have happened first which would render the gills much less useful as this allows for internal circulation which could add a selective pressure against gills.
From a 3 chambered heart, going to a 4 chambered heart just requires regrowing the ventricle wall, this is found in mammals and is an adaptation most likely to have happened after mammals left the water, since out of water having internal recirculation without involving the lungs is no benefit.

The eye has already been discussed in great detail other places, various stages of protoeyes have been found in deep sea animals. Any light sensitive cell would confer an advantage as it would allow for the detection of sunlight, any increase in sensitivity and ultimately vision confers an advantage both to predator and prey and even to most plants as it allows for optimizing detection of prey, detection of predator or optimizing photosynthesis rates.

Sexual reproduction is an advantage since it minimizes inbreeding and thus helps eliminate genetic defects. You can do a very simple simulation to show that sexual reproduction is advantageous, start with a population split 50/50 between sexual and asexual reproduction, assume that 1 in every 100000 born individuals carry a mutation that means gives them a survival disadvantage, in asexual reproduction 100% of offspring will carry this mutation, while in sexual reproduction only 50% will carry this mutation. Over time there will be a drift towards sexual reproduction as they will have a lower incidence of this negative mutation (you can also replace the mutation with a disease or any external factor), in asexual reproduction any beneficial mutation won't spread, so only one lineage will carry a beneficial mutation, while in sexual reproduction the same mutation can be spread much faster.

Tombstone RJ
07-02-2010, 10:36 AM
Seriously cant beleive you've managed to make those comments one after the other.

So here comes the biology lesson. (HYPOTHETICAL)

Small tusks are a ressesive gene to Large tusks so lets call the dominant large tusk gene T and the recessive small tusk gene t. For an elephant to have small tusks it must have the phenotype tt now if its small tusks make it more attractive as a mate because they now possess a selective advantage. With increased breeding of these small tusk elephants even if the elephants they breed with are TT dominant for both copies of the allele they will create a heterozygous population with Tt alleles. This shows a clear change in the genetic structure of the population. If these Tt elephants bred with the tt small tusk eephants 50% of them should be pure bred short tusk and may go o to forjm their own separate population away from the larger tusk elephants and eventually become different enough that the two groups can no longer interbreed and form a new species.

I have studied animals all my life prtty much and i beleive so strongly in evolution i am always baffled by those who do not beleive it. But i do accept everyones right to their own opinion not matter how stupid i think it is.

The DNA for the elephant still has all the components for large tusks, correct? So if the elephant population is given enough time to recover, then large tusks will come back. Given enough time the dominant gene will show up again, even if there are no large tusk elephants still alive. Again, the DNA has not changed, the only thing that has changed is the fact that the large tusk elephants have been hunted to extinction.

My point about evolution is that it's ok to question it. Really, it is. There's many problems with it and for every problem that exists, the proponents of evolution simply want to brush it under the rug or ignore it or say "you don't know what you are talking about."

What proponents of evolution seem to be saying is that EVOLUTION = CHANGE. That's it, that is their argument for how everything evolved. We all know that change is the one constant in the universe. For proponents of evolution to simply equate evolution to change is hugely misleading.

Change is change. Evolution is the theory of how everything came into being. It's misleading to say that evolution is simply change.

If that's the case then when I change a dollar bill into 4 quarters is that "evolution" too?

Everytime I change my mind is that evolution? No, that's just change.

The DNA pattern in the elephants is not changing in that, it's not mutating. Given enough time the dominant gene for large tusks will work it's way back into the population of the elephants. After all, it too is IN the DNA. Simply because the population no longer has large tusk elephants does not change the fact that the DNA for large tusks is still there. It simply means the chances of an elephant being born with large tusks are smaller.

Is the elephant population changing due to mankind hunting them, yes. Is this causing the elephants DNA to change, no. It's simply making it less likely that a large tusk elephant will be born to the population.

Mr.Meanie
07-02-2010, 11:27 AM
The DNA for the elephant still has all the components for large tusks, correct? So if the elephant population is given enough time to recover, then large tusks will come back. Given enough time the dominant gene will show up again, even if there are no large tusk elephants still alive. Again, the DNA has not changed, the only thing that has changed is the fact that the large tusk elephants have been hunted to extinction.

I don't believe that's how it works.

As time goes on, the "small tusk" elephants have more dominant small tusk genes. The large tusk element is much less predominant.

For example, take a deck of 52 cards with all the normal cards in them. If you take that deck and shuffle it together with a full deck that has no face cards and randomly pull out 52 cards again, you are likely going to have a new deck with a few face cards missing. Then shuffle the new deck with another faceless deck and randomly pull out a full deck. Imagine repeating this over and over and over again, what would happen eventually? Over time you would trend down towards a faceless deck.

That process is how selective breeding for traits and characteristics works... weeding out the genes you don't like over time.

So in the elephant example, once the hunting stopped they wouldn't start growing larger tusks over time because those "large tusk genes" have been marginalized over time. The only way they would grow back again is if the larger tusks gave them a food/reproduction/survival advantage and it started to reverse the process.

Mr.Meanie
07-02-2010, 11:30 AM
Change is change. Evolution is the theory of how everything came into being. It's misleading to say that evolution is simply change.

If that's the case then when I change a dollar bill into 4 quarters is that "evolution" too?

Everytime I change my mind is that evolution? No, that's just change.


It depends on the usage. People describe their personalities as evolving over time. People's relationships evolve, cultures evolve, etc.

The Evolutionary Theory is different than describing evolving trends. It's semantics.

Phantom
07-02-2010, 11:47 AM
The answer to your first question is so simple even you should understand it.

The problems with your analogies is you jump from milestone to milestone and skip the events in between. A functioning multichambered heart is advantageous, but the mutations over many thousands of years before the new organ is intact does not provide an advantage. Same with the eye, even as simple as you describe, there are several components that wouldn't evolve/mutate at once. Surely sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction, but how did you get there? When the first organism was born non-asexual, there were no others for it to procreate with. With evolution you have to carry the mutation for thousands of years before it becomes a functioning system/organ/etc.

Pony Boy
07-02-2010, 11:59 AM
But let's not forget, that the mutant long-neck giraffe was a baby giraffe at one point. How did it survive until adulthood if the only leaves were too high for the short neck giraffes?

So if I understand everything.......... Men who love to have sex with fat women will eventually evolve with a longer penis.......

shaunroach
07-02-2010, 04:02 PM
I love creationists reasoning.

"I can accept micro-evolution, but I cannot accept the leap that it can cause species to diverge. I cannot accept that intricate and complicated things can arise from tiny incremental changes. There is no proof of this, I need to see proof to believe anything."

Oh really? OK, well how do you explain how life and all the species came into being?

"Oh that's easy, a giant brain who is also my best friend that lives in outer space or maybe another dimension psychicly manipulated matter on earth to form plants and animals."

or as they will say "god did it"

HAT
07-02-2010, 04:27 PM
I love creationists reasoning.

"I can accept micro-evolution, but I cannot accept the leap that it can cause species to diverge. I cannot accept that intricate and complicated things can arise from tiny incremental changes. There is no proof of this, I need to see proof to believe anything."

Oh really? OK, well how do you explain how life and all the species came into being?

"Oh that's easy, a giant brain who is also my best friend that lives in outer space or maybe another dimension psychicly manipulated matter on earth to form plants and animals."

or as they will say "god did it".

Not everyone who challenges or points out the holes in evolution are doing so because of religious beliefs. Accept that fact and your debates will be more fruitful. Micro evolution can be observed and proven with modern science. Macro evolution (inter-speciation) cannot.

shaunroach
07-02-2010, 04:47 PM
Tell me an alternate theory of how plants and animals exist that does not rely on a creator.

You're basically saying that you won't believe it because you can't live for 10 million years to see it happen.

watermock
07-02-2010, 05:33 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RCbk-rSRoeA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RCbk-rSRoeA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>.

LonghornBronco
07-03-2010, 08:45 AM
We might get fatter, but until someone starts killing everyone not born without legs, we will not "evolve" into not having legs.

The grammer police will site you for using a double negative:twokisses

Tombstone RJ
07-03-2010, 10:20 AM
I love creationists reasoning.

"I can accept micro-evolution, but I cannot accept the leap that it can cause species to diverge. I cannot accept that intricate and complicated things can arise from tiny incremental changes. There is no proof of this, I need to see proof to believe anything."

Oh really? OK, well how do you explain how life and all the species came into being?

"Oh that's easy, a giant brain who is also my best friend that lives in outer space or maybe another dimension psychicly manipulated matter on earth to form plants and animals."

or as they will say "god did it"

Or, maybe evolution is not true either? Basically, there are two philosophies right? Creationists and Evolutionists, does this mean there are no other valid possibilities? You either one or the other but not both? Evolution has major problems yet people choose to ignore them. Creationists have major problems because there is no verifiable evidence for God or a higher power. So, is there nothing else outside these two beliefs?

I'm of the opinion that the people who say, "we just don't really know either way" are the only ones really speaking the truth. Everyone else is just arguing to argue...

Broncos4tw
07-03-2010, 10:45 AM
This reminds me of a short sci fi story I ready probably 20 or more years ago. It was about two people running for their lives from the authorities, who were trying to hunt them down. Their crime? They had legs and used them. Everyone else in the world never used their legs, everywhere they got around was via machines. That immediately popped in my head when I saw this. I wish I could remember what it was called.

listopencil
07-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Or, maybe evolution is not true either? Basically, there are two philosophies right? Creationists and Evolutionists, does this mean there are no other valid possibilities? You either one or the other but not both? Evolution has major problems yet people choose to ignore them. Creationists have major problems because there is no verifiable evidence for God or a higher power. So, is there nothing else outside these two beliefs?

I'm of the opinion that the people who say, "we just don't really know either way" are the only ones really speaking the truth. Everyone else is just arguing to argue...

Nah, evolution is obviously true. Any honest person who is willing to use a bit of scientific thought can see the evidence all around them. You are probably referring to natural selection as an evolutionary process that appears to have "problems". Honestly, from your posts on this thread, it's you that has a problem with natural selection and you aren't willing to even consider any explanations about it. You don't seem actually be reading the answers that people are giving you to your own questions. If anyone in this thread looks like they are arguing just to argue...it's you.


But- and this is very important -there are not only two philosophies. Right off the top of my head Deist philosophy allows evolution and creation. Ben Franklin (my favorite Founding Father) was a Deist. I'm an Agnostic myself. I believe that the question can't be decided with logic because there just isn't enough information. You have to face the data that exists, though. There is obvious, verifiable, validated and repeatable evidence that evolution does take place. Whether you believe that a divine force cause it or not, denying it is just silly.

OABB
07-03-2010, 05:34 PM
I think the orangemane proves that humans did evolve from sludge.