Evolution in 5 mins


Recommended Posts

OK, it's cute and catchy, but it's also got a very awkward sudden jump from the mammal-like reptiles to the primates, and unfortunately it perpetuates the "evolution as a process on rails" concept by showing a single lineage ? ours, of course. Why not show a progression to a modern rose, or a fly, or a fish? Or better yet, illustrate evolution as an ongoing explosion of diversity? I know, I know, it isn't as engrossing to self-centered humans, the market for this sort of thing.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01...n_5_minutes.php

via digg

wish i had a time machine. could have checked all that out mysel:):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Indeed, the wonders of nature. But why take the wonders of nature and reduce them to God did it? Is it not more wonderful and awe-inspiring to think that these things can arise blindly, without a conscious designer? To believe that this video shows anything which disproves evolution theory really shows how little effort you have put into understanding the theory. Fingers in ears, la la la. Anyone who still holds on to the design theory isn't interested in the truth, they are just desperately seeking justification of their already established religious beliefs. Please, there are at least some decent arguments in favour of God, but not this one. Give it a rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the wonders of nature. But why take the wonders of nature and reduce them to God did it? Is it not more wonderful and awe-inspiring to think that these things can arise blindly, without a conscious designer? To believe that this video shows anything which disproves evolution theory really shows how little effort you have put into understanding the theory. Fingers in ears, la la la. Anyone who still holds on to the design theory isn't interested in the truth, they are just desperately seeking justification of their already established religious beliefs. Please, there are at least some decent arguments in favour of God, but not this one. Give it a rest.

Strawman, much?

I never said that God did it nor was it in an effort to disprove evolution. I expected you to see it to the end, which you may have, but if I told you to beware of the disclaimer, you may have skipped the whole video for the end and closed it.

You can see by the video posted in the original topic that no sane person would believe all this happens by blind chance, even in the likes of the video I posted. If there is a process in evolution to determine what happens, then it should be called Intelligent Design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you still think evolution is blind chance, you still haven't understood evolution *cries*

Seriously, if you think these kinds of 'issues' raise by creationists/intelligent design proponents are unaware of and unanswered by evolutionary biologists, then you'd be wrong. These same type of arguments come up over and over. Once in a while good points are raised, and scientists get to work to see if evolution can explain the phenomena in question. If the answer was ever NO, then it would be all over the place.

The (main) process in evolution is called Natural Selection. Why do you think these animals 'want' to look like their surroundings in the first place? Because predators want to eat them, and they find their prey by looking. What happens if a regular insect, say, has a mutation which makes it look slightly more like a leaf? Or perhaps a single mutation that leads to quite a big phenotypic effect such as a large excess flap on it's back (although it doesn't really look like a leaf yet). However small the advantage it provides, it's still an advantage: they have a higher chance of surviving and having offspring which share their genetic traits. At some point in the generations that follow, another mutation makes it look even more like a leaf; perhaps the excess flap is 'refined' in some way. Continue this for millions of years, and there's no reason to think this couldn't happen. Oh, unless empirical evidence said otherwise. Unfortunately for some, the evidence supports this theory.

The chance you speak of is only in the mutations... their selection pressure is far from chance! If you don't believe such mutations could ever happen, you're ignoring the vast quantity of studies in genetics.

It's personal incredulity all over again.

Edited by snappyfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how can an insect have a mutation that it has no control over? It's not like they wish for it to happen, and it happens.

So you're saying that the mutation itself only happens by chance? Right? So what are the chances that a mutation happens AND that it is beneficial in such a way that it makes them look EXACTLY like a plant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances that in one mutation it looks exactly like a plant are extremely low.

The chances that one mutation makes it look slightly like a plant, which is then selected for and spread across the population, and in subsequent years, the next step is taken... and so on.... over an unimaginable period of time... are significantly higher.

Edited by snappyfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how can an insect have a mutation that it has no control over? It's not like they wish for it to happen, and it happens.

So you're saying that the mutation itself only happens by chance? Right? So what are the chances that a mutation happens AND that it is beneficial in such a way that it makes them look EXACTLY like a plant?

Oh lovely, another one of these threads. :rolleyes:

A mutation is a glitch in the copying of DNA that most of the time will result in a negative consequence for the host. This mutation may not noticeable or may even manifest itself as a disability or impairment of some sort. 99.9% of these mutations are not beneficial. Overall it is a disadvantage to the host to receive one of these mutations.

But sometimes, a mutation may result in a tiny change in it's genes that results in a extremely slight advantage. The creature may be able to more store energy 0.1% more efficiently than it's counterparts. Overall it is an advantage to the host to receive one of these mutations.

Creatures with positive mutations are therefore slightly more likely to survive and pass on these positively mutated genes than the creatures with negative mutations who are slightly less likely to survive and pass on their negatively mutated genes.

Of course it would be absurd to think that this 0.1% change can have any noticeable impact on the future of the species, but the scales are tipped in favour through the exponential accumulation of this 0.1% change amongst the billions, trillions of generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances that in one mutation it looks exactly like a plant are extremely low.

The chances that one mutation makes it look slightly like a plant, which is then selected for and spread across the population, and in subsequent years, the next step is taken... and so on.... over an unimaginable period of time... are significantly higher.

The theory of evolution should be called the theory of intelligent design then, because nature is definitely playing a part turning insects into next-to-nothing replicas of real plants.

How long would it take to accumulate empirical evidence of what you are saying?

[EDIT:] And these species last hundreds of millions of years whilst they are mutating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution should be called the theory of intelligent design then, because nature is definitely playing a part turning insects into next-to-nothing replicas of real plants.

But there's no intelligent conciousness involved in evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution should be called the theory of intelligent design then, because nature is definitely playing a part turning insects into next-to-nothing replicas of real plants.

Sorry but that dishonest tactic doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's no intelligent conciousness involved in evolution.

Thats the amazing thing.

All these mutations can lead the insect to look like a plant with no "aid". Its as if the "evolutionary process" thinks, that the ants will be helped by this, so lets mutate them in such a way.

Sorry but that dishonest tactic doesn't work.

I dont know what you mean. :shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, true. It's as if it thinks, that's why so many have been fooled into thinking it does, or some thing that thinks does the work. But really, evolution is almost a necessity that arises out of some simple facts. Those better at surviving will survive and have kids, thus spreading it's genes more than those that aren't as good at surviving and don't have as many kids. What's even more interesting about evolution that's driven by a predator-prey relationship like insects and birds we've been discussing, is that the birds better at spotting insects will also be selected for, so there are two things to think about.

And these species last hundreds of millions of years whilst they are mutating?

Not sure what you mean here but let me talk a bit about the concept of species. Scrap that, this piece explains roughly what I was going to say but more clearly. Also some illuminating diagrams: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles..._and_Speciation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, true. It's as if it thinks, that's why so many have been fooled into thinking it does, or some thing that thinks does the work. But really, evolution is almost a necessity that arises out of some simple facts. Those better at surviving will survive and have kids, thus spreading it's genes more than those that aren't as good at surviving and don't have as many kids. What's even more interesting about evolution that's driven by a predator-prey relationship like insects and birds we've been discussing, is that the birds better at spotting insects will also be selected for, so there are two things to think about.

Not sure what you mean here but let me talk a bit about the concept of species. Scrap that, this piece explains roughly what I was going to say but more clearly. Also some illuminating diagrams: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles..._and_Speciation

But the point is why are some better at surviving? If its due to the mutation, which again has no specific logical order, we are back to the same point, on why it happens at all. Obviously mutations do not happen over night, so each creature from the same species is as endangered as the other until the mutation occurs.

My other point was that, did these species of fish/birds last for the hundred of millions of years whilst these mustations were taking place? Does this sound a bit better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah OK, I think I have spotted a big misunderstanding here! Mutations don't happen to an organism during its life time, they happen when a new child is being conceived. Once you're born, you can't mutate*. And any environmental effects on your morphology, for instance, do not get written into your genes or passed on to your offspring (this is the Lamarkian theory of evolution, not to be confused with with the Darwinian natural selection theory of evolution).

As for why mutations happen at all, there are several causes. Some are just random, analogous to the way that you might make a typo in one of your posts. But chance of mutation is increased in the presence of what are called mutagens - certain chemicals and forms of radiation.

Rates of mutation vary across species, which is interesting because it raises questions about the evolution of evolution (e.g. organisms that allow for a few mutations would be selected for because of their ability to evolve, whereas others would stay stagnant and not be able to cope with different selection pressures, and hit dead ends.)

As for how these manage to produce advantageous phenotypes, and earlier post dealt with this quite well.

My other point was that, did these species of fish/birds last for the hundred of millions of years whilst these mustations were taking place? Does this sound a bit better?

Well I would honestly recommend reading the specific section I linked to on that web page (if it doesn't jump down to the section for you automatically then search for "Understanding "Species" and "Speciation""). Hopefully you'll see that the question you asked either doesn't make sense or has an easy answer.

*edit: Actually, DNA in your cells can mutate during your life time but your body is usually very good at combating these isolated cases. But when it doesn't and mutations get the better of us... that's essentially what cancer is. In any case, these mutations have no role in evolution - only mutations in sex cells, because, of course, they are the ones that are passed on. And of course as I said earlier, those that occur when a new child is being conceived (mutation in the zygote).

Edited by snappyfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah OK, I think I have spotted a big misunderstanding here! Mutations don't happen to an organism during its life time, they happen when a new child is being conceived. Once you're born, you can't mutate. And any environmental effects on your morphology, for instance, do not get written into your genes or passed on to your offspring (this is the Lamarkian theory of evolution, not to be confused with with the Darwinian natural selection theory of evolution).

Hmm. I don't know why it came across as if I was talking about mutations to the creatures whilst alive. But, yeah, I see.

Well I would honestly recommend reading the specific section I linked to on that web page (if it doesn't jump down to the section for you automatically then search for "Understanding "Species" and "Speciation""). Hopefully you'll see that the question you asked either doesn't make sense or has an easy answer.

Ok, will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.