The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)

Sort:
Avatar of Senior-Lazarus_Long

But only one Me!!Cool

Avatar of Fifthelement
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:

Yes most everything is unknown,but it's cool that I was born in the belly of a star.;p

Human are created from clay substance.Thus it is pretty far from star.

Avatar of Senior-Lazarus_Long

Everything but Hydrogen and Helium is created in stars.

Avatar of Elroch

Yes, near enough. This is a marvelous truth.

This link may be the best way to see the true place of the little bit of supernova ash that has been our Earth for the last 4.7 billion years. We are on a tiny speck of dust in a Universe that is mostly other stuff!

The solar system to exact scale

Avatar of wraithleader

if you want to have an eye opening discussion tell me something you thinks proves evolution and I will tell you how it disproves it.speaking purely scientifically 

Avatar of The_Ghostess_Lola

....wow !

 ....time to put on your thinking cap !

Avatar of Bilbo21
wraithleader wrote:

if you want to have an eye opening discussion tell me something you thinks proves evolution and I will tell you how it disproves it.speaking purely scientifically 

I think you misworded that, because certainty that any evidence FOR evolution will actually be evidence AGAINST it doesn't make sense.

But anyway, let's use the classic example of peppered moths.  There were two versions of one of their genes; either giving them black wings or speckled wings.  Generally the speckled ones camouflaged them better against trees, but once towns started industrialising the black ones became more abundant, within human lifespans, as it camouflaged them more from predators in soot.  So if that wasn't natural selection, you'd better have a bloody good alternative explanation!

Avatar of Senior-Lazarus_Long
wraithleader wrote:

if you want to have an eye opening discussion tell me something you thinks proves evolution and I will tell you how it disproves it.speaking purely scientifically 

Avatar of wraithleader

Bilbo wrote:

versions of one of their genes; either giving them black wings or speckled wings.  Generally the speckled ones camouflaged them better against trees, but once towns started industrialising the black ones became more abundant, within human lifespans, as it camouflaged them more from predators in soot.  So if that wasn't natural selection, you'd better have a bloody good alternative explanation.

I thought evolution required practically 3 million years, but I saw in, bold mind you, within human lifespans. as for the whale thing I don't understand the question.

 

 

Avatar of wraithleader

also,

if once towns started  industrializing  the black ones became more aboundunt,well duh,that would be their habitat so you would see them there.and it not being the white ones habitat, no wonder they died off. Not evolution just animals going were they would.

Avatar of SweetGirl2040

Natural selection is the process to evolution. So natural selection is occuring constantly around us which, in time, results in evolution.

Say there was carnivorous mammals on an island with a scarcity of land prey. These carnivores also eats fish and began to rely on the fish in the ocean. Those that were the best at swimming and diving would be able to eat the most and be the fittest. Perhaps in time they would develope webbed feet (The dogs that work in water such as Newfoundlands have webbed paws while others dogs do not so that is a real life example of this occuring). What also helps an animal swim faster is flat broad apendages so eventually the legs would be covered with more flesh but still be useful on land (think of a seal that can move on both water and land). In time a sleek body will help for a faster water propulsion the back legs may shink and a fin-like appendage would develope. This animal would, after an extensive amount of time, look more and more like the dolphins and whales we see today.

Natural selection killed off (or limited mating) of those that couldn't swim well enough to be competitive in gaining food. This stress pushed the animal to be better and better at swimming. The best swimmer (best well fed) would show traits that the females found attractive and would mate with. So sexual selection would come into play to continue to push evolution.

Avatar of Fifthelement
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
wraithleader wrote:

if you want to have an eye opening discussion tell me something you thinks proves evolution and I will tell you how it disproves it.speaking purely scientifically 

 

It looks like quantum leap.

Avatar of Bilbo21
wraithleader wrote: .

I thought evolution required practically 3 million years, but I saw in, bold mind you, within human lifespans. as for the whale thing I don't understand the question. 

Natural selection drives evolution.  Are you saying you believe in one but not the other?

Avatar of Raspberry_Yoghurt
wraithleader wrote:

if you want to have an eye opening discussion tell me something you thinks proves evolution and I will tell you how it disproves it.speaking purely scientifically 

That bacteria has evolved resistance against antibiotics.

Avatar of Elroch

In Lenski's experiment a bacterium evolved the capability to metabolise citrate, via identifed random mutations which, a priori, would be expected to have been detrimental because of their nature, like millions of others that had occurred in the experiment.

Another bacterium evolved the ability to metabolise an artificial chemical that did not exist until humans began manufacturing nylon.

In truth, it shows poor understanding of the way science works to expect a single "something" that proves evolution. No scientific theory is ever proved like this (indeed there is no proof in science: that's something from maths).

Rather every scientific theory is subject to being falsified by every individual observation. The Theory of Evolution has proved consistent with all of the information obtained by the science of biology, as well as that from paleontology plus some other sciences which relate to long time scales.

Avatar of wraithleader

to answer Bibo 21;

No I believe in neither.

to answer my dear friend Anya 2040:

youre thing involved speculation (you started with, 'say  there was...') and ended with'over time this animal...' which calls for looking into a future witch may or not be.Its not natural selection to mate with the best  there was considering if you weren't up to par youde be dead.

 

 

Avatar of Bilbo21
wraithleader wrote:

to answer Bibo 21;

No I believe in neither.

to answer my dear friend Anya 2040:

youre thing involved speculation (you started with, 'say  there was...') and ended with'over time this animal...' which calls for looking into a future witch may or not be.Its not natural selection to mate with the best  there was considering if you weren't up to par youde be dead. 


You said you wanted to discuss things scientifically, but have so far given no alternatives to evolution to discuss, and you are rejecting anything anyone says.  Perhaps in a few hundred years the human brain will have evolved a bit more.

Avatar of pawnkeeper

evolution

play
noun evo·lu·tion \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Popularity: Top 10% of words

Simple Definition of evolution

  • biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

  • : the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time

  • : a process of slow change and development

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
 
Basically it is saying we, humans, evolved from plants. But we still have plants, They should be gone because they evolved into something else. At least they say it is a theory. If we evolved a long time ago and I assume we are still evolving, why don't we have any  evidence of us evolving now, something? That must of been a long time ago. seems like obvious questions to me.
Oh, one more thing. Our reproduction system only creates the the same thing. To change into something else don't we have to make something else? But we don't do that. According to the definition it takes a long time. It has been a long time for man according to science.
Avatar of wraithleader

Bilbo,

if the only proof you have of evolution are things I can disprove than that disproves evolution. A nd if I disagree with something of course I reject it. No politicks of religion means I cant offer an alternative. to insult  me  by saying my brain is under evolved is uncalled for and shows what YOUR'E brain is capable of.

Avatar of Bilbo21

It wasn't an insult, it was more of a 'humorous moment', which if you go to any science lectures regularly you will have to get used to.  What about fossils and carbon dating?