First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Selective breeding IS evolution!
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

nuk3zord wrote:

The time scale in which macroevolution occurs is so large; humans haven't really seen it. Until I see a whale start walking, and turn into a hippo; I will continue to have doubts. Not saying it's not true or isnt backed scientifically; these jumps just seem crazy to me.

'well This new flew going around evolved from another Virus. there you Go that evidence you wanted... now you can not have any Doubts.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


nuk3zord wrote:

The time scale in which macroevolution occurs is so large; humans haven't really seen it. Until I see a whale start walking, and turn into a hippo; I will continue to have doubts. Not saying it's not true or isnt backed scientifically; these jumps just seem crazy to me.

'well This new flew going around evolved from another Virus. there you Go that evidence you wanted... now you can not have any Doubts.


That's not macroevolution, just a random mutation. Macroevolution occurs over millions/billions of years and creates many drastically different organisms. It would be something like starting from a single-celled prokaryote and making it into an elephant.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09 , edited 4/30/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


nuk3zord wrote:

The time scale in which macroevolution occurs is so large; humans haven't really seen it. Until I see a whale start walking, and turn into a hippo; I will continue to have doubts. Not saying it's not true or isnt backed scientifically; these jumps just seem crazy to me.

'well This new flew going around evolved from another Virus. there you Go that evidence you wanted... now you can not have any Doubts.


That's not macroevolution, just a random mutation. Macroevolution occurs over millions/billions of years and creates many drastically different organisms. It would be something like starting from a single-celled prokaryote and making it into an elephant.


There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.



From My thread explaining Evolution targeting mostly DIgs and his lack of understanding of what evolution was.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-466759/what-is-evolution/

Evolution is something I do know a lot about.
615 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Austin, Texas USA
Offline
Posted 4/30/09
I just posted that cause I wanna see a whale turn into a hippo haha
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.




Wouldn't that be like saying we shouldn't distinguish between the number 1 million and the number 10, because 1 million is just 10 repeated many times?

I'll admit that evolution is one area that I'm kind of rusty in, but I'm pretty sure that the gentic differences between two different strains of the same virus are a lot smaller than the genetic differences between a horse and a jellyfish, and that these levels of differentiation have different terms to describe them.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09 , edited 4/30/09


Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.





Wouldn't that be like saying we shouldn't distinguish between the number 1 million and the number 10, because 1 million is just 10 repeated many times?

I'll admit that evolution is one area that I'm kind of rusty in, but I'm pretty sure that the gentic differences between two different strains of the same virus are a lot smaller than the genetic differences between a horse and a jellyfish, and that these levels of differentiation have different terms to describe them.



'If that was the case than are bodies be able to fight of other viruses using the same way as the one befor it. In a person Life time the Virus could have evolved more than 40 to 50 times.

Anyhow, my point is she/he whatever Made it a point that she does not see or believe in how things change from a bear to a dog, I pointed it out, same way. Its just over time meny meny changes. There no Big change that switches it from a bear to dog. No We call it a differnet Spiecies usually wen the Critters lose the abulity to bread with eachother do to there DNA changing just that much. Such as the Neanderthal and Homo-sapians, There from the same spiecies but changed just enough from eather through small changes over time, to make them and Homo-Sapians unable to bread, and also known as there own spieces... Even if there both Humanoids..


5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'If that was the case than are bodies be able to fight of other viruses using the same way as the one befor it. In a person Life time the Virus could have evolved more than 40 to 50 times.

Not exactly. Our immune systems are very specific, we only create antibodies that respond to the exact antigens that we've been exposed to. Even the slightest change in the antigens on a pathogen/virus means that we have to create new antibodies for them. It's like the ridges on a key: even if you only change them very slightly, it won't work on the same lock as it did before, because the lock only accepts that one exact pattern of ridges. So you have to create a new lock for the new key.

Different strains of the same viruses are extremely similar, but not exactly the same, which is why being exposed to one strain doesn't make us immune to all of them.


Anyhow, my point is she/he whatever Made it a point that she does not see or believe in how things change from a bear to a dog, I pointed it out, same way. Its just over time meny meny changes. There no Big change that switches it from a bear to dog. No We call it a differnet Spiecies usually wen the Critters lose the abulity to bread with eachother do to there DNA changing just that much. Such as the Neanderthal and Homo-sapians, There from the same spiecies but changed just enough from eather through small changes over time, to make them and Homo-Sapians unable to bread, and also known as there own spieces... Even if there both Humanoids..


But obviously there's a difference between 1 minor change and 1000 minor changes. Its why we have different names for all kinds of numbers, because there's a huge difference between 1+1 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.....A long series of minor changes adds up to one big change.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'If that was the case than are bodies be able to fight of other viruses using the same way as the one befor it. In a person Life time the Virus could have evolved more than 40 to 50 times.

Not exactly. Our immune systems are very specific, we only create antibodies that respond to the exact antigens that we've been exposed to. Even the slightest change in the antigens on a pathogen/virus means that we have to create new antibodies for them. It's like the ridges on a key: even if you only change them very slightly, it won't work on the same lock as it did before, because the lock only accepts that one exact pattern of ridges. So you have to create a new lock for the new key.

Different strains of the same viruses are extremely similar, but not exactly the same, which is why being exposed to one strain doesn't make us immune to all of them.


Anyhow, my point is she/he whatever Made it a point that she does not see or believe in how things change from a bear to a dog, I pointed it out, same way. Its just over time meny meny changes. There no Big change that switches it from a bear to dog. No We call it a differnet Spiecies usually wen the Critters lose the abulity to bread with eachother do to there DNA changing just that much. Such as the Neanderthal and Homo-sapians, There from the same spiecies but changed just enough from eather through small changes over time, to make them and Homo-Sapians unable to bread, and also known as there own spieces... Even if there both Humanoids..


But obviously there's a difference between 1 minor change and 1000 minor changes. Its why we have different names for all kinds of numbers, because there's a huge difference between 1+1 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.....A long series of minor changes adds up to one big change.


'MY point I made to the lady/person still stands. Her/his Mistake is thinking A whale went from a hipo to a whale,


Wen really Evolution works in a line,, It just small changes. Over time the Hipo DNA changed enough to be called a brand new SPieces, and so on. There no step changing it from a dog to a bear. 'If Ladies think Bald men with weak bodies are sexy then over time all men and maby even ladies be Hairless with weak bodies. Such breading where the Ladies of the spieces keep breading with the weakest, Soon that DNA Stran will show just how man took a turn from what we are now to a weak Hairless Child looking race. 'Maby even be only a third of are size. This race will not be human but something else. But it got to that point the same way as anything else, through small changes over time do to VIrus RNA mixing with are DNA, Fusing of DNA strans like what humans did from other monkie like races, or breeding Habits.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 4/30/09

Daniel9878 wrote:

The basis of evolution is selection of parents

e.g. Selective breeding

All animal breeders have produced wierd and amazing results, by using selective breeding.
For instance, this extremely muscular cow. They do not have the technology to geneticly modify DNA.
They did it through selection of parents ( choosing the most muscular bulls/cows to breed with ).


I can create the effect of evolution too. If i had the power
If i killed every person born that had chest hair or grew chest hair later in life, and continued for many generations.
There wont EVER be another person born that will grow chest hair. ( because there wont be any chest haired parents to pass on thier traits to thier children )
THEN I can say that the human race evolved, into a non-chest haired organism.


Please leave your opinion..















not really what your talking about is mutation. Evolution is when species evolve so much that they can't reproduce with the one another.

1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 5/1/09 , edited 5/1/09

LemonyPanda wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:

The basis of evolution is selection of parents

e.g. Selective breeding

All animal breeders have produced wierd and amazing results, by using selective breeding.
For instance, this extremely muscular cow. They do not have the technology to geneticly modify DNA.
They did it through selection of parents ( choosing the most muscular bulls/cows to breed with ).


I can create the effect of evolution too. If i had the power
If i killed every person born that had chest hair or grew chest hair later in life, and continued for many generations.
There wont EVER be another person born that will grow chest hair. ( because there wont be any chest haired parents to pass on thier traits to thier children )
THEN I can say that the human race evolved, into a non-chest haired organism.


Please leave your opinion..















not really what your talking about is mutation. Evolution is when species evolve so much that they can't reproduce with the one another.




errrrrrr...........

Mutation is an error in DNA

and Evolution happens to every organism
and they can still reproduce as long as they are in the same species

i think what your talking about is if a species evolves so much in seperation, that it becomes two seperate species
and it cant reproduce with its relatives that they once were alike with

thats called a formation of a new species




5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/1/09

LemonyPanda wrote:

not really what your talking about is mutation. Evolution is when species evolve so much that they can't reproduce with the one another.



Mutation=changing the nucleotide sequences in an organism. Selective breeding doesn't involve changing the nucleotides, it influences which nucleotide sequences (DNA) are passed on.

Any change in the genetic makeup of a population is evolution. Creating new species is a type of evolution called speciation, but it is definetly not the only type of evolution.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Uraharas bacement...
Offline
Posted 5/1/09
I believe evolution excists

but believing that this & that evolved into this & that is stupid

I had to do a paper on it and it was terrible
The sources would contradict each other
I couldn't thind a source that was the same as the next

I got an F

my teacher said to me why the hell couldn't you just conform & write something even if it contradicts the next

I snuck a look at some of the other people who had past
all the papers contradicted each other
all of them couldn't of been right
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/1/09

geren_ribon wrote:

I believe evolution excists

but believing that this & that evolved into this & that is stupid

I had to do a paper on it and it was terrible
The sources would contradict each other
I couldn't thind a source that was the same as the next

I got an F

my teacher said to me why the hell couldn't you just conform & write something even if it contradicts the next

I snuck a look at some of the other people who had past
all the papers contradicted each other
all of them couldn't of been right


Were the contradictions about phylogenetic ancestry or speciation, or both? Did you have to explain it from a molecular scale, environmental scale, or both?
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Uraharas bacement...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09
speciation, there were to many gaps and contradictions
environmental scale, where there reasons were beyond idiotic
and facts about the animal when there just guesses

some of the sources were too vage and in some they wouldn't actually say anything that says how evolution works,
but simply a rant going on about that evolution is fact
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/2/09

geren_ribon wrote:

speciation, there were to many gaps and contradictions
environmental scale, where there reasons were beyond idiotic
and facts about the animal when there just guesses

some of the sources were too vage and in some they wouldn't actually say anything that says how evolution works,
but simply a rant going on about that evolution is fact



What is Evolution?

Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.