Darwin....?

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[MunchinMark]

A common argument but it isn't very well supported.

Selection can occur in changes such as where the organisms live, what they are eating, or sexual selection. slowly two distinct populations appear because there is very little interbreeding between them (perhaps because they are on different islands, perhaps because some females prefer males with long noses while others prefer males with short noses) as time goes on more and more differences build up because of random changes to their genes until the two populations are so different that they cannot mate to produce a viable offspring. Since that is the basic distinction between species two species would be present where only one was before.

As for examples, do you ever see bats in your part of the country? The most common bats in the UK are Pipistrelles, and about 20 years ago some female Pipistrelle bats began (probably due to a random mutation) to prefer to mate with males with a slightly higher pitch in their sonar. Now the populations live side by side but rarely mate with each other. In theory they still could, so they are still a species. But as more time goes by(and I'm talking about a few thousand years at least, not the twenty years since this began) there will be more and more differences until they cannot mate with each other at all.

It happens quite a lot in smaller species that reproduce faster. Chichilid fish in lake Victoria are a classic example, but the flowers that grow around old Cornish copper mines show us another one.

There are many examples, but bigger animals reproduce much more slowly, so it all takes longer and is more difficult to see.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

i believe what yayati is getting at is the fish no matter how picky its breeding partners still produce a fish

the bat no matter how picky it is still produces bats

the flowers still produce flowers.

what i believe he is arguing against is the idea that a bat will produce a cat or a fish produce a flower

i think thats what yayati was saying

 

[woodgie2]

It's Phoebe from Friends!

 

[sexy-girl]

check out the darwin finches ... there was a 13 year study on them and scientists actually observed them evolving ... because there is such a high mortality rate for the finches when food gets scarce evolution happened much quicker then scientists thought possible for animals

 

[QuickDuck]

Darwin is a loverly little city in the far north of Australia.

Much to hot for my liking (very tropical), but at least you don;t need to think about your wardrobe

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

This whole thread is utter religious bullshit couched in psuedo-science ... which seems to be a running theme with yayati. In a couple of thousand years we humans have bred them from wolves into poodles, rottweilers, sheepdogs, Pitbulls, beagles, hounds ect. All of these divers breeds of dog are the same species, Canis familiaris. Man has simply mimicked natural selection in order to make the breeds diverge. If we've made Great Dane and a hair-less Chihuahua out of the same wolves, then imagine what natural selection unchecked for billions of years has done.

 

[Guest]

 

[Dantetier]

If you want to get technical about it, calling Chuck Darwin the Father of Evolution is wrong. He abhored the idea of Evolution, and when he learned that people were using his theory of Natural Selection as a platform from which to launch Evolution, he considered it an affront to God.

I happen to believe in Evolution, I just happen to also be a fan of Chuck. Something most people don't take into account during a mild conversation about Evolution, is that, true, a flower cannor produce a fish, but over the course of billions of years of natural selection, there can be a big enough difference created to facilitate the emergance of a new species.

 

[MunchinMark]

Cuckolded BK Male does indeed have a point. Indeed Darwin (I am puzzled by the idea that Darwin didn't believe in evolution, I have read the Origin of Species and whilst Darwin used 'natual selection' as his term and he never claimed to know the mechanism his idea is pretty clear I think) used his knowledge of pigeon breeding as an example.

A flower will never produce a fish because they are so so different and they are both specialised. There is a tendancy for simple organisms to either a) idle along just evolving fast enough to not be wiped out by diseases or b) evolve into more and more complex forms until they are wiped out by a change in circumstance. The only examples of organisms coming close to evolving into something simpler are parasites, which lose things like a gut because they do not need them. But this is more complicated because they have to rely on a host.

Ever seen a slime mould? Fascinating things, they are colonies of amoeba like cells that are genetically fairly close to plants but move about forest floors slowly like an animal in a big amorphous mass (they were the inspiration for the blob, but think mobile pink bubblegum) and when they are ready to reproduce they produce spore releasing structures that look like moulds (which are fungi).

Something like that could evolve into either a fish or a flower given a billion years or so, but a flower or a fish is far more 'established' in a lifestyle (photosynthesising or swimming around eating stuff).

 

[ammre]

hi did we pay attention in science class?
5 supporting features of evolution...
1) fossils:
you can actually see the evolution of whales and how they become land creatures... the differences between ancient sea urchens are recent ones.. ect...

2)Homologous Structures:
Bone structures that have similar forms... such as how the human arm compairs to a horses front legs, a bird's wing, and ape's arm...
Vestigial Structures: structures that have no function but are leftovers of evolution.. the appendix in humans... leg stubs on snakes... pelvic bones on whales

3) Biochemical evidnce:
Cytochrome C is one of the main protines of life.. there's no difference between human's and ape's... there's 14 differences betweeen human's and yeast... Itshows how far back our common ancestry goes.

4)Geographic Distribution of species:
Think... elephant bird, Emu, ostrich, rhea, and moa
all these large flightless birds shared the lower portion of the super continent of Pangea. When that split up they became separated and wound up evolving in different ways. They are now separate secies.

5) Direct oservation:
ever heard of the peppered moth in england... It blended in perfectly with the color of the lichen on the trees. Once the industrial revolution struck the lichen started to die fron pollution and ash, and the trees took a darker, black color and eventually the peppered moth mutated and evolved to be a black moth. Finally the industires started to cleen themselves up and the lichen began to grow back, so the moths mutated and evolved back into a peppered color to blend in.

There's a shitload of evidence.

 

[ammre]

btw... darwin (as stated before) did not come up with evolution... they knew that evolution happened.. they didn't know how...
that's what darwin came up with...
natural selection.

 

[ammre]

mm one more thing...
the idea of an "entirely new species" means that a flower will evolve into a different species of flower...
if you want a bat to evolve into a horse than that's different classes
(Kingdom, Phylum, class, order, family, genius, species)
a species is an interbreeding population of individual organisms that produce fertile offspring.
(mules are some weird version of an exception)
if a bat can breed with another bat... produce the same type of offspring bat which has the ability to breed with another of the same species of bat...
when one group of bats can't breed with another group of bats or if they can but their offspring can't seem to reproduce than their considered different species.

 

[Guest]

 

[phrodeau]

Nice c&p job, yayati. Since you didn't cite a source, I'll do it for you. Origins - Higher Dimensions in Science, by Dr. Richard Thompson and others.

If you want to believe that is a scientific journal, go right ahead. I was going to refute this article point by point, but I don't really have to. Anyone with brains can see the contradictions and absurdities within.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Nice c&p job, yayati. Since you didn't cite a source, I'll do it for you. Origins - Higher Dimensions in Science, by Dr. Richard Thompson and others.

Yayati busted C&P-ing without attribution?

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[bluespoke]

ur a hater

When you have no answer return to your favourite words!

 

[Guest]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron: ur a hater

Yayati: Can't prove it.

 

[Guest]

 

[Byron In Exile]

byron: i dont need to prove it...its apparant simply b/c i know ur jealous of my sixpaq...! Evryone is...!

Well, then, you're the only one who's not a hater.

So what's the point of calling anyone that?

It's like calling them bipeds.

 

[Guest]