|
|
Silver Dragon Breath dragon forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dragoneyes
Dragonstar
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Great Lake State, Michigan,U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Sun 27 Apr 2008 20:10 Post subject: |
 |
|
Ok. Lets ask this then, How come we are the only species evolving then? Look at a cockroach, it's been here for millions of years. How come it hasn't evolved? I think there are too many holes in the evolution thing and the religious answer is just as silly.
_________________
Look into the eyes of the dragon and it will reveal your soul.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Celtore
Dragonstar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 264
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sun 27 Apr 2008 23:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it's like the old saying, "Why fix what ain't broke?" Cockroaches are surviving perfectly well, so why should they evolve? Not to mention, it takes a LONG time for any significant evolutionary changes to occur, so it's not like we'd actually notice so slight a change as what would happen in our lifetimes. Cockroaches sufficiently fill their niche in the global ecosystem, so there's no need for them to evolve.
If you want to look at more observable evidence for evolution, examine human dental anatomy, specifically the wisdom teeth. A few hundred years ago, everyone had wisdom teeth, because they were needed to chew the foods they ate. Now, though, it's becoming more common for people to only grow 2 or no wisdom teeth, since they're no longer needed. Our food is pre-processed so that we don't have to grind our food as well, causing the change. It's more efficient to lose something the body doesn't need and redirect the energy elsewhere, thus enabling evolution.
(And before you argue that it's not evolution, check the definition of the word: "a change in a population over time." Also, if you're wondering, I only have 3 wisdom teeth, and have looked into this quite a bit.)
_________________
I use logic. Deal with it.
*spins around in circles*
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
*falls over* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2008 0:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragoneyes wrote: |
| How come we are the only species evolving then? |
Put simply, we're not. Genetic mutations occur and are passed on every time a new organism is born/produced/replicated (the latter two are aimed more at bacteria and plants). Natural selection acts on those changes, applying selective pressures to produce a form best suited to its environment (i.e. those whose traits are best suited for survival and production of offspring in their environment). This happens every time a new organism is born. One less suited to the environment will die before they produce offspring or after producing fewer, and one more suited to the environment will in general produce more offspring which will then carry the genes of the parent.
To give a few examples, the viruses that cause the flu and the common cold mutate (evolve, produce new species/variants of itself) so rapidly that the body's normal antivirus systems cannot keep up. Other slower mutating viruses, like the one which causes chickenpox, does not, so one exposure to it is enough to provide a lifetime of protection.
Another example would be the development of antibiotic resistant forms of relatively common bacteria, where mutations and selective pressures ensure that those most resistant to the antibiotic that they are exposed to are the ones which survive, while their "weaker" versions die.
As a third example the production of ring species, in which adjacent populations can interbreed, while the populations at either end cannot.
| Quote: |
| Look at a cockroach, it's been here for millions of years. How come it hasn't evolved? |
They have evolved, at the very least (and, unfortunately, this is as far as my knowledge goes), into the dozens of different species of cockroaches worldwide.
| Quote: |
| I think there are too many holes in the evolution thing and the religious answer is just as silly. |
Problem is, none of these were holes. 
@Celtore:
Well, as indicated above, the roaches do evolve. No huge changes, however, are very likely since, as you say, they are surviving quite well right now. The coelacanth is fairly similar, in that it has not changed very much in millions of years, due both to the fact that its current form is very well adapted to its environment, and that the environment itself has not changed very much in those millions of years.
As for the wisdom teeth, that's more of an example of a potentially negative mutation (not having wisdom teeth) becoming a neutral mutation (doesn't really matter if you have them or not). There are lots of other things that fall into that category.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragoneyes
Dragonstar
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Great Lake State, Michigan,U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2008 4:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I didn't explain what holes mean. Most animals or insects evolve as much as their environment allows. But as common sense goes if there are less of a population and food is plentiful, the animal should grow larger. But it is not a constant. Some animals actually became smaller due to their environment.
But look at humans. If this was natural then, humans would be smaller in overpopulated areas. Not so. Look at people from islands. Some are quite large look at Samoans, they live on small islands but they are genetically large. More questions than answers. Science has never made a conclusion on any formula unless it was proven without a doubt. I think we need to keep looking. I mean not to many years ago we thought the world was flat.
_________________
Look into the eyes of the dragon and it will reveal your soul.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2008 11:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragoneyes wrote: |
| Maybe I didn't explain what holes mean. Most animals or insects evolve as much as their environment allows. |
If by that, you mean they'll evolve to a form most suited for their environment, and then stop physical evolution, sure (genetic behaviors, genetic resistances or weaknesses to disease, etc can still be developed).
| Quote: |
| But as common sense goes if there are less of a population and food is plentiful, the animal should grow larger. |
Not necessarily. In most cases, such conditions spark a population explosion, as opposed to an increase in size. The only reason an species would increase in size is if there were some sort of environmental advantage to it.
| Quote: |
| Some animals actually became smaller due to their environment. |
Again, that would only happen if there were advantages to it.
| Quote: |
| But look at humans. If this was natural then, humans would be smaller in overpopulated areas. Not so. Look at people from islands. Some are quite large look at Samoans, they live on small islands but they are genetically large. More questions than answers. |
Since the premise was incorrect, the conclusions drawn from it are as well.
| Quote: |
| Science has never made a conclusion on any formula unless it was proven without a doubt. |
No scientific theory has been "proven without a doubt," not even the basic ones like atomic theory or germ theory.
| Quote: |
| I think we need to keep looking. |
And indeed, researchers devote their lives to just that.
| Quote: |
| I mean not to many years ago we thought the world was flat. |
Maybe the masses did, but even the ancient Greeks had reasoned out a spherical shape by around 500BCE.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2008 17:26 Post subject: |
|
|
I liked reading about the "useless body parts" thing. X3 To me it feels like... not only do we evolve (sometimes even consciously) to adapt, but there's almost a subconscious attitude of experimentation involved... Like, "hey, let's make this goofy-looking part here and just see what happens." o.O
We still haven't figured out what the appendix is for, have we? 
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Mon 28 Apr 2008 17:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
| We still haven't figured out what the appendix is for, have we? |
Well, we know to a reasonable degree of certainty what it used to be.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZucaTreangeli
Dragonstar
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed 30 Jul 2008 12:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragoneyes wrote: |
Maybe I didn't explain what holes mean. Most animals or insects evolve as much as their environment allows. But as common sense goes if there are less of a population and food is plentiful, the animal should grow larger. But it is not a constant. Some animals actually became smaller due to their environment.
But look at humans. If this was natural then, humans would be smaller in overpopulated areas. Not so. Look at people from islands. Some are quite large look at Samoans, they live on small islands but they are genetically large. More questions than answers. Science has never made a conclusion on any formula unless it was proven without a doubt. I think we need to keep looking. I mean not to many years ago we thought the world was flat. |
I haven't been on this forum for quite a while now. But this is my topic, time to but in once more.
Let me start off by saying you obviously have no clue of how evolution works and what evolutionary theory states..
Its like rolling a dice, because the last throw was a 3, can you assume that the next one will be a 3 as well ?
No of course not, and neither can you assume that evolution has some "set path" that it walks, as in, one species does this under these circumstances, so others should too.
This is rediculous, first of all we are dealing with random mutations, this is not a guided process, random actually means random, just like dice throws giving a random number as well..
Then we are dealing with the environment, it first of all has nothing to do with the type of mutation that can occur in a species, it only has to do with how it gets selected by natural selection (not a conscious process).
So the environment dictates if a mutation is beneficial, neutral or negative and then natural selection (and some other processes) take over from there.
The point stands though that the mutations are completely random, this means that when two bacteria strains are put in the same situation, they won't mimic eachother, they might go completely different ways because of this.
_________________
Avatar by Vanodalv. Wooh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
