Evolution

I was told I should post this string of comments in my blog. This is my attempt to explain evolution to my fellow facebookers. Fair warning , there is some profanity in this post.

Jeremy 
for you evolutionist out there would an accurate analogy for evolution be? Evolution is like an embryo to adult hood. changing from every stage?

July 11 at 8:05pm vacy:

• • 
    

    Anthony No. That is called Development. Evolution is the mechanism of change within a species do to environmental pressures through the use of death. Where the mutations that are not helpful do not prevent death and helpful mutations do. That is of course a narrow example. It is the simplist way to explain it.
    

    July 11 at 8:19pm 
  • 
    

    Anthony Another example is evolution through the use of sex and desire. Where a few in a species group mutate to have desirable aspects IE HUGE DICKS. The ladies decide they like or dislike the larger dicks. If a majority go either way the offspring will reflect the decision. So if they choose bigger dicks offspring can get bigger dicks and propagate the mutation.
    

    July 11 at 8:21pm
  • 
    

    Mark as Spam

    Anthony If they choose that big dicks is not desirable the offspring will not get the mutation and the mutation will go extinct or at the very least become rare. Zebras for example have extraordinarily long dicks and they can use this to abort the offspring of a competing male if they take over a herd of lady zebras. =)
    

    July 11 at 8:24pm
  • 
    

    Jeremy now that is really interesting. That makes more since and so the people I have talked to who believe it it don't really understand what they believe in that is too funny.
    

    July 11 at 8:28pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Evolution is not just environmental pressure either of course. As in Nature. You can also use other forms of pressure to force evolution. Selective breeding is a form of forced evolution. And most Evolution in modern humans is more to do with social pressures than environmental because we tend to control our environments to some extent and it removes some types of pressure.
    

    July 11 at 8:32pm 
  • 
    

    Anthony We are all mutants =).
    

    July 11 at 8:32pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Adaptation I believe is more to do with behavioral change than genetic change. Like when they teach animals to recognise symbals through conditioning. I believe that is Adaptation. But I think Adaptation is a Description of a broad number of change mechanisms. Without looking it up.
    

    July 11 at 8:38pm
  • 
    

    Mark as Spam

    Jeremy So I thought about your analogy for a bit and so what keeps it from happening again and would all the middle men die off with the mutations? Or should there be a middle men or evolution in progress If it happened once why cant it happen again from the begining?
    

    July 11 at 8:38pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Are you asking if humans could evolve again?
    

    July 11 at 8:39pm
  • 
    

    Jeremy no more like we were suppose to evolved from goo. Why isn't that goo evolving again? why isn't there mid stages of this evolution present. to me the theory is missing something that I just cant put my finger on yet.
    

    July 11 at 8:43pm
  • 
    

    Jeremy Its just nagging at me. and its irritating lol.
    

    July 11 at 8:43pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Hypothetically humans could evolve again. I don't think they would be exactly like us. And I think we would all have to die off for it to happen. We put to much pressure and control over the environment. Humans are really the culmination of several evolutionary paths. Cave men were not a single line of evolution. There were several evolutions at the beginning that competed and mixed.
    

    July 11 at 8:44pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Cave men killed off and stole ladies from other types of cave men.
    

    July 11 at 8:45pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Cave men were kind of xenophobic to so they would really kind of wipe out the other different groups that were in direct competition.
    

    July 11 at 8:47pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Watch this. I think this kind of covers what I think your asking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg
    Intermediates die off due to the pressures that make them evolve.
    

    July 11 at 8:53pm
  • 
    

    Anthony This is an explanation of why chimpanzees are still around.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&feature=relmfu
    

    July 11 at 8:54pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Here is something about the difference between Adaptation and Evolution. I just skimmed it. It pretty much says behavioral change.
    http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-adaptation-and-evolution/
    

    July 11 at 9:00pm
  • 
    

    Anthony Another good bit about Adaptation.
    http://asktheatheist.rationalresponders.com/question/adaptation_vs_evolution
    

    July 11 at 9:03pm
  • 
    

    Anthony OH and here is how I have started to answer the question "What comes first the Chicken or the Egg?". The Egg came first, Because the first chicken's parents were not chickens. Evolution twist on it. =)
    

    July 11 at 9:05pm
  • 
    

    Matt No
    

    July 11 at 10:13pm 
  • 
    

    Sam accurate analogy for evolution would be the stairway to hell you are taking for not accepting jesus tapdancing christ as your lord and savior and creator of the multiverse.
    

    July 12 at 4:54am
  • 
    

    Anthony Evolution and the belief therein has nothing to do with acceptance or rejection of magical beings who supposedly spawned the universe and all that dwell within. =P
    

    July 12 at 5:14am 
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    The Bible doesn't say how God created man, yet men tend to fill in the blanks and try to pass off their opinion as religious doctrine. The truth is religion has evolved behind science, but following science because science disproves these claims made by men time and time again. According to religion the earth was the center of the universe, science proved that the earth orbits the sun, religion eventually accepted this and then claimed that the sun was the center of the universe. Science also proved this wrong and religion eventually accepted that. And so it went on and on, science keeps proving these claims wrong and fastforward to today and science has proven evolution is real and most religions have accepted it but there are still a few ignorant holdouts. The Bible doesn't make any of these claims, religious extremists do and they spread there false rumors as fact. If God created man, man can not say how God accomplished this and if he also created animals, why then can he not use animals to create man. I think people don't want to accept it because they are insulted by the fact that they themselves are indeed animals.

    
    

    July 18 at 3:36pm
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    Evolution is extremely high resolution with tiny changes passed from parent to offspring. Over the course of millions of years these tiny changes passed on from generation to generation add up to big changes over the eons. You would not beable to distinguish any significant change in 20 generations, but you might be able to in several hundred and you would definitely see changes in thousands of generations. Since bacteria multiply so rapidly, evolution can actually be observed. New forms of bacteria have evolved recently that are highly resistant to antibiotics and this is due to improper use and overuse of antibiotics when it's not necessary. If you don't take antibiotics long enough to completely kill off the harmful bacteria, these bacteria multiply again and in some cases will mutate to have more resistance to the antibiotic and if this process keeps happening, the weak bacteria are killed off and the strong bacteria are left with a chance of mutating again to become even more resistant.

    
    

    July 18 at 3:53pm
  • 
    

    Matt Thank you Ryan! You took the time to answer some questions most of us didn't feel worth our time!
    

    July 18 at 4:32pm
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    A species is defined as a group of individuals that breed and produce viable offspring. Horses and Donkeys are different species because Mules are sterile and so are not viable. A species doesn't necessarily die off as it evolves. Gene flow keeps a species viable and so the community always remains the same species unless there are groups that get isolated and begin following there own evolutionary path. Since change is multigenerational, there isn't really a die off of the previous species since no animal lives long enough to see a change in species, rather the die off is only due to the natural process of death and the fact that no animal can live forever. If an animal could live forever and remain fertile and breed forever, evolution would not take place as we know it, since genes would continue to flow from the original generation. The longer a species remains fertile and the slower they multiply, the slower the evolution.
    If a community of a single species is split up and isolated, then they will change independent of each other and if enough generations go by and enough changes happen, then they may not be able to produce viable offspring with eachother and at this point, they will become two different species. If they are isolated and then the isolation is removed before they become two different species, then they will interbreed and any changes will be spread across the entire population until they are generally the same although this process can also create diversity which is what makes animals of the same species look different like humans all have different facial features, etc.
    An example of isolation is the Great Wall of China. There are observable differences between the plants on opposite sides, since Gene Flow between the two sides has been stopped. If the wall was removed, gene flow would take place again if the species hasn't split in two. A natural example of this is the formation of new mountains or rivers, or a lava flow that goes on for a very long time.

    
    

    July 18 at 4:33pm
  • 
    

    Matt Or your efficient at cut and paste!
    

    July 18 at 4:37pm
  • 
    

    Jeremy ‎@Matt your just an angry dick lol who has to be in the right wing of things no matter if its right or wrong. the rest of us is not quit that prejuticed
    

    July 18 at 5:32pm
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    In answer to your question about life evolving from goo and it evolving again from goo. The fact that all living things on earth are made up of cells with DNA shows that that this is the form of life that won out in the long run and we don't know if there is an alternate way for life to exist. It is possible that life evolved from goo many times and not just once, but if it did and it's still around, it must have evolved in a pretty similar way given that all life is pretty similar on the cellular level. Goo is just a simple way of saying a big messy vat of chemicals reacting with each other. It helps a lot to have a basic understanding of cellular biology since all life as we know it is made of cells and cells are made of proteins which the cells constructs using DNA as the blue print. A cell is pretty much a chemical machine and different types of cells very greatly in complexity. It is possible that the first life was made by chemical processes. If the right chemicals are present and reactions are happening many times per second over millions of years, every chemical compound that can be made with the available chemicals will eventually be made. If it can happen, it will happen if given sufficient opportunity. Since all life is made from cells that are filled with salt water, it is good evidence that life evolved in the ocean then later moved to land. The fossil record also proves that life was in the ocean first. Another thought is that the chemistry of the ocean and atmosphere is very different than it was when life first evolved. Life itself has changed the chemistry and geological processes also change the chemistry. So the same conditions that existed when life first evolved may no longer exist. If you had a time machine and went back in time to the first life, you would have to bring a space suite and an oxygen supply because the atmosphere contained little oxygen and would be toxic. Life is what introduced oxygen into the atmosphere. And oxygen is toxic to ancient life and there are still organisms that can't live in an oxygenated environment so they only live where there is no oxygen such as very deep stagnent water.
    
    It is also possible that the lifetime of a star is not long enough for life to independently evolve. And this is where the Panspermia theory comes in. When asteroids hit planets, they often knock off pieces into space. If the planet has life on the surface, it is possible for single celled organisms to be on this piece. It has been proven that some single cell organisms can survive the vacuum of space. Now comets often travel into the inner solar system and out to the outer solar system. When they cross into the inner solar system, it is possible for them to pick up this rock with life on it and carry it to the outer solar system. When stars pass closely by each other, it is common for them to exchange comets. So if this comet with a piece of a planet that has life on it is exchanged into another solar system and this solar system has a planet that can support life and this comet hits the planet and if the organisms survive, then we know that single cell organisms can multiply very quickly and so this planet would be seeded with life. Now it is also possible that this same process could transfer organic molecules that took very long to come about and that these organic molecules could undergo further development on a different planet and so on until life is developed over the course of multiple star lifetimes. It is also possible that a solar system could contain multiple planets capable of supporting life and these chemicals are exchanged between planets. There is a theory that Mars once had oceans and life could have evolved there and been transferred here. Scientists are actively looking for evidence of this theory.

    
    

    July 18 at 5:33pm
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    I understand the confusion since the common knowledge is that all science related to evolution falls under the all encompassing title, "The Theory of Evolution". But this view is outdated and the science of evolution is far beyond that now. The science of evolution is made up of facts and theories just as any well developed scientific field. In the scientific community, it is accepted as scientific fact that evolution took place and evolution is a fundamental part of biology. On the other hand, the many processes by which it may take place are still not completely understood and so these parts remain theory. So it is a scientific fact that evolution happens, but there are many theories of how it happens and once it is fully understood, it is likely there will be a large number of factors that are found to influence evolution.

    
    

    July 18 at 9:23pm
  • 
    

    Ryan
    

    Are your questions rhetorical or do you really want to know? If you really want to know then proof is something you have to work for and you're not going to find it on facebook. Getting proof is not listening to a scientist say they have proof and telling you what it is, to get proof you have to go look for yourself and learn for yourself and decide for yourself if there is sufficient proof. If you don't want to put that much work into it, then you have to rely on credibility and statistics or the probability of whether someone is telling the truth or not. Look at science as a whole, does it produce results? The scientific method works because even though mistakes are made, these mistakes are eventually found and removed. For many people, the current evidence is sufficient, but the fact is that for some people, there may never be enough evidence because believing is an individual choice and at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you have what you need.
    The reason why carbon dating never comes up with the same answer is because it's based on statistics and statistics is not exact, but it's close enough to get a usable approximation. This approximation can be made more accurate by making multiple measurements and averaging them together. It only works up to about 50,000 years, but if you get a result of 20,000 years and you're off by +-50 years, that's still within an individuals lifetime and we know that several generations are not important when looking at evolution over these time scales.
    The "missing link" is another one of those things you have to decide for yourself, because at what resolution do you decide the missing link has been found. Fossils are rare, so to expect to find every single change from one species to the next is not reasonable. Normally the evidence would be sufficient when considering the fossil record of other animals, but people have a problem with the evolution of man because they believe the Bible is literal in it's mentions of time scale. The fact that there are primitive men at all would likely be sufficient if it weren't for this contradiction. For the people that look at the Bible as a translated text with symbolic meaning rather than literal, and with flaws in translation, it's not much of a problem. You really have to decide for yourself on that.

    
    

    July 19 at 12:19am
  • 
    

    Mark as Spam

    Matt the right wing of things? maybe the left. but im as much as an angry shit stirring dick as you, but im not a nazi republican teabagger.....
    

    July 19 at 8:41am
  • 
    

    Jeremy ‎@Ryan you must really like this subject those are the longest post I have ever had. really nice. It was very informative +1
    

    July 19 at 1:15pm
  • 
    

    Matt LOL why do you think you can add or take a way points? What have you evolved into?
    

    July 19 at 1:16pm
  • 
    

    Jeremy it stimulates the mind like Obama stimulates the economy
    

    July 19 at 1:24pm
  • 
    

    Matt Like Bill oreilly stimulates your ass?
    

    July 19 at 2:21pm