Someone explain Evolution to me.

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sure, your immediate offspring won't. But, over time (millions and millions of years), changes will occur.

You seriously should do some detailed research. The links posted above by Descartes are excellent.

How can millions and millions of years explain the fact that physical traits can't be passed on? You're using time to expain something that just doesn't work. I'm not starting a flame war, conjur, I'm really just looking for answers.

And also, about offsprings not looking like their parents. That's called genetics. The parent passes on genetics to his/her offspring. I'm talking about physical traits being passed on, which seems like it needs to happen in order for evolution to even be remotely plausible.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: dullard
As far as I know the first documented theory of evolution was printed nearly 2000 years ago. It is a well known book. The Bible.

Did you ever read Genesis?

Genesis 1:1, God created earth without life,
Genesis 1:2, God created water without life,
Genesis 1:11, God created simple life (no animals yet at this stage),
Genesis 1:20, God created animal life in the water first, then birds,
Genesis 1:21, God later created additional water life (including water mammals), and additional birds,
Genesis 1:24, God created land mammals and other land life,
Genesis 1:26, God lastly created man.

The bible said those things happened in a very specific order.

Now what does evolution say? Yep first came earth, then water, followed by simple life, then water animals, then land animals, and finally man. Gee doesn't that sound familiar?

And this relates to the topic at hand how?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You aren't looking at it right. If you lift weights your entire life and (are able to) become buff, there is a good chance your offspring will also be able to work out and become buff.

If (other organism) has less of a response to working out than you do, and being buff benefits you as a species, there is a good chance that your trait to become buff is going to be passed on by natural selection since you are superior & are more likely to survive.

Thus the weaker or less desirable traits are evolved out of the gene pool.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: conjur
STFU and keep your creation science bunk out of this thread.

This is about evolution, not your twisted views of religion.

I personally am an athiest - so I guess you can call that a twisted view. To me it isn't twisted. I personally believe evolution occured without the aid of a supreme being.

What I posted is directly related to evolution theory as it stands today. Most people who started the theory of evolution used Genesis as a basis of their theory and then expanded it with as much proof as they can find.

Originally posted by: DougK62
And this relates to the topic at hand how?

See above.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

What you're considering is an early theory called Lamarckian (sp) evolution ... that traits aquired during a lifetime could be passed to offspring. And it is fairly obviously incorrect as you have described.

The way evolution works has to do with populations rather then individuals. If there was a niche in the environment where having rock hard, calloused heads was an advantage, certain individuals from the population who had some genetic predisposition toward having hard heads ... and/or mutations giving them harder heads would start to fill it. The ones who were most succesful within this niche would reproduce with each other, and produce offspring which were, on average, even more hard headed then their parents. Over many generations, this population could become very specialized for this hard-headed environment, maybe even to the point of speciation, such that they would be identifiable and distinct from the original species. In fact this has already happened ... we call them managers, and you can bludgeon them all day and not get anything through their thick skull.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sure, your immediate offspring won't. But, over time (millions and millions of years), changes will occur.

You seriously should do some detailed research. The links posted above by Descartes are excellent.

How can millions and millions of years explain the fact that physical traits can't be passed on? You're using time to expain something that just doesn't work. I'm not starting a flame war, conjur, I'm really just looking for answers.

And also, about offsprings not looking like their parents. That's called genetics. The parent passes on genetics to his/her offspring. I'm talking about physical traits being passed on, which seems like it needs to happen in order for evolution to even be remotely plausible.

Physical traits the way you're talking about them are irrelivent.

If you want to talk about evolution in the context of your ideas, you need to think about how the ability to form calouses formed in the first place....

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You aren't looking at it right. If you lift weights your entire life and (are able to) become buff, there is a good chance your offspring will also be able to work out and become buff.

If (other organism) has less of a response to working out than you do, and being buff benefits you as a species, there is a good chance that your trait to become buff is going to be passed on by natural selection since you are superior & are more likely to survive.

Thus the weaker or less desirable traits are evolved out of the gene pool.

He obviously didn't know - that's why he was asking - don't be a dick

But you're right - natural selection is what gets traits passed along. Helpful mutations will be passed along, and harmful ones will die off.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dullard
As far as I know the first documented theory of evolution was printed nearly 2000 years ago. It is a well known book. The Bible.

Did you ever read Genesis?

Genesis 1:1, God created earth without life,
Genesis 1:2, God created water without life,
Genesis 1:11, God created simple life (no animals yet at this stage),
Genesis 1:20, God created animal life in the water first, then birds,
Genesis 1:21, God later created additional water life (including water mammals), and additional birds,
Genesis 1:24, God created land mammals and other land life,
Genesis 1:26, God lastly created man.

The bible said those things happened in a very specific order.

Now what does evolution say? Yep first came earth, then water, followed by simple life, then water animals, then land animals, and finally man. Gee doesn't that sound familiar? Where else did that exact order appear?

STFU and keep your creation science bunk out of this thread.

This is about evolution, not your twisted views of religion.

Creationism has as much pertinence to evolution as the discussion of evolution itself. It's like starting a thread on creationism and keeping evolution out of it - you can't, because the two sides are too closely related.

As for dullard - the Bible also explicitly says that each kingdom (or step, whatever you want to call it) was created in one 24-hour day:

[*]Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

here's the account of the Creation (KJV: Genesis 1-2)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sure, your immediate offspring won't. But, over time (millions and millions of years), changes will occur.

You seriously should do some detailed research. The links posted above by Descartes are excellent.

How can millions and millions of years explain the fact that physical traits can't be passed on? You're using time to expain something that just doesn't work. I'm not starting a flame war, conjur, I'm really just looking for answers.

And also, about offsprings not looking like their parents. That's called genetics. The parent passes on genetics to his/her offspring. I'm talking about physical traits being passed on, which seems like it needs to happen in order for evolution to even be remotely plausible.

I'm not even close to an expert in biology or evolution but think of it from a different perspective, then.

Say you're a bird and the only way to get at food or make a home is to peck through the bark of a tree. Those birds whose beaks are not strong enough will die out. This leaves birds with stronger beaks to continue on. The process keeps repeating for generations and generations until you reach the point of a woodpecker.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sure, your immediate offspring won't. But, over time (millions and millions of years), changes will occur.

You seriously should do some detailed research. The links posted above by Descartes are excellent.

How can millions and millions of years explain the fact that physical traits can't be passed on? You're using time to expain something that just doesn't work. I'm not starting a flame war, conjur, I'm really just looking for answers.

And also, about offsprings not looking like their parents. That's called genetics. The parent passes on genetics to his/her offspring. I'm talking about physical traits being passed on, which seems like it needs to happen in order for evolution to even be remotely plausible.

Physical traits do get passed on. How else do you think they can breed dogs and horses? Because genetics affect physical traits. However, the reverse is not true. Physical activity (like you being a dumbass and cutting your arm off) does not affect genetics.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: conjur
STFU and keep your creation science bunk out of this thread.

This is about evolution, not your twisted views of religion.

I personally am an athiest - so I guess you can call that a twisted view. To me it isn't twisted. I personally believe evolution occured without the aid of a supreme being.

What I posted is directly related to evolution theory as it stands today. Most people who started the theory of evolution used Genesis as a basis of their theory and then expanded it with as much proof as they can find.

Originally posted by: DougK62
And this relates to the topic at hand how?

See above.

No. The question is about how evolution works - not about how you think the idea of evolution started.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: Yzzim
the thing I don't understand (one of the many things, actually....) is that physical traits can't be passed on to an offspring.

So say a bird started looking for food inside a tree, and his beak got so hard from pecking the tree, the bird over 10000000000000000 years wouldn't evolve into a woodpecker....the bird's offsprings would all have soft beaks and the hard beak would die with mom/dad bird.

Evolution works off the main statement "Survival of the fittest."

If the main food source comes from food inside a tree, all the birds with soft beaks would die because they don't have the proper tool to survive. If there are a few genetic "screw ups" that happen to have hard beaks, they will pass that hard beak trait to their offspring and they will survive because they can get the food.

It is like this for all animals... even humans. It is getting a little more confusing in today's lifestyle, because the big, strong, proportional humans do not necessarily reproduce...

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: conjur
Why can't physical traits be passed on to an offspring?

If I pound my head into a tree my entire life, my head is going to be rock hard and calloused. If I lift weights for my entire life, everyday, I'm going to be huge. If I cut off my arm, I'm only going to have one arm my entire life.

However, my son/daughter isn't going to have a rock hard calloused head, nor are they going to be born with the strength I have now, and they definitely won't be born with only one arm (well, hope not, lol).

See what I'm getting at?

Well, sure, your immediate offspring won't. But, over time (millions and millions of years), changes will occur.

You seriously should do some detailed research. The links posted above by Descartes are excellent.

How can millions and millions of years explain the fact that physical traits can't be passed on? You're using time to expain something that just doesn't work. I'm not starting a flame war, conjur, I'm really just looking for answers.

And also, about offsprings not looking like their parents. That's called genetics. The parent passes on genetics to his/her offspring. I'm talking about physical traits being passed on, which seems like it needs to happen in order for evolution to even be remotely plausible.

That is not how it works.
It works like this:
Random mutations occur.
Some are beneficial, some are harmful.
The animals that randomly had beneficial mutations, will pass them on to more offspring.
The ones with harmful mutaions, will have more trouble finding a mate and food, and will have fewer offspring.
The woodpecker's beak is not hard from hittign trees, it is simply a random mutation. This mutation allowed them better access to food. They had more babies.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Amorphus

Creationism has as much pertinence to evolution as the discussion of evolution itself. It's like starting a thread on creationism and keeping evolution out of it - you can't, because the two sides are too closely related.

As for dullard - the Bible also explicitly says that each kingdom (or step, whatever you want to call it) was created in one 24-hour day:

[*]Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

here's the account of the Creation (KJV: Genesis 1-2)

Evolution has nothing to do with Creationism.

Evolution theory stands on its own minus any God-like being.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DougK62
No. The question is about how evolution works - not about how you think the idea of evolution started.

First two lines of the thread: "A friend and I were talking about the different aspects of Evolution and Creation. One point that we both cannot understand is how Evolution even started."

I posted how the first theory of Evolution even started so he and his friend can compare and contrast aspects of Evolution and Creation. As far as I can tell I'm the only one on topic (with respect to his first paragraph) about comparing and contrasting Evolution and Creation.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: glen
That is not how it works.
It works like this:
Random mutations occur.
Some are beneficial, some are harmful.
The animals that randomly had beneficial mutations, will pass them on to more offspring.
The ones with harmful mutaions, will have more trouble finding a mate and food, and will have fewer offspring.
The woodpecker's beak is not hard from hittign trees, it is simply a random mutation. This mutation allowed them better access to food. They had more babies.

zactly...

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Yzzim
the thing I don't understand (one of the many things, actually....) is that physical traits can't be passed on to an offspring.

So say a bird started looking for food inside a tree, and his beak got so hard from pecking the tree, the bird over 10000000000000000 years wouldn't evolve into a woodpecker....the bird's offsprings would all have soft beaks and the hard beak would die with mom/dad bird.

AFAIK, you're right in that learned or acquired traits do not pass on. However...

1. Every once in awhile there is a mutation in the offspring.
2. Sometimes this mutation is beneficial (i.e. a slightly harder beak than normal).
3. This mutation helps the offspring survive (and BREED) more.
4. This mutation gets passed down from generation to generation until XXXXX years later, it is no longer abnormal, it is normal for the species.
5. Repeat steps 1 through 4 over 10 million years. You now have a woodpecker!

There is some evidence that evolution takes place much more rapidly than previously thought. Somebody posted an interesting link on the Galapagos finches (or something like that) last year.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DougK62
No. The question is about how evolution works - not about how you think the idea of evolution started.

First two lines of the thread: "A friend and I were talking about the different aspects of Evolution and Creation. One point that we both cannot understand is how Evolution even started."

I posted how the first theory of Evolution even started so he and his friend can compare and contrast aspects of Evolution and Creation. As far as I can tell I'm the only one on topic (with respect to his first paragraph) about comparing and contrasting Evolution and Creation.

I think you misunderstood the question. I read the phrase "cannot understand how Evolution even started." as "cannot understand how evolution works". The rest of the post supports this.

Oh well - misunderstanding.

 

[Armitage]

As to the male & female question...
This is basically the chicken and egg question, where the answer is ... neither.

My guess is that early on, some types of very early organisms found it advantageous to swap genetic material in the process of reproducing. This may be all the way back at the single cell level. No male & female yet, just swapping genetic material. Eventually, specialized structures arose to facilitate this exchange ... maybe just a weak point on the cell membrane. These structures evolved and became more and more specialized and eventually turned into what we now recognize as male & female.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DougK62
No. The question is about how evolution works - not about how you think the idea of evolution started.

First two lines of the thread: "A friend and I were talking about the different aspects of Evolution and Creation. One point that we both cannot understand is how Evolution even started."

I posted how the first theory of Evolution even started so he and his friend can compare and contrast aspects of Evolution and Creation. As far as I can tell I'm the only one on topic (with respect to his first paragraph) about comparing and contrasting Evolution and Creation.

I think you misunderstood the question. I read the phrase "cannot understand how Evolution even started." as "cannot understand how evolution works". The rest of the post supports this.

Oh well - misunderstanding.

And how is your post answering my question stated in the original message?

 

[edro]

I have also heard that new studies have shown that massive evolutionary changes usually happen in a 5-10 generation period...Environmental changes play a very large part in evolution. Environment includes things such as weather, other species, barometric pressure...

I mean look at how many species humans have put out of existance (not from hunting). Ou presence alone has killed many species. Many would argue that humans are themselves part of the evolutionary process though... sooo kill away

 

[Yzzim]

Thanks for the answers everyone

Hopefully tonight after my friend and I have a little discussion I can come back with some more questions

Thanks again.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DougK62
No. The question is about how evolution works - not about how you think the idea of evolution started.

First two lines of the thread: "A friend and I were talking about the different aspects of Evolution and Creation. One point that we both cannot understand is how Evolution even started."

I posted how the first theory of Evolution even started so he and his friend can compare and contrast aspects of Evolution and Creation. As far as I can tell I'm the only one on topic (with respect to his first paragraph) about comparing and contrasting Evolution and Creation.

I think you misunderstood the question. I read the phrase "cannot understand how Evolution even started." as "cannot understand how evolution works". The rest of the post supports this.

Oh well - misunderstanding.

And how is your post answering my question stated in the original message?

I already answered your question earlier in the thread - now I am free to nef as I please. These are the laws of ATOT - I didn't make them, I just follow them.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: edro13
I have also heard that new studies have shown that massive evolutionary changes usually happen in a 5-10 generation period...Environmental changes play a very large part in evolution. Environment includes things such as weather, other species, barometric pressure...

I mean look at how many species humans have put out of existance (not from hunting). Ou presence alone has killed many species. Many would argue that humans are themselves part of the evolutionary process though... sooo kill away

I feel evolution occurs within multiple time frames.

There is nothing wrong with the classical view that changes occur over thousands or millions of years. For example it would take quite a long time for humans to evolve into 6 toed creatures since there is no real survival benefit of having 6 toes (I'll assume 6 toes is a genetic trait for this discussion, I do not know the true cause). In fact there are people with 6 toes that live today in society just like the rest of us. They too may or may not procreate like us 5 toed people. Evolution to 6 toes will likely not occur. But say 25,000 years from now, maybe a 6 toed person suddenly becomes the media's image of ideal beauty. Then everyone wants to mate with a 6 toed person to make sure their kids have 6 toes. The five toed people may die off and we will have evolved.

However I think that sometimes drastic things happen which cause drastic changes in a short period of time. A huge volcano eruption blacking out the sun for years, a huge meteor hitting hitting the Earth, etc all will instantly change what features will survive and which features will die off. Thus within a generation or two the evolution could be complete.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: edro13
I have also heard that new studies have shown that massive evolutionary changes usually happen in a 5-10 generation period...Environmental changes play a very large part in evolution. Environment includes things such as weather, other species, barometric pressure...

I mean look at how many species humans have put out of existance (not from hunting). Ou presence alone has killed many species. Many would argue that humans are themselves part of the evolutionary process though... sooo kill away

I feel evolution occurs within multiple time frames.

There is nothing wrong with the classical view that changes occur over thousands or millions of years. For example it would take quite a long time for humans to evolve into 6 toed creatures since there is no real survival benefit of having 6 toes (I'll assume 6 toes is a genetic trait for this discussion, I do not know the true cause). In fact there are people with 6 toes that live today in society just like the rest of us. They too may or may not procreate like us 5 toed people. Evolution to 6 toes will likely not occur. But say 25,000 years from now, maybe a 6 toed person suddenly becomes the media's image of ideal beauty. Then everyone wants to mate with a 6 toed person to make sure their kids have 6 toes. The five toed people may die off and we will have evolved.

However I think that sometimes drastic things happen which cause drastic changes in a short period of time. A huge volcano eruption blacking out the sun for years, a huge meteor hitting hitting the Earth, etc all will instantly change what features will survive and which features will die off. Thus within a generation or two the evolution could be complete.

Yep, thats pretty much how I understood it when it was explained to me in ecology class. Evolution needs a certain amount of disturbance to proceed. Mammals wouldnt have come to dominance if it wasnt for the meteor that killed the dinos. Mass extinctions are not always detrimental to evolution.

Evolution is definintely misunderstood by so many people, but I think its a pretty simple idea to grasp on. The one thing you always need to remember is that evolution isnt directed, its totally by chance. Giraffes didnt say "hey we need longer necks", those with longer necks just survived longer cause they got more food, and hence, more babies.

And it isnt survival of the fittest. Its survival of who can make the most babies. If a certain mutation creates a invincible being, but sterilizes it, no matter how "fit" it is, when its gone, its gone. Fitness and reproductive strength are strongly correlated, but not the same thing. Bright red colors on an animal are certainly "unfit" when it comes to hiding from predators, but the females love it. Probably because if they can be bright red, and still avoid predators, theyre the sh*t.

And any defect that does not interfere with the process will never be dealt with by evolution. Alzheimers for example. Terrible thing, but evolution wont ever touch it, because it crops up long long after the human is done making babies. If alzheimers came up in the early 20s, that particular defect wouldnt get very far. Same reason why it doesnt matter that the female praying mantis eats the male after their done with their dirty business. He's already done his job.