1
   

What is Evolution? - A Primer

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 03:20 pm
There is a LOT of misinformation and misunderstanding over exactly what Evolution is. Partly due to general misconceptions and misunderstanding, mostly due to blatant misinformation. This will be my shot at clearing all of this up, in the most direct method I can.

What is evolution?[/b]

Evolution, put simply, is natural selection, coupled with variation and time within a limited area.

Natural selection states that that the organism best suited for the environment will thrive. Survival of the fittest. The early bird catches the worm, the fastest organism escapes, the best hunter gets fed at the end of the day.

Competition at it's best.

Natural selection is fact.

Variation is simply that... diversity in a group of life. Everybody looks different, you've got birds with huge wingspans, birds that cannot fly, dogs and cats of all different sizes and colors.

This variation can be brought on by many things. The inheritance of DNA from the parent organisms is the primary means. This opens the door for random mutation. Genetics is not perfect by any means. When an organism reproduces, it's DNA is passed on, and many times is flawed slightly. Some of these are detrimental (Down Syndrome, Fragile X), some of these are either pointless or annoying (ACHOO*, etc), and some are beneficial (a color change which is similar to the environment).

Variation in a species is fact.

Our world has limited room and limited resources. This is a fact.

Combine these.

1. A diverse population
2. Limited resources
3. Competition

You have an environment where life will favor those organisms which are best suited for survival. Those that do pass on their DNA. Those that do not will die. If you cannot chase down prey, you will not survive. If you cannot hide from predators, you will not survive. If you do not survive, you do not reproduce, your line ends.

Factor number four: Time.

Remember random mutation? This comes to the forefront REAL fast. Random mutation is exactly that. Random. It does not play favorites, it does not choose to work and not to work, it does not give a lifeform what it needs at any given time. Mutations can add, remove and/or modify genetic data.

The randomness is filtered by our friend Natural Selection. If you've got a bad mutation, sucks to be you. A good one? You're sitting pretty. Neutral? Well, no cigar, but you can throw the bones again. Although mutation does not play favorites, Natural Selection most certainly does.

Time puts this mechanism into motion. The environment dictates a situation. Life survives, changes and competes according to this situation. Over time, certain variations will prove to be the best for the situation given. The ecosystem will favor changes towards being the best for the situation.

Here's an example that many of you can catch onto: Yao Ming.

Environment: Basketball court
Species Variation: Players
Situation which brings about Natural Selection: The game

Favorable Mutation: Height

Yao is favored in the game because he's damn near seven and a half feet tall. This gives him a HUGE advantage versus his opponents. The environment favors his height.

Now, throw ol' Yao in a bobsled and you've got a problem. That environment does not favor his height. As such, you don't find any strangely tall bobsledders**

Put this into a more... natural situation. Why is Yao's height favored? He towers over all of his opponents, and he's much closer to that basket. Now, replace that basket with something like food hanging from a tree. If he can reach that easier than his opponents (competitors), then he will have more access to a source of nourishment versus everyone else. The shorter guys either need to find food elsewhere, get the food from the tree, or die.

This is again, an environment where height is favored.

Throw another log onto the fire. Take the short guys. What if, instead of finding food elsewhere and faced with the threat of dying of starvation, they find that the best way to get the food from that tree is to wait for the tall guys to snag it, then attack them?

Competition is cruel, but effective.

At first, it seemed like the short guys were doomed. Now they have a chance at survival. They just need to open up a 55 gallon drum of whoopass.

Guess what? The genetics that make them short will not go away because they're still reproducing. However, in their case, the environment will favor the ones capable of taking down the taller guys. The focus for change has shifted. Those that are faster and stronger will survive and reproduce, passing down THAT information.

Back to the tallies. They're now having to deal with aggressors. Competition from another angle. They either need to be able to fight, or get away. If they don't, they die. Let's suppose they choose the pick and run option. In these guys' case, speed along with height are favored.

One initial population.
One group survives based on height and speed.
One group survives based on speed and strength.

Species divergence. Speciation. We've observed this directly.

This is evolution. Changes in a population given competition, mutation and time.

Now, as I get into part two of this, let me put out two clear scientific definitions.

A fact in science is an observation.

A theory in science is an explanation of the observations.

This is why I said Natural Selection, our limited resources and genetic variation and mutation are all facts.

These changes have been observed. Models and predictions can be made. These changes can be reproduced in the laboratories. This makes them fact.

This also makes Evolution itself a fact.

"But Mister Sabz, I thought Evolution was just a theory!"

Ah, again a common misunderstanding. Evolution, which I have described, are the observed changes in life across generations over time. This is scientific fact.

The Theory of Evolution deals with the scientific explanation of how and why these changes occurred. "The Origin of Species" is an explanation of how evolution got us where we are now, all two legged and hairy.

Two different things.

The same can be said about gravity. Gravity's existence is fact. Nobody denies this. Great pain comes to the ones that try.

The Theory of Gravity explains how the force of gravity works. What exactly is gravity? How does it work? That we still aren't entirely sure of.

However, scientists do not debate gravity's existence. They do not debate evolution's existence for the very same reason. The debates that exist are in where all this ancient life we've found fit into evolution.

Again, a theory is an explanation of observed facts. A framework built by factual evidence and observations, used to explain the data we have found.

"What does Evolution have to say about the origins of life, Mister Sabz?"

Absolutely nothing.

That is, and never will be, a goal of Evolution. The origins of life have their own theories, and Evolution needs none of them to work. It merely needs life to exist, nothing more.

"What in the world are these 'transitional' things?"

Transitional fossils, or just transitionals, are fossils that clearly show a split in the evolutionary tree. Archaeopteryx is one good example. This shows a clear split from reptiles towards birds. Another is Tiktaalik. This clearly shows a split from fish towards tetrapods. Now, are these THE split? Probably not. However that's not the point. The point is that these fossils show a change that leads to these splits.

"You science guys say Cocelanth is a transitional. It's still alive!!!"

Evolution never says something has to be dead to be a transitional. Just because genetic divergence creates a new species, that doesn't automatically mean that the old one must die out.

Let's go back to our tallies and shorties. Suppose a group decide to take that "find food elsewhere" route, letting the tall ones and the other shorties duke it out. They migrate and find better grounds. They won't favor the changes the groups that stayed behind did. Any similar changes are favored for different reasons. So they've biologically got no need to march to the beat of that particular drum.

They, in this case, are transitional. They are also still alive, and will possibly split for whatever reason the environment dictates. Other things, including population isolation via geographic changes could bring about these effects.

Again, the fact that the changes occurred are not debatable. What IS debatable are how and why. That's the "theory" part of Evolution.


--------

I haven't covered every last one of the bases. I'll add as I go along, as the questions arise (and I know they will).




* I have ACHOO. Annoying as hell.
** Bobsledders, please correct me if I am in error.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,668 • Replies: 87
No top replies

 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 03:29 pm
@Sabz5150,
Placed in Religion and Philosophy, as though science must compete with religion as a rule.

What, do you teach science or something?
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 03:34 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;50275 wrote:
Placed in Religion and Philosophy, as though science must compete with religion as a rule.

What, do you teach science or something?


First, there's no science section.

Secondly, this is where the heat is.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 03:36 pm
@Sabz5150,
Quote:
First, there's no science section.

Secondly, this is where the heat is.


In other words, you're a shameless fundie-baiter, so to speak.

And the Water Cooler would be best, since this is really neither religion nor philosophy. You could have justified it if you used it in the context of refuting intelligent design.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 03:44 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;50281 wrote:
In other words, you're a shameless fundie-baiter, so to speak.


Fundies bait themselves.

I posted this information not for them, but for those who want to understand what evolution is. I'm laying the cards on the table, so to speak.

Quote:
And the Water Cooler would be best, since this is really neither religion nor philosophy. You could have justified it if you used it in the context of refuting intelligent design.


And bring the evo-creation firefight into there? No, thanks.

Why aren't you upset over the "What is a 'Theory'" thread? The definition of a theory is neither religion nor philosophy. Yet it's only a few posts down.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 04:00 pm
@Sabz5150,
Quote:
Fundies bait themselves.

I posted this information not for them, but for those who want to understand what evolution is. I'm laying the cards on the table, so to speak.


Your main activity on this site is arguing with fundies, and I'm sure you wouldn't do it if you didn't enjoy it. Your next sentence acknowledges that this is meant to encourage debate about evolution.

I think most people know the basics of evolution. I did not find many surprises in the article.

Quote:
And bring the evo-creation firefight into there? No, thanks.

Why aren't you upset over the "What is a 'Theory'" thread? The definition of a theory is neither religion nor philosophy. Yet it's only a few posts down.


That thread, if I recall, was quite openly meant to refute the (religious) premise that evolution is not entirely credible because it is a theory.

The water cooler is completely inactive and it would not be intrusive there.

Besides, how many evolution threads are in this section? It's starting to get annoying, really. I used to post in the religion section all the time before the fundies and Muslim propagandists took over.

Anyway, are you a science teacher? The whole article is written from the point of view of a science teacher, IMO.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 04:26 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;50291 wrote:
Your main activity on this site is arguing with fundies, and I'm sure you wouldn't do it if you didn't enjoy it. Your next sentence acknowledges that this is meant to encourage debate about evolution.


I have fun with the fundies... I don't bend over backwards to do it. The opportunity just happens to present itself quite often. I don't have a personal chip on my shoulder or anything.

Quote:
I think most people know the basics of evolution. I did not find many surprises in the article.


Excellent. This article wasn't for you. You understand the concepts already. This is for those who are not so sure. Not everybody understands.

Quote:
That thread, if I recall, was quite openly meant to refute the (religious) premise that evolution is not entirely credible because it is a theory.


That's what it seems to have become.

Quote:
The water cooler is completely inactive and it would not be intrusive there.


Then, by all means, move the thread. I'm not going to get offended or go flying off the handle.


Quote:
Besides, how many evolution threads are in this section? It's starting to get annoying, really. I used to post in the religion section all the time before the fundies and Muslim propagandists took over.


It's a hot debate. That's the plain and straightforward answer. Hell, the Golden Compass broke out into Darwin vs Jesus in Mortal Kombat. Did I roll with it? Absolutely.

Quote:
Anyway, are you a science teacher? The whole article is written from the point of view of a science teacher, IMO.


Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 07:05 pm
@Sabz5150,
Quote:
I have fun with the fundies... I don't bend over backwards to do it. The opportunity just happens to present itself quite often. I don't have a personal chip on my shoulder or anything.


I never said that you were out to seek vengeance.

Quote:
Then, by all means, move the thread. I'm not going to get offended or go flying off the handle.


That is not within my power. I was merely putting forth my opinion on the placement, which admittedly should not be drawn on much longer, four posts is enough.

Quote:
It's a hot debate. That's the plain and straightforward answer. Hell, the Golden Compass broke out into Darwin vs Jesus in Mortal Kombat. Did I roll with it? Absolutely.


I'm not sure that's exactly how it happened.

Quote:
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?


It depends on what kind of science teacher you are.
0 Replies
 
klyph
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 01:53 am
@Sabz5150,
How come they haven't found the squirrel fish yet?

No squirrel fish = darwin was wrong. Jesus wins, asshole.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 05:57 am
@klyph,
klyph;50357 wrote:
How come they haven't found the squirrel fish yet?

No squirrel fish = darwin was wrong. Jesus wins, ***.


The... what?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:11 pm
@klyph,
klyph;50357 wrote:
How come they haven't found the squirrel fish yet?

No squirrel fish = darwin was wrong. Jesus wins, ***.


lol...
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:22 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;50420 wrote:
lol...


Is it like the crocoduck?
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
@Sabz5150,
Ask klyph.

You realize he is going for a humorous angle, of course.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:36 pm
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;50427 wrote:
Ask klyph.

You realize he is going for a humorous angle, of course.


Absolutely :peace:
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:50 am
@Sabz5150,
Enough dawdling, back on subject!

We'll kick this one off with a very common misconception: The human - ape/primate relationship.

Everyone knows that classic picture. The evolutionary lineup from the monkey to the human. Because of this picture, many people believe that the theory of evolution states that man came from monkeys.

This idea even sparked a song. "Not gonna make a monkey outta me" or something like that.

Here's the deal. Evolution NEVER states anywhere that man was descended from a monkey. If this were in fact true, it would be hard evidence AGAINST evolution. Evolution simply states that if you go far enough back through the evolutionary tree, there will be a common ancestor between modern monkeys and modern man.

This can be shown through genetics. Humans and modern primates share a vast amount of genetic code. There are differences, about 3% of the code is different. This shows us that we did not descend from monkeys, nor did they descend from us... but we are related.

Genetics also shows us another neat thing. A chromosomal pair difference. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, other primates have 24. A difference like this poses a decent problem to scientists. Where'd the info go, how did this change produce an organism that could survive AND reproduce? Pair screwups like this make males infertile. Ligers and mules are human made examples of this.

The answer to this is easier than ya think.

Chromosomes have special parts called telomeres and centromeres.

Telomeres mark the start and end of a chromosome. It's sort of like the lead in and lead out sections of a CD. Telomeres are at the beginning and end of a chromosome. They also serve to keep the DNA intact through aging.

Centromeres are a piece located between the telomeres, of the chromosome. Each chromosome has one of these. They keep the two halves of the chromosome together.

So, a chromosome looks a bit like this:

(| || | ||| | || [] | ||| || | || | | | || | | | ||)

You've got your telomeres '(' and ')' and your centromere '[]'

Why am I putting all of this up? You'll see.

Chromosome #2. It's the second longest chromosome we have, and there's a good reason for it. It looks like this:

( | || | | ||| | | | [] | | ||| | || || |)(| | | || ||| | [] || | | ||||)

Two centromeres. Four telomeres. Waitaminit... that's twice as many!

This shows that two once separate chromosomes fused. This is also further shown by the fact that chimpanzees share almost all of this genetic data, but in two separate chromosomes. Other distant relatives also share most of this information across two different points.

Also, this in effect makes one centromere and two telomeres vestigal. I'll explain that ball o wax later.

So there's the REAL answer to the whole human-monkey evolution misunderstanding.
0 Replies
 
mommamia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 11:51 am
@Sabz5150,
^^^^^^
Not that I disagree with you, but it needs a source, citation, or links.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 12:04 pm
@mommamia,
mommamia;50723 wrote:
^^^^^^
Not that I disagree with you, but it needs a source, citation, or links.


Chromosome 2 (human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.

The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second.

The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
0 Replies
 
mommamia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 07:33 am
@Sabz5150,
So are you a science teacher? You never answered. I of course don't see anything wrong with teaching science Wink
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 09:04 am
@mommamia,
mommamia;50762 wrote:
So are you a science teacher? You never answered. I of course don't see anything wrong with teaching science Wink


Nope. Not a science teacher.

Mods, could one of you toss this into the Science section?

--------------

On to answering more questions Smile

Vestigiality. It's argued against heavily by ID and Creationist proponents. They argue that such things do not exist and have never existed. It's an odd word, most people don't even know what it is, much less if they are real or not.

Here's what it is.

Vestigial structures are parts of an organism that have lost most, if not all, of their original use. It's kind of like that one wall switch at your grandpa's house that never did anything. It obviously had a purpose at one time, but now it's not doing much.

An example of a vestigial structure in humans? Goosebumps. Everyone knows what these are. You get 'em when you're scared... you get 'em when you're cold.

But why?

http://images.picturequest.com/common/detail/94/58/22445894.jpg

Kitty's mad. A defensive posture, arched back, and hair standing on end are all evidence that he's not happy about something.

Goosebumps, or cutis anserina, are caused by muscles at the base of each hair contracting and causing the hair to stand upright. They are what's causing our friend fur to stand straight up (making him appear larger in order to scare enemies). When exposed to cold temperatures, this effect helps to produce better insulation to the cold (trapped air creates extra insulation).

So we know what this does and why exactly it does it. So the big question is why do we have this? Why do we need this? We don't have enough body hair (some of us at least) to create a barrier to the cold or generate a proper reaction to fear and anger. I don't remember seeing anybody scaring another person off by making their hair stand up or poofing up to stay warm on a winter's night.

This is a prime definition of a vestigial structure. We have this, but it's completely useless to us.

Another good example is the human appendix. But the appendix has a use, it has a function! That's absolutely correct. It does have a purpose. Just not its original one. Vestigiality does not say that a structure must be completely useless, only that it has lost its original purpose. Why is a part of our digestive system going to work as part of the lymphatic system? It's vestigiality can also be shown in the fact that it can be completely removed and have no ill effects.

So, why is this so hotly debated?

Vestigiality works perfectly with evolution. It's expected. However, it goes a long way to discrediting any "intelligent" design. Would any competent electrician install a wall switch with no purpose, or one installed at the front door that turns on the upstairs bedroom lights?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 11:33 pm
@Sabz5150,
I've never really encountered a real argument from fundies about vestigality, most just try to ignore it from what i can tell....

i think a real good example of vestigality in humans is the tail-bone and Plica semilunaris (3rd eyelid)
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is Evolution? - A Primer
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:15:01