Define evolution? NO, I was going to but then I evolved into a smarter person and decided against it. My stress levels are now less and therefore my lifespan may be a little longer allowing me to pass on my desirable genes.
Think of DNA as the letters CATG . Three letters are called a codon a codon is the instruction for an amino acid. DNA puts amino acids together to form proteins...the building blocks of life. A change in the sequence of letters means a change in you. Blue eyes or brown ...cycle cell... or not. White or black skin color. etc. DNA also works with RNA and RNA has one letter different than DNA.
It's for this reason that Darwin rejected the term evolution, preferring "descent with modification". The word "evolution" is very general, and simply means change of any sort of anything over some period of time. However, I'm pretty certain the OP was asking for a brief definition of biological evolution. And even that is problematic, because in biology the term refers to two things: the FACT that life forms change over time, and the THEORY explaining the mechanisms through which this change occurs. And here, I think the OP was asking for a brief explanation of the fact of biological evolution, rather than any list of known causes and the evidence for those caues.
its not a good analogy. If you feel that there is some limit to how much an organism can change, please say what that limit is, how you know it is there, and how it works. - - - Updated - - - Ok, I still dont get any connection, but never mind.
Yes, there is a limit. No matter how many times a homosexual accepts semen into his large intestine, or how many generations of homosexuals do this, evolution won't eventually provide for males developing ovaries. Or will it? Why is changing sexes any different than changing species?
Speaking of wildly inappropriate analogies!!! You have stated as a fact, your opinion that there is a limit but have failed to address the question about how you know, what the limit is, or how it operates. As for why a sex change is different from a species change, if you really have to ask I think you really dont have much background in biology. Not to snark here, just stating a fact. Btw, there are numerous species of fish that change sex during their lives.
Maybe the answer to your question regarding the limits of change is as simple as this. In order for us to believe something because it's trusted science, we must know that the scientific method has been applied without exception. Can we agree that conjecture and imagination have no place in science, other than freeing the mind to consider many possibilities before even developing a hypothesis? But once the hypothesis is developed, it must be validated by the scientific method. There are no exceptions. True or False? Is it safe to say that when you read or hear a someone say, "scientists believe" that it means exactly that, they believe! Last night I'm watching Nova with my teen daughter. I have to explain to her that virtually everything we listen to and see on that program is purely imagination. We need to be able to discern as critical thinking people what are simply artistic creations and what is fact. We were watching a program on astronauts looking for Earth-like planets. I freaking LOVE astronomy! Then, without much segway, the program turned to what sort of creatures may inhabit these planets. We were watching animations of eight-legged creatures that eat by inhaling dust, like whales. All of this from the discovery that the planet they've observed through minuscule changes in light (that's all they really see). Why?! Everything must be sensationalized, yes. But the problem is the general public who don't earn science degrees watches this nonsense and considers it infallible, undeniable truth about the universe.
Kansas is very different from New York City. Small steps add up to big changes. There is no barrier in genetics preventing evolution between "kinds". It's an arbitrary, unscientific line invented by creationists.
i suppose that is so for some in the general public, I could not say. The way tho that simulations and computer generated images are used, or stock photos used as if they were of the actual, etc etc etc can be very deceptive. I dont care to try to draw a bright line between creative imagination and science, as there is no such bright line. I do object to anything presented as infallible undeniable truth about anything, and that goes for religious presentations as well as faux-science. Different things in science call for different methods, and different levels of confidence. Fisheries science has good empirically derived formulas for determining population structures, maximum sustained yield, growth and so forth. It has to rely on samples, though, and you can get sampling error. Still, overall, its works and is useful. In chemistry you can be incredibly precise. In astronomy, well, not so much. I am kind of rambling I guess. Trusted science... not sure what that means. That genetics determines morphology is beyond question. Classification, tho, is not an exact science. The bright line distinctions that could make it an exact science simply dont exist. Do you understand why that is? It is quite an important understanding. That there are mutations is well known, as well as that they often produce visible changes in the structure of an organism. That natural selection takes place is beyond any reasonable question. That it will have an effect on the genetic makeup of a population is likewise beyond reasonable question. There is no creative imagination required in this, tho the individual needs to think about it in order to internalize the understanding, its not helpful to just memorize definitions. IF-as is the case-you get mutations, and if-as is the case- you get natural selection, then, what more could be needed to have evolution taking place? It potentially could be stopped if there were some built in barrier to how much genetic change is possible but the existence of said barrier has no theoretical nor empirical basis for thinking it exists. And, we do have a very extensive fossil record showing changes in every sort of organism over time. What else could that record possibly mean than that evolution has taken place? Seriously, how else could you possibly explain it?
mutations happen naturally, sometimes they are advantageous, sometimes they are disadvantageous. for the most part, the advantageous mutations get passed on and the disadvantageous ones die out. over billions of years, the spreading of advantageous mutations causes newer and often times more advances & complicated species.
wrong. its due to random mutations, and the advantageous mutations tend to spread while the disadvantageous mutations tend to die out within a generation or two. random advantageous mutations being spread over billions of years, led to the development of all living species on Earth.
This kind of response is why it is so excruciatingly obvious that you don't understand the first thing about evolution. I say this not to be mean, but to honestly be helpful: you would suffer less embarrassment if you just stayed out of threads about evolution.
Intelligent Design plain and simple if one cannot see God's Hand in all this that we call evolution and the beauty of it all, well you might just miss out on having That Very Hand Touch You. you are a product of That Hand .. simply beautiful
Spot on. It's a fact that life forms change over time. The problematic part for most people is descent from one universal common ancestor. The branches stop before they get to the base of the tree, let alone the roots. The dots are not connected. And it seems to me that every time I read or watch anything related to evolution; the conventional wisdom is that, although the work is incomplete, and the tree is nothing more than a mass of branches in a pile, we're to believe that we're cousins with oak trees. It's outrageous that we're teaching kids this is scientific truth. But even worse that proponents of evolution make up all these silly animations and illustrations based on nothing but speculation and pass them off as legitimate visual aids.
I'll pass on being felt up by sky fairies, if it's all the same to you. meantime, can you see the hand of Vishnu in all that is around you?
Actually, they are. What evidence would convince you that we ARE very very very distantly related to oak trees? How about dozens and dozens of common genes, doing similar things? How about a genetic reconstruction of the initial branching sequence when plants and animals (still microscopic, you understand) began to differentiate? If that's so, then I agree. We should be teaching them that this is a proposed explanation, not "truth". It just happens to be the explanation that best fits an enormous body of consiliant evidence, and no other proposed explanation even comes close. But proposed explanations are not Truth. Not so. These animations and illustrations are based on large amounts of interrelated, mutually consistent, detailed research. You seem to be making the mistake here, that if YOU don't understand something very well, due to extremely limited exposure to it, that nobody knows it. And therefore those who DO know it really don't know any more than you do, so they must be making it up. My feeling is that if tens of thousands of people, all of them much smarter than I am, have spent well over a century devoting their entire lives to this, they probably know more than I do, and are worth listening to.
The dots do connect, far more than enough to illustrate the idea. If you want ALL the dots to connect,your are being unreasonable. We dont have a way to connect ALL the dots on ANYTHING. You may as well reject WW2 as there are outstanding mysteries. I agree that science should not be taught as fact. Where do they do that? Are you sure? As for your silly animations, I've never seen those. If that is what you see, then you are going to silly sources, so what do you expect? - - - Updated - - - We'd still like someone to offer just ONE fact, one is enough, that shows ToE is false. Anything else is peripheral and of no account.
