Question about the theory of evolution in here

[Psyk]

Intelligent Design theories are utter bull IMHO, it just leaves too much to chance, Evolution, however, is mainly consistant, and the idea that Evolution is present to keep us amused is absurd! How would the world's population be interested in a process too slow to see in a Human lifetime?

You're not allowed animated sigs btw.

 

[Rabid Bunny]

You're not allowed animated sigs btw.

aah, thanks

edit: and it is gone!

 

[Nobski]

aah, thanks

edit: and it is gone!

shame

 

[Docaroo]

OMG This sounds like the kinda dumb **** question that gets sent in to BBC Focus Q&A section...


WE ARE MAMMALS, the species you listed ARE NOT - the ability to regrow lost limbs is restricted to very few animals.

The animals that DO regrow limbs do so because it offers then an EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE over other animals. If a lizard gets its tail grabbed by a predator, it can break off and regrow another one.

As far as I am aware, no mammals have the ability to regrow limbs like this (although I recall reading something somewhere to the contrary).

Regrowing lost limbs doesn't offer us enough of an advantage to be selected (NATURAL SELECTION) by evolution to be useful. Therefore, we do not regrow limbs.

However, scientists are discovering that specific genes and cells are related to the ability of regeneration and may in the future be able to grant this ability to people or use it in medicine.

At present though, the answer is NO NO NO and NOOOO!!!!!!111111

 

[Jokester]

There has been instances where young children and babies have regrown finger tips, presumably because the particular gene that deals with digit growth was still active.

Jokester

 

[Nobski]

My middle leg has the ability to regrow all the time

 

[pyro]

Do you believe in the word of the bible?

I was waiting for that one

I believe it's a book written by people who believe to God and want to make everyone who also believes live in harmony. Hence the ten commandmends, did they really come from God? Or simply ways for many peolpe to coexist.

Think how pork is banned under the torah and the koran, why? Because both the Jews and Muslims where nomads, slaying a pig and eating it a few days later, under the boiling sun of the desert, is pretty much guaranteed death!

 

[Gilly]

But isn't it a bit silly to carry on not eating it now even though it is perfectly safe?

I think the bible was written as a way of controlling people. Getting money out of them, that kind of thing.

 

[Zefan]

Evolution works ENTIRELY based on the attributes ability to increase/sustain mating ability. Nothing "useful" ever comes out of evolution, it is purely survival. I can't see why growing arms and legs back would EVER increase the rate at which someone would produce offspring therefore I see no reason for this to be an attribute of our race. /Fin.

 

[Royality]

Face it, the world with live in is impossible in its beginnings... it came from nothing, or it came from a higher being, or something entirely different. Life is ridiculous, it does not make sense... whether or not evolution exists it still does not answer why anything should exist.

No human brain or otherwise can give a logical answer to why we live, breathe and experience what we experience.

 

[PureAppleJuice]

But isn't it a bit silly to carry on not eating it now even though it is perfectly safe?

I think the bible was written as a way of controlling people. Getting money out of them, that kind of thing.

Most certainly. Allowed the state to exert more power over the people. On topic however, to a certain degree we have that ability, such as repairing broken bones, fractures as they do reheal. OP: You make it sound as though someone chooses how we evolve, certainly not, entirely random. Man hasn't been around as long as say lobsters or crabs, so you never know. (Ok realistically we won't be regrowing limbs)

 

[pyro]

But isn't it a bit silly to carry on not eating it now even though it is perfectly safe?

I think the bible was written as a way of controlling people. Getting money out of them, that kind of thing.

Well you choose to believe whatever you want, if following a certain religion (blindly) is what you like then fair enough with me. You don't need a religion to have faith anyway, but on the other hand its nice to know that you belong somewhere and that there are people with the same believes.

 

[Psyk]

Face it, the world with live in is impossible in its beginnings... it came from nothing, or it came from a higher being, or something entirely different. Life is ridiculous, it does not make sense... whether or not evolution exists it still does not answer why anything should exist.

People seem to think evolution is meant to explain how life came into existance. But it's not meant to. Evolution describes how life forms adapt and change over time. It does not explain how life got there in the first place.

Think how pork is banned under the torah and the koran, why? Because both the Jews and Muslims where nomads, slaying a pig and eating it a few days later, under the boiling sun of the desert, is pretty much guaranteed death!

I agree there is a lot in the Bible and other religious texts that really is just safety advice. No sex before marriage is one example. It reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STIs. However these days we have other ways of reducing these risks so it's just out of date now.

I remember reading some Islamic laws about how you should go to the toilet. Lots of people thought it was silly but pretty much all the rules made sense with regards to health and safety in the context of the time it was written.

Am I right in thinking the Bible was supposedly written by men whom god had spoken to? If god had explained the big bang and evolution to the writer it would have just gone way over their head. So instead it was explained in a way people of the time could understand. That's why I can't understand people taking the creation story literally. If you think about it, the order things happened in actually fits the theories of the big bang and evolution quite well.

 

[Gilly]

Well you choose to believe whatever you want, if following a certain religion (blindly) is what you like then fair enough with me.

Thats the opposite of my belief dude

 

[robmiller]

The Theory of evolution is just that, theory, until someone comes up with a mechanism that is plausible, and not full of holes.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargheghgahhghghghagfghgahgh

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

 

[pinkacidbootson]

I have a question about it

If evolution is changing for the better and growing and gaining new abilities that help our survival then why cant we grow arms and legs back?

If we came from the chain of animals or how ever it goes we would have gone though the yabbie, lobster and crab stage and as you know they can all grow back there limbs if they loose them.

So why did evolution choose to leave out that ability?
It seems like a very good ability to have to help stay alive.
So why cant we if the evolution theory is correct?

According to Wikipedia, a common misunderstanding of evolution is that it involves changing for the better.

One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations.

Your question is not valid. Also, remember that evolution is not an intelligent system or process, so it cannot 'choose'.

 

[Energize]

Scientists actually did experiments on mice where they did gene therapy on them and gave them the ability to regerate, they were able to regenerate every part of their body including limbs iirc.

 

[Redwalar]

The idea of natural selection is fairly undisputed - ie. that those who are "stronger" will survive and be able to breed more than those who are not - but the suggestion that dramatic changes in species have come about through random mutations is still very much disputed.

Evolution is simply the process of random mutations giving some benefit to the organism making it best fit into the environment and does not necessarily mean that it will be stronger than the competition. Mutations occur very rapidly and is not simply a linier process meaning that all crabs will one day become human.

The Theory of evolution is just that, theory, until someone comes up with a mechanism that is plausible, and not full of holes.

There are plenty of holes in both the creation and evolution arguements.

As for the original question? I dont know but if man has been around for say 10,000 years and a crab 100,000,000 its had plenty of time to adapt.

Evolution is a theory yes and creationism is a belief, you need evidence for one and faith for the other so they therefore cannot be compared to each other. In my opinion evolution in its simplistic sense is not full of holes. Random genetic variants having beneficial implications on the organism that make it better adapted to its environment, this basically means that mutations in the DNA are beneficial to the organism and makes it fit into the environment better. You are right is stating that evolution is not simply Darwinian theory but a mix of Lamarckian theory as well, simply put its the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation.

Really? Whats a Law then?



Fossil records have holes that are unexplained.

Anyway what theory are we talking about? Darwinian? I dont think anyone can doubt natural selection exists. The theory of natural selection isnt the theory of evolution.

You could never have a law of evolution as its never constant, how to you state what the law of random genetic mutation is? And the question of was it Darwinian evolution in question was never stated. The Darwinian theory of evolution is the most plausible theory but evolution is simply the modification of organisms over time.

Evolution works ENTIRELY based on the attributes ability to increase/sustain mating ability. Nothing "useful" ever comes out of evolution, it is purely survival

Is survival not useful then? And what about the evolution of primates having and opposable thumb is this not a useful mutation to pass onto the next generation?

 

[Sparky__H]

If evolution is changing for the better and growing and gaining new abilities that help our survival then why cant we grow arms and legs back?

Evolution is the act of random mutation and natural selection not always changing things for the better or worse depending on your perspective. You have seen the act of random mutation throughout your life even if you haven’t noticed it.

The example is someone’s whose genetic traits cause them to be attractive to our reproductive requirements have a higher chance of passing along their genetics to another generation. Another example is a person born without any limbs whose material will certainly not be passed on.

A genetic trait that allows this individual animal to survive where others without said trait have died means its genetic material will be available to the next generation. Then through the act of replication the trait is spread through the generations and becomes the standard for that species. Of course the exception to this is if the same species is separated by some physical means like a mountain range or sea, after only a short period (historically speaking) two distinct sub-species will emerge.

Which one is more evolved? Answer is the one that survives
Which one deserves to survive? The one that can adapt the fastest to changes in it’s changing habitat.

If we came from the chain of animals or how ever it goes we would have gone though the yabbie, lobster and crab stage and as you know they can all grow back there limbs if they loose them.

So why did evolution choose to leave out that ability?
It seems like a very good ability to have to help stay alive.
So why cant we if the evolution theory is correct?

All accounts are that crabs and lobsters evolved at a different chain (branch) as it were from us, we came from fish. The early flatworms evolved into two separate sub species, one with an internal skeleton and one with a hard outer skeleton. The fact that both examples of this mutation selection are impossibly ancient but are both still exist today means they were both valid natural mutations who, overall, were completely successful.

Our ancestors spent more time as gutless flat worms then the entire period of the existence of humans, monkeys and apes.


And I’m sorry to have to end it like this but by all accounts man has stopped evolving. The reason being any new genetic traits that appear (be it beneficial or otherwise) are watered down by the vast amount of material without said trait.

“Evolution through random mutation and natural selection”

It’s a truly beautiful, self describing system of insuring the universes will. That the ones to survive at any given time are the ones that deserve to survive other then their ability to adapt and mutate to changing situations.

 

[Nitefly]

No, you don't understand. Evolution doesn't "work out" anything. It's not a sentient process; it's completely random.

What....? No it isn't.

Nah evolution hasn't worked that well... I mean wtf are toes for?

I dunno, what are hip bones in whales for when they don't have legs? Both of these features were more useful in primative ancestors.

Its basically random, and we don't know precisely how long it takes for a mutation to occur due to it being partially random as well as abiotic and environmental factors having a difference.

Such factors have an effect on selective pressure, not mutations (Unless you are on about being slammed in a radiation chamber or something).

But i don't believe that we came from monkeys or other animals.

Believe it unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

The Theory of evolution is just that, theory, until someone comes up with a mechanism that is plausible, and not full of holes.

Quote me a hole please. Please do so.

Fossil records have holes that are unexplained.

Really? As far as I can see there are very decent explanations for 'instant' evolution in the fossil record. I will elaborate if you so wish.

According to Wikipedia, a common misunderstanding of evolution is that it involves changing for the better.

No not at all, you have confused yourself. For example, many cockroach esque insects no longer have eyes through evolution, as they did not need them. Therefore evolution has made the animal less complex, not LESS FUNCTIONAL.

Oh and who said 'Evolution and natural selection arn't the same' or something. You are right, but believing natural selection and not evolution is ridiculous as natural selection is the most commonly accepted way of explaining evolution. Without the theory of evolution, there would be no theory of natural selection so that makes no sense.

I can't be arsed to get a textbook out for the 'wordy' answer to the OP, but for the sake of it I say 'No because its never been a selective pressure to mammals'. Talk about a lazy answer...

Edit: Oh and if anyone dares say natural selection is random like in that thread ages ago, I won't be pleased, don't do it!