Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

No More Link for editing OP - OP is too big .

I -may- be borrowing some of this from an earlier post I made!

This thread is basically being made because I see a lot of people who are sincerely just misinformed when it comes to Evolution. I figure I would try a simple and straight forward explanation, and if anyone had any questions - they could ask. The goal isn't trying to convert people away from whatever religion they subscribe to - it's just a tragedy seeing people who are, by no real fault of their own, ignorant of something so... integral to science.

I'll start it off with some basic stuff, and try to use simple terms (if I try to use big ones I am going to mess some shit up).


What is Evolution?

Basically, it's the gradual change found in animals caused by random mutations. When these random mutations are passed down every generation, with more and more mutations piling up, eventually over a long period of time you see noticeable changes - although sometimes it doesn't take so long. All animals at conception take on traits from their parents, as well as have a few unique mutations in their own DNA. Most of the time these mutations are found in 'junk' DNA (while it was previously believed that junk DNA served no purpose, more evidence is compiling that shows that there may actually be some key functions found in what was previously thought to be nothing but garbage, more often than not, it's now referred to as noncoding DNA) but sometimes it's found in the more important parts - and that's when you see changes. These mutations will in some way or another make the creature a more desirable/accessible mate. We also cant forget that sometimes environmental changes (like weather or location) may put pressures on a species forcing certain traits (sometimes even once useless traits) to the surface.

Five main drivers of evolution:
1) Mutations - introduce new traits
2) Natural Selection - selects for and against certain traits
3) Genetic drift - probability that gene transfer occurs generation to generation
4) Gene flow - can prevent and separate groups of species and drives speciation
5) Meiosis - error in genetic reproduction and/or crossing over

What Evolution DOESN'T cover is the origin of life, how the first cell came about. Abiogenesis, while related to Evolution, does not have any impact on the Evolution theory - where it all began is a subject for another day.

If you would like to read more about Abiogenesis, wikipedia is always a good starting point.

Well isn't this all just a theory anyway?

Yes and no. It is a theory, but not in the way you might understand the word 'theory' to mean. Again, without getting too complicated, the Scientific community agrees that Evolution happens, the theorizing is how exactly it happens. You might not know it, but there is a lot of argument among Scientists about how particular parts of Evolution works, they argue about how long it takes, when it happened, what came from what, what sort of environmental pressures there are and other things. What they don't argue about is whether or not it actually happens.


Isn't mutation bad?

Mutation is not inherently bad or good. When it comes to mutations not found in noncoding DNA, you either have negative mutations, positive mutations, or mutations that don't change anything. When negative mutations occur, if the animal does not die at birth, there is a good chance they will die before they can reproduce and pass down these genes. When positive mutations occur, there is usually an increased chance that this animal will be able to breed and pass down this positive trait.

What makes a mutation positive or negative?

There can be a lot of different factors, but for simplicity's sake, let's just say that if for example a mutation made it easier for a creature to get food - it is positive. If it makes it harder for a creature to get food, it is a negative.

Can you give me an example?

Sure! This is one I learned in grade 9, and to this day has still stuck with me.

There is a sizable population of rabbits living in a forest, these rabbits all generally look the same and share the same gene pool. These rabbits come in 3 distinct colours.

Now in the forest you see a pretty equal amount of all three of these colours. But oh no! Due to a freak weather change, everything is all of a sudden snowy. Now the Bunnies are okay enough in the weather to survive the cold, but unfortunately in the new landscape, the colours stick out much more - the wolves that usually feed on them have an absolute field day, it's much easier to spot them.

Except for the white bunny. Now he blends in pretty good with snow, so the wolves with their much easier targets, don't eat quite as many white ones as everything else.

Now here's where it gets tricky, I don't really want to get into genetics, talking about dominant and recessive genes - but let's just say, when two bunnies of the same colour have babies, most of their litter (not all) are also the same colour. So here we have many more white bunnies than normal hooking up and having mostly white bunny babies. There are a few brown and black ones in the mix - but the wolves take care of those pretty quickly. And over time more and more bunnies are white.

And that is Evolution in a nutshell. If it's not too clear (it probably isn't) please ask questions, and someone in this thread will do their best to explain it to you.

Wait, this all makes sense to me, what doesn't make sense to me is one animal turning into another.

Well see, this is where it gets even more complicated, and where most of the... ahem... criticism arises. I'm going to basically just copy and paste a post I made earlier from here on out, and hopefully it'll suffice.

I figure a picture (or a few rather) would help out some more.

This picture here is a perfect example of 'Speciation'! You see that the ancestors of whales looked absolutely nothing like current day whales, bridging that magical wall made up by some that separates one 'species' from another!

This image shows the gradual changes found in many hominid fossils (make sure to look at them from B-N, don't confuse the top row with the bottom rows) - as you can clearly see, a substantial change in skull structure that cannot be explained by individual variations. And the skull in A is a modern chimpanzee skull, I assume it's there to highlight how different it is from any of the other fossils. It clearly shows one small part of the evolution of man.

Now some argue that we see no evidence of 'Speciation' in the current day, but those people are not looking hard enough. Above is an example of a 'ring species'. All these Salamanders obviously had a common ancestor, probably not that long ago - but because of the environmental factors shown above (Salamanders live on coasts) some groups of Salamanders have isolated themselves from others. Now what this means is that Salamanders right next to each other (as illustrated by the gradient colours) can interbreed, but Salamanders far apart have too many genetic differences to produce offspring! You might ask why that's significant - well this is a prime example of genetic 'Speciation' where the significant branching off of species occurs. Now these species are genetically isolated as well as geographically, so you cannot even reintroduce genes from one species to another without hopping around the ring (people who play Pokemon religiously, think of it like trying to get 'Pokemon Z' to learn a move found normally in 'Pokemon A' at birth by breeding the desired move through Pokemans 'B, C, D' etc, finally to have the move end up in the desired Pokemon - which would normally be impossible because A and Z cannot breed.) If for some reason one of the 'bridging' species of Salamanders were to die off, well what do you think would happen between the opposite ends of the ring?

This is a picture of what many people who believe in Evolution use to dismiss the "there are no inbetween species" argument. Often times, this is just a lazy way of avoiding such a long and troublesome concept - but I am going to give it a go, and try to explain it.

Now many say that we don't really see the 'inbetween' Species, I never really know what that means - inbetween what? But my guess is they mean species that look like one known animal, lets say cats, turning into another known animal, lets say monkeys.

First, this shows a very poor understanding of Evolution theory. Secondly, it shows a closed mindedness that is very common - in fact I suffered from it for a long time even after I thought I fully 'understood' Evolution. Consider, that there is no such thing as 'Species' - there are no walls or lines drawn separating one type of animal from another - these walls and lines are not only human invention used to more easily categorize animals, it is a line that is always changing and under debate. What does this mean? There is no such thing as an intermediate species - because all species are what one could consider intermediate. They have no goal or end desire, they do not want to turn into ducks or fish or dinosaurs - they are simply mutating, and the after enough of these mutations pile up we get visible phenotypes as well as enough genetic variation that we classify something differently than it's ancestor. But that's it, it's not as though this classification was there beforehand, simply waiting unoccupied.

Now that mudskipper above, it isn't slowly going from fish to amphibian - it's an amphibious fish. So even by our oftentimes unnecessary desire to categorize, this bad boy falls under two.

You know, I just really don't buy this 'speciation' thing. Where is the proof?

Let me preface this by saying that speciation is an integral part of the ToE - without it, it pretty much falls apart. So to those who say they believe in 'micro' evolution but not 'macro' evolution, understand that you are using creationist made up jargin, these terms had their roots in science, but have been turned into something else. It's all the same.

Let me also state quickly what a species is. It is an animal that can reproduce amongst itself. That's it, once you get to the point where an animal can no longer reproduce with another animal, they are (for all intents and purposes) a different species. There is no higher meaning to the phrase, there is no invisible gene somewhere in all animals DNA that labels them as such, it's simply enough genetic difference.

Now that that's out of the way, picture evidence!

Here we can see the remnants of what were once legs in a whale. The only theory that holds any water for why this occurs is the ToE - more specifically, that whales evolved from land mammals.

Here you see the exact same thing occurring in some snakes!

And on to the more controversial stuff, vestigiality in humans.
Taken from this wiki

Appendix


The vermiform appendix
The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. In line with the possibility of vestigial organs developing new functions, some research suggests that the appendix may guard against the loss of symbiotic bacteria that aid in digestion.

Coccyx
The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.

Wisdom teeth
Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that human ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue. The common postulation is that the skulls of human ancestors had larger jaws with more teeth, which were possibly used to help chew down foliage to compensate for a lack of ability to efficiently digest the cellulose that makes up a plant cell wall. As human diet changed, a smaller jaw was selected by evolution, yet the third molars, or "wisdom teeth", still commonly develop in human mouths.
However, other findings suggest that a given culture's diet is a larger factor than genetics in the development of jaw size (and, consequently, the space available for wisdom teeth):
“Dental crowding in modern humans is considered the combined result of tool use to comminute foods and cooking to modify their mechanical properties, such as toughness.”

Eye
The plica semilunaris is a small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is present in other animals such as birds, reptiles, and fish. It is rare in mammals, mainly found in monotremes and marsupials. Its associated muscles are also vestigial. The plica semilunaris of Africans and Indigenous Australians are slightly larger than in other peoples. Only one species of primate -- the Calabar Angwantibo -- is known to have a functioning nictitating membrane.

Molecular
There are also vestigial molecular structures in humans, which are no longer in use but may indicate common ancestry with other species. One example of this is L-gulonolactone oxidase, a gene that is functional in most other mammals and produces an enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin C. In humans and other members of the suborder Haplorrhini, a mutation disabled the gene and made it unable to produce the enzyme. However, the remains of the gene are still present in the human genome as a vestigial genetic sequence called a pseudogene.

And here is some (more) fossil evidence!

Camels!

Tetrapods!

Horsies!

Mind you, this is just some of the evidence. This isn't a lightly theorized assumption made by Scientists. This is a thoroughly researched and thoroughly substantiated fact - it happens.

I've heard that all life, plants and animals, share a common ancestor - that seems a bit crazy!

By popular demand, I post this link

Tree of life

Take a good look at this photo. Once you understand it, you'll see where all life branches off from a common ancestor. Although if that seems a bit too much, you might be satisfied with this bad boy:

The relationship between Evolution and Religion

Undeniably, there is a constant struggle involving these two topics. Some people try to reconcile their belief system with Evolution, and others flat out deny it - regardless of facts and evidence to the contrary of their claims.

Unfortunately, this should probably be addressed, but I don't know if I am the one to do it. I personally have no love for Religion or Religious institutions, and it frustrates me to no end when they are used in willful ignorance.

Still, if there are those who are religious and denying the validity of Evolution, but are willing to entertain the idea of the possibility of them being uninformed, come and discuss and ask questions, please, I will try to be as courteous as possible, and hopefully others in the thread will do the same.

Is Evolution 'Perfect'? Does it always make an animal 'better'?

Discussion about the misconception of Evolution as an intelligent force and things like vestigial limbs and organs, coming soon.

Why does Evolution matter in the real world?

Despite what some might think, the study of Evolution has a large impact on todays society. Everything from preventative medicines to breakthroughs in the field of agriculture can be significantly impacted by what we learn by studying Evolution.

Later, I will provide some straightforward examples.

Recommended Reading


Greatest Show on Earth


The Ancestor's Tale


Father and Son
A free downloadable book describing the life and the struggles of the son of one of Darwin's colleagues.

Youtube video recommendations

The Origins of life - Abiogenesis explained
- For those who want to learn more about this particular subject, while it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Evolution, the association with Evolution is undeniable.

Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism
- We get into a bit of dangerous territory here, as we confront a religious concept (Creationism) - but it's important to look at the alternative explanations for the complexity of life, and while there may be a bit of vitrol in this video, it is also very informative and clearly summarizes the flaws in this theory.

The evolution of flight - Wing assisted incline climbing
- This is a pretty good example as to how wings might have worked before flight was properly achieved, some might worry that evolving wings that do not aid in flight is useless, but there are a few suggested advantages to said wings.

Here are some lectures that Dawkins did back in 1991, I believe there are five of them in total at about an hour a piece. Some might find them to be a little dry, but I enjoyed them and think they'll be very informative to people not familiar with evolution:
Ep1: Waking Up in the Universe - Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
Ep2: Designed and Designoid Objects - Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
Ep3: Climbing Mount Improbable - Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
Ep4: The Ultraviolet Garden - Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins
Ep5: The Genesis of Purpose - Growing Up in the Universe - Richard Dawkins


Another interesting and easy to digest series of videos, covering a range of evolution topics:
Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent
Does The Evidence Support Evolution?
Vitamin C And Common Ancestry
Human Evolution: Are We Descended From Viruses?
Does The Fossil Record Support Evolution?
Origin And Evolution Of Life
The First Humans
Evolution Of Modern Humans
Charles Darwin And The Tree Of Life - Sir David Attenborough
The Human Genome
The DNA Instruction Manual
Genetic Disorders And Diseases
Pandora's Box Of Genetics
The Origin Of Life: Chemistry + Biology = Abiogenesis
The Complexity Of Life
The Missing Link: Ida (darwinius masillae) - Our Common Ancestor?
The Missing Link: Most Complete Fossil In Primate Evolution
The Messel Pit
How Fast Is Evolution?
Facts Of Evolution: The Molecules Of Life

The WhyEvolutionIsTrue Youtube channel has posted 10 Episodes (so far) of the Evolve series.
The series looks into how different key biological systems evolved via situational pressures.

----------
Hopefully that helps some people. I am not what I would call an expert on Evolution, I am just eager to learn more and more, so I've picked up a few things over the years.

Please please please - if I fsked something up in this post, someone more knowledgeable correct me. And if you have any questions, please ask. I don't want to dissuade healthy debate and criticism, so if you have anything to say in opposition, please bring it in!

 

[Kad5]

Can someone remind me why there is any controversy regarding evolution?

 

[Stridone]

I think Evolution is a pretty cool guy. eh changes animals and doesnt afraid of anything.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Can someone remind me why there is any controversy regarding evolution?

why we still got monkeys?

 

[alr1ght]

and a very recent study
Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists

 

[Lkr]

This is cool and all, but there is no PROOF. The only possible explanation is that someone created us and this world.

Besides, how could an african american person evolve into a white person?

 

[Kinitari]

why we still got monkeys?

I was considering answering that question in the OP - but that question is so absolutely... idiotic, that if someone seriously asks it... I don't even know what I feel thinking about it, but I think it might be rage.

 

[DarthWoo]

and a very recent study
Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists

Aren't there also some people on some southeast Asian island who have developed extremely good traits for humans who would, dwelling on an island, be in the water a lot? I think among other things, they have extremely good underwater vision. Saw a story about it on 60 Minutes or some other prime time news show.

 

[Lkr]

I was considering answering that question in the OP - but that question is so absolutely... idiotic, that if someone seriously asks it... I don't even know what I feel thinking about it, but I think it might be rage.

there was an explanation in another thread about how "if your sister has a kid you're a common ancestor, but would sister still exist"? I don't remember exactly what it was, but it would help if someone SERIOUSLY needed that much help

 

[Bit-Bit]

Very nice OP. I like how you kept it very simple and yet was still able to explain some of the more complicated parts of the Theory.

 

[ianp622]

Can someone remind me why there is any controversy regarding evolution?

If by controversy you mean creationists saying it's wrong, then it's because of religion. There's no other controversy.

 

[grumble]

Can someone remind me why there is any controversy regarding evolution?

Are you kidding me?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Granted this is the United States, not really known for a brainy general population, but evolution is still not seen by a lot of people to be true. There are a bunch of gaffers who don't believe in evolution.

 

[Lkr]

Are you kidding me?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Granted this is the United States, not really known for a brainy general population, but evolution is still not seen by a lot of people to be true. There are a bunch of gaffers who don't believe in evolution.

I didn't even realize there were conservatives on gaf until i saw a thread a week ago:lol

 

[Dali]

I was considering answering that question in the OP - but that question is so absolutely... idiotic, that if someone seriously asks it... I don't even know what I feel thinking about it, but I think it might be rage.

God - 1
Kinitari - 0

 

[Pandaman]

subscribed.

contribution planned.

 

[Lard]

It sucked when Randy Orton joined.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

and a very recent study
Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

Tibetans live at altitudes of 13,000 feet, breathing air that has 40 percent less oxygen than is available at sea level, yet suffer very little mountain sickness. The reason, according to a team of biologists in China, is human evolution, in what may be the most recent and fastest instance detected so far.

Comparing the genomes of Tibetans and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group in China, the biologists found that at least 30 genes had undergone evolutionary change in the Tibetans as they adapted to life on the high plateau. Tibetans and Han Chinese split apart as recently as 3,000 years ago, say the biologists

this sounds like bullshit to me. where's the selection here? Han can live at that altitude just as easily as Tibetans after adjusting so you'd have to assume those without this Han line had to die off somehow or couldn't reproduce

 

[markot]

Yeah, just sounds like they got used to it, rather than 'evolving' a new method of dealing with the low oxygen air >.<

3 thousand years of seperation will produce genetic diversity between the groups too... Hell, just look at Iceland and other 'closed' socities and peoples.

 

[santouras]

I didn't even realize there were conservatives on gaf until i saw a thread a week ago:lol

There's a bunch of everything on gaf, just that those who don't necessarily agree with the "general gaf hivemind" have learnt not to start dissenting arguments, for better or worse, because it's one of the quickest ways to get into a pointless, faeces slinging match. Trying to have a rational argument on an internet forum is like trying to hold a conversation at the world cup. Doesn't matter how well intentioned the two parties are, you're going to have the trolls with the vuvuzelas from both sides drowning out the rational argument.

Either that or they've been banned.

 

[ILikeFeet]

subscribed.

contribution planned.

Fran, you "contributions" are not natural. so please, let's not bring your experiments into this.

as for the thread, great read (and I understand better thanks to fucking pokemon :lol )

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Jesus better start sippin of that Pokemon Snap or im afraid that cat will never be ressurected. you feelin me?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Maybe it would be prudent to mention that many mutations are actually neutral and the debate over genetic drift. Otherwise, really excellent. You utilized some of my favorite evolution pictures. The only one really missing is the "ring of life" picture that shows over 3,000 separate species.

this sounds like bullshit to me. where's the selection here? Han can live at that altitude just as easily as Tibetans after adjusting so you'd have to assume those without this Han line had to die off somehow or couldn't reproduce

How do we know that they can live in high altitudes just as easily? It says in the article that the Han have three times the infant mortality, for instance.

 

[Escape Goat]

 

[Fusebox]

But.. but... the shape of bananas! And crocoducks!

 

[xbhaskarx]

That makes a lot of sense... ...IN THEORY.

 

[Pandaman]

this sounds like bullshit to me. where's the selection here? Han can live at that altitude just as easily as Tibetans after adjusting so you'd have to assume those without this Han line had to die off somehow or couldn't reproduce

this is a common misconception, for a trait to spread throughtout a local population, extreme requirements like death or a failure to reproduce are not required.

remember that evolution works through reproduction over many generations! it only takes a small advantage in reproductive fitness to allow for a trait to spread throughout a population.

it could be something as simple as babies with the trait have a 51% chance of surviving their first bout of pneumonia as opposed to 50%. even a difference as small as that will compound itself over many generations. [51/50][102/100][205.02/200] (remember that 1% means that they'll have more breeding pairs over time and if the trait is dominate, they'll be cutting into han numbers, etc.

on the other hand, it could be behavioral. perhaps Tibetan children celebrate their coming of age with a marathon around the village and people who do not get easily winded before finishing the race are slightly more likely to attract a mate.

anyway my point is that evolution does not need to be [and rarely is] as drastic as people think. evolution rarely works on the level of individuals or groups, you can have allele frequency shifts with everyone still living to a ripe old age.

Fran, you "contributions" are not natural. so please, let's not bring your experiments into this.

hey, that stuff was legal in the country it was done in.

 

[Socreges]

The only one really missing is the "ring of life" picture that shows over 3,000 separate species.

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/tree.pdf

That one?

That makes a lot of sense... ...IN THEORY.

xbhaskarx, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, evolution works. IN THEORY.

 

[Mgoblue201]

it could be something as simple as babies with the trait have a 51% chance of surviving their first bout of pneumonia as opposed to 50%. even a difference as small as that will compound itself over many generations. [51/50][102/100][205.02/200] (remember that 1% means that they'll have more breeding pairs over time and if the trait is dominate, they'll be cutting into han numbers, etc.

While it is true that only a slight survival advantage is required, a trait also has a much smaller chance of becoming fixed. The individual carrying the trait might die off, or the individual might not find reproductive success. I believe that Larry Moran said the chance of a trait becoming fixed is 2X to its survival advantage. In other words, if the trait imparts a 10% survival advantage, then it will only have a 20% chance of becoming fixed in the population.

 

[Mgoblue201]

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/tree.pdf

That one?

That's one of my favorite pictures. I'm almost tempted to print it out and frame it on my wall.

 

[Bananakin]

I don't know about anyone else, but my biggest trouble with understanding evolution was never regarding how one mammal could evolve into another, say. I have no problem believing that a human and a mouse shared a common ancestor: the homologous structures that we share make it pretty easy to visualize how that could be the case. And that's pretty much how it is for me with all reasonably complex animals: fish, birds, reptiles, etc. With the complexity already there (internal organs, body systems, appendages, whatever) evolution has plenty to work with (so to speak), and it just doesn't seem much of a stretch for one species to drift into another. The trouble for me was always in how such complexity came to be in the first place (and I shouldn't say trouble - I accept evolution completely, of course). I just mean that some things are just less obvious or intuitive than others, like: how did multicellular life come to be? How did sexual reproduction start? How did the first internal organs develop? Or the cardiovascular system? Obviously these kinds of questions have been answered by biologists, but most people just aren't informed to that level. And of course, some things like that probably have fairly complex explanations. My main point here is just that, I wonder if people seeking to explain evolution to doubters would be better served focusing on the "early" stages of evolution - ie, painting a sort of timeline of how life made each of its jumps in complexity: from unicellular to multicellular to invertebrates to vertebrates, or whatever it is. That, I think, is the larger disconnect that more intelligent doubters of evolution might be seeing: not between monkey and man, but between amoeba and arthropod. After all, it's the complexity of life around us that is the key reason so many people are unable to accept evolution.

 

[KingGraham]

Keep in mind, there is more EVIDENCE for The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection than there is for Gravity.

Again. There is more EVIDENCE for evolution than there is for gravity. That's a fact. No one understands WHY gravity happens. We have ideas, mathematical models of subatomic particles that might exist, but there is no evidence for any of it. We can DESCRIBE the effects of gravity with great accuracy, but we do no have any evidence for how or why it acts on the physical world as it does.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a well documented phenomenon. We have observed speciation, in the wild and in the laboratory. The genetic underpinnings are quite well understood and documented. We have an extensive fossil record that is really irrefutable.

IF you're questioning the methods scientists use to date fossils, you don't know anything about evolution.

IF you're questioning "transitional species", you don't understand evolution. EVERYTHING is a transitional species. It's a nonsensical term.

IF you don't accept evolution via natural selection as your origin, you don't understand the theory and the vast, vast, VAST array of evidence supporting the theory. Chances are also good that you are ignorant of what a scientific Theory actually is.

Uneducated people seem to feel totally free to adopt their own uninformed, superstitious opinions on the origins of humanity, but every single other scientific theory goes totally unquestioned. If you're questioning evolution, why aren't you also unconvinced by the massive quantity of evidence for electricity? Or germ transmission of disease? Oh, it's because those don't directly contradict your particular creation myth.

Yeah.

In conclusion, you don't have an option. Evolution via Natural Selection is a fact. It's where you came from. It's where I came from. That doesn't diminish the importance of life. Not having been hand-molded by an omnipotent creator god doesn't mean your life has to be completely meaningless. There's a whole universe out there full of mystery and majesty, and evolution has blessed us with the cognitive faculties to comprehend it. Instead of clouding your mind with superstition and religious fictions, look outward to the universe as it IS and try to understand it.

 

[Stridone]

intelligent doubters of evolution

No.

 

[Fusebox]

If God did make us, he did a terrible fucking job. What kind of genius builds a sewerage system in a fun park?

Yeah, I'm talking about my dick.

 

[Socreges]

After all, it's the complexity of life around us that is the key reason so many people are unable to accept evolution.

I'd sooner say religion and a belief in some brand of creationism is the key reason.

 

[Pandaman]

While it is true that only a slight survival advantage is required, a trait also has a much smaller chance of becoming fixed. The individual carrying the trait might die off, or the individual might not find reproductive success. I believe that Larry Moran said the chance of a trait becoming fixed is 2X to its survival advantage. In other words, if the trait imparts a 10% survival advantage, then it will only have a 20% chance of becoming fixed in the population.

reproductive advantage you mean. survivals a moot point really unless its purpose is fecundity, While your point is true, its a rule that applies only to any specific adaption. minor local variation seems to be the rule in biology, probably because it keeps getting second chances.

that said, someone above mentioned a fairly significant difference in infant mortality rates so that might not apply in this case.

 

[Bananakin]

I'd sooner say religion and a belief in some brand of creationism is the key reason.

Maybe, but religion wouldn't have any luck convincing people that evolution is wrong were it a more intuitive or...I don't know, accessible theory.

 

[Kinitari]

I'll see if I can add some stuff to the OP that highlights the branching off of different 'types' of life - while that tree.pdf I posted in the OP does a perfect job, it's way too... enormous, I need to find something a bit simpler for explaining.

 

[Madman]

It sucked when Randy Orton joined.

Eh, Batista wasn't any better.

Will contribute something meaningful soon OP.

 

[Socreges]

Maybe, but religion wouldn't have any luck convincing people that evolution is wrong were it a more intuitive or...I don't know, accessible theory.

As someone has already pointed out, gravity is a more inaccessible theory but religious folk nevertheless don't have any problems embracing it. I really don't think accessibility is the problem. Without even entering into the complexity of the eye's evolution, for example, people will deny even the most apparent evidence.

 

[El Sloth]

That makes a lot of sense... ...IN THEORY.

I suppose that's why it's called the theory of evolution, eh?

 

[Snaku]

For some reason I was expecting a discussion about this...

 

[Bananakin]

As someone has already pointed out, gravity is a more inaccessible theory but religious folk nevertheless don't have any problems embracing it. I really don't think accessibility is the problem. Without even entering into the complexity of the eye's evolution, for example, people will deny even the most apparent evidence.

Well, whether or not accessibility is the real problem, I still think a more bottoms-up approach to teaching evolution (explaining the progression of the complexity of life from prokaryotic cells onwards) would be a better method of convincing people.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If evolution was true, monkey's wouldn't still exist.

 

[JBaird]

Did you hear that there was Multicellular Life Discovered from 2B years ago?

 

[Madman]

If I could request one change OP, it would be that the line "you eventually (over a very long period of time) see noticeable change." should have "usually" in front of it. Reason being the Cane toads in Australia have evolved quite rapidly:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html

Cane toads (Bufo marinus) are native to South America and can weigh up to 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms). They were introduced to Australia in 1935 to combat beetles that were devouring sugarcane crops.

But the toads began snapping up other bugs instead and quickly started competing with and beating out native insect-eaters.

The toads are also toxic, which means most predators die after eating the amphibians.

Thanks to these favorable conditions, the toads currently occupy more than 390,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) of the continent.

When the toads were first introduced, they spread at a rate of about six miles (ten kilometers) per year. Today cane toads advance more than 31 miles (50 kilometers) annually.

This faster pace is happening, at least in part, because toads at the forefront have about 10 percent longer legs than toads of earlier generations, said Richard Shine, an ecologist at the University of Sydney in Australia.

Another link:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/toxic-cane-toads-evolve-quickly.html

Will Monkeys speak in the next 100000 years? will I be reborn through a monkey in a million years?

Maybe. No.

 

[Nemesis121]

Will Monkeys speak in the next 100000 years? will I be reborn through a monkey in a million years?

 

[Drkirby]

Just a quick note, but I think a 'what isn't Evolution' with 'The origin of life' as a comment would be good, since a lot of people think evolution also talks about where life came from at the start.

 

[Witchfinder General]

As someone has already pointed out, gravity is a more inaccessible theory but religious folk nevertheless don't have any problems embracing it. I really don't think accessibility is the problem. Without even entering into the complexity of the eye's evolution, for example, people will deny even the most apparent evidence.

Gravity doesn't usurp the position of man as the apple of god's eye nor destroy the idea there is hierarchical list of animals where man is at the top. Also, gravity still makes it easy to believe in a creator where evolution makes it much harder.

 

[Drkirby]

Gravity doesn't usurp the position of man as the apple of god's eye nor destroy the idea there is hierarchical list of animals where man is at the top. Also, gravity still makes it easy to believe in a creator where evolution makes it much harder.

Still don't know why the church doesn't just say God made evolution.

 

[Kinitari]

Updated the OP with some more crap, I'll make it more cohesive tomorrow, it's late now. I really appreciate all the suggestions though, if you want to post more, i'll throw them in next chance I get. I just want to make this as comprehensive as possible.