Jump to content

A Question about evolution


Recommended Posts

I have often wondered about the whole evolution debate.

 

How did life evolve on a sterile planet? Amino acids need RNA to code for protein and to get RNA you need DNA.

 

Sterile? Did someone wash it down with domestos at some point in it's history? If not, it was probably never sterile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No- evolution in the plant and animal kingdom happens (but not change from one species to another- unless you have 100% proof) bt to suggest humans went through the same process is not.

 

Scientists are still looking for evidences to support the Theory of Evolution

 

Examples of speciation;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No- evolution in the plant and animal kingdom happens (but not change from one species to another- unless you have 100% proof)

 

have you heard of ring-species, of which there are many examples?

 

Richard Dawkins (I do realise he is Satan so you will probably put your fingers in your ears and go la la la :roll:) gives an example of one in his book The Devil’s Chaplain:

 

The best known case is the Herring Gull/Lesser Black-backed Gull ring. In Britain these are clearly distinct species, quite different in color. Anybody can tell them apart. But if you follow the population of Herring Gulls westward round the North Pole to North America, then via Alaska across Siberia and back to Europe again, you notice a curious fact. The 'Herring Gulls' become less and less like Herring Gulls and more and more like Lesser Black-backed Gulls until it turns out that our European Lesser Black-backed Gulls actually are the other end of a ring that started out as Herring Gulls. At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbors to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, in Europe. At this point, the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the world. The only thing that is special about ring species like these gulls is that the intermediates are still alive. All pairs of related species are potentially ring species. The intermediates must have lived once. It is just that in most cases they are now dead.

 

Scientists are still looking for evidences to support the Theory of Evolution

 

no, scientists (plural) are simply looking for evidence. the theories follow from the evidence.

 

sure, some individual scientist may positively search for evidence to support a hypothesis, but that’s a long way from being a theory. some individual scientists may even be fraudulent in their efforts, but their fraud will always be uncovered by scientists (plural). some scientists even promote homeopathy for gawds sake!

 

always remember that scientists (individual) is not the same as science, or scientists (plural).

 

the only body of ‘scientists’ I am aware of who positively seek evidence to support a predetermined hoped for conclusion are creation ‘scientists’. they have failed quite spectacularly, as did the flat-earth ‘scientists’ before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this is a ridiculous question, but do animals evolve to become less tasty? Surely that would be a good way to avoid being eaten?! Or is tastiness just a matter of perception? I know evolution is not a conscious thing, but does anyone know if this has happened?

 

Studies have shown that a certain species of plant, usually eaten by hares, produces bitter substances to "deter" the hares. When predation is light, many plants have little of the bitter substances; as hare numbers increase, so the average level of bitters in the plants increase. As hare numbers fall, so does "bitter" concentration.

Sorry, don't have reference to hand.

 

It doesn't need to be "conscious". If you're tasty, you get eaten, and leave few descendants. If you waste energy making repellants, then you have less energy to grow and breed. So you need to strike a balance, and if nobody's trying to eat you, you don't need no stinking repellant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this is a ridiculous question, but do animals evolve to become less tasty? Surely that would be a good way to avoid being eaten?! Or is tastiness just a matter of perception? I know evolution is not a conscious thing, but does anyone know if this has happened?

Many plants and animals evolve to be unpalatable/poisonous. Tastiness is just a matter of perception in that it's species specific, with species evolving to like the taste of things which are good for them so as far as is possible just as prey species (by which I mean both plants and animals) evolve to be less tasty/toxic predator species (both herbivores and carnivores) evolve to be able to find the prey species palatable/non-toxic and so also evolve a taste for them.

 

In many environments species are locked in continual arms races with each other with the prey evolving increasing levels of bitterness/toxicity and the predator species increased resistance. This is one reason why some 'invasive species' can be so harmful when introduced (generally by man) into environments where no predators have been evolving along side them and so there's nothing other than limits on food supply to control the population levels of the invasive species. The cane toad in Australia is a famous example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.