so this topic of "evolution"...

[1]

yeah, yeah, yeah,

y'all spill me to this and that reference about bones in birds and what not.

i asked one question that none of you will answer.



where is that one "evolutionary" dude that proceeds me in evolution? evolution is a continuum. it proceeds, regardless of human intervention. it is nature. the continuance.

point me to his address?

[Crunchy Frog]

1. If you're really serious about wanting to understand evolution,

I'd like to reccomend a book to you. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins. Check it out here. http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703

It's much less strident than some of his books, and contains the best overall summary of the basics of evolutionary theory and how evolution works that I've ever seen.

Welcome to DU btw. :hi:

[XemaSab]

2. I think you're conceptualizing it a bit backwards

"i am not ready to deny it, but if there is truth to the "something evolves into something that evolves into something..." path, wouldn't there be some evidence of a "something" that ain't quite made it yet? on its way but not quite there yet? isn't that how evolution works? changes along the way not quite worked out?"



If you look at something like the evolution of a bird's wings, the bird didn't set out to grow wings. So it's not like each step in the evolution of the wing is that animal working consciously towards what we see today.

Instead it's that each bird along the way grew progressively longer forelimbs, and the birds who happened to have longer forelimbs survived and thrived and passed that trait on to their offspring. Eventually their forelimbs got to the point where they could glide, then fly. But the ancient birds didn't "know" they were going to end up flying.

Does that make sense?

[Gman]

3. As Frog says above, you need to do more research

the information is out there that answers your questions.

One thing that comes to mind about something thats "not quite there yet" is the walking catfish. It would seem that this fish is making the transition to being a land based animal rather than a fish in water. There are many more examples if you look around.

BTW, the gecko doesn't have a clue how he walks on glass or even that he's walking on glass or knows what glass is!

[Journeyman]

4. You may find the works of Stephen Jay Gould of use. . .

Google him and you'll find more than enough to answer most of your questions -- and create a new slate of questions to replace the old!

Here's an excerpt from an article by Carl Zimmer about Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which may give an indication of how your future study should proceed. . .


On the Trails of Macroevolution (excerpt)

by Carl Zimmer

In 1972 Stephen Jay Gould attacked the puzzle of varying evolutionary rates with one of his most controversial theories, which he proposed with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. In the fossil record, species often appear suddenly, hang on relatively unchanged for millions of years, and then vanish. Darwin had pointed out that when it comes to the past life of this planet, fossils are pebbles from a mountain, and he was sure that a full record would always show evolution obeying natural selection's gradual pace.

Gould and Eldredge suggested instead that the fossils could often be taken for their face value: new species often did branch suddenly away from older species, lingering for millions of years relatively unchanged until they became extinct—during which time newer species might abruptly branch away from them. Animals didn't go to sleep one night and in the morning find a new species running across their savanna. An isolated fragment of a population may be able to evolve in only fifty thousand years or so into a new species—too quickly for paleontologists to witness. If they find even a handful of fossils of a single species in so short a span of time they count themselves lucky. Chances would be overwhelming that those fossils would belong to the big, unchanging section of the population rather than from the small coterie that was actually evolving. If the new species thrived, it would eventually spread from its small birthplace and mingle with the ancestral species, and leave its own fossils which would seem to have appeared out of nowhere.

According to punctuated equilibrium (the name Gould and Eldredge put to their hypothesis), most changes happen as species originate, not during their lifetime. In other words, species are born from other species with certain traits which they carry to their extinction—just as an individual animal does. And just as the variation of individuals is the raw material that natural selection uses during microevolution, the variation from species to species may be the raw material for macroevolution. Species may compete, and they may give rise to new species at different rates. A lineage in which species don't speciate much might go extinct or linger as a living fossil, while others may be transformed—species by species—into unimaginable new forms.

When I talk to evolutionary biologists about punctuated equilibrium, I'm often surprised at the sting in their off-the-record remarks pro and con, twenty-five years after the theory was first hatched. In that time, some paleontologists have searched cliffs and mountainsides for unbroken sketches of fossil-rich rocks where they can test this idea. In many cases new lineages do seem to branch suddenly from one species to another, while in some others they drift apart more gently. Meanwhile, some researchers who have been trying to measure evolution's natural pace in living animals have been surprised at how quickly it can move. Evolution can change an animal's body rapidly, as Gould and Eldredge argued, but the change doesn't have to happen in conjunction with the origin of a new species. The sting comes from the fact that testing punctuated equilibrium is an unfinished business. Yet no matter how it survives, it has already had one clear effect: it prodded paleontologists to invent new ways to test the patterns of macroevolution. It has become apparent to all sides of the debate, for example, that many of the long evolutionary coasts suggested by the fossil record are real, and deserve an explanation.

To some gradual-minded scientists, a record of fossils with a 100,000-year resolution that looks like stasis may actually be hiding a riot of generation-by-generation change that ends up not going very far in any one direction. To others stasis means that an animal's surroundings simply make no demands on it to change for a long time. Those who prefer a punctuated view point out that the climate—probably the most important part of an animal's surroundings—can dramatically swing many times over the lifetime of a species, and yet the species will often seem unaffected. Drastic change is rare. In the face of a stampeding glacier, it's easier for a species of beetle to head south than stay and adapt to the new climate.


See: www.stephenjaygould.org/library/zimmer_macroev.html

And: http://darwiniana.org/gouldiana.htm#Gouldiana

[jimlup]

5. Look in the mirror!

Nothing personal but if you want to see an example of a species in transition... look in the mirror. People are really fairly young animals by evolutions standards. We are only a few million years from starting to walk upright. We are also only a few hundred thousand years from having the brain capacity that we now have. In my opinion people are a prime example of a species in transition.

[MedleyMisty]

23. I read a book about the evolution of consciousness recently

It was really interesting, and looking around it seems to me like some people do still have archaic consciouness and others have a more evolved one.

And yes, it was a science-based book and not talking about love and peace and the Age of Aquarius or stuff like that - it posed the human mind as a cathedral with chapels of specific types of intelligence (we started with social, technical, and natural history intelligences) and a lower general intelligence that a lot of other species have. And back in the day the chapels were closed off and we couldn't think about, say, interacting with other humans and hunting prey at the same time. And consciousness evolved in the chapel of social intelligence - people who could think about their own thoughts and use that to predict what other members of the group would do reproduced more than the people who couldn't. And then the barriers between the chapels started breaking down and consciousness spread out from social intelligence into the other intelligences and we developed a higher general intelligence that linked together all the specific intelligences. And that's when our tools and culture got a lot more sophisticated. Like then we could think about other species as if they were like us and that actually helped hunters predict their movements and behavior better. And we could think about making tools and hunting prey at the same time and started making specific tools for specific types of prey, and we started using tools and animal products in social interaction - like wearing beads and jewelry made from animal bits that proclaimed social status and stuff.

Makes sense that human evolution would be mental now for the most part - it's not like our environment poses that much physical challenge anymore.

[BurtWorm]

6. The evidence is in the fossils of australopithecines, Neanderthals, other hominids

and in DNA. You're not going to find any individual alive now that is half one species, half another. Evolution works much more subtly and slowly than that. You may find several individuals who share a trait that they will successfully pass along to the next generation, who will pass it along to more in the next generation, who will pass it along to even more, and so on. And that trait (or constellation of traits) may eventually distinguish a new species from the one they arose from. But no one lives long enough to watch a species come into its own. Unfortunately, we can only witness species becoming extinct.

If you're truly interested in understanding how evolution works, you could read Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale which walks you backwards toward previous common ancestors among species. Or read The Origin of Species.

[RainDog]

7. Time

First, before my lay explanation, you should watch this pbs doc. about the debate about "intelligent design" in Dover.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

The scientists who testified explained clearly how evolution works and how there is a fossil record to prove it, etc. The IDers lost the case because their claims were unsupportable.. their "experts" weren't. There is really no doubt that evolution explains the diversity of life... no one has found any reproducible explanation for about a hundred years of trying. Believing a book of metaphors about a version of a god is not scientific proof and never will be. Evolution, however, does not discount any belief in god. It discounts a fundamentalist account of creation, that's all.

it's hard for us to imagine time as experienced by the earth. Think of a frog. It starts out as a tadpole with no legs or arms. Over the course of its development, it grows arms and legs, its mouth widens and it lives on ground and in water. That's quick time.

btw, it's imp. to note that it's not that "superior traits" beat out "inferior traits." There is no value judgment in nature. There are diff. habitats, and if you live in one you may die in another with the very same traits. When you talk about hybridization, you are talking about a "goal" for change. There is no goal for change in evolution, beyond an organism's desire to live and pass along genes. --but that organism doesn't get to decide what genes it gets when it is conceived.

Genes, in sexual repro., recombine into diff. variations. In the course of these recombinations, some genes mutate... they lose a chromosome or a gene gets left out and effects other genes.

The earth's climate etc. has changed many times over the course of geologic time... imagine a million years. Like imagining the billions and billions of stars in the universe.. An organism may be fine in one climate or place with x vegetation, but then climate or veg. drastically changes. The organisms that have mutations that made it possible for it to survive in the new climate get passed along to their descendants... whose genes also mutate. And then, maybe another climate change makes a big difference in those descendant's ability to survive and mutations again may make it possible for some to survive.

A million of years of this.

Then, a group of... pony-like animals gets separated -half and half on one side of a crevice. Their genes don't mix. All still have mutations, but they no longer share the same gene pool, and one may adapt to one climate while another adapts to another... they travel away from each other in search of food. Hundreds of thousands of years of this... and one is a horse and the other a zebra.

Where are the not quite humans? Are you familiar with anthropologists who have found bones of pre-human ancestors? Like "Lucy" the australopithecus? There are hundreds of fossils that establish change over time... skull size changes, teeth for one kind of food vs. another.

There was a great program on PBS tonight that demonstrated that apes (common and bonobo chimps, gorillas) could understand humans who talked to them. They performed tasks when they were asked, while the one asking had on a helmet that covered the face (so no prompting.) It was amazingly beautiful. If you look at the genetic make up of chimps and humans, we're not that different. However, the ancestor that was the basis of their mutations to them and our mutations to make ours separated at some point and habitats changed and made chimps chimps and humans humans.

If you had not heard about creationism growing up, and had not associated it with a belief in god, this is very easy to understand, even if my explanation isn't the greatest.

again, watch the video above.

[Kitty Herder]

8. There are lots of examples of not-quite-humans in the fossil record. Links:

Here are some useful links. I'm sure you can find more if you do a google search.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/fosrec.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ ( http://www.talkorigins.org/ is a great site for information about evolution in general.)

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/?src=h_h

The human fossil record is actually remarkably complete considering the odds against fossils surviving.

Also, here's a link about the myth of missing links.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/01/evolution-and-the-missing-link-why-is-it-missing.htm

[RainDog]

9. while you were editing your op

I was replying.

you've had several answers. I hope, if you're a troll, you learn something.

[RainDog]

10. oh, and in response to "where is that one dude"

the primate lineage that includes humans also includes evolutionary dead ends. Like Neanderthals. Or Australopithecus Robustus.

so the concept you start out with is wrong. btw, how old are you? where were you educated? have you attended church all your life and heard creationist beliefs to the exclusion of scientific evidence?

Creationists are idiots.

sorry, but that's the truth. They're like ppl in the middle ages who thought that the plague was punishment from god, when in fact it was a disease introduced to western europe from the rats on trading ships that crossed the ocean.

[BurtWorm]

11. If you think you know the answer to your question, why bother asking it?

You're not really interested in the actual answer to your question. That's clear.

Your father is the "evolutionary dude" who proceeds you. Your ancestors are the evolutionary dudes who precede you. What were their addresses?

[yewberry]

12. I think one the big mistakes people make in discussing evolution

is that they don't make clear enough that evolution is not teleological.

You've talked about how humans have guided changes in a couple of other organisms, dogs and plants, and then about how geckos might know to cling to glass.

Let's talk about the geckos, because that seems to be where you start to get a little lost. Imagine that there's a whole lot of lizards living in, oh, Sarasota. At ground level, there's a lot of competition for food. Lizards, snakes, frogs...all competing for the same insects. (Yes, this scenario is entirely fictional, but the mechanisms aren't.)

Now, a few of those animals might try to climb or cling a little to vertical surfaces to get a little bit of an advantage over its competitors, and some can do it a bit. Those little guys, maybe geckos, might gain a little bit of an advantage over the snakes (who can't cling) and frogs (who really do better in watery areas). Because they're getting more of the food and avoiding more of the ground-level predators, these geckos are a little stronger than their competitors and live a bit longer. This means they can also breed a little longer, and their offspring might be a little more successful.

The offspring, especially if both of their parents were good climbers, might be even better climbers, able to reach even more food sources that can't be touched by their competitors. They live even longer and are able to produce even more offspring that have their more and more specialized characteristics. Each generation is able to specialize a little more and make the most of their niche.

Meanwhile, the geckos that don't have much in the way of climbing ability face more competition for food at ground level and have shorter lifespans because of predation. They have fewer offspring and don't develop any of the specialized characteristics (like sticky feet) that have allowed their cousins to flourish.

So, while there was never any kind of intent or direction involved the selection (and this is natural selection) of characteristics for the climbing, clinging geckos, they are the ones who were most successful in that niche.


Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution, though. Organisms may evolve in ways that are slow, like natural selection, or they may evolve in ways that are quick, or even in ways we don't quite get.

There are lots of examples of organisms that "ain't quite made it" in the sense that there are plenty of examples of organisms that no longer exist, but those can be hard to explain, because the question then is "ain't quite made it to what?" Again, evolution isn't teleological, so the notion of "not being quite worked out" doesn't work in this context. The creatures that are best-suited to their environment are the ones that'll be the most successful reproductively, and so their characteristics will be the ones that will survive.

There are lots of examples of "transitional species" if that's what you're asking. There's quite a lot of evidence of dead-end evolutionary directions and transitional forms. There are many fools who claim that we don't have any of those things, but that's hardly true. It's a bit like a glass of water--if we have an empty glass, a half-full glass, and a full glass, they demand a 1/4 full glass. We produce that, and they demand a 1/8 full glass. No matter what we provide, they want the 1/16 glass, then the 1/32 glass, then the 1/64 glass. It's really a game for them.

It's a really fascinating topic, and I'm not at all an expert, so I hope people will correct me where I'm wrong.

Please do some reading--there's so much out there!

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

13. Not teleological

Thank you. :D This has been bothering me for awhile. Even many sober scientific discussions of evolution seem to fall into the trap of phrasing things in a way that sounds like there is some sort of goal, purpose, meaning, or even guiding hand. It drives me bonkers when I run into that....

[yewberry]

19. It's very hard to break away from that mindset.

Even once it's explained, it's a very difficult thing to grasp.

Thanks!

[1]

14. ugh,

i was trying to respond to posts, and i edited my original post instead.

ignore me.

i can't even respond right.

please let this thread slip off until no one can see it ever again. i am embarrassed enough as it is...

[yewberry]

17. Naw, man.

What is the question we won't answer?

Please read the answers that have been posted, if you really want an actual discussion. There's good information here.

There are real answers, unless you're one of those goofballs who thinks that evolution defies laws of thermodynamics or something.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Please don't be embarrassed.

I really hope that you will look into some of the resources that people have pointed you to on this thread, and maybe take an opportunity to learn something and to expose yourself to new ideas. No problem about making a goof in one of your first posts on here either. Lots of people do that when they're new, nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about. :hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

15. The "evolutionary" dude that proceeds you in evolution

would be your father. I expect you probably know his address better than I do. Once you go back a few generations, you tend to lose track of individuals. It's certainly not possible to trace things back to single individuals millions of years back.

I'm not really sure what it is that you want, since you don't seem to be that interested in actually understanding more about evolutionary theory. I don't think anybody here can give you what you're looling for.

[Jamastiene]

16. I'm no expert on evolution, but

I'd say under a bridge somewhere.

He looked just like this:


And here he lies:

[1]

20. you know what?

i may have screwed up my postings here tonight, but y'all are so quick with your "tombstones" to legit questions?

maybe y'all should check yourselves.

i appreciate those that attempted to help me understand my questions about what i do not understand. thank you. i'll read those links and learn.

but intelligent and enlightened people do not bully legitimate questions. y'all act so much like all of those assholes that fucked with you in your youth.

now is it your chance? now you can be the bully? got numbers on your side? go for it.



to those that want to gang up on me and call me a troll for asking questions? fuck you. you are worse than anyone that ever picked on you. they were ignorant, but you know should better.

i'll ask no more questions here.


go ahead, lock me out for asking legitimate questions. i'm sorry i bothered this superior group.

[1]

21. *deep breath*

i wish i could edit the post above where i got upset.

i reread this entire thread and the majority has tried to help me. i just focused on being called a troll and seeing a tombstone picture.

i have like 20 posts and the reason is that if you attempt to engage in discussion without 1000+, you are labeled a subsersive.

please accept my apology.

i wish i hadn't mucked up my original post.

[RainDog]

22. peace

it's troll season around here, and the way your question was worded sounded confrontational. Then you didn't come back for a while. That's why ppl questioned your sincerity... that and the low post count, as you said. My apologies.

But I also need to let you know that I didn't get picked on in high school. My sister was the homecoming queen who dated the quarterback and all that crap. I married a guy who was recruited to play soccer for a national team but didn't - he got an education instead. He wasn't picked on either. The assumption that people who are interested in science, etc. are not "cool" is a big problem in this country and it keeps people down. It's not "passing" to like to learn about the world outside of your world. I'm interested in biological sciences because, to me, those things are the miracles of life.

Please go to the pbs link I posted above. The program is divided into sections down the left hand side of the page and you have to click on each one as the last one finishes.

hope you find what you're looking for.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Tell the mods you want to delete it and they will make it go away :^)