What is evolution for you? (please no copying out of dictionaries or investigating before you post) I will not argue against them because what you think is what you think.
What I was trying to say is that it wasn't that suddenly giraffas "decided" to grow their neck. It was the ones that died that made them "evolve". No more short neck, long neck FTW.
Simple - different environments, different things to adapt to. We needed intelligence, they needed acrobatics and muscles.
But at some point, wouldnt they need to start in the same direction that apparently we would have taken long ago, the road to higher intelligence? I guess I would think when a monkey who has the strength and acrobatics it would need to survive, but starts running into troubles with problem solving and intellect, it would adapt or die out. So in certain cases, due to the obviously long period of time it takes a species to evolve, some could not make the necessary changes quickly enough and die out. But then again, we are now coming full circle back into survival of the fittest, which is also supposedly a form of evolution. It to me is all one giant circle full of loop holes and outs to make it nearly impossible to fully prove evolution is happening or isnt happening. I dont think that it is in the way that I view evolution, but if one uses these circling theories and facts(not of evolution, but say natural selection for exam.) then you can argue night and day and never come to a cut and dry answer on whether or not it is taking place. Pointless topic to argue, don't have enough time in my life to come to a black and white, yes or no, or cut and dry answer on it.
What I was trying to say is that it wasn't that suddenly giraffas "decided" to grow their neck. It was the ones that died that made them "evolve". No more short neck, long neck FTW.
That still evolution. Its survival of the fittest, as in those who can survive in the environment have offspring that they pass their traits too.
What exist is adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest.
This reminds me the theory of Lamarck. According to him there is some sort of adaptive force which moves organisms upward from the ladder of progress into new and distinct forms with local adaptations.
What I was trying to say is that it wasn't that suddenly giraffas "decided" to grow their neck.
There's nothing in evolution stating that things just suddenly "decided" to be the way they are.
But at some point, wouldnt they need to start in the same direction that apparently we would have taken long ago, the road to higher intelligence?
We are already filling the niche so they really don't need to. Evolution is a matter of necessity. They will either adapt quick enough to survive or die out. If there is another species already filling the niche then the best adapted for that niche will likely be the one to survive.
I guess I would think when a monkey who has the strength and acrobatics it would need to survive, but starts running into troubles with problem solving and intellect, it would adapt or die out. So in certain cases, due to the obviously long period of time it takes a species to evolve, some could not make the necessary changes quickly enough and die out. But then again, we are now coming full circle back into survival of the fittest, which is also supposedly a form of evolution. It to me is all one giant circle full of loop holes and outs to make it nearly impossible to fully prove evolution is happening or isnt happening. I dont think that it is in the way that I view evolution, but if one uses these circling theories and facts(not of evolution, but say natural selection for exam.) then you can argue night and day and never come to a cut and dry answer on whether or not it is taking place. Pointless topic to argue, don't have enough time in my life to come to a black and white, yes or no, or cut and dry answer on it.
I'm not sure I follow exactly, but it sounds like your trying to say things just evolve to become better and better. If so this isn't the case. A species will become better adapted for it's environment.
For example let's say you have a predatory species that lives in a warm jungle and does very well there. It can shed excess body heat and it's coloring allows it to blend in. Now place this same animal in a cold snowy environment and now it won't do to well. It's ability to shed heat only quickens it's freezing and it's coloring makes it stand out. But with a mutation say thicker white furred one that would have never survived in the forest now can survive. It can hold in more body heat and blend in with it's surroundings. So because of this the species evolves to have thicker white fur in the snowy environment. If it didn't develop this mutation it would die out.
What I was trying to say is that it wasn't that suddenly giraffas "decided" to grow their neck.It was the ones that died that made them "evolve". No more short neck, long neck FTW.
That still evolution. Its survival of the fittest, as in those who can survive in the environment have offspring that they pass their traits too.
What exist is adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest.
This reminds me the theory of Lamarck. According to him there is some sort of adaptive force which moves organisms upward from the ladder of progress into new and distinct forms with local adaptations.
No..... What sets apart Lamarck from Darwin is that Lamarck seriously thought that animals could adapt to their environments simply by will alone, and that the generation2 of a species would gain direct traits from the parents, which is ALSO not true. We all know that that these are not the case.
Just because a giraffe wants to stretch its neck to reach the leaves to survive doesn't mean it's going to. In a world where the leaves are only on the tip tops of trees, the family with short necks will die off. The ones that have the longer necks will survive, reproduce, and therefore pass on the trait of long necks to the young. This process continues, as the longest of the long necks will survive much more than the regular long necks. They will also die off, but the stiffies won't. They will pass on their traits to have their young have extremely long necks.
It is also common knowledge that animals will mate with those that have favorable traits. Ain't no way a girl giraffe gonna lie with some stubby short neck. HELL no, she goin' for the big ones so she'll be satisfied with her life. The shorties gonna die, AND they won't get any cuz they ain't useful. The stiffies gonna love their life though, knowin' their kind gonna survive.
Lanmark beleived that through use/disuse of an organ, an organism could enhance or diminish the competency of the said organ. As a result of his "theory", a bird that "wanted" to fly would develop bigger wings, which would supposedly be passed down to the following generations(obviously not true). And a bird that didn't use wings would lose his/her capability to fly, and maybe develop other characteristics that would make them a different species, according to Lanmark's flawed "theory".
I do get what your saying I'm just saying that specific magroevolution (i.e. humans and apes descended from common ancestor) cannot be considered absolute fact because it wasn't directly observed. However I do concede that macroevolution can be shown through microevolution but not for specific instances.
What Mage said >.>
Also, something does not have to be directly observed for it to be fact. The reason we think we're descended from a common ancestor is because our DNA is chemically so similar to that of other primates - about 99% the same. Unrelated life forms to us, like bananas, only share about half of our DNA structure. In other phylums, there isn't so much DNA similarity with those outside said phylum(while there is high similarity inside said phylum), so it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that we descended from a common ancestor as the primates and are primates ourselves.
tl;dr version: We're probably descended from the same ancestor as other primates because we're so dam similar >.>
I guess I would think when a monkey who has the strength and acrobatics it would need to survive, but starts running into troubles with problem solving and intellect, it would adapt or die out. So in certain cases, due to the obviously long period of time it takes a species to evolve, some could not make the necessary changes quickly enough and die out. But then again, we are now coming full circle back into survival of the fittest, which is also supposedly a form of evolution. It to me is all one giant circle full of loop holes and outs to make it nearly impossible to fully prove evolution is happening or isnt happening. I dont think that it is in the way that I view evolution, but if one uses these circling theories and facts(not of evolution, but say natural selection for exam.) then you can argue night and day and never come to a cut and dry answer on whether or not it is taking place. Pointless topic to argue, don't have enough time in my life to come to a black and white, yes or no, or cut and dry answer on it.
I said it first, just no one got it until mage said it =P
about 99% the same.
98.8% With chimps which would be our closest match outside of our genus. 9% with E.Coli if anyone was curious.
On the flip side this could equally be showing that we were created using the same DNA by a high being. You know for the sake of argument and keeping the thread alive.
Well, all living organisms have the same DNA; there's nothing different about what we have and the DNA that houses a chili. You know how DNA is made up of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine right? What sets humans' DNA from a chili's is that how these four nucleotides are blocked differently. In this case, MUCH differently. For us and other primates, the fact that we have a high 90 percent similarity in DNA composition suggests that we were all derived from a common ancestor. Look at the other Evolution thread to see what we were derived from.
Well, all living organisms have the same DNA; there's nothing different about what we have and the DNA that houses a chili. You know how DNA is made up of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine right? What sets humans' DNA from a chili's is that how these four nucleotides are blocked differently. In this case, MUCH differently. For us and other primates, the fact that we have a high 90 percent similarity in DNA composition suggests that we were all derived from a common ancestor. Look at the other Evolution thread to see what we were derived from.
I know my DNA/Evolution thanks though, haha. I used to be a die hard creationist and knowing what your arguning against is just as important as knowing what your arguing for. Also I happen to be going over DNA/Evolution in my bio class right now. In fact I'm supposed to be writing a paper on the history of DNA..
I said it first, just no one got it until mage said it =P
The way you put it, it sounded like just because it's not an absolute it should be dismissed.
On the flip side this could equally be showing that we were created using the same DNA by a high being. You know for the sake of argument and keeping the thread alive.
So your accusing God/s of being lazy? Would explain all the "design" flaws.
Higher being not high. Then again looking at humans they might have been...
