I believe you'll have to explain that better. Where did animal 4 come from? Are these even the same species?

You obviously don't understand how Survival of the Fittest and Evolution relate. Because one is essentially the other.

The only thing that causes differences in a species of animals are genes. There are dominant genes and recessive genes. More complicated are codominent and some other things. But we'll stick with dominent and recessive.

For example, the gene that controls eye color is dominant for brown. Hence the vast amount of people who have brown eyes. People who are blue eyed have the more recessive gene. Likewise with people with green eyes or whatever colors.

Now, lets take a group of animals and their offspring. Lets just say 5 animals, each have two offspring. That's 10 offspring, if you don't want to do math. Of these 10, lets say that 4 had a more desirable trait, say, brown fur rather than white, which helps them blend into the environment better.

Because those 4 are better suited for their enviroment (they can hide from predators more effectively), they will survive to pass on the gene for the brown fur, and the ones with the white fur will not. Predators will have seen them, and killed them. Eventually, all animals of this species in this area will be brown-furred. THAT is evolution. And it is also survival of the fittest.

ugh.... survival of the fittest is as follows:

One animal gains a new style of coloring, the others remain the same.

The one who gained the new style manages to live, some of the others die off. They all have kids, and the whole thing starts all over again. As the years pass by, the altered one becomes prominent, until it ends up being the only one.


Evolution is just the development of the alterations themselves, the mutations, and nothing is given which explains why it happens in the first place, what caused these animals to evolve.

Some say that it deals with pressure being placed on the animals, yet how do the genes know what way to evolve to relieve the pressure? One way might result in added pressure, another in no alteration in the pressure at all.

And that is the main problem with evolution, because it has yet to be explained why something which is seemingly unguided has managed to create such complex beings already.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST is what allows these changes to happen in the first place! The genes DON'T know which way to go. But as the animals with genes unfit for the environment are weeded out, the useful genes will be passed on more commonly.

Evolution is not unguided. Its brought on by the forces of our environment. We adapt. All animals adapt, according to how they can be best suited for the environment.

You seem to totally ignore how genetics actually operate. Its all in the genes. Thats where the explaination lies.

Oh, and there are a few huge problems with your theory about symbionts and such.

First off, they would also have to be in the sex organs, because the only DNA that is passed on is contained there.

Two, assuming that your theory is correct, which it is not, and that these symbionts exist in the sex organs, which they wouldn't its still impossible. Given how genetics work in the first place, the slight changes they make aren't going to mean anything, because they aren't going to be the same changes that whatever sexual partner you are with underwent in their DNA. Its still going to be a random mix, given the dominent and recessive genes. The DNA I pass to my offspring is the exact same DNA that I started with when my egg was fertilized.

Unless you want to start calling environmental forces symbionts, then you're totally off base.

Why is it that animals gain huge changes which all are needed to happen at the same time when in fact that ability is gained?

Example: Bats had to gain evolved versions of their ears, vocal chords, and god knows what else, just to be able to use echolocation.

Going by your gene idea, that would mean that the animal would slowly gain better hearing.... and better speaking, though why is beyond me since it wouldn't matter if they had that in the first place, since the animal wouldn't be using echolocation, thereby negating the means by which it would prove the factor wherein the genes are chosen.

Also, why is it that bats never gained better eyesight? They already have good eyesight, and yet instead of doing that they chose the harder evolutionary path, which would have taken longer to have happen if we went with the unguidedness of evolution.

Gene IDEA?! Its a scientifically documented FACT!

Why didn't bats gain better eyesight? Well, thats a myth as it is, bats do have a decent sense of sight. Ecolocation makes eyesight a non-necessity.

And they didn't have to undergo so many changes spontaneously. It starts off from simple animals and progresses through. Different species branch off. Bats just picked up those changes that allowed them to operate in this way.

Animals would not gain speaking abilities, it'd happen only if it were necessary. Certainly, they develop methods of communication, but thats instinct. There are not necessarily genes to control these specific aspects of the animals anyway.

You're acting as if no one has tried to study and document evolution. However, this process is actually understood. Maybe if you would read something from a reliable source about this?

Read something by a published scientist who just sits around touching himself all day? No thank you...

One problem, how did this all happen so fast? That has yet to be answered.

I read a short story with your idea; a guy altered his white blood cells, and they became super cells; inside him, they learned to be a perfect social creature, altering him for the better.

The story ends with the cells taking over the world.


My summary can NOT do it justice. It was actually good, despite the odd premise.

......... I was talking about an even smaller version of that, something very very very smaller than that....

Anywho.. I'm.. um... thinking this is going to hit the fourth page.. scary since I thought this thread wouldn't even last a week.

So fast? Its taken billions of years, if you hadn't noticed.

Even by the gene thing, it would have taken billions of years just for life to begin.

No, it wouldn't have.

You obviously have no understanding about biological processes. Will you please look something up? Or something? Because you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

I'm done with this thread until you decide to pick up some knowledge about the subject.

Ohh I love this... first I want you to know I thought you died or something, since it took you like 3 days to post..

You keep wandering about thinking you're smart and awesome and whatnot since you're using genes, and genes don't lie.. hell.. genes are the way of the future!

Problem is, genes don't lie, they don't do anything... they just.. sit there wiggling or whatever the hell. DNA itself has no mind, it's blueprints that are used to generate stuff. What you talk about, however, is that DNA is somehow making itself into better versions, pretty much saying to itself "Boy oh boy, if I alter this and that, then this guys offspring will be kicking ass even more then he is!"

That's not how it goes.. I'm sorry to say.

Also, way way way back, back in the days of the old pool of slime, there were no things that even had DNA, somehow the right enzymes magically hit each other or whatnot, and boom it happened, then those things that appeared managed to, in a short amount of time, to create complex beings.

Evolution is extremely flawed, as it stands, and using genes as a reason for it to be working doesn't actually help it any.

Why is evolution so hard to understand? At least the theory of it, there are currently single cells creatures that would be reminiscent (?) of the original organisms from the proverbial slime pit. There are fossils of "missing links" between one prehistoric species and a more modern one, there are some fossils that display small changes, and dating them gives you the idea that they were an in between stage of the species. There is much more physical proof to the theory of evolution, than there is to any other theory such as God, Alien offspring planted on earth,....
There really are not that many theories... but if anyone knows of one that has more scientific data that's been collected, or another theory that has more physical proof... please post it and let me know.

Arrogance, coming from you claudette? I'm scared.

We don't even know what the bacteria was like way back near the beginning of the planet, mainly because it was just that damn long ago, and to think we know what they looked like is to be arrogant indeed... anywho.. lalala..

And going by evolution itself, then why is it that in 7 million years homo sapien is the only ape which has evolved as we have.... supposedly we gained better brains because we used tools, but various animals use tools, and so they should be highly intelligent like us.. yet they are not... THAT is why evolution is flawed, because it doesn't remain consitent, nor does it fill in the huge blanks.

It would be arrogance to assume that we know what the planet was like way back then, and in truth no one can say what it was like at the beginning of creation, hence... the concept that these are all just theories, not proven facts.
But, it is true, that we have single celled creatures, that multiply, and thrive in our world today. It is true that we have factual specimens of millions of years worth of evolving species. These things are factual and proven. Maybe some day, our own "evolving" technological knowledge, may be able to actually prove in one way or another, exactly what the world was like at the beginning of time. It is much more plausible though, that the advancement in technology would go towards saving the millions of species in our world instead. More than likely, the government will be concerned in the end (bottom line) with saving the human species above all.
The whole concept of evolution being a theory, is that we don't know, however we can take the information that we do have, and come out with something plausible, based on common sense combined with physical proof. It is THIS plausible solution... that gives people something to work towards proving a theory. And to think... it all started with a single large fossil of a shell, so many years ago.
Anyway, like I said, if there is a more plausible theory, i'd be more than willing to debate about that to. In the absence of evolution, what would be more plausible to you?
And arrogance.... is certainly something that my self esteem could send forth from its massive ego (can i say that? is that bad? i don't know... i'm just not sure) however, my statements were not in this case generated from arrogance, more from the shock from thinking that someone completely dismissed the evolution theory. My apologies if it seemed arrogant.

I don't fucking care. Preston, you are a moron. Will you actually read what I'm saying? Will you fucking read a study about this?

WRONG.

DNA does NOT make itself into "better versions." That was YOUR theory, that little tiny fuckthings were altering the DNA and making following generations better.

What actually happens is this. I've taken advanced biology, I know what I'm talking about. I'll try this one more time:

You have quite a few different chromosomes inside of each and every cell. I believe that there are 20-something of them. Now, in the sex cells (we'll say eggs, because I'm certain you have no dick), each of these chromosomes are split in half, so they can combine with those in the sperm when they fertalize the egg.

Some genes are dominant over others for the same trait. Some are also recessive. That is why there are people with blue eyes, brown eyes, different hair colors, etcetera.

So the chromosomes combine when the egg is fertalized, creating the first cell of a new organism. This cell will split and multiply itself many, many, many times over, eventually creating a recognizable being. Because it is a product of the genes from the mother and the genes of the father, then it will, for the most part, have traits similar to each. Some may not, but then you get into codominance, where traits rely on multiple genes, and combinations will change the way it operates.

This is documented fact. We can observe this as it happens at each stage. The way that genes operate is also documented. Perhaps you've heard of the Human Genome Project, where they mapped every gene on every chromosome and found out what controls what.

Now that we have reproduction down, lets move on and see how evolution fits in.

Certain traits (controlled by genes) are going to be more favorable in certain environmental conditions. For example, it would not be favorable to survival to have the gene for extremely pale skin if you lived in the Sahara Desert. You'd end up dying from sun poisoning.

Actually, I remember a real-life example from my biology book.

In England, just before the time that steel mills were abundant, there was a certain species of moth. Most of them were white, in order to be better camoflagued from predators against certain trees that were common in England (which they also used for food), but a smaller amount were brown. The brown ones couldn't hide as well, and as a result didn't survive to reproduce commonly. As smog in the air (from the mills) became more common, things eventually became strewn with soot, including these trees.

The white moths now couldn't hide from predators as they could before. so, as years progressed, the new generations contained more and more of the brown moths.

That is evolution. The ones best fit for their environment survived to reproduce, creating a change in the species.

gene Pronunciation Key (jn)
n.
A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes.




nice definition, isn't it?

Well.. according to this.. genes are made up of dna.. boy oh boy.. and I said that DNA isn't able to alter itself... and yet here you are saying that the genes are controlling the traits, and choosing what traits get passed on specifically, thereby allowing for a better creature in the end.

Let me point out one thing... when a human mates with another human, they can get a baby with serious problems, and that is because humans are flawed, our dna is flawed, and everything about us sucks ass.

There is no guarantee(sp) that the damn thing will come out perfectly fine, nor that it will come out better, since, as I said before, DNA is unable to alter itself. By saying that the right genes are somehow passed on because some animals managed to survive, and so allow for a better version, are ludicrous, especially since animals can produce offspring which are based on an earlier rendering of themselves thanks to having the same genes as their ancestors..

And... nice post claudette.