The Evolution Facts Compendium

[Sarutobi sasuke]

*Updated 17/08/08*
New title thanks to Vindicare

It has come to my attention that there are aspects of this forum that do not think that Evolutionary theory is valid, I have even come across some posts saying it is a myth. I could not disagree more. So allow me set out the case for Evolution, what it is, the evidence for it and the common misconceptions of its critics.
I have tried to make my arguments and explanations in simple terms so that they will be understood if this upsets any scientist out there then I apologise in advance.


What is Evolution and how does it work

In simple terms the Theory of Evolution describes how life changes from generation to generation and how over many generations these changes can result in new species.

This is based on three basic principles
1. All life dies
2. All life reproduces with variation
3. Life that is not suited to its environment will die sooner than life that is. This is known as Natural selection


Reproduction with variation,

Offspring are not exact copies of their parents, this due to the fact that offspring inherit some traits from their father and some from their mother, also their siblings differ from them as they have inherited different traits from their parents.

How does this occur? Well all life is made of living cells and in these cells there are Chromosomes. Chromosomes are the organised structures of Genes. Genes are made from DNA, and DNA is a complex molecule that contains the information needed to create life, it is in effect a metaphorical instruction book.
Different forms of life have different numbers of chromosomes but for the sake of simplicity and familiarity Humans will be used as an example. Human have 46 chromosomes and they are arranged in pairs so it is more accurate to say that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. So each Human cell contains 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. However there is one type of cell that only contains half the number of chromosomes 23 and they are not arranged in pairs, these are Gametes (sex cells) which are obviously the egg cells in females and sperm cells in males. So a child will inherit 23 from a possible 46 from its father and 23 from a possible 46 from its mother, so child now has complete set of 46 chromosomes. This reshuffling process means the child is different to both its parents.

DNA however can be changed in a process known as mutation. This is a random process. When cells divide for example in a developing embryo DNA makes a copy of itself this copying process is almost always accurate however on occasion this process creates an imperfect copy thus changing the gene and the metaphorical instruction book. Mutations are not only caused by imperfect duplication they are also known to be caused by Radiation, certain chemicals, and viruses coming into contact with DNA. These changes impact the organism in different ways for example some may make it slightly larger some may make slightly smaller some will have no effect and some will be fatal.

Here is a video that talks about mutations

[YOUTUBE]TU-7d06HJSs[/YOUTUBE]

And some links provided by other forum members

The Onion

[Shinsen-Subs]​_D.Gray-man​_-​_74​_[54BDA99E].avi

Natural selection

Natural selection is the mechanism which drives evolution. All organisms live in an environment and must overcome certain environmental pressures to survive.
The traits an organism inherits from it parents and gains through mutation effect its chances of survival in an environment by giving an individual either advantages or disadvantages over other member of its species.
For example imagine a population of Sea Otters these animals breathe air but hunt under-water so while hunting for fish they need to hold their breath. Now how long an individual can hold it breath is dependent in part on its lung capacity, it is known that life reproduces with variation so no individual in this population should be identical therefore they should all have differing lung capacities. Logic would dictate that individuals with larger lung capacities would be more successful hunters and therefore better fed and more likely to reach sexual maturity and pass on its genes than individuals with a smaller lung capacity. Over time the small lung gene is eliminated and larger lungs become the norm. So it is said that the large lung gene is naturally selected.

Environmental change.

Of course organisms are not restricted to one type of environment, it may change around them for various climatological or geographical reasons or species can migrate. This obviously changes the environmental pressures acting on as species.
For example imagine a herd of antelope grazing on a savannah over time the savannah dries out and vegetation is becomes sparse and individuals with longer necks have access to a larger food source as they can reach leaves on trees and bushes. Thus more long necks reach sexual maturity than short necks and over time the long neck gene becomes more wide spread in the population. But now individuals with very long necks have the advantage and so the process continues.

However what if the savannah did not dry out but became more temperate and colder, vegetation is still abundant what would happen to our Antelope then? Obviously individuals with thicker hair would have the advantage and thus the process of natural selection would generate a population of hairy Antelope.


Speciation

Speciation occurs when the DNA between two or more populations becomes so different due to mutations and natural selection that those populations can no longer successfully interbreed. How can this happen? Well it as been shown that different environments exert different environmental pressures on a species and the species will evolve over time. However take the population of Antelope on the savannah as an example and split it into three groups: the first group stays in the savannah; the second migrates north in to a colder environment with a similar abundance of food; and the third group migrates south where it is drier and food is less abundant. The first population would remain largely the same as they are well adapted for their environment, the second would evolve thicker hair and the third longer necks. The isolation and the differing natural selection of genes would result in three populations so genetically different from each other that individuals from different populations can no longer breed successfully and you get three separate species that evolved from one common ancestor.

This article shows observed examples of speciation.

A paper published by J. Weiner in 2005 in Natural History entitled 'Evolution in action

Here are some videos that explain evolution well.

[YOUTUBE]YZwUV-auY4w[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]R_RXX7pntr8[/YOUTUBE]

The Evidence

Age of the earth

Evolution of new species takes a significant amount of time so for the abundance of life we see today to have evolved from a common ancestor the Earth must be old, very old and indeed it is. The Earth is estimated at being 4.54 billion years old


The Fossil record

A very large number of fossils have now been discovered and identified. These fossils serve as a chronological record of evolution. The fossil record provides examples of transitional species that demonstrate ancestral links between past and present life forms. One such transitional fossil is Archaeopteryx, an ancient organism that had the distinct characteristics of a reptile, yet had the feathers of a bird. The implication from such a find is that modern reptiles and birds arose from a common ancestor.



Some videos on the subject
[YOUTUBE]O4GdZOlPrX8[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]XUcB_HiCKnM[/YOUTUBE]

Morphology

Different species share common features for example the human hand, a cats paw, a bats wing and a dolphins flipper all share the same bone structure.


Vestigial structures

Vestigial structures are morphological features that serve no purpose but did in an evolutionary ancestor one example of this in Humans is the semi-lunar fold the remnants of a third eyelid in the corner of the eye nearest the nose. This third eyelid or nictitating membrane to give its proper name is found in reptiles, birds and some other mammals such as polar bears.

Other vestigial structures found in humans are ear muscles, wisdom teeth, appendix, tail bone (coccyx) and body hair.

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

Genetic similarity

The Genome of Human beings has been mapped as has that of the Chimpanzee. A genome map is basically all of the DNA in a living thing de-coded. Comparative analysis of the Human and Chimp genome has shown that we share 96% of our DNA.

However this nearly fell flat on its face when its was revealed that Chimps have 48 chromosomes as do Gorillas, Bonobos, and Orang-utans where as Humans have 46. So if there is a common ancestor two pairs of Human chromosomes mast have fused in the past. How can you tell if a pair of chromosomes is a fusion of two pairs of chromosomes? You look at Telomeres, which are a region of repetitive DNA at the end of chromosomes, which protects the end of the chromosome from destruction. A chromosome pair that is the result of a fusion would have Telomeres in the centre of the chromosome as well as at the end. Is there such a chromosome in Humans? Yes its human chromosome 2.


Ken Miller explaining it
[YOUTUBE]Gs1zeWWIm5M[/YOUTUBE]

Some more evidence of a common ancestor is all so found in the human and chimp genomes. Certain viruses can mutate DNA and this DNA is duplicated and passed on to offspring these viruses are called Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). DNA that has been mutated by ERVs can be identified in the genome map because it leaves a distinctive marker. In the maps of both Human and Chimp DNA these markers show up in exactly the same places.

[YOUTUBE]De-OkzTUDVA[/YOUTUBE]

Nylon eating bacteria
In 1975 Japanese scientist discovered bacteria that could only survive by eating nylon. Nylon did not exist before 1935 so where had the bacteria come from? Did it evolve from non nylon eating bacteria? Laboratory experiments proved this to be the case. When bacteria are placed in a Nylon rich environment they do indeed evolve the ability to eat nylon.



Peppered moth

Before The Industrial Revolution took place in England peppered moths where light in colour however during the industrial revolution they became much darker in colour. This was due to the fact that soot from the coal fired factories had settled on tree branches, killed off the moss and Lichen and turned them black. This darkening made the moths camouflage less effective and made them easy prey for birds. Because of this new environmental pressure natural selection favoured moths with darker colouration and the overall population of moths were noticeably darker than their ancestors. However with the introduction of clean air legislation in England the soot problem cleared up, now natural selection favoured the lighter moths again and sure enough the population became lighter in colour once again.




Misconceptions

Its only a theory

People who say this are ignorant of what a scientific theory is. A Theory in science is not a guess, conjecture, speculation nor is it an educated guess. It is a way of uniting all the observed facts, it is testable in the lab it is also falsifiable by observing empirical data in the field. It is also capable of making predictions of future observations. So far evolutionary theory has not been contradicted by any observed facts, nor has any false prediction been made from it. It has withstood the critical analyses and scepticism of the most intelligent people on the planet for 150 years.

Its an atheist theory, it says we came from a stone

It does not say we came from a stone, mud or anything else. It does not make any statements regarding the origin of life. It does not rule out a creator, the only thing it does rule out is a literal interpretation of Genesis. 40% of scientists are Theists.

Here is a quote from one of theistic members of NF.

To be honest, I believe that evolution happened, but that *God had some hand in it...The idea of God creating man then and there strikes me as too straightforward...

*Replace with omnipotent diety of choice

These videos should also ram home that point

[YOUTUBE]N1xC1hTNht4[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]T9ZUFsLLHSs[/YOUTUBE]

Micro evolution is possible but macro evolution is not

Here is an article detailing the evidence for Macro Evolution
Micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing the only difference is timescale. These videos explains it much better

[YOUTUBE]D0wwhSlo1NI[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]lmUGJ3Jh7fc[/YOUTUBE]

As does this one

You should watch this regarding the whole micro and macro thing.

 

[EvilMoogle]

Blatantly stolen from a user at Fark.com, but summarizes Evolution very well:

 

[Uchiha Q]

I do think humans evolve but not because of this thread but because islam teachs us that Adam PBUH was taller than us today, and i mean taller like 3-5 times taller than the average.

but ever since adam we still remained human is what i think. we allways had inteligence.
i dont think we can evolve into other species or already evolved from other species, although woudl be fun to have other inteligent beings (that we can see).

Btw i have a question

do you beleave that among humans there are the better (more likley to survive) humans ? because i heard that hitler thought blacks were the least ones to survive and germans to be the best kind as in superior to blacks.

another question

Is it possible that someday a newer species will evolve that will be superior to humans , and why isint there such a species yet ?

 

[Distracted]

I do think humans evolve but not because of this thread but because islam teachs us that Adam PBUH was taller than us today, and i mean taller like 3-5 times taller than the average.

but ever since adam we still remained human is what i think. we allways had inteligence.
i dont think we can evolve into other species or already evolved from other species, although woudl be fun to have other inteligent beings (that we can see).

Wait... so we can change over time... but we can't change enough to be completely different? That just doesn't make sense (Watch the video on micro vs macro evolution)

Btw i have a question

do you beleave that among humans there are the better (more likley to survive) humans ? because i heard that hitler thought blacks were the least ones to survive and germans to be the best kind as in superior to blacks.

Too some small extent.. yes. To use black people as an example; Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic trait passed on by black families. It actually gives them the ability to resist malaria when given by mosquitoes, something that was necessary to survive in an environment full of them. Though it has negative consequences outside of it.

However, simply 'stating' that one race is superior to another is false. Also, we don't know WHAT is superior to another. A waterbear is far tougher and able to survive in far more harsh environments than a human could ever hope to survive in. Are we inferior or superior to it?

another question

Is it possible that someday a newer species will evolve that will be superior to humans , and why isint there such a species yet ?

Maybe? If the world stayed as it is now, Humans would not evolve into something very different that I can see (as a non-evolutionary biologist) as we are not really subject to natural selection quite as much anymore since we're the top of the food chain.

but it could possibly happen.

As to why it hasn't happened yet. First it should be pointed out that we are relatively new on the evolutionary chain. Secondly, there isn't much of a location barrier between us. Humans are never truly separated off and isolated much. So we tend to mix with others and thus don't really have a long enough time to change into a different species.

I'm sure there are other factors, but that is it as far as I can tell. Hell, we probably are already a transitional phase between another species.

 

[Uchiha Q]

I just have a problem as to why are we HumanBeings the only 'animals' that have intelligence.

I can accept that we can change, but i dont see how a reptile can become a chicken or in other words i dont think species can evolve into other species.

i havent watched all vids yet but will watch the macro vs micro thing and edit if not reply with thoughts about it.

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

I do think humans evolve but not because of this thread but because islam teachs us that Adam PBUH was taller than us today, and i mean taller like 3-5 times taller than the average.

There are no fossils in the fossil record of humans being 18ft tall. The Qu'ran is not evidence.

I dont think we can evolve into other species or already evolved from other species,

The scientific evidence to contrary is overwhelming. did you read my post and check out the sources?

although woudl be fun to have other inteligent beings (that we can see).

It did happen, Moder humans Homo sapien lived side by side with Homo neaderthalensis in Europe for 30,000 years.
source

do you beleave that among humans there are the better (more likley to survive) humans ? because i heard that hitler thought blacks were the least ones to survive and germans to be the best kind as in superior to blacks.

I think what Hitler did to people in the holocaust was utterly barbaric and sick. And people who link Hitlers crimes with a scientific theory in an attempt to marginalise it to promote their religious dogma are desperate, as they know they can't dispute the evidence.

another question

Is it possible that someday a newer species will evolve that will be superior to humans , and why isint there such a species yet ?

Yes, but it is unlikely as humans tend to push competing species into extinction.

 

[PerveeSage]

Heheheh, never seen distracted pwn so many posts.

Anyway, I wonder if there has ever been a seriously deformed person that had children? if a deformed person, which happens through random genetic mutation, were to have kids that have the same deformations, would that not prove evolution right there?

I guess it would be hard to find a deformed person who had kids...

 

[Amaretti]

I just have a problem as to why are we HumanBeings the only 'animals' that have intelligence.

We're not. We're just the most intelligent. All the things that we use as measures of intelligence like self-awareness, language, culture, empathy, etc, are things that are also present in apes, some monkeys, dolphins, elephants, and so on, all to varying degrees and very rudimentary in comparison to ourselves, but there is no question that other animals also possess attributes that we define as indicators of this thing called 'intelligence'.

We're just vain and like to think all other animals are equally dumb, but take a look at a chimp using tools to smash nuts and a goldfish gawping at a plastic castle and tell me that intelligence is something only humans have, and that the chimp isn't more intelligent than the goldfish.

I can accept that we can change, but i dont see how a reptile can become a chicken or in other words i dont think species can evolve into other species.

Well, certainly no reptile changed into a chicken. There was a delightful article in the caf? not so long ago about how the chicken came from the grey jungle fowl.

Don't forget that the transitions between species are incredibly gradual. The changes are small, and there is no immediate crossover point where the parent is a different species than the offspring, but after a few thousand generations, the offspring might be sufficiently different from the great (x100,000) grandmother that they would no longer be able to interbreed should they meet and would likely be classified differently.

Speciation is slow. Very slow. Unless there is some unknown entity that steps in and stops organisms from changing (evolving, in other words) speciation is an unavoidable result of long-term evolution.

 

[Uchiha Q]

There are no fossils in the fossil record of humans being 18ft tall. The Qu'ran is not evidence.

missing link.

The scientific evidence to contrary is overwhelming. did you read my post and check out the sources?

to me the so called 'evidence' of diffrent species IE birds evolve into other species IE alligators is doubting..

It did happen, Moder humans Homo sapien lived side by side with Homo neaderthalensis in Europe for 30,000 years.
source

but they were both HOMO's (no not that) Im talking about rapitian-humanoidish creatures IE humans living with egg-laying intelligent creatures that can talk and have a civilisation of their own.

I think what Hitler did to people in the holocaust was utterly barbaric and sick. And people who link Hitlers crimes with a scientific theory in an attempt to marginalise it to promote their religious dogma are desperate, as they know they can't dispute the evidence.

exactly, same thing goes for people who link the spaghetti monster with god.

Yes, but it is unlikely as humans tend to push competing species into extinction.

ok

We're not. We're just the most intelligent. All the things that we use as measures of intelligence like self-awareness, language, culture, empathy, etc, are things that are also present in apes, some monkeys, dolphins, elephants, and so on, all to varying degrees and very rudimentary in comparison to ourselves, but there is no question that other animals also possess attributes that we define as indicators of this thing called 'intelligence'.

We're just vain and like to think all other animals are equally dumb, but take a look at a chimp using tools to smash nuts and a goldfish gawping at a plastic castle and tell me that intelligence is something only humans have, and that the chimp isn't more intelligent than the goldfish.

What i meant was creatures that built houses and had schools basically why are humans the only ones who found out how to make fire.

Well, certainly no reptile changed into a chicken. There was a delightful article in the café not so long ago about how the chicken came from the grey jungle fowl.

Don't forget that the transitions between species are incredibly gradual. The changes are small, and there is no immediate crossover point where the parent is a different species than the offspring, but after a few thousand generations, the offspring might be sufficiently different from the great (x100,000) grandmother that they would no longer be able to interbreed should they meet and would likely be classified differently.

Speciation is slow. Very slow. Unless there is some unknown entity that steps in and stops organisms from changing (evolving, in other words) speciation is an unavoidable result of long-term evolution.

so can chickens in particular enviroments and time and everything needed, can they in theory evolve into reptiles ?

 

[Distracted]

missing link.

What is this supposed to mean? We have tons of different 'missing links' in the human fossil record. We even have a few evolutionary cousins that ran into dead ends and died out.

to me the so called 'evidence' of diffrent species IE birds evolve into other species IE alligators is doubting..

That's cause Alligators didn't evolve into birds nor did birds evolve into alligators. It also wouldn't go "Alligator - > Bird" like that

It would be more like "Alligator -> Alligator -> slightly different alligator ->" several hundred years later "Land walking reptilian with alligator like qualities" several hundred years later "Maybe some basic feathers due to random mutation for hair on the scales" several hundred years later "lighter bones to spend more time in trees" etc.... etc... etc.... "bird"

It's not a one generation gap. It's micro evolution, something you ADMIT TO... happening over a very long period of time.

but they were both HOMO's (no not that) Im talking about rapitian-humanoidish creatures IE humans living with egg-laying intelligent creatures that can talk and have a civilisation of their own.

Why would it have to be an egg laying reptilian creature? The human/great ape evolutionary chain happens to have developed powerful brains and the opposable thumb.

By the way, Dolphins, whales, and Elephants all have a relatively good form of communication. There is no evidence of a 'language' of sorts, but they do communicate and over long distances (through the water and ground respectively.)

Mammals just happen to develop powerful brains as it is. It's not like a reptile COULDN'T develop a brain and more intelligence if given time. They just haven't.

exactly, same thing goes for people who link the spaghetti monster with god.

Those are more people trying to link the false creationism arguments with the spaghetti monster. It's a form of satire.

ok


What i meant was creatures that built houses and had schools basically why are humans the only ones who found out how to make fire.

Because we're the current top contender and anything else that tries to compete get killed off pretty quickly. If we ceased to be Chimps or other great apes would be the next most likely species to start development down a similar path to us.

so can chickens in particular enviroments and time and everything needed, can they in theory evolve into reptiles ?

Evolution doesn't really work like that... but

Well they wouldn't really be reptiles, but they may evolve into something with similar survival characteristics or maybe even something different but just as suited to their environment.

But mind you, this would be something that would happen slowly and over such a huge amount of time it's ridiculous. There would be so many different forms between all of this it's absurd.

If we had some way of actually dividing the species accurately (some measuring point) and we took 1 of every transitional species between the chicken to becoming some sort of reptilian... you could probably come close to filling the world with those different species.

The last common ancestor of the chicken and the crocodile goes back into the early age of the dinosaurs I'm sure.

 

[Uchiha Q]

is there a fossil record of an evolutionary process where the animal evolves from a speocies to a hole diffrent species ?

like is there (a) ----- (b) ------ (c) ------ (d) ------ (e)

------


where:
For example

a = the bird
b = the bird but slightly diffrent
c = the bird but aligatorish (half alligator half chicken in a sense)
d = the alligator but looks funny
c = the alligator

I understand that there are millions of actual evolution points (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i....etc)
so lets assume there is a million point, just devide it by 5 then youll have 5 a's (starting points) just rbing me those, if those havent been fossilised then bring me the one next to the unfosillised one and so on...

----

i do know that almost all (if not copletly all) animals communicate evin ants and whales and dolphins, what i mean is why isint there a mermaid (forexample) civilisation underwater that have castles and stuff.

----

another question:

Can an egg-laying animal evolve into a birth-giving animal,
like:
chicken --> ape

if so, we would have a birth giving chicken with nipples somewere in the middle of the evolutionary process.. right ?

 

[Psycho]

how come no one mentions selectionism?! it's still a plausible explanation

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

is there a fossil record of an evolutionary process where the animal evolves from a speocies to a hole diffrent species ?

like is there (a) ----- (b) ------ (c) ------ (d) ------ (e)

------


where:
For example

a = the bird
b = the bird but slightly diffrent
c = the bird but aligatorish (half alligator half chicken in a sense)
d = the alligator but looks funny
c = the alligator

i do know that almost all (if not copletly all) animals communicate evin ants and whales and dolphins, what i mean is why isint there a mermaid (forexample) civilisation underwater that have castles and stuff.

Who's to say there isn't we know more about outer space than we do about what lies in the depths of our own oceans.

another question:

Can an egg-laying animal evolve into a birth-giving animal,
like:
chicken --> ape

if so, we would have a birth giving chicken with nipples somewere in the middle of the evolutionary process.. right ?

Firstly birds and mammals are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, so birds did not evolve into mammals. however mammals (which give birth and have nipples) evolved from reptiles (which lay eggs).

how come no one mentions selectionism?! it's still a plausible explanation

Not sure what you mean, can you post a link?

 

[Link]

Not sure what you mean, can you post a link?

Maybe he means breeding of animals and livestock to create specific characteristics in the species, and eventually an entirely new species.

If an evolutionary trend is forced through breeding, I wonder how long it would take the animal in question to count as a new species...

Also, here's a point of interest: Fox domestication and a cool video

 

[Amaretti]

where:
For example

a = the bird
b = the bird but slightly diffrent
c = the bird but aligatorish (half alligator half chicken in a sense)
d = the alligator but looks funny
c = the alligator

Please don't use modern species as examples of ancient common ancestry. That's like saying humans are descended from chimps, which is like a saying a brother is descended from his sister.

There are plenty of examples of intermediate forms between reptiles and birds.

In descending order (reptilian -> bird):

Sinosauropteryx prima
Caudipteryx
Deinonychosaurs
Protarchaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx
Shenzhouraptor
Sapeornis
Enantiornithines
Patagopteryx
Hesperorni
Ichthyornis
Gansus
Limenavis
Chicken

This is stuff you could have easily looked up yourself.

i do know that almost all (if not copletly all) animals communicate evin ants and whales and dolphins, what i mean is why isint there a mermaid (forexample) civilisation underwater that have castles and stuff.

Because mermaids are completely fictional so, shockingly, their castles don't exist?

Or maybe because apes are the only species to display the dexterity and brain power to attain such sophisticated achievements, and we actively killed off and out-competed the only other species that could have done the same. The neanderthals.

another question:

Can an egg-laying animal evolve into a birth-giving animal,
like:
chicken --> ape

No, a chicken cannot evolve into an ape. To be blunt, that's just stupid. However, an egg-laying animals like reptiles can evolve into mammals, because that is exactly where mammals originated.

Ever heard of a ?

Yeah.

if so, we would have a birth giving chicken with nipples somewere in the middle of the evolutionary process.. right ?

I hope for your sake you're being deliberately obtuse.

Birds are descended from reptiles.

Mammals are also descended from reptiles.

Birds and mammals are two entirely different branches of evolution. Live birth and nipples are attributes that mammals gained after their separation from reptiles (early mammals likely laid eggs and sweated milk through their skin only as the echidna and platypus still do), so birds would never ever at any time have possessed nipples and given birth.

 

[Uchiha Q]

Please don't use modern species as examples of ancient common ancestry. That's like saying humans are descended from chimps, which is like a saying a brother is descended from his sister.

There are plenty of examples of intermediate forms between reptiles and birds.

In descending order (reptilian -> bird):

Sinosauropteryx prima
Caudipteryx
Deinonychosaurs
Protarchaeopteryx
Archaeopteryx
Shenzhouraptor
Sapeornis
Enantiornithines
Patagopteryx
Hesperorni
Ichthyornis
Gansus
Limenavis
Chicken

This is stuff you could have easily looked up yourself.

Here is the name of the animal + extinction

Sinosauropteryx prima - 121-135 million
Caudipteryx - 140 million years
Deinonychosaurs - about 75 MYA
Protarchaeopteryx - 121-135 MYA
Archaeopteryx - 150 MYA
Shenzhouraptor - 140 MYA
Sapeornis - 130-120 MYA
Enantiornithines - 140 MYA
Patagopteryx - 71-65 MYA
Hesperorni - 89-65 MYA
Ichthyornis - 135-70 MYA
Gansus - 105 to 115
Limenavis - 70 MYA
Chicken - present...

its only an assumption that those evolved into one another no real evidense.

Because mermaids are completely fictional so, shockingly, their castles don't exist?

Or maybe because apes are the only species to display the dexterity and brain power to attain such sophisticated achievements, and we actively killed off and out-competed the only other species that could have done the same. The neanderthals.

I didint mean species sorry, i meant class.

like why isint there a reptile class intelligence. why hasent one evolved over what 6billion years ?

No, a chicken cannot evolve into an ape. To be blunt, that's just stupid. However, an egg-laying animals like reptiles can evolve into mammals, because that is exactly where mammals originated.

Ever heard of a monotreme?

Yeah.

Give me the A B C D of reptiles becoming mammals.

I hope for your sake you're being deliberately obtuse.

Birds are descended from reptiles.

Mammals are also descended from reptiles.

Birds and mammals are two entirely different branches of evolution. Live birth and nipples are attributes that mammals gained after their separation from reptiles (early mammals likely laid eggs and sweated milk through their skin only as the echidna and platypus still do), so birds would never ever at any time have possessed nipples and given birth.

Again its an assumption, so far the list you gave me above turned out to be illogical since the timeline is all messed up, but i believe you will be able to explain this error somehow.

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

Maybe he means breeding of animals and livestock to create specific characteristics in the species, and eventually an entirely new species.

If an evolutionary trend is forced through breeding, I wonder how long it would take the animal in question to count as a new species...

Also, here's a point of interest: Fox domestication and a cool video

That is a cool vid. well done. It shows how humans can simulate natural selection.

I didint mean species sorry, i meant class.

like why isint there a reptile class intelligence. why hasent one evolved over what 6billion years ?

I'm assuming by intelligence you mean human like intelligence? Because reptile metabolism is so slow they can't support a calorie draining large brain.

Give me the A B C D of reptiles becoming mammals.

I give you the Synapsids

Here is the name of the animal + extinction

Sinosauropteryx prima - 121-135 million
Caudipteryx - 140 million years
Deinonychosaurs - about 75 MYA
Protarchaeopteryx - 121-135 MYA
Archaeopteryx - 150 MYA
Shenzhouraptor - 140 MYA
Sapeornis - 130-120 MYA
Enantiornithines - 140 MYA
Patagopteryx - 71-65 MYA
Hesperorni - 89-65 MYA
Ichthyornis - 135-70 MYA
Gansus - 105 to 115
Limenavis - 70 MYA
Chicken - present...

its only an assumption that those evolved into one another no real evidense.

Again its an assumption, so far the list you gave me above turned out to be illogical since the timeline is all messed up, but i believe you will be able to explain this error somehow.

It's illogical if you imagine it as a straight line, but it isn't a straight line at all it's more like a tree. re-read my paragraph on speciation.

 

[Uchiha Q]

It's illogical if you imagine it as a straight line, but it isn't a straight line at all it's more like a tree. re-read my paragraph on speciation.

let me give you one example in that list.

Caudipteryx - time of extinction = 140 million years

than this creature evolved into:

Deinonychosaurs - extinct since 75 million years aggo.

and this animal evolved into :

Protarchaeopteryx - extinct since 121-135 million years aggo

Do you see what my point is ?

Im sure theres an explenation but right now i think that those evolutionary stages are just assumptions based upon nothing but speculation no proof no nothing.

but like i said there must be another explenation since i dont think distracted the type that will say anything unless he is sure of it.

 

[Amaretti]

Here is the name of the animal + extinction

Sinosauropteryx prima - 121-135 million
Caudipteryx - 140 million years
Deinonychosaurs - about 75 MYA
Protarchaeopteryx - 121-135 MYA
Archaeopteryx - 150 MYA
Shenzhouraptor - 140 MYA
Sapeornis - 130-120 MYA
Enantiornithines - 140 MYA
Patagopteryx - 71-65 MYA
Hesperorni - 89-65 MYA
Ichthyornis - 135-70 MYA
Gansus - 105 to 115
Limenavis - 70 MYA
Chicken - present...

its only an assumption that those evolved into one another no real evidense.

No, those are examples of what you asked - reptilian birds, starting from the most reptile like to the most bird like. Unfortunately, animals of the past were not kind and thoughtful enough to line up and die in perfect chronological order. Animals migrate, some species may branch off while the unchanged parent species continues to live on and even outlive the new species, most corpses don't even survive to fossilisation, so you will never get a series of perfect chronological fossils, simply because nature doesn't work like that.

You have to remember that if an organism has a niche, it doesn't necessarily have to become extinct just because some of their population has migrated and evolved. Look at the . The original species lives in the north while its descendants spread south in two different directions around a valley, evolving their own unique colourings to deal with the different environments west and east of the valley. At the south, the salamander population meets up again, and they're still similar enough to interbreed successfully, yet one is enormous and camouflaged and the other is tiny and bright red. This is probably one of the clearest current day examples of speciation in action, and it should also hint to you that new species =/= death of old species.

like why isint there a reptile class intelligence. why hasent one evolved over what 6billion years ?

To be short, the reptile class did evolve into intelligent beings... us.

The reptile class itself however are limited by their own 'cold blood'. Ectothermic bodies are not particularly conducive to creating swift brains. In order for a reptile to make significant gains in intelligence, they would have to be able to regulate their own temperature to maximise activity and blood flow through their brains... or basically just evolve into mammals. Mammals are pretty much the only class of animal that has the capacity for sophisticated intelligence. And like I pointed out to you, there are varying degrees of intelligence throughout mammal species, and you need a marriage of dexterity and intelligence in order to accomplish what we have, which is something our genus specialise in. And there were many species in our genus... we just happen to be the one that came out on top in the end. When we can barely tolerate people of other races, what makes you think that ancient human could tolerate people of other species?

Give me the A B C D of reptiles becoming mammals.

Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Probainognathus
Diarthrognathus
Morganucodon
Hadrocodium

Again, keep in mind that animals don't die in nice little chronological lines and previous species don't become extinct the moment a new species emerges. Half the family tree is missing and may never be found, and these are random aunts, cousins and siblings that have been found and arranged in order of their physiology, rather than their age, as the latter is not an accurate way of judging how they are related to one another. There are sharks alive today that are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The age of a species and when it dies out is generally not indicative of its place in a family tree. Particularly since fossils cannot show when a species died out or appeared, only that it was alive at this particular point in time.

But it should be enough to show you that ancient reptiles are the ancestors of mammals. Did you bother to look up the monotremes? Very primitive mammals that have remained unchanged for a very long time, having found their niche in australia. They lay eggs, have no nipples, and their thermoregulation is somewhere between cold blooded reptile and warm blooded mammal. You only have to look at the monotremes to realise exactly which class of animal they originated from.

Again its an assumption, so far the list you gave me above turned out to be illogical since the timeline is all messed up, but i believe you will be able to explain this error somehow.

Yes, but I'm still here to tell you that there will never be a chicken with nipples. There will never be a mammal like bird or a bird like mammal, because these are two classes that share a common ancestor class, but not the same ancestors.

 

[Psycho]

Maybe he means breeding of animals and livestock to create specific characteristics in the species, and eventually an entirely new species.

If an evolutionary trend is forced through breeding, I wonder how long it would take the animal in question to count as a new species...

Also, here's a point of interest: Fox domestication and a cool video

osrta, selectionism is the creation of new species through COMPLETLY random evolution, like, giraffes don't have long neck cause they live where the trees are high, they have long necks randomly, they were able to sutrvive cause for their luck, they had all the atributes needed

i try to explain it more especificly

originaly, there was only one type of being, unicelular, simple organism, through years and years it started changing, after some time you had 2 species, through breeding between those 2 species you created a series of subspecies, and so on

the proof of that is the diferent number of chromossomes in nearly all living beings

the more mixes that species sufered before becoming what it is today, the more complex it is... i just wonder how the fern got to be the most complex being on earth

 

[Uchiha Q]

@amarreti

you dont understand, the list you gave me is illogical evin if we take into considiration that species dont die when half of them are evolving.

Caudipteryx - 140 million years
Deinonychosaurs - about 75 MYA
Protarchaeopteryx - 121-135 MYA

Caudipteryx------(slowly evolving)-----(extintion-followed by a new species called)-(Deinonychosaurs)------(evolving)-------(extinction-followed by a new species) BUT that new species already existed :S ??

the only explenation i can think of that Caudipteryx evolved into two branches.

 

[UstaSSih]

Evolution

Evolution is a fraud!!!!!!!!!!

Link removed

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

Evolution is a fraud!!!!!!!!!!

Link removed

Your article said:

Evolutionism is understood as the doctrine that affirms that life beings would come from the inorganic matter,

I said in my opening post explaining evolutionary theory:

It does not say we came from a stone, mud or anything else. It does not make any statements regarding the origin of life.

It is obvious the writers of that article do not understand the basics of the theory they are trying to criticise. Or that they are deliberetley trying to misrepresent it which is not surprising considering this is a Brazilian catholic website.

 

[Uchiha Q]

So biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ?

in other words, in biogenesis evolution does not accure ?

 

[dreams lie]

So biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ?

in other words, in biogenesis evolution does not accure ?

Please actually read his opening posts.

 

[Tsukiyomi]

So biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ?

in other words, in biogenesis evolution does not accure ?

Its not that they are not related. If a biogenesis occurred it would be related to everything.

What it is is that they are two entirely different theories. Evolution isn't contingent
on a biogenesis. A deity could have created the world then started evolution to get things to change with their environments.

So really as theories on is not required for the other, so a biogenesis debate has no place in an evolution debate.

 

[Saufsoldat]

So biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ?

You could say that since the two are seperate theories.

in other words, in biogenesis evolution does not accure ?

How did you draw that conclusion?

 

[Sarutobi sasuke]

So biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ?

in other words, in biogenesis evolution does not accure ?

The Theory of Evolution does not state or predict how life started. It describes how life changes over time and nothing more.

 

[Xion]

There is no debate.

Just misinformed individuals who come to biased conclusions and who cannot reconcile their dogmas with what are essentially facts.