Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Lukeje]

You realise that comic books aren't real? Random mutations occur, but are 'selected for' by a non-random process. The giraffe stretching his neck does not encode genetic material for longer necks into his DNA by sheer force of will.

No, though the image is humorous at least. It's not like he's willing his neck to grow longer, but the repetitive strain of having to reach up (possibly higher than normal) will select that group of mutations to prevail (since, as the previous poster said, those giraffes will survive more easily than the rest). I'm no biologist, so I'm probably using wholly incorrect terms.

It's not one giraffe that strains. I'll go through this slowly.

One giraffe is slightly taller than all the others. This is because of a wholly random genetic mutation. He can reach higher than the others (there is no straining involved). Say there is a shortage of food. As he can reach higher than the other giraffe, he is the most likely to survive. He then passes on his genetic material. Thus the trait 'long necks' is being selected for, but not through any straining. The gradual change is thus to giraffes having longer necks.

The 'straining' theory was a popular one back when Darwin first came up with his theories, but has been disproven due to advances in genetics.

 

[TheDoctor455]

The thing about bacteria is the fact that they are highly mobile, are easily interchangeable with one another, and they reproduce faster than rabbits. Another thing that the thread poster seems to have forgotten or doesn't understand about the evolutionary process, is the fact that it is SLOW. So, no, bacteria could not have evolved into a human being (or something that resembled a human being) overnight. In fact, bacteria didn't even evolve into fish overnight either. Cellular tissue started to develop as new species of bacteria started appearing and competing with each other. Cellular tissue started to develop when different types of bacteria started banding together for survival. Over a tremendously long period of time, bacteria started to evolve into fish. Meanwhile, on land, other groups of bacteria that had either started off on land or come out of the water, started to evolve and change in a similar, yet different manner; and thus land animals came into being.

I wasn't saying a bacteria goes straight to a human, I was saying that it couldn't climb all the way up the evolutionary ladder to be a human. I may seem stupid, but I do realize that evolution is alleged to take millions of years to occur.

Sorry. I didn't really mean to offend anyone...

 

[hannahdonno]

You realise that comic books aren't real? Random mutations occur, but are 'selected for' by a non-random process. The giraffe stretching his neck does not encode genetic material for longer necks into his DNA by sheer force of will.

No, though the image is humorous at least. It's not like he's willing his neck to grow longer, but the repetitive strain of having to reach up (possibly higher than normal) will select that group of mutations to prevail (since, as the previous poster said, those giraffes will survive more easily than the rest). I'm no biologist, so I'm probably using wholly incorrect terms.

It's not one giraffe that strains. I'll go through this slowly.

One giraffe is slightly taller than all the others. This is because of a wholly random genetic mutation. He can reach higher than the others (there is no straining involved). Say there is a shortage of food. As he can reach higher than the other giraffe, he is the most likely to survive. He then passes on his genetic material. Thus the trait 'long necks' is being selected for, but not through any straining. The gradual change is thus to giraffes having longer necks.

The 'straining' theory was a popular one back when Darwin first came up with his theories, but has been disproven due to advances in genetics.

CuddlyCombine, your post makes me dispair. It is the same as saying if I constantly stretched my arms and the strain made them slightly longer, then my kids arms would be longer. It's ludicrous. Straining your muscles will not have any effect on your children.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

CuddlyCombine, your post makes me dispair. It is the same as saying if I constantly stretched my arms and the strain made them slightly longer, then my kids arms would be longer. It's ludicrous. Straining your muscles will not have any effect on your children.

That's not the same thing. Maybe, if a lot of humans did that over a few hundred thousand years, their arms would elongate (for example, our backs straightened in a similar cause of events, or so my bio teacher would have me believe).

It's not one giraffe that strains. I'll go through this slowly.

One giraffe is slightly taller than all the others. This is because of a wholly random genetic mutation. He can reach higher than the others (there is no straining involved). Say there is a shortage of food. As he can reach higher than the other giraffe, he is the most likely to survive. He then passes on his genetic material. Thus the trait 'long necks' is being selected for, but not through any straining. The gradual change is thus to giraffes having longer necks.

The 'straining' theory was a popular one back when Darwin first came up with his theories, but has been disproven due to advances in genetics.

Damn, this educational system sucks then. Or I'm dyslexic. Or something.

 

[dnnydllr]

I'd like to thank (mostly) everyone who responded. You all have peaked my interests, and alerted me to my lack of knowledge, and for this I thank you. I hope no one thinks less of me after this thread...

 

[hannahdonno]

CuddlyCombine, your post makes me dispair. It is the same as saying if I constantly stretched my arms and the strain made them slightly longer, then my kids arms would be longer. It's ludicrous. Straining your muscles will not have any effect on your children.

That's not the same thing. Maybe, if a lot of humans did that over a few hundred thousand years, their arms would elongate (for example, our backs straightened in a similar cause of events, or so my bio teacher would have me believe).

Nooooooo. You are born with these traits and they cannot be altered. Ever. Your teacher should either be fired or you should listen more in class. This is not a case of opiniom, this is pure fact.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

CuddlyCombine, your post makes me dispair. It is the same as saying if I constantly stretched my arms and the strain made them slightly longer, then my kids arms would be longer. It's ludicrous. Straining your muscles will not have any effect on your children.

That's not the same thing. Maybe, if a lot of humans did that over a few hundred thousand years, their arms would elongate (for example, our backs straightened in a similar cause of events, or so my bio teacher would have me believe).

It's not one giraffe that strains. I'll go through this slowly.

One giraffe is slightly taller than all the others. This is because of a wholly random genetic mutation. He can reach higher than the others (there is no straining involved). Say there is a shortage of food. As he can reach higher than the other giraffe, he is the most likely to survive. He then passes on his genetic material. Thus the trait 'long necks' is being selected for, but not through any straining. The gradual change is thus to giraffes having longer necks.

The 'straining' theory was a popular one back when Darwin first came up with his theories, but has been disproven due to advances in genetics.

Damn, this educational system sucks then. Or I'm dyslexic. Or something.

He's right, natural selection is much more viable than their genes mutating because of constant neck strain. This would be why the offspring of builders haven't got massive, mega arms >_>

 

[John Stalvern]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

 

[Winter Rat]

Scientists often study fruit flies because they are genetically simple and can evolve quite fast for something in the animal kingdom. Essentially, it is easily possible to get fruit fly populations to diverge into seprate species by feeding them radically different diets. The population fed only one particular type of starch will, after only a few generations, become unable to reproduce with the population fed another, ie a new species. So since speciation has been reproduced under laboratory conditions I am willing to nominate it as the best theory currently espoused regarding the development of life and biology etc.

I don't have the study info around anymore, but that should give you a leg up for finding your own info. It was pretty mainstream and very commonly sited.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I'm as religious as the next guy. But we have to admit evolution makes a hell of alot of sense.

 

[GodsOneMistake]

It was over an very long time. Its not like one with deformities couldn't bread with the others, because it was just so slightly different.

 

[Ajna]

I'd like to start off by saying several things.
First, if this has been done before, from this same perspective, I'm truly sorry and will let it die.
Secondly, don't look at it from a religious standpoint, but rather from a scientific one
Third, be scientific in your responses if possible, and no douchebaggery, please.

So since the beginning of my High School career, the great(terrible) educational system of the United States of America has been trying to ram this concept down my throat, that being evolution. I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense. Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human. Also, is it not true that because species can only reproduce with members of the same species that whenever a new species did arise through a mutation it would immediately die off as it had no other organisms to reproduce with, because no other organisms would have that exact mutation turning it into that species? And why don't we see any animals changing species today? You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

My teacher explained it like this: If we look at earth's existence as a calender (January 1st being its creation, and New Years Eve on December 31st at 11:59:59 being this second), life began more or less in April. Plants evolved in about November. Dinosaurs? Mid December. Humans? Two hours before midnight on December 31st. We had a lot of time to get here. It wasn't as quick as you think.

As for one common ancestor... Life has evolved multiple times on Earth, not always necessarily succeeding. Scientists have, as I recall, actually managed to simulate the conditions they believe led to life and created bacteria from chemicals, thereby "creating" life. So it is not only possible, but actually pretty likely that several separately created (similar, but different) organisms evolved at more or less the same time. Just a touch more genetic variation. But a lot compared to how little there was then.

 

[Lukeje]

Scientists have, as I recall, actually managed to simulate the conditions they believe led to life and created bacteria from chemicals, thereby "creating" life.

You mean they have created the amino acids, that are found in all living things, in simulations.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

I believe in both god and evolution.

 

[Ajna]

Scientists have, as I recall, actually managed to simulate the conditions they believe led to life and created bacteria from chemicals, thereby "creating" life.

You mean they have created the amino acids, that are found in all living things, in simulations.

Not what I recall reading, but I only recall it dimly, so you're probably right.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

As for speciation, in my opinion it's a assumed phenomenon. Separate two groups of the same animals, place 'em in different environments, and you'll maybe get two different end results that may or may not be a different species.

Fix'd.

 

[Kogarian]

See, this is the problem with the masses trying to talk about science: there is no "do you believe?" Either you have facts to back something up, have facts that aren't currently formed itno a theory or law, or you have nothing. There is no 'believing' when it comes to science, unless you're measuring the amount of confidence you have in one theory over another, competing one. And even then it should be based on reasonableness.

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

My teacher explained it like this: If we look at earth's existence as a calender (January 1st being its creation, and New Years Eve on December 31st at 11:59:59 being this second), life began more or less in April. Plants evolved in about November. Dinosaurs? Mid December. Humans? Two hours before midnight on December 31st. We had a lot of time to get here. It wasn't as quick as you think.

As for one common ancestor... Life has evolved multiple times on Earth, not always necessarily succeeding. Scientists have, as I recall, actually managed to simulate the conditions they believe led to life and created bacteria from chemicals, thereby "creating" life. So it is not only possible, but actually pretty likely that several separately created (similar, but different) organisms evolved at more or less the same time. Just a touch more genetic variation. But a lot compared to how little there was then.

Or as Bill Bryson put it, stretch out your arm and hold a nail file in the other. Your arm stretched out reprsents the entire history of the earth, and with a single stroke of the nail file you can obliterate humanity.

 

[dnnydllr]

I'd like to start off by saying several things.
First, if this has been done before, from this same perspective, I'm truly sorry and will let it die.
Secondly, don't look at it from a religious standpoint, but rather from a scientific one
Third, be scientific in your responses if possible, and no douchebaggery, please.

So since the beginning of my High School career, the great(terrible) educational system of the United States of America has been trying to ram this concept down my throat, that being evolution. I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense. Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human. Also, is it not true that because species can only reproduce with members of the same species that whenever a new species did arise through a mutation it would immediately die off as it had no other organisms to reproduce with, because no other organisms would have that exact mutation turning it into that species? And why don't we see any animals changing species today? You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now. I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

My teacher explained it like this: If we look at earth's existence as a calender (January 1st being its creation, and New Years Eve on December 31st at 11:59:59 being this second), life began more or less in April. Plants evolved in about November. Dinosaurs? Mid December. Humans? Two hours before midnight on December 31st. We had a lot of time to get here. It wasn't as quick as you think.

As for one common ancestor... Life has evolved multiple times on Earth, not always necessarily succeeding. Scientists have, as I recall, actually managed to simulate the conditions they believe led to life and created bacteria from chemicals, thereby "creating" life. So it is not only possible, but actually pretty likely that several separately created (similar, but different) organisms evolved at more or less the same time. Just a touch more genetic variation. But a lot compared to how little there was then.

They didn't actually create life...that would be on the news everywhere...but if they did and I somehow missed it then I'd love to have a link to an article or something.

 

[darklink259]

There is evidence (fossil record, I think) that seems to support the notion that evolution will be gradual, then faster. Relatively speaking, of course. I mean, even when it is "faster", it is still VERY slow.