What is your understanding of biological evolution?, page 1

Again, please stick to the spirit of the thread.

I started this to get an understanding of what people on ATS think evolution is not to have an argument about whether it is correct or not.

So what do you think biological evolution is, from a scientific point of view?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 11:30 AM by Conclusion

reply to post by Conclusion

I am sorry I thought I did stick to the thread. From a scientific viewpoint that is how I see evolution. It is a fact that certain traits are passed down from parent to child, evolving the child if you will. That is evolutionary fact. How and why this happens is a speculation of ideas and scientists views which is the theory of evolution.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 11:37 AM by IntastellaBurst

Evolution is adaptation, by deed, and by females choosing a mate which would be more advantageous to the enviroment.

Let's say, you start a new job shoveling rock, your hands would hurt, but then your body would adapt by creating calluses, this is evolution in its simplest form ..... however when you span it over a million years, anythings possible.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 11:47 AM by Ophiuchus 13

reply to post by Mike_A

To me its evolving biologically with help from EXTERNAL SOURCES. Like our animal meat is injected with all types of stuff to encourage growth, health before its slaughtered for food. Or how humans have altered the color of PORK TO APPEAR AS A WHITE MEAT when its really RED. Another aspect is how humans altered the life span of FRUIT FLIES causeing them to live twice their age.

It can also include evoving to fit into your HABITAT if it changes somehow. Humans live on planet where there is a need to see higher up then 4 feet so we have grown to do so. If we lived on a even plained surfaced PLANET WE WOULD PROBABLY NOT GROW AS TALL. Or how some INDIANS HAVE GENETICALLY LARGER lungs from living high up in the mountains with thick air forcing them to take deeper breaths to compinsate for the thin air intake.

And last evolving DUE TO THREAT. Some creatures have to shoot INKS, VENOMS OR EXPAND SOME BODILY FEATURE TO SCARE OFF A POTENTIAL PREDATOR. And some SPECIES develop MENTALLY FOR THE SAME REASONS TO BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT THEN THEIR POTENTIAL ENEMY like a group of dolpins recognizing that if the shark is hit in its gills it will die, so the dolphins attack the sharks gills to kill.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 12:54 PM by sirnex

Evolution from the best explanation I can give myself which I admit is not the best description in it's entirety as it will encompass more than I am able to conceptualize in one post is as follows:

Evolution within a species is the successive adaptation changes that occur and are passed down from generation to generation. Evolution from one species to the next is the same as above, but with the added variable of separation of a species into two distinct populations that change in accordance to their new environmental niche leading to changes that make the two species unable to mate with one another and in some cases look different from the common ancestor they both shared.

Like I said, not the best quick description I can give myself, but a close approximation of how I understand the process in it's simplicity.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 02:01 PM by Mike_A

reply to post by Conclusion

You are telling me what you agree and disagree with, I’m asking for you to describe the process of biological evolution as it is currently understood by science whether you agree with it or not.

I’m not asking for you to pass judgement on the theory nor am I asking for you to tell me how you personally think different species have emerged.

The point is, threads on evolution go nowhere because everyone’s working on different understandings of evolution. I want to know what those differing understanding are.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 12:10 AM by Conclusion

reply to post by Mike_A

Am I missing something? You said to explain it in our own way. I am by no means judging it.

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:08 AM by SquirrelNutz

I think it is a species' ability to adapt to its surroundings, slowly, over time.

That is, MICRO-evolution.

Plenty of time for small manifestations to occur over time: such as lengthening of a Tortoises neck, or changes in the shape of a Finch's beak, or obsolescence of (and consequently, slow elimination of) vestigal human organs/tissue.

Even Darwin, himself, admitted that MACRO-evolution (ability of a species to 'evolve' into something else, entirely) was ONLY a theory with no real evidence or testability.

[Time to examine I.T.]

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:19 AM by SquirrelNutz

reply to post by Conclusion

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by Mike_A

Am I missing something? You said to explain it in our own way. I am by no means judging it.

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]

Actually, evolution of humans (which I think is where this discussion was heading) is FAR from fact, and completely UNDERwhelming, when you consider the likelihood of organic molecules spontaneously assembling themselves into a living organism is equal to the likelihood of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747*.

Furthermore, the fossil record for humans (and every other species, for that matter (into another)) does not suggest transition over time at all, rather complete transformation!

Nevemind the fact that somehow we (humans) managed to lose a pair of chromosomes (that's a LOT of DNA) from our primate 'ancestors' yet are somehow so superior to them? I don't think so.

[time to examine I.T.]

*British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:21 AM by Conclusion

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Yes. I agree with you. He was just wondering if we knew what evolution meant scientifically speaking.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 01:28 AM by SquirrelNutz

Ah, I got ya.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 05:54 AM by sirnex

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Sorry to go against your wish's Mike, but I have to do this. I can't stand seeing blatant stupidity thrown around like it's the newest hottest thing to do this year.

Actually, evolution of humans (which I think is where this discussion was heading) is FAR from fact, and completely UNDERwhelming, when you consider the likelihood of organic molecules spontaneously assembling themselves into a living organism is equal to the likelihood of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747*.

Well Mr. SquireeelNutz, your just a bit wrong in your line of logic here. There is no physical process that allows for a fully functioning and fueled 747 to form out of non-organic molecules. From that right there alone we can shoot down your analogy. We have discovered that non-organic compounds can and do combine to create organic precursors of life. This feat in itself has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. What you dismissing away is called abiogenesis.

Furthermore, the fossil record for humans (and every other species, for that matter (into another)) does not suggest transition over time at all, rather complete transformation!

Wrong, we can trace our evolution back about six million years. LINK

Nevemind the fact that somehow we (humans) managed to lose a pair of chromosomes (that's a LOT of DNA) from our primate 'ancestors' yet are somehow so superior to them? I don't think so.

So the fusing of two chromosomes leaving us with 46 and the rest of the primates with 48 makes us less superior? Where do you get your logic from, in order to be more superior we should have more chromosomes? Somehow I don't think you know what your talking about... idk, call me crazy, just a gut feeling here... possibly too many squirrelnutz for you, try slowing down.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^