If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Biologists theorize what animals will evolve into in 250,000,000 years   (animal.discovery.com) divider line 303
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

16478 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2002 at 3:29 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

303 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
2002-12-31 11:00:33 AM

I want a maid like Rosie the Robot from the "Jetsons", only one that doesn't look as much like a robotic Oprah and has things jutting out the side of its head. And, for the sickies, that would want it, maybe a lady robotic hooker, just for the sake of the sickies that would be interested is such a device... Of course, it isn't for me, but some people would utilize its services...

Make the robot lady hooker both cheap and efficient in its actions, for the sickies that would want something like that of course.
2002-12-31 11:00:38 AM
How exactly does science support creationsim Yodaman? You claim to be informed, but as someone who spent four years of college studying this very argument (double major in Geology (Paleontology concentration) and English, History minor) you sound like a poster child for the uninformed. Science does not support creationism, because creationism does not allow for the creation of new species, period! Read your source material you claim to know so much about. We have fossil and living evidence of transition species, showing an evolution of one species into another. Quoth David Cross, comedian extraordinaire, "sorry, but I just don't want to take part in your tribal, susperstitious nonsense." If you're going to claim to be such an expert in theology and science, why not back it up with a bit of evidence? Please don't try to spout off bible quotes as proof. I'm not in the mood to read fiction right now.
2002-12-31 11:02:47 AM
SkunkDuster:- If you want to go a little further, as I said much earlier Rene Descartes pointed out you can't even prove the universe exists. All you can really be sure of is that you can think. Everything else is guesswork based on senses that we believe to reflect reality.

Anyway, I think I'm beginning to remember why I never get involved with this kind of thread usually. It always goes round in circles. I'm going back to a thread where I can take the piss out of ugly rednecks. Cya.
2002-12-31 11:03:16 AM
I'm a christian, and this real cool, isn't here a PC game coming out where you can make your own animals? i cant think of the name of it though
2002-12-31 11:05:42 AM
"God, shmod. I want my monkey-man!"
2002-12-31 11:09:43 AM
Exlepper... this is and will be my final argument. Show me one instance, and it should not be hard since there are supposedly mi;;ions of examples, of where a species added to its dna. that is what it boils down to. If I came from a rock, or a fish, or whatever you say i came from, show me where the species added the DNA.
2002-12-31 11:12:42 AM
There was one PC game that came out a few years ago called (believe it or not) You start with some squiggly creatures that recently crawled out of the ocean and choose what you want them to evolve to. You can control some variables of location and environment, but I don't really recall what they are. Eventually, your initial specie will split into two species, which, in turn, split into two more and so on. Extinction weeds out the older ones from time to time. It's hard to explain, and might seem like a very boring game if you saw some screenshots, but it was one of the funner "strategy" type of games I've played.
2002-12-31 11:15:43 AM
2002-12-31 11:17:46 AM

From what I know of the evolutionary theory it is something that changes. That means it isn't rock solid that things will continue to evolve if the stimuli remains the same. The theory changes as the proof shows differently. Its like mutation. It adjusts to survive or to utilize its surroundings better.


I wish I could meet you. I wonder if you quote people in place of thinking for yourself in person. I'm also curious to know if you try to describe 'mysterious' things to people that we've proved with the ways of science many years ago.
2002-12-31 11:21:53 AM
Oldskool writes "But to defend some creationists, they don't actually give a shiat what evolutionists think. They know that what they believe requires faith and spirituality, not proof. And they don't spend alot of time biatching about stuff, they just live their lives."

You're kidding, right? Part of my family lives in a state where creationists have actually forced schools to stop teaching science in science classes because it offends their religious sensibilities - my sister actually took her kids out of public school so that they could get a real education. We just wish those creationists would just "live their lives and stop biatching about stuff".
2002-12-31 11:22:47 AM

Bacteria are constantly picking up plasmid DNA from other bacteria and adding to their genome. It's one of the main ways they transmit favorable genetic traits. Sometimes the plasmid comes from entirely different species and was just floating around.
2002-12-31 11:23:47 AM
Doh, shouldn't say genome in there, since they never become genomic DNA. They add them to their expressed DNA.
2002-12-31 11:26:36 AM
Bacteria could take over the planet.

Imagine a cell that photosynthesized, and also attacked all other organisms.

It would grow outwards like a forest, yet attack and digest other plants/animals like an acid.
2002-12-31 11:27:28 AM
Regardless if you're a creationist or an evolutionist or some third option, doesn't this program seem stupid?

Come on, we have no farking idea what life will be like millions of years from now. The possibilities are limitless and there's no way any of these guys will be proven wrong, although most likely they are.

It pisses me off they have this program on the Discovery channel. It should be on Sci Fi, because when people see this, they'll assume there's some reasoning behind it. There is no more science in this program than if George Lucas has created it.
2002-12-31 11:28:15 AM
Well Yodaman, way to go out with a wimper, if this is your last post. Evolution does not involve adding DNA. It involves minor changes in part of genetic code that result in random changes of specific features of a species. If this change is advantageous, it is subsequently passed on to a new generation via reproduction. It isn't like a new group of chromosomes is tacked on for every new feature (although extra chromosomes may appear over long periods of evolution). The changes that fuel evolution usually take thousands to millions of years to manifest into a new species. (It is argued as to whether this is via one long, gradual change via Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection or via periods of increased mutation, followed by periods of little mutation, ala Gould's Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Yodaman, try reading any high school biology text book written in the past five years to actually UNDERSTAND what you've been talking about. Your last post shows that you know nothing of how evolution, or genetics for that matter, work. You want some evidence of this gradual change? Check the Sonikku post near the beginning of this thread (feel free to ignore the artistic license here and there :) ) and see how over millions of years, as shown by the fossil record, man evolved from a common ancestor with the apes. Actually read up on what you're blabbering on about and then we'll talk. On a side note, check out:


Go to the bottom of the page and download the last MP3 for a good laugh thanks to the stylings of M.C. Hawking.
2002-12-31 11:28:19 AM
Well yodaman, you did throw about 21 .'s in your reply to me. I'm well aware of the purpose of an open forum, but can't help but observe that the same people get into the same argument every time a remotely theological link comes up. It's like a big battle of "I gotta get the last word in!" going on. I have YET to see ANYONE change their standpoint on religion here on fark yet the 'discussions' continue. The dead horse apparently hasn't been kicked enough. I just find myself thinking that religious flamewars here on fark are becoming as cliqueas that damn fat man with his arm in the mustard jar. I don't know where I'm going with this so I'll just stop talking.

About the article that spawned this thread; I think the discovery channel is becoming more and more like cosmiverse every day.
2002-12-31 11:28:32 AM
But Crazyjim, a phage would then kick its ass and cut it down to size.

Isn't it nice to know that the really little bastards that we can't do anything about kill off the little bastards we can do something about too?
2002-12-31 11:29:03 AM
I have no problem with creationists in general. I DO have a problem with a vocal Christian minority attempting to undermine decades of precise scientific study by not allowing schools to "preach the gospel of evolution". There's nothing wrong with faith but one person's beliefs shouldn't be rammed down another's throat. Also, if a creationist wants to SERIOUSLY debate the merits and flaws of creation vs. evolution. It would do him/her some good to read up on evolution. I love the creationists who saw, "Darwin is the devil" and such, but have never read him and know that Darwin was a devout Christian who believed that the wonder of organisms to change pointed to the ingenuity of God rather than simply making static, unchanging creatures. Also, if creaion is the answer and the world was created only 6,000 years ago, what about contrary evidence from archaeology/anthropology/geology/paleontology? What about early homonid remains which have been carbon-dated to over 35,000 years old? What about geology's proof that the world is over 1 billion years old? Fossil evidence of dinosaurs inhabiting the earth over 1 million year ago? Is this simply wrong???
Also, evidence can still be witnessed today, contrary to creationist dogma. We know that germs, if exposed to antibiotics over a long period of time, can ADAPT to resist those antibiotics and in some cases mutate into an even deadlier virus? What about continuing studies among HIV-positive prostitiutes n Africa that point to their offspring (and sometimes themselves) developing immunities to not only HIV but also syphillis, gonorhea, etc? Or the fact that most big wildcats (tigers, cheetahs, etc) have the feline form of AIDS but because of continuing exposure over thousands of years have adapted to the point where it does not affect their health?
Also, no evolutionist says "humans evolved from apes", this is rubbish invented by creationist propaganda. Humans and apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR that both evolved from.
2002-12-31 11:37:33 AM
Do you think the animals will be tastier 250,000,000 years from now? I hope so. Where's PETA???
2002-12-31 11:38:37 AM
Darrow: But what kind of a day was it--a 24-hour day? After all, the sun hadn't been invented yet--could it have been a 36-hour day? Did you ever think about that?

Bryan: I do not think about things, that I do not think about...

Darrow: I wonder if you think about the things you DO think about!
2002-12-31 11:39:13 AM
Giant squid doesn't sound too tasty to me
2002-12-31 11:47:33 AM
This kind of thread reminds me of talking or arguing with my wife, it just goes nowhere.

As for the future creatures: memo to self, pour out eternal life elixer.

As for reading this thread: load, point, pull trigger.
2002-12-31 11:55:57 AM
And Patterson's problem seems to be merely one of a limited life-span. Given time, it is entirely possible to falsify the ToE - if it is indeed false. It has been around for
less than two centuries, which is bugger all on the evolutional clock. The fact that we're not around long enough as individuals, or have been studying this long enough as a species, does not mean the observations cannot be made - merely that we're only just getting started on the job of observing things.

Which seems to be a strong statement of support for Oldskool's position that started the whole discussion, which is that we haven't got overwhelming evidence at this point. Whether we ever will, is another subject.

Evolution is not linear (i.e., a straight line from point A to B to C to D), nor can it be replicated. You need to re-evaluate your understanding of how exactly "evolution"
occurs and why it occurs.

If evolution can't be replicated, isn't that sufficient problem to make it a nonfalsifiable theory, and thus to give support for the don't-pretend-it's-'proven' crowd
2002-12-31 12:01:39 PM
I registered Biology 101 for next semester. I'm not gonna survive, may god help me.
2002-12-31 12:07:03 PM
While evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory, its basic elements have occurred time and time again. Evolution is essentially the change of a species over time (in the most extreme cases, with the change leading to a unique and entirely new species altogether). While the factors that cause evolution are no doubt varied (as one of the basic elements of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was the random and varied mutation in a population) and complex, the fact remains is that there is more than enough solid evidence to say that evolution is occurring. Why and how it is occurring is harder to prove. The orverall trend is there and hard to deny. It's in the details that future discovery remains.
2002-12-31 12:14:03 PM
I would say ignore the ignorant asshats like Yoda and bevets.

Go read your bible, stay off the internet, there is too much free thought here for your simple minds.

Oldskool, I agree with what someone said above, read more Stephen J. Gould.
2002-12-31 12:18:19 PM

I don't think anybody who's paying attention argues over whether there is change within species (which I have seen referred to in the literature as 'microevolution') - after all, that's what we're seeing with the standard white/black English moth example, and with the white/brown rabbit example from this thread - but the heated arguments seem to be primarily over whether there is change from one species to another ('macroevolution'). That's the one that would take longer-than-human lifespans to observe, and it seems a completely unmotivated (in the mathematical sense) leap to say that observation of microevolution proves macroevolution.

Also, I apologize for the lack of punctuation at the end of my previous post
2002-12-31 12:22:42 PM
And another thing:

This thread has an evolution flame war, and only has 233 posts after 15 hours? What the fark is fark coming to?!
2002-12-31 12:22:49 PM
this should have been under 'unlikely'
2002-12-31 12:23:29 PM
Argh...It seems as though the HTML demons got me on my previous response from 11:12.42 AM. Must have been the quotes or someshiat. The game I was referring to was called Evolution.
2002-12-31 12:24:26 PM

That Weeners you made is exactly the same, word for word, as one you posted here.

Is that all your pathetic arguments are?

Cut-and-paste jobs?
2002-12-31 12:24:41 PM
12-31-02 10:58:15 AM SkunkDuster
Maybe there have been an infinite amount of big bangs and we are only studying the most recent one...

This has always been proposed as a possibility since nobody has been able to prove that the universe will not collapse onto itself, hence creating another big bang. The current theory is that the universe will always expand, which makes another big bang impossible.
2002-12-31 12:25:11 PM
2002-12-31 12:26:04 PM

er... I'm trying to remember what word I typed got changed into "weeners"
2002-12-31 12:26:50 PM
Just a question....

How far back has our ancestry been traced? You always hear about "evolving from apes". Where did the apes evolve from? Just curious...
2002-12-31 12:27:05 PM
oh... Boobies


2002-12-31 12:27:12 PM
It's all crap.
2002-12-31 12:38:13 PM
Damn Skizza.. way to go nailing Bevets to the wall.
I'd like to see him get boned in the arse by a horny donkey.
That's just me tho, I get off on things like that sick bastard that I am. Happy new year!
2002-12-31 12:47:47 PM

There is little to separate change from one species to the change of a new species. The major factor in what determines whether or not an organism is of the same species or not is whether or not the organism is able to produce viable offspring with another. Once the DNA alters to the point that no successful offspring can be produced (i.e.- A horse and donkey can produce offspring in the form of a mule, but mules are sterile and thus are not considered viable offspring). The recent fossil record shows that these seperate species shared a common ancestor, but due to factors such as geographically seperated populations that evolved independent of one another, two individual species were born from one in the not-so-distant palaentologic past.
2002-12-31 12:49:37 PM
You know, the whole "Evolution is a fairy tale", "Evolution has no proof" thing kinda galls me. If the fossil records we have now don't convince you, I don't know what will.

Gravity is just a theory, too. There are alternate theories; one such suggests that all matter is constantly expanding, and thus, nothing is being pulled down, just the object and the earth are both expanding and slowly filling the gap between each other. We do not notice this because we are expanding too. Who wants to sit here and call gravity a "fairy tale"?

And am I the only one who sees the irony in Bevets poking holes in evolution and calling it a "fairy tale"? Bevets, you want to see a "fairy tale", you want to see something completely untestable and unobservable by design, you want to see something with gaping holes large enough to drive a Mac truck through, you look in that book that you've used to replace your brain.

I operate by the principle of Occam's Razor. Evolution is the simplest, most logical explanation of the data we've observed. Don't tell me it's false until you can show me something better.
2002-12-31 12:50:11 PM

Bevets is totally incapable of independent thought. He uses only quotes because he doesn't lack the skill to formulate an argument of his own. He is a total and utter sandbaggin' chode sniffer.
2002-12-31 12:51:57 PM
Err...doesn't have the skill. Must proof-read..
2002-12-31 12:55:30 PM

Those who lack the brain power to understand evolution tend to be the ones that think the bearded guy in the sky is the simplest explanation.
2002-12-31 12:57:19 PM
Thse interested to see what species humans are grouped with and how might want to check out this site...

2002-12-31 01:17:39 PM

Btw, Bevets, you said all that already. Get some new material, will ya?
2002-12-31 01:18:29 PM
The conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence we have are quite enough for me. I am aware that some people require more evidence than others, or simply are not able to grasp the intracacies of the science involved. As a (non-practicing) biochemist, I have a measure of understanding concerning the science, and I see how genetics more or less imply evolution. Once you accept that the Earth is billions of years old (there's plenty of hard evidence for this), and you know a little probability math, the rest just happens.
2002-12-31 01:26:27 PM
Btw, about the link, is it just me or have these people been playing too much Metroid Prime? Just a thought...
2002-12-31 01:30:30 PM
Hey Skizza, Osiris: It gets better. If you google a passage from The Beve's entry, you get sent here:


Word for farking word. So it's not just a cut-n-paste, it's a plagiarized cut-n-paste. The link above credits the actual source, which our boy neglects to do (unless, in real life The Beve Is the source of that quote--which seems so unlikely as to be 'metaphysical').

Word to the wise: I once caught a student plagiarist the same way. Let the term paper buyer beware...
2002-12-31 01:34:26 PM
Yodaman, I will now tear your arguments to shreds.

How do you get a big bang from absolutely nothing

The Big Bang didn't come from nothing, it came from a singularity. The more interesting question is what happened in the instant before the big bang, and indeed where that singularity came from. This is something science cannot at present answer, and may never be able to answer. Here, in my opinion, is the space for God to do his work. (see, evolution and creation can exist in perfect harmony).

No being, plant or animal has ever added to its gentic coding... ever

Not true. plenty of plants and animals add to their genetic information. This is not to say that I can sit here and spontaneously add genes, but there are ways for additional genetic information into my body. One of the primary ways of doing this is through genetic mutation (which I will discuss further below). The other major way of doing this is through viral vectors. Retroviruses add to our DNA, as well as that of plants, frequently. It's estimated that as much as 10-20% of our genome is made up of HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses), which introduced entirely new genetic information into our genome.

and those of you who are thinking the 2nd Law of hermodynamics doesn't pertain because the sun makes us an open system (snip quote from the Smithsonian re closed systems)

The Sun doesn't make us an open system. The Sun makes us a localized area of negative entropy, while the universe on the whole still retains positive entropy. In the long run, the sun will burn out, and life on earth will cease, and our cosmologically short period of negative entropy will cease, and we'll join the rest of the closed system. Evolution no more violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics than crystal formation (another process by which order comes from disorder) does.

mutation in science always implies a loss of information... not an advance...mutations are "de-evolution"

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolution, or mutation is not a positive or negative. Mutations are not advances or steps back, they are merely changes. Mutation doesn't mean a loss of information, it means a change in information. Change at the genetic level may (though doesn't necessarily) result in a change in the structure of the protein for which that gene codes. Changes in the structure of that protein may (though doesn't necessarily) result in a change of the function of that protein. For example, a mutation in the gene for brown eyes may result in blue eyes. If that change results in an increase in the reproductive success of those individuals with that change, and as a result a change in the frequency of that gene in the population, then it may be observed that an evolutionary mutation has occurred. Now, let's say that blue eyed people only mate with other blue eyed people, they are effectively speciating themselves by reusing to mate with other members of the same species. Over time, regular evolutionary change will occur in the 2 populations (blue eyes and normal), and eventually enough changes will occur and be passed down that the blue eyes will be different enough from a normal that offspring between the 2 would be non-viable. This would be an example of speciation.

Bacteria are chemical factories that have to eat.. this is how medicine works... the bacteria ingest penecilin and they in essene are killing themselves.. however.. in a mutation, on eof these bateria are born with a defective digestive system ( a mutation) it now cannot eat as much of the medine to kill it, as natural selection (which is not evolution) would dictate, if this bacteria spawns more of itself, they will survive and the properly functioning bacteria die... was this evolution? Of Course Not!! It is not a new species just because it can't eat right... in essense this quirk allowed the retarded bacteria to survive...

This is a complete misrepresentation of how bacterial resistance to antibiotcs work. Bacteria are resistant to pennicillen because they have a plasmid (basically an extranuclear circle of DNA which can be exchanged between bacteria, another way of adding genetic information) which contains the instructions for building an enzyme which breaks the critical chemical bond in pennicillen that makes it effective as an antibiotic. The bacteria are not "retarded" nor are their offspring. This is not an example of macroevolution (so you are correct in saying that it isn't a new species), but it is the classic example of microevolution.

survival of the fittist is not an evolutionary change in a n organism... it is simply this... go into the woods and leave 10 white rabbits and 10 brown rabbits.... which do you think will be there next year? the brown ones have the advatage of their natural color to keep them from predators and the white ones will be killed off quickly.... unless it snows, in which case the the white ones will have the advantage, but no genetic change has occured

Correct, the rabbit's genes have not changed if all the white rabbits die, and all the brown ones live, however, the frequency of the "white" gene in the population has changed, and that's natural selection. Natural selection is often misattributed as survival of the fittest, but this is not the correct definition. Natural selection is a measurement of differential reproductive success. The "brown" gene is selected in the population because those rabbits with that gene are able to reproduce more successfully, and have more offspring which survive. Over time, the "white gene" may disappear completely from the population. Again, this is an example of microevolution, not macroevolution.

the only way that the system can be improved is through intellegence

This is a very non-scientific statement. You're making a qualitative judgement, evolution makes no such judgement. If by improved you mean "made more complex" then how does water 'know' that it needs to form a more ordered complex structure when it gets cold. What intelligence turns water into ice crystals, or snowflakes? None, it is a natural process, as is evolution.

what souce of "energy" made a single celled organism decide that it wanted to be a multiple celled organism?

Two cells in the primordial soup happened to stick together one day, and it turned out they were more competitve as a pair. When they divided, their offspring formed a likewise pair, and so on.

what energy or line of logic did the dinasaur use when it decided to grow wings? how did it understand that it needed to be aerodynamic? how did it make the bones in its arm hollow?

Perhaps in a population of running dinosaur some are born with a mutation that resulted in a little flap of webbing between the body and forearm, not a full wing, just a little flap of skin which may or may not have given it any advantage in escaping predators. It's offspring had these flaps as well, some moreso, some less. Perhaps the dinosaurs with the longer flaps found that they could escape predators by jumping over drops and that by spreading their slightly flapped arms they could survive a fall for an extra foot or two than their short-flapped brothers, which resulted in their offspring carrying the slightly longer flapped mutation. And so on, and so on. As the primitive wings improved, this would mean that lighter dinosaurs would have more advantages when it came to gliding longer distance, and more aerodynamic dinosaurs would have more advantages, until eventually, you would end up with something like the pterodactyl, or archeopteryx. This takes time. A T-rex didn't lay an egg and a bird popped out. A T-rex laid an egg, and out popped a slightly different T-rex. Over very long periods of time (or not such long periods, if you're a punctualist), these differences add up to form new species. This example should work for all your examples above.

how did two a male and female of the same species always evolve at the same time so that this new line aof species could sustain itself?

Species evolve as a whole, not one individual at a time. If I take a population of clams on an ocean bed, and all of a sudden, there's a volcanic rift that separates the one population into two, then population A may evolve differently over time than population B because one is upstream of the rift, and one is downstream. If no rift occurs, then the population as a whole may not change much, and if they do, they'll change together.


Show me one instance, and it should not be hard since there are supposedly mi;;ions of examples, of where a species added to its dna

I take it you mean to ask us to show you an example of one species changing into another (as I've already given examples of how additional genetic information can enter a genome) Here you go:

2002-12-31 01:38:01 PM
12-31-02 12:50:11 PM OsirisOTheDead
Bevets is totally incapable of independent thought. He uses only quotes because he doesn't lack the skill to formulate an argument of his own.

Actually, he used to use his own arguments in these threads. Even then refuting him was like shooting fish in a barrel, it was.

He is a total and utter sandbaggin' chode sniffer.

That's probably not called for.
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »