Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Even a spider can see that evolution is more than just a theory   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 139
    More: Cool, Laos, pigments, Afghan National Police, just a theory  
•       •       •

12421 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Aug 2012 at 2:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-11 08:44:27 AM  

Ed Grubermann: As someone stated above, evolution doesn't plan for the future, it just reacts to what's happening now. And these cave environments are not only dark, which makes the eyes useless, they also tend to be poor in available food, which makes the useless eyes too expensive to keep. The spiders who lost their eyes were able to devote that energy to something else, or, just reduce their energy needs and lower their level of starvation.


isn't re-allocating resources a form of planning for the future? how does evolution know to cut energy from the eyes, and not accidentally-randomly cut energy from other organs?

are you suggesting that evolution has intelligent designs to it?
 
2012-08-11 09:04:27 AM  

I drunk what: evolution seems to imply that those lizards will eventually become people, provided that you leave them in the right environment long enough

is that a scientific theory?


No, that's a hypothesis. To test it, lets leave you in an 8th grade science class for a year and see if you eventually become semi-intelligent.
 
2012-08-11 09:07:21 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

No eyes?
STILL CREEPY
 
2012-08-11 09:14:29 AM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Don't be an idiot troll.
Atheism is as much a religion as sobriety is intoxication.
 
2012-08-11 09:20:20 AM  
That spider, just like the fossil record and carbon dating data was clearly planted by Satan to help distract the infidels from the ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE FACT that the earth was created in 6 days 5000 years ago.

Why can't you just see the truth, my faithless friends?

HOMO HABILIS IS AN INSIDE JOB SEEK THE TRUTH NOW
 
2012-08-11 09:31:41 AM  

I drunk what: evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves


Yeah, I got that chain email from grandma in 2002 also.

I drunk what: then why isn't it called the theory of adaptation?


Because the process through which species adapt is by evolving.

I drunk what: evolution seems to imply that those lizards will eventually become people, provided that you leave them in the right environment long enough


It doesn't imply anything close to that. Why try to argue a point while demonstrating that you have no idea what you are arguing against? Strawmen get you nowhere sir.
 
2012-08-11 09:32:11 AM  
i47.tinypic.com

Found this beauty in my basement last weekend hiding behind my brewing supplies.
 
2012-08-11 09:37:53 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Point mutations (which affect a single nucleotide) can occur at any time (that gamma ray doesn't have to zap your DNA during cell division to have an effect). Other mutations such as insertions, deletions, and translocations can occur during mitosis (routine cell division) as well as meiosis (production of gametes), although the greater complexity of meiosis does increase the potential for mutations compared to mitosis.


Thanks for clarifying and correcting.
In general, did I do OK here? Nothing glaringly false, and misleading>
 
2012-08-11 09:55:43 AM  

Honkey Magoo: It doesn't imply anything close to that. Why try to argue a point while demonstrating that you have no idea what you are arguing against? Strawmen get you nowhere sir.


PreMortem: No, that's a hypothesis. To test it, lets leave you in an 8th grade science class for a year and see if you eventually become semi-intelligent.


so then humans did not come from less complex life forms?

i was taught in schools that rocks evolved into amoebas and amoebas evolved into fish, lizards, rats, monkeys, etc..

and the end of that chain was man

is this not true?

i.dailymail.co.uk

just like Darwin said, you know, the tree of life

have any updates-revisions-corrections been made to this teaching?
 
2012-08-11 10:04:58 AM  

Honkey Magoo: Because the process through which species adapt is by evolving.


Because the process through which species evolve is by adapting.

this is fun

and we observe new species arise (evolution) because they are adapting to their environments

hence it should be called the theory of adaptation, a scientifically provable fact

and evolution is simply the mutations that occur through the process of adaptation, but i guess the theory of mutation sounds less sexy (or scientific) than the theory of evolution, which is real popular among the hatetheist brigade who present it as some sort of scientific proof that there is no God

but there i go again pointing out the obvious
 
2012-08-11 10:17:01 AM  

I drunk what: Honkey Magoo: Because the process through which species adapt is by evolving.

Because the process through which species evolve is by adapting.

this is fun

and we observe new species arise (evolution) because they are adapting to their environments

hence it should be called the theory of adaptation, a scientifically provable fact

and evolution is simply the mutations that occur through the process of adaptation, but i guess the theory of mutation sounds less sexy (or scientific) than the theory of evolution, which is real popular among the hatetheist brigade who present it as some sort of scientific proof that there is no God

but there i go again pointing out the obvious



You forgot about mutation and natural selection. And no, evolution isn't used to prove there is no god, common sense does just fine on its own. Creationists are anti-evolution to try and prove the existence of their myth.

/done trying to argue with the brainwashed, not a de-programmer
 
2012-08-11 10:47:45 AM  

PreMortem: common sense does just fine on its own


ignoring the obvious oxymoron, let's pretend there is such a thing

what about common knowledge proves that there is no God? feel free to elaborate

PreMortem: Creationists are anti-evolution to try and prove the existence of their myth.


some creationists are over defensive because atheists have been using evolution as a banner of scientific reasoning to indicate that religion is stupid, and coincidentally there is no shortage of creationist morans out there giving them plenty of ammunition

however there are many intelligent creationists like myself who are not anti-evolution, and certainly would not waste my time trying to suggest that what little we do know about the biological processes of life are any sort of proof for Religion

though i can say that i am equally disgusted with the way the atheists have co-opted evolution into the faux-science they portray to be as "professional" science

since of course they have no understanding of the Science they claim to be masters of, and are not genuinely interested in it to begin with, they are simply using it as a crutch to support their illogical and irrational religious beliefs, which they call "science"

PreMortem: done trying to argue with the brainwashed, not a de-programmer


that's too bad, because you could start with healing yourself, physician

PreMortem: You forgot about mutation and natural selection.


you forgot to actually read:

PreMortem: and evolution is simply the mutations that occur through the process of adaptation, but i guess the theory of mutation sounds less sexy (or scientific) than the theory of evolution, which is real popular among the hatetheist brigade who present it as some sort of scientific proof that there is no God


but your concern is noted

as for natural selection, that is simply the mechanism that weeds out numbers, it has nothing to do with the actual mutations or adaptions

but if you feel that is somehow pertinent to the conversation, i don't mind including it

anything else from your anti-theist faux science playbook you want to parrot into the thread?

perhaps you could take the high ground and derp some jokes about a 6000 year old earth, like your bretheren

just remember to toss around some sciency sounding terms to create the illusion of some sort of education

that way the fledglings will maintain their respect for you

/it will be our little secret
//they can't read this much anyway
 
2012-08-11 11:10:50 AM  

I drunk what: and the end of that chain was man

is this not true?

just like Darwin said, you know, the tree of life


There isn't a chain at all. Humans are currently AN end, not "the" end, to the tree. When humans die off, there will either be something that came from them, or they'll be an end to a line.
 
2012-08-11 11:27:08 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-08-11 11:34:28 AM  

randomjsa: I realize that you're trying to defend evolution with that headline but really... Do better!

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation, currently tested many times over and always accurate, of how evolution happens.


Just as Almighty God designed it to be ... improvise, adapt and overcome

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-11 11:37:12 AM  

Tenatra: Today I was on my laptop and thought I saw a glare, I tried to look at it but my eyes kept focusing to right in front of my face. After I started locking on to the blur it looked more like a drifting piece of dust. I finally locked on to it and with a sharp image of what I was seeing I was able to discover that it was a very tiny spider. Makes me wonder how many more are around the house :p


Just trying to figure out that whole "world-wide web" I keep hearing about, didn't mean to scare you.
 
2012-08-11 12:55:05 PM  

Sinister 161: This got greenlighted yet the spider in the ear story didn't?


GOD why did you have to remind me about that?! I just forgot that horrible story
 
2012-08-11 01:29:43 PM  

wildcardjack: Blind cave creatures have always been a curious thing. It's an evolutionary dead end because it's unlikely the offspring will develop sight if the cave becomes uninhabitable.

Yet it happens so readily in nature. I guess evolution really can't plan ahead. It just assumes the sun is never coming back.


Evolution doesn't assume anything. It's all trial and error.
 
2012-08-11 01:34:37 PM  

I drunk what: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves

common sense is an oxymoron: ...it sure looks like there's some basic biological process at work which works to optimize an organism's fitness for a particular environment over multiple generations.

so in other words, animals are able to adapt to their environment?

then why isn't it called the theory of adaptation?

evolution seems to imply that those lizards will eventually become people, provided that you leave them in the right environment long enough

is that a scientific theory?


You are getting dumber by the minute.
 
2012-08-11 01:38:19 PM  

fzumrk: [i47.tinypic.com image 850x667]

Found this beauty in my basement last weekend hiding behind my brewing supplies.


Well, that's horrible.
 
2012-08-11 01:52:14 PM  
I have the weirdest boner right now.
 
2012-08-11 02:09:23 PM  
Evolution is why spiders have eight legs. They originally had four, as is normal. The problem is, the little bastards are made up of concentrated evil, and there was too much evil to be contained in their bodies. So they evolved the extra legs to hold the extra evil. Because that's how evolution works.
 
2012-08-11 02:30:12 PM  
I drunk what (farkied: The right-wing Kool-aid, that's what): i was taught in schools that rocks evolved into amoebas

*facepalm*
 
2012-08-11 02:33:10 PM  
I drunk what (farkied: The right-wing Kool-Aid, that's what): what about common knowledge proves that there is no God? feel free to elaborate

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -- Bertrand Russell
 
2012-08-11 03:11:50 PM  

I drunk what: what about common knowledge proves that there is no God?


What about common knowledge proves there is no invisible gay giant elephant governing our lives?
 
2012-08-11 03:14:35 PM  

I drunk what: is this not true?


No, it is not. You are almost a century out of date.
 
2012-08-11 05:59:49 PM  

fzumrk: [i47.tinypic.com image 850x667]

Found this beauty in my basement last weekend hiding behind my brewing supplies.


ITS LEGS ARE 12 FEET LONG????!!!?!?!?
 
2012-08-11 06:25:26 PM  

Ed Grubermann: grinnel: This has always been an area of confusion for me; that an organism "evolves" to lose senses

That's because you don't understand evolution. Sight is the most commonly lost sense because it's expensive. It takes a lot of energy to run the visual cortex. If you never use it it makes sense to just stop building all the parts. As for "adapting senses", the spider doesn't really have to. Spiders already have extremely fine-tuned senses of touch.

As someone stated above, evolution doesn't plan for the future, it just reacts to what's happening now. And these cave environments are not only dark, which makes the eyes useless, they also tend to be poor in available food, which makes the useless eyes too expensive to keep. The spiders who lost their eyes were able to devote that energy to something else, or, just reduce their energy needs and lower their level of starvation.


I know I'm late to the party, but this point has always eluded me. So what you're saying is that, because the spider doesn't have eyes, it can use the energy it would normally spend on seeing on things growing bigger of moving faster, or simply not needing as much food to survive. That's the advantage it gains over spiders with eyes. Is that about right?
 
2012-08-11 08:10:39 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: No, it is not. You are almost a century out of date.


i was doing a bit of homage to CDP and even posted the pic from the article

2010 was a century ago?

just for bonus lulz

i found it on the SCIENCE! tab it must be true

FOR SCIENCE!!1!

PC LOAD LETTER: What about common knowledge proves there is no invisible gay giant elephant governing our lives?


no one i know is aware of any such thing, have you encountered this?

Fano: You are getting dumber by the minute.


sometimes i have trouble keeping up with the latest theory that is attributed to "evolution" it seems everyone is an expert these days

all you need is a fark handle and you're golden

/if you hate God then you are a professor of evolution
//Piled High Deeper

so then man did not come from monkey things? and those monkey things did not come from rat things, and those rat things did not come from lizard things? (a simple yes or no will suffice)

and you can assure me that they are definitely not teaching this stuff in schools to this very day? (i haven't checked lately so i don't know)

etc.., which part am i being dumb about? specifically
 
2012-08-11 08:25:02 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.


which part of Christianity is received dogma?

did Jesus prove His Dogma?

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.


this can be proven/disproven, even by *fixing* it the way he tried, sorry lad

however as a skeptic i would like to hear what evidence he has that there is a teapot in orbit, which would aid one in deciding the validity of the claim and all

ya know, how reason and logic actually work

Lee Jackson Beauregard: But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


and even though his argument was weak to begin with, it sure didn't stop him from following through with it, i'll give him an A for effort

Lee Jackson Beauregard: If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


yeah bert, cuz Christianity is EXACTLY the same as some moran claiming a teapot is in orbit

EXACTLY the same line of reasoning, EXACTLY the same amount of evidence-proof

/not even close

now if he were comparing the tea pot to say mormonism, i could at least kinda see where he's coming from

but, i'm quite sure no one here would be able to understand the differences between those either

so, instead atheists will continue to desperately cling to Darwin's theory of evolution, even though it has all but been scientifically disproven...

but why would they let a little thing like evidence, rational thinking, scientific method, etc.. get in their way?
 
2012-08-11 08:33:13 PM  

Ehcks: There isn't a chain at all. Humans are currently AN end, not "the" end, to the tree. When humans die off, there will either be something that came from them, or they'll be an end to a line.


i didn't mean that humans were the end of evolution, lulz, i was simply recapping the current beliefs taught to young impressionable minds in schools about the scientific facts of where man DID come from

such as monkeys, rats, lizards, amoebas, rocks, etc..

and it seems be repeating this current common sense knowledge about our society, that i keep being labeled as "dumb", "brainwashed", etc..? apparently i'm missing something

though i can't seem to get a straight answer out of anyone, any particular reason why?

I drunk what: have any updates-revisions-corrections been made to this teaching?


a simple yes or no will suffice, though if the answer is yes, i'd like to see some citations

and if no, why not? a simple logical and rational reason will suffice
 
2012-08-11 08:45:48 PM  
well since you guys won't answer at least pop culture will remind us what most educated people actually believe

Simpsons did it

and as we all know from Family Guy, creationists are just plain retarded red necks

Link

www.dererumnatura.us
 
2012-08-11 10:04:56 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: common sense is an oxymoron: Point mutations (which affect a single nucleotide) can occur at any time (that gamma ray doesn't have to zap your DNA during cell division to have an effect). Other mutations such as insertions, deletions, and translocations can occur during mitosis (routine cell division) as well as meiosis (production of gametes), although the greater complexity of meiosis does increase the potential for mutations compared to mitosis.

Thanks for clarifying and correcting.
In general, did I do OK here? Nothing glaringly false, and misleading>


I drunk what: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves

common sense is an oxymoron: ...it sure looks like there's some basic biological process at work which works to optimize an organism's fitness for a particular environment over multiple generations.

so in other words, animals are able to adapt to their environment?


Populations adapt, individuals don't (evolutionarily speaking).

then why isn't it called the theory of adaptation?

Because you didn't name it?

evolution seems to imply that those lizards will eventually become people, provided that you leave them in the right environment long enough

is that a scientific theory?


It may be your misconception, but it isn't evolution, or any other branch of science.
 
2012-08-11 10:11:38 PM  

I drunk what: Ehcks: There isn't a chain at all. Humans are currently AN end, not "the" end, to the tree. When humans die off, there will either be something that came from them, or they'll be an end to a line.

i didn't mean that humans were the end of evolution, lulz, i was simply recapping the current beliefs taught to young impressionable minds in schools about the scientific facts of where man DID come from

such as monkeys, rats, lizards, amoebas, rocks, etc..

and it seems be repeating this current common sense knowledge about our society, that i keep being labeled as "dumb", "brainwashed", etc..? apparently i'm missing something


Please cite the science textbooks which claim that humans evolved from monkeys, much less rats or lizards.

Perhaps they're one of the things you're missing.
 
2012-08-11 11:46:04 PM  

fzumrk: [i47.tinypic.com image 850x667]

Found this beauty in my basement last weekend hiding behind my brewing supplies.


That's in pretty good condition, if it's been down there awhile. If you can get that spider off it and clean it up, you can use it to go measure all kinds of stuff.
 
2012-08-11 11:48:59 PM  

I drunk what: PC LOAD LETTER: What about common knowledge proves there is no invisible gay giant elephant governing our lives?

no one i know is aware of any such thing, have you encountered this?



CAN YOU PROVE I HAVEN'T???!?!?!?

And that's the problem with this line of thinking.

I drunk what: PC LOAD LETTER: No, it is not. You are almost a century out of date.

i was doing a bit of homage to CDP and even posted the pic from the article

2010 was a century ago?

just for bonus lulz

i found it on the SCIENCE! tab it must be true

FOR SCIENCE!!1!


Except that the article is a century out of date a well, then. Human evolution hasn't been thought of as a progressive straight line for almost a century. It is an overlapping somewhat large group of hominids who split off from sub-groups of each and who sometimes co-existed for millions of years. Eventually the other hominids died out and we were left.

bioteaching.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-11 11:50:19 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: I drunk what (farkied: The right-wing Kool-Aid, that's what): what about common knowledge proves that there is no God? feel free to elaborate

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -- Bertrand Russell


i.imgur.com

/not trying to kick out a cheap larf
//love Russell, especially that quote
 
2012-08-12 01:01:11 AM  

rugman11: Ed Grubermann: grinnel: This has always been an area of confusion for me; that an organism "evolves" to lose senses

That's because you don't understand evolution. Sight is the most commonly lost sense because it's expensive. It takes a lot of energy to run the visual cortex. If you never use it it makes sense to just stop building all the parts. As for "adapting senses", the spider doesn't really have to. Spiders already have extremely fine-tuned senses of touch.

As someone stated above, evolution doesn't plan for the future, it just reacts to what's happening now. And these cave environments are not only dark, which makes the eyes useless, they also tend to be poor in available food, which makes the useless eyes too expensive to keep. The spiders who lost their eyes were able to devote that energy to something else, or, just reduce their energy needs and lower their level of starvation.

I know I'm late to the party, but this point has always eluded me. So what you're saying is that, because the spider doesn't have eyes, it can use the energy it would normally spend on seeing on things growing bigger of moving faster, or simply not needing as much food to survive. That's the advantage it gains over spiders with eyes. Is that about right?


What it gains is overall efficiency as an organism, which is one of the most valuable things an organism can have. Unlike us, most other creatures of the earth get only as much food as they need, and rarely much more. Anything they don't need, that costs them in any way, is disposable. It's happened to us, too: We lost our prehensile tails when we moved from the trees to the grasslands, which saved a bunch of otherwise costly tissues.

And as already pointed out in this thread, these traits aren't quite 'lost' in the sense of just vanishing completely. For fairly recent evolutionary 'losses,' (say, the last few dozens of millions of years), they're essentially 'commented out' in a manner similar to code-hacking in Linux. (Super-quick explanation: Un-needed instructions are marked to be ignored, but can be restored if needed again later by changing the marking back.) A chicken retains much of the code needed to build a number of dinosaurs, for example, since it's a descendent. (And yes, there's someone who plans to hack a chicken to see if they can do exactly that.) Human embryos still have a visible tail, for about four weeks during gestation, and a few people have even been born with short but visible tails.

But even if the 'code' for long-lost traits fades away, the actual capacity is never completely lost. It's perhaps helpful to imagine DNA as an enormous box of Legos, and in theory, you could build absolutely anything from that that it's capable of making, if you only put it together right. Natural selection has no plan, but rather fumbles around to see what works right now, and what works best right now continues to the next generation, and over time prevails over other adaptations that didn't serve immediate needs as well. That means that traits can come and go, and return later, too. Or recur differently. Recent constructs have a certain latency that makes them more likely to come back, or vary over time to become something different -- for example, how a horse stands on its toenails. (And their legs don't go 'backwards' to ours, but actually go the same way: what we call their 'knees' are actually the analogue of our elbows and ankles; their actual knees are much higher up. They look very different from us, but part for part our skeletons really do follow essentially the same plan.)

But back to the issue of efficiency, and how that makes it advantageous to drop unneeded traits. I like to use the analogue of Henry Ford, who early on sent men out to junkyards to find out where his cars failed most often, and didn't. He was specifically looking for parts that rarely or never failed. His men reported back that a part known as a kingpin (part of the steering mechanism) had never failed in any Ford during its service life. Ford immediately ordered all kingpins to be engineered to a slightly lower standard. He wasn't trying to kill his customers: He knew that the new lighter kingpins were still in tolerance, and would hold. But his survey revealed that the old one were *over*-engineered, and costing unnecessary extra expense that could be spared without compromising safety or reliability. We're only talking a few ounces of metal per car, but over thousands and thousands of cars it adds up, and the savings were real and meaningful, and help Ford sustain in a competitive market.

Another example: Those ancient Roman ruins everyone loves so much? Horribly overengineered, and for that horribly wasteful. A structure that's designed to be regularly maintained but stands two thousand years with little or no service cost far more than justified, and that cost is real. (The Romans did this because they were unsure of the numbers required, but understood the principles well enough: arches are strong, so bigger arches are stronger; if in doubt, build a bigger one -- and they did.) It may be only coincidental that the Roman Empire is no longer around, but such waste couldn't have helped them, and had to have been a drag on their overall efficiency.

That's what evolution does when it drops dunsel* parts and functions: it's saving costs. Sometimes in energy, sometimes in matter, but it's a savings either way, and against an organism's food budget, that savings adds up over time, and can -- and does -- make the difference between life and death, survival and extinction. We know that, because these adaptations survived where others didn't. If you've ever seen a bug lamp, you've seen how humans leverage one such adaptation of efficiency to our own advantage: Most night-flying insects can't see yellow light. They don't need to, because there is no sunlight at night. This saves them the needless cost of that ability. It also means that we can put up lamps that won't attract them.

* 'Dunsel' is a term made up for an episode of the original Star Trek series, that has since entered the geek and some engineering lexicons. In the original episode, it was defined as an Academy slang term for "a part that serves no useful purpose." In common use, it now refers more commonly to parts and systems that *no longer* serve any useful function, but once did. A common example is old plumbing or wiring that's been bypassed in building renovations (because it's a lot easier than removing it). Such systems can sometimes be returned to useful service, if later found useful, if they remain compatible and haven't deteriorated too much. (For example, many homes have dunsel telephone lines and doorbell wiring that can easily be restored, if ever desired again.) Natural selection can do this, too, returning vestigal parts and functions to the same or similar use later on.
 
2012-08-12 01:44:39 AM  
Back when I was first taught the theory of evolution, I remember immediately realizing that natural selection is exactly what people do when they breed domestic animals. It wasn't until I was in college that I learned that one of the arguments Darwin himself used was that artificial selection was basically analogous to natural selection. As scientists gathered new information, were able to do new tests, and so forth, the theory of evolution was either kept or modified as needed. It is called a theory because it can be modified as new information comes up. Just as the law of gravity could be modified or scraped altogether if new information from new experiments showed it was wrong.

One of the best "bumper sticker" descriptions I have ever heard of the theory of evolution is "Change Over Time". If there is no change in various alleles over time, there is no evolution in that population. If there is any change in any alleles over time, there is evolution in that population. It can be as small as the number of individuals with blue eyes vs. brown eyes changing from 0% to 0.1% of the population. Get enough changes that you effectively have two populations and you get at least two sub-species and maybe even a new species.

Scientists have found that there is probably an average of two new mutations in every organism born. The vast majority of errors in the genetic code are in areas that don't affect anything. Sometimes an extremely negative mutation in homozygous form actually spreads through a population because it is an advantage if present in the heterozygous form. Sickle Cell Anemia is one, several forms of Cystic Fibrosis are another example in humans. Sometimes the mutation helps, such as the one that reduced skin melanin levels and allowed vitamin D production. Other times, the mutation is just different enough to catch the attention of the opposite gender and get that individual laid more.
 
2012-08-12 04:32:08 AM  

I drunk what: PC LOAD LETTER: No, it is not. You are almost a century out of date.

blah blah blah blather blather blather ad nauseam

etc.., which part am i being dumb about? specifically



Apparently, from the moment you wake up every day...... that is the part where ignorance overtakes you.
 
2012-08-12 08:49:41 AM  

serialsuicidebomber: Apparently, from the moment you wake up every day...... that is the part where ignorance overtakes you.


i have been spending an unhealthy amount of time on Fark, i see your point

however i wouldn't say that you guys overtake me, rather i just quickly get bored of the same old tired routines, and participate much less than i used to

meh

good luck with that

common sense is an oxymoron: Populations adapt, individuals don't (evolutionarily speaking).


and populations are made of individuals and they most certainly do adapt ("evolutionarily" speaking) [scientifically speaking]

common sense is an oxymoron: Because you didn't name it?


i just did, and my theory of evolution doesn't require any flawed dependency-rationalization on the concept of a universal common ancestor, nor does it confuse Religion with Science or involve political opinions to sway its reasoning

but that stuff you guys are teaching in schools, colleges, media, is way more awesome

common sense is an oxymoron: Please cite the science textbooks which claim that humans evolved from monkeys, much less rats or lizards.


hast thou not heard of Kent Hovind? shirley thou jest

that's his schtick, and to be honest i haven't kept up with all the current texts that are being used in education, media nowadays so it is possible that all that non science stuff has been removed, but somehow i doubt it

if it has, then blessed be the name, if not, i'll find out soon enough, and we can come back someday and discuss it

common sense is an oxymoron: Perhaps they're one of the things you're missing.


maybe, so then what is being taught to kids these days? to have an open mind and to think critically?

because even though they may not be completely brain washed in elementary schools, for some reason there is growing trend of students converting to atheistic darwinistic evolution by the time they graduate from college, but i don't think it's because of any extra curricular religion courses they are taking...?

and of course we've already covered the media's take on the subject, which is just a sample of this "common sense" stuff you guys keep referring to

does that about cover it?

PC LOAD LETTER: CAN YOU PROVE I HAVEN'T???!?!?!?


eventually, to the satisfaction of my skepticism yes, but it may require a bit of effort

it would first depend on how certain you are about your claim, then we could move on to what evidence you have to support such things, etc... and so on...

and eventually after having multiple witnesses to corroborate your evidence-claims, i suppose we could then have an intelligent discussion with your mother about the existence of Santa Claus

//on an island

PC LOAD LETTER: And that's the problem with this line of thinking.


the problem most people incur these days is NOT thinking, at any point let alone a line

PC LOAD LETTER: Human evolution hasn't been thought of as a progressive straight line for almost a century. It is an overlapping somewhat large group of hominids who split off from sub-groups of each and who sometimes co-existed for millions of years. Eventually the other hominids died out and we were left.


so then not a straight line but more like a branch of a tree?

a tree of life perhaps? just like Darwin said??

aroundtheedges.files.wordpress.com

is this concept also a century out of date? if so can you link me to the current 2012 version of this lineage?

or you can just answer the question with a simple yes or no.

is man the offspring of apes? and more importantly is this being taught in schools, colleges, media, etc.. to this very day?

yea or neigh
 
2012-08-12 10:05:18 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: It's happened to us, too: We lost our prehensile tails when we moved from the trees to the grasslands, which saved a bunch of otherwise costly tissues.


it's a scientific fact

she knows because she was there

hmm, no evidence of brain washing here, just plain old open minded critical thinking

btw, just curious, were you taught this stuff in school? college perhaps?

[teachtehcontrovesy.jpg] lulz

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-12 10:15:04 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: It may be your misconception, but it isn't evolution, or any other branch of science.


how about slyvia's take on evolution? i don't see any butthurt outrage replies to her posts about what is or isn't a branch of science, so she must be preaching the gospel Truth, eh?

FOR SCIENCE!!!1!

i guess only people that believe in invisible sky wizards can have misconceptions, but if you hate god then you are automatically a professor of Science and therefore are infallible and should never be questioned or contradicted?

you guys were right, i was being dumb about it before, but i think i'm getting a better idea of things now

thanks
 
2012-08-12 11:06:39 AM  

I drunk what: how about slyvia's take on evolution? i don't see any butthurt outrage replies to her posts about what is or isn't a branch of science, so she must be preaching the gospel Truth, eh?


Do you mean Sylvia_Bandersnatch? Her post is lucid, informed and interesting. There's no reason for outrage. This has nothing to do with religion. The only mentions that I see of religion in the thread are from people who have decided that discussion about purely scientific matters with no theological aspect to them whatsoever constitute a threat to their beliefs.
 
2012-08-12 01:28:04 PM  

I drunk what: is man the offspring of apes?


Humans are apes. We haven't descended from apes, we are apes. There is nothing non-ape about us.
 
2012-08-12 04:36:08 PM  

Uncle Tractor: We haven't descended from apes, we are apes.


and what did apes descend from?

Uncle Tractor: There is nothing non-ape about us.


are all apes sapient creatures? do tell

Gordon Bennett: The only mentions that I see of religion in the thread are from people who have decided that discussion about purely scientific matters with no theological aspect to them whatsoever constitute a threat to their beliefs.


oh you mean like Kali-Yuga or Mock26, yeah those guys are douche bags, i'm sure the official science loving farkers like yourself scorned them and asked them politely to leave

*skims thread*

hmmm, probably here somewhere... maybe Dimensio can help me out, he's good at spotting the truth

Gordon Bennett: Her post is lucid, informed and interesting.


i see, let's give it a shot:

An interesting moment in the history of Man was during time when some of our ancestors who survived the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, mostly in the form of rats, split into two majors groups, the jungle dwellers and the sea dwellers. The jungle rats evolved into feline creatures who began to devour the rats who evolved more slowly, because of their affinity for cheese. So these jungle rats had to escape to the trees and developed prehensile tails, which were costly tissues but well worth the investment. However later on we lost our prehensile tails when we moved from the trees to the grasslands, which saved a bunch of otherwise costly tissues.

Getting back to the sea dwellers, it turns out that rats do not fair well living in the sea, catching fish, etc.. So they decided to evolve some flippers and fins, and that's where dolphins come from. The odd part of this story is the strange reason they decided to keep their air breathing lungs since they lived IN the sea, when all the other animals were smart enough to have gills for breathing under water. But at least they were able to evolve a blowhole on the top of their bodies, because the rats that kept their noses on the front kept getting it clogged with fish and they would choke to death. So then due to natural selection the mutant rats with flippers and blowholes survived and the mutant rats with front facing noses died off.

Lucid enough for ya?

PC LOAD LETTER: CAN YOU PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN???!?!?!?


well, PC LOAD, CAN YOU??

And that's the problem with this line of thinking.
 
2012-08-12 04:57:48 PM  

I drunk what: serialsuicidebomber: Apparently, from the moment you wake up every day...... that is the part where ignorance overtakes you.

i have been spending an unhealthy amount of time on Fark, i see your point

however i wouldn't say that you guys overtake me, rather i just quickly get bored of the same old tired routines, and participate much less than i used to

meh

good luck with that

common sense is an oxymoron: Populations adapt, individuals don't (evolutionarily speaking).

and populations are made of individuals and they most certainly do adapt ("evolutionarily" speaking) [scientifically speaking]


This is where your lack of understanding of evolution fails you. "Adaptation" specifically refers to the change in frequency of specific traits in a population in response to environmental pressure. Since individuals can't change their genetic material, they can't "adapt." What you're describing is more like Lamarckism, which even Lamarck decided was bogus.

common sense is an oxymoron: Because you didn't name it?

i just did, and my theory of evolution doesn't require any flawed dependency-rationalization on the concept of a universal common ancestor, nor does it confuse Religion with Science or involve political opinions to sway its reasoning


Your theory, which is yours, and which you came up with yourself? The only thing missing is anything resembling science, Ms. Elk.

but that stuff you guys are teaching in schools, colleges, media, is way more awesome

Real science is generally way more awesome than religious dogma dressed up in a lab coat.

common sense is an oxymoron: Please cite the science textbooks which claim that humans evolved from monkeys, much less rats or lizards.

hast thou not heard of Kent Hovind? shirley thou jest


Last I heard of Kent, he was still doing time for tax evasion. If this is your source for the "textbooks teach that man descended from monkeys and rats" line, then you fail at citation as miserably as you do at science.

that's his schtick, and to be honest i haven't kept up with all the current texts that are being used in education, media nowadays so it is possible that all that non science stuff has been removed, but somehow i doubt it

Figures.

if it has, then blessed be the name, if not, i'll find out soon enough, and we can come back someday and discuss it

I won't be holding my breath.

common sense is an oxymoron: Perhaps they're one of the things you're missing.

maybe, so then what is being taught to kids these days? to have an open mind and to think critically?


It was, until the fundie nutbags got involved (as in the Texas GOP platform denouncing the teaching of critical-thinking skills in school).

because even though they may not be completely brain washed in elementary schools, for some reason there is growing trend of students converting to atheistic darwinistic evolution by the time they graduate from college, but i don't think it's because of any extra curricular religion courses they are taking...?

The reason might just be that evolution is easier to prove and makes more real-world sense than religious dogma.

and of course we've already covered the media's take on the subject, which is just a sample of this "common sense" stuff you guys keep referring to

does that about cover it?


Pretty much. For some religious reason, you find the concept of evolution offensive, yet you try to hide that reason behind a facade of (junk) science.
 
2012-08-12 05:33:57 PM  

I drunk what: Uncle Tractor: We haven't descended from apes, we are apes.

and what did apes descend from?


From the common ancestor of apes and monkeys.

Uncle Tractor: There is nothing non-ape about us.

are all apes sapient creatures? do tell


I'd say yes, but it depends how you define "sapient."
 
2012-08-12 08:15:35 PM  

I drunk what: PC LOAD LETTER: CAN YOU PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN???!?!?!?

well, PC LOAD, CAN YOU??

And that's the problem with this line of thinking.


When you prove the bible, I will prove my idea.

I drunk what: so then not a straight line but more like a branch of a tree?


Geez, you still don't get it. Look at the diagram I posted and think real hard about the branch analogy. It's weak, and it has been so for almost a century. Groups DO branch off, but they can also branch back in and contribute to the gene pool. The branch is a great analogy for schoolchildren. More detail is needed to get the whole story.
 
2012-08-12 10:22:07 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Real science is generally way more awesome than religious dogma dressed up in a lab coat.


amen

common sense is an oxymoron: Last I heard of Kent, he was still doing time for tax evasion.


which has what to do with evolution? can't help but notice your fascination with that stuff

at least focus on the fact that frequently engages in sophistry and talking points, and tends to win arguments because his opponents are usually ill prepared... but tax evasion??? really? that's what discredits his scientific understanding??? weak sauce

PC LOAD LETTER: When you prove the bible, I will prove my idea.


CAN YOU PROVE IT DIDN"T HAPPEN ?!??!?!?!?!?!?

srsly dude, srsly

don't be a moran, can you at least say yeah everything else in the bible is legit except the magic stuff, because of reason X, but we can be sure that it is 90-95% accurate, after factoring in human error, political revisions, etc..

but as for the magic stuff there certainly is no scientific evidence that it happened

can you handle that much?

Uncle Tractor: I'd say yes, but it depends how you define "sapient."


those who have partaken from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

beings capable of wisdom and having the free will to override their instincts and conditioning

/in a nutshell

Uncle Tractor: From the common ancestor of apes and monkeys.


i am always amazed at how much detailed history evolutionary biologists are able to deduce from the fragment of a bone

upload.wikimedia.org

btw did you enjoy my history of dolphins and cats? bet you didn't know that it was our affinity for cheese that led us to become human...?

upload.wikimedia.org

i still can't figure out why the other rats evolved back into the sea, don't they remember how hard it was to get out in the first place?
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report