THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
param
Garter
Garter
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:29 am

THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Post by param » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:40 am

How does the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" is supported through classification of animals and plants..........
Your help too answer this question will be very appreciated..............

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:51 pm

Plants and animals higher up the chain have superior characteristics than those lower on the evolution chain. For example, a frog's heart has 3 chambers, while a bird's heart has 4. A bird has steady methabolism, while a reptile does not
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
biostudent84
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am
Location: Farmville, VA
Contact:

Post by biostudent84 » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:58 pm

I wouldn't say it makes them "superior." A bird's heart has four chambers because it needs four chambers. An amphibian can survive with three, so it only creates three.

User avatar
James
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: England

Post by James » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:33 pm

We classify organisms into categories that have similar characteristics, eg mammals, reptiles etc. These cateogories have formed from divergence from common ancestors. Thus, those organisms classified more closely together have diverged less from each other through natural selection, and are closer related.

User avatar
Linaeus
Garter
Garter
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:55 pm

.

Post by Linaeus » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:00 pm

I dont get the question? :?

reallyuniquename
Garter
Garter
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:33 pm

Post by reallyuniquename » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:04 pm

Actually, the interesting thing about the evolutionary tree is the huge variation it has potential to be. "Trees" can be grown from many different sources. Some will use a phenotype (physical characteristic), or section of DNA to make their "trees" grow branches. The difficult thing is using fossil records as the trunk of ancestors because than it becomes a theory.
The strange thing about the "trees", and the part where they lose credibility is when you select for different characteristics to compare with to grow the "tree." For instance, a certain molecule that is common in the trunk's genotype can be used to show how despite diverging, the molecule from descendents remains the same, linking the "tree" together. Given, this seems to make sense at face value, but select for a different molecule, and you get a whole new tree. Even with physical characteristics, the same is true. The variation amoung what the tree should look like is near endless. It creates alot of chaos when researched. I encourage you all to look into it.

Ben

bebaloo19
Garter
Garter
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Post by bebaloo19 » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:43 pm

In my research of the theory of evolution, I have found flaws. First of all there are unexplained gaps between the two species on the "tree". Also there is no solid evidence in the fossil record of how these animals actualy evolved!
Someone explain that! I also don't understand why just because the animals genes are similer, scientist can claim that one is evolved from the other! I do believe in natural selection but not macro evolution!

Darwin420
Coral
Coral
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:09 am

Post by Darwin420 » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:06 pm

I don't agree with mistery stating that organisms up the chain are superior. I thought we got rid of the scala natura? Yes, there are more complex organisms than others, but to state an organism is superior is implying they are more important. You may say that bacteria are "more superior" looking from that perspective, but really we wouldn't be here if bacteria were not on the planet. I think you should be careful when you use the word "superior".

User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re:

Post by canalon » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:29 pm

Darwin420 wrote:I don't agree with mistery stating that organisms up the chain are superior. I thought we got rid of the scala natura? Yes, there are more complex organisms than others, but to state an organism is superior is implying they are more important. You may say that bacteria are "more superior" looking from that perspective, but really we wouldn't be here if bacteria were not on the planet. I think you should be careful when you use the word "superior".


Seconded completely.
In fact I do think that bacteria are far superior to the rest of the living world in many respects. Sheer number for one.

As for beebaloo:
The fact that similar functions are coded by very similar genes from bacteria to whales is something you expect if they descend from a common organism. While in a creation there is no reason for this to be the case. And even less reason that the farther away 2 organisms are in terms of evolutionary divergence (like whales and bacteria) the more difference there are.

The fossil record is far from complete for many reasons, but there are some grat series that are showing a lot of intermediate forms taht have disappeared. I think the horse descent is a very famous one.

As for the gaps between 2 species, I do not really understand what you mean.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests