I have 2 questions about evolution:

I have 2 questions about evolution:
1- how does it explain creatures like pic related?

2- if life exists for another billion years but still remain 100% the same on a macro level, would it disprove evolution?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=fzERmg4PU3c
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

1. It evolved to be that way. This question is super broad and you need to explain what you're asking.

2. What do you mean by macro level? If absolutely no evolution occurred then yeah.

how can mindless evolution cause bacteria to resemble a different outside creature? that doesn't seem like something adaptation can really account for... like animals breeding to have longer necks doesn't seem to be in the same ballpart as animals breeding to look like a separate creature, if you catch my drift

leafier bugs survived and over a long time they started to look like leaves

so what did the non-leafy ones even look like

also, what did the leafys look like before becoming leafy

Everything has a common ancestor. So before the leafy and nonleafy version of this insect came about there was some common ancestral insect that had a feature that both of these creatures had before one diverged from another.

bigger changes in evolution happen over time too, but only one big accident that succeeds needs to happen for it to be passed on sometimes.

so is there any specific evidence that these leafys were once non-leafys?

Google the higher classification. With insects though they've been around for a long time so the evolutionary relationships are messy.

gonna jump down this rabbithole even further and ask how do we know they've been around such a long time

There are fossil records that go back 400 million years ago of insects.

>how does it explain

Meaning you've never read up on it in the first place. Here,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

are they dated through carbon dating or is there another method?

Op, for ur question 2 poster who replied is wrong. Evolution makes no necessity for things to change unless theres pressure. Theres creatures plants animals bacteria w.e that have been around for many millions of years that barely changed. No evolution wouldnt be disproved.

If everyone did this Veeky Forums wouldnt exist so i dont see the point in criticising people in this way.

but if life didn't change at all, outside minor changes like perhaps new breeds of dog or something like that, then couldn't people say "we still haven't actually observed it, so it has to at least be brought back into question"

You don't use sci very much it seems.

Carbon dating doesn't go back 400 million years, not even close. There are other dating methods for that.

what are the other methods?

What's the point of asking a such a basic question if you can just google it yourself? It's really not that hard.

because you could have just told me instead of typing this response

If u mean observed it through fossils then yes thats probably true but it doesnt change the fact that evolution or natural selection doesnt necessitate change for a given species and there are examples out there of "living fossils"

explaining evolution to you isn't a discussion, it's something you can easily google.

>explaining evolution to you isn't a discussion
yes it is. it literally is

you're questioning the very basic ideas of evolution, which have been pretty much set in stone for half a century, if not more. some more detailed questions regarding evolution are still controversial, sure, but not the basic parts of it.

>you're questioning the very basic ideas of evolution, which have been pretty much set in stone for half a century
okay, and I'm looking for a discussion/explanation about that
what do you not understand

tht's not a bacterium dude it's a bug

He doesn't want to go through every little fucking detail with you when this is basic shit you can easily google. Literally go educate yourself cause you will have 500 thousand stupid ass questions that nobody wants to waste time answering

>He doesn't want to go through every little fucking detail with you
then don't, and go find a thread you're interested in

I think you should move on buttfag so i can have a proper discussion with people that will be constructive.

go back to /pol/

What's the point of asking questions to a bunch of half-wits pretending to be intellectuals when you could google it and get information from far more reputable sources?

Clearly a trogolodyte. Go back to Darwin you chimp.

because we want to actually talk to a human and have a discussion about it, and we have fun doing so and learning from each other?
whats the point of bumping threads you don't like just to bitch instead of finding ones you can actually enjoy yourself

1. What do you mean, explain?
2. Define 'macro' level.

The only difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is time.

so over time, a wolf can become a chihuahua, and a chihuahua can become something entirely different from a dog? Genuine question, not trying to be facetious

Maybe he means large observable differences, changes between species

>like animals breeding to have longer necks doesn't seem to be in the same ballpart as animals breeding to look like a separate creature, if you catch my drift
geraffes are just stupid long horses

Yes. Dogs are domesticated wolves. However, human selection is often much quicker than natural selection. Unless there are very, very strong selection pressures evolution happens somewhat slowly. This is complicated to explain but suppose a lizard species is suddenly transported into a deserted island. Because the island is isolated there are likely a bunch of niches the lizard can take advantage of. This would give a sudden diversification in the lizard population very quickly. However, the mainland lizards likely wouldn't evolve that fast.

but my point is that those lizards still remain lizards even though they've branched into different niche breeds of lizard
how do we know that fish later began to walk on land and shit like that?

If you give them enough time they may change sufficiently that won't be able to breed with their old land lizard brethren. Then the two are now different species. As you ascend the taxonomy it takes longer and longer and more and more difference to be an entirely new category.

so would the middle of the line lizard be able to breed with both the older version and the newer one? why would certain adaptations like size of the animal or length of certain appendages affect genitalia or result in new body parts altogether?

>so would the middle of the line lizard be able to breed with both the older version and the newer one?
There are things like mules and ligers and stuff, Sometimes even when the animals look pretty different they can still breed and other times they can look pretty similar and yet still can't. Also sometimes the offspring of too distant animals are sterrile.

>why would certain adaptations like size of the animal or length of certain appendages affect genitalia or result in new body parts altogether?
Dunno what you are asking here maybe they are on the same chromosome or the changes both are effected by the same hormone or protein.

so things can change a little bit but they can't change a lot? That's not very logical

It's a much more fruitful discussion if you've read the basic concepts and educated yourself a little. Else you're just asking to be spoonfed

Are you dumb? The longer you wait, the more things change. I would suggest that you read up on the subject (as you are obviously still in high school or a troll) by starting with "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. You can ignore his metaphysical philosophy and focus solely on the arguments he makes for the credibility of evolution as a scientific theory.

They can change a lot actually. The alteration of one gene can cause little to no change, the alteration of another can lead to an animal being born with no eyes or an animal being a lot smarter or dumber.

There's a gene called FOXP2 that exists in many vertebrates. Alterations in humans cause them to have a lack of control over their facial musculature, low IQ and most importantly extreme limiting in verbal communication.
The gene has been knocked out in lab tests with mice, causing them to be unable to communicate through ultrasound and dying early. Some mice have been modifyed with the human version of the gene. These mice had a better learnig aptitude compared to other mice. The diference of the human and the mouse gen is only three amino acids.


The FOXP2 in neanderthals and human is exactly the same, causing scientists to believe that neanderthals had human faculty of speech. This faculty of speech in humans is, based on the age of the gene, between 200'000 and 100'000 years old, the neanderthal developed it seperately.

If you want to have your questions answered better and deeper you should look on what experts write on it, with what methodology etc

whats wrong with asking you or someone interested to educate me? if you don't want to then fuck off and find a thread you like so the people interested can do it. some people actually enjoy teaching

How could eyes evolve from no eyes? They seem a bit complex. What organisms have the beginnings of eyes?

youtube.com/watch?v=fzERmg4PU3c

What organisms have the beginnings of eyes? I just want to see cool proto eyes, not argue about god.

Also, I now see why you brought my question straight to the non existence of god. You are clearly sent from the devil
>666

user, it's Richard Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye.

>1- how does it explain creatures like pic related?

Outliers who were once considered the abnormal in their population (let's assume original population was just some shade of brown or black) end up surviving better because all it's predators were brainlets that couldn't tell them apart from leaves. Thus allowing them to spread their abnormal traits on more frequently.

Alternatively they could have also been among the last surviving members of their species to repopulate their native population due to a given near extinction level event.

>2- if life exists for another billion years but still remain 100% the same on a macro level, would it disprove evolution?

No, because that would mean the questioned ecosystems remained very stable for that period of time. Meaning there was no reason to shift adaptation strategies for life.

The Nautilus have pinhole eyes.

Thank you. They look cool.

>Richard Dawkins

He's a moron making money off of angsty teenage atheists.

The 'how' of macroscopic structure change is always an interesting one, as there are many molecular pathways that are taken. However, if you're talking about simple evolution by allele change, a classic example is to look at the curious case of beak length of birds in tropical islands that are roughly insulated. Depending on the climate and weather, birds of the same species but differing beak size will be more successful, with longer ones being able to reach further into trees and the like. If you can imagine a case where it was so much more advantageous for the long beaked birds to survive, then a scenario where the tiny beaked ones don't even live til reproduction becomes a natural conclusion.

Going back to how the differences or mutations arise, it's a well-documented molecular phenomenon. In the process of gamete creation, or making the sperm/egg, there's a cellular process called meiosis where DNA recombination occurs. I suppose I'll make a second post going into that and explaining exactly HOW an error might happen, but errors do happen, which are actually fairly simple to recognize.
1) A segment of DNA is replicated.
2) A segment of DNA is inverted- essentially turned so that it's the opposite end first when put back into sequence.
3) A segment is deleted
4) A single nucleotide is changed
And then a sort of a weird one
5) Transposition/retroviral mechanism occurs.

All of those add up over time to create new features, which then through sheer chance might end up with some 'function'. As soon as a feature becomes a function, then it can undergo pressure-based selection.

The simplistic nature of how there are many pathways to reach some kind of effect is demonstrated well on the molecular level by this. (Pic attached), The way the active site of hemoglobin and chlorophyll are similar in chemical construction lends itself to the notion of radically different origins for similar processes, which is an incredibly interesting field of study.

To add;

So, a single DNA pair strand coiled up is called a chromosome. You may know that we all have 23 unique sequence pairs of chromosomes, but that's actually 46, with two copies of each. In the attached picture is both phases of meiosis. What happens is that each chromosome duplicates itself- and this is usually a perfect copy, but this stage itself could replicate imperfectly, usually leading to issues like 3 or 4, where some part is missing, or a single nucleotide is incorrectly put in place. You have probably seen chromosomes look like two sort of stubby looking appendages and then one area where they get narrow and connect, and that narrow area is the centromere- it's just sort of a non-coding mechanistic region of DNA that a protein complex called the kinetocore latches on to.
In the first action packed stage of Meiosis, the pairs that are being split are the non-identical mom and dad versions, not the identically copied ones (those are for part 2).

Now, at the opposite poles of a cell, are things called 'spindles', which have microtubules, like tenticles that lash around at this stage of meiosis. Once they latch on to the kinetocore, they tug a bit. If the kinetocore undergoes tension, it stops releasing a signal that stops the cell from moving through meiosis by breaking down the cohesins (basically molecular glue) between the DNA pairs.

In meiosis 1, the tension across the kinetocore is created by actually physically breaking the DNA of all 4 strands, and then fusing them all together. It creates bridges, called chiasma, which will then make them intertwined so the tension is generated. Once the cohesins are gone, the DNA is violently ripped, leaving some strands with sections from the other, and offering plenty of opportunities when the DNA is being repaired to either flip around, go missing, change nucleotide, etc.

Meosis 2 is boring, it's just the separation of the 2 copies, so you end up with sperm/egg w/1 copy of each chromosome.

God I'm retarded, I didn't add the picture. At any rate, these mutations occur at different rates dependent on the species- some species have protein variants that are much more delicate than their homologs in other species, which will then create fewer mutations. Some purposefully have more mutations because they are in environments that require the addition of new variants that can then be selected for. It's on a weird sort of meta level that's hard to examine- after all, evolution doesn't plan for the future, but faster adapting lineages will often have greater reproductive success.

To talk about OP's example of the bug which looks like a leaf, let's think of some novel example of a bug, let's say a cockroach or any other model bug. In one generation, there's a crapshoot of offspring, one of which has a mutation in the gene that controls for pigment that causes the pigment to not be expressed as much because it's a broken protein. Then, instead of being dark brown, the bugs with this mutation are light brown. They are more successful because the animals that eat the bugs can't see them as well against the trees. Then, let's say that there's a few amino acid changes to a pigment protein that, when they do their biomolecular production, they end up synthesizing molecules that contain different resonant patterns than the one it's used to, and it absorbs a different wavelength of visible light- this time, reflecting green. Those have such a higher chance of survival that eventually, all of the ones that are brown can't compete- of course they would have reproductive success at first, but if each generation they end up not being able to get the resources because they're outcompeted by the green ones, their lineage will die off. From there, the rest of the structures that are leaf-like aren't too difficult to imagine.