Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Yet another twattish survey attempts to claim that it is Dawkins fault that nobody believes in evolution

56 replies

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/02/2009 14:01

or so it would appear

No. Its becos they are fick.

OP posts:
Jux · 03/02/2009 11:19

I think the work of Mendel makes evolution a lot easier to understand. Oh, and then Darwin's finches. Please don't ask me to elucidate as I'm not particularly knowledgeable, but I know those two things made the difference to my understanding. There are people on here who can explain both much better (and more accurately - my memory is not what it was!)

AMumInScotland · 03/02/2009 12:02

Beanieb - human DNA and chimp DNA is about 96% the same. There is also about 93% similarity between human DNA and that of a Rhesus Macaque monkey. I don't have other figures, but I think those are similar to the % similarity in DNA that you find between eg lions and tigers.

Are you happier about understanding evolution after reading svalbardy's explanation?

beanieb · 03/02/2009 12:32

not really - no. I understand there is a theory of evolution but it doesn't seem to be a complete or definite theory.

svalbardy · 03/02/2009 12:46

G'day beanib,

do you think you could articulate what is incomplete?
i could have a go at outlining the evidence for evolution if you like - particularly if you give me some pointers as to how you're thinking about it.

Maybe have a look at the program I cited yesterday (first page of this chat) - which goes through Mendel, Darwin's mockingbirds, etc?

all the best

svalbardy

AMumInScotland · 03/02/2009 12:57

It is a very complete and definite theory!

There's quite a good Wikipedia article but I'll try to summarise it.

Most kinds of animals produce more offspring than are needed to just "replace" the parents. Many of the offspring will die before they get a chance to reproduce themselves, but some of them will survive and reproduce. The offspring will vary a bit between themselves - for example having different colours of fur. Often that doesn't matter, but sometimes having fur the right colour can affect how likely you are to survive. Say a small number of hares were white instead of brown. Normally that's a bad thing, because being brown is good for hiding, but then imagine they lived in a place where the climate changed and it became ice-covered. The white hares would be much better camouflaged than the brown ones, so the brown ones would get eaten and the white ones would survive and go on to have white offspring. So, over time you go from them being brown to them being white.

Now imagine that this group of white hares stayed separate from the population of ordinary brown hares for a very long time - thousands of years - and imagine that other changes happened to their genes over that time as well. Maybe they got smaller sized, because smaller ones survived better in the icy conditions.

Eventually they came back in contact with the brown hares (who had carried on living somewhere not icy). But by now they were very different and couldn't breed with each other. You now have two different species of hares.

Obviously, that's only a tiny example, and they've only split into two quite similar species (small white hares, and big brown hares), but you can see how lots of small steps like that over the millions and millions of years that life has existed can add up to the huge diversity of animals and plants we now have.

AMumInScotland · 03/02/2009 12:58

Must type faster!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page