Evolution - some questions

FrankAmazing

Have been doing some study on evolution and would like some things cleared up for me if someone would be so kind.

The only book I’ve read is the selfish gene so my knowledge is limited.

1. So the theory is that we have essentially originated from a primeval soup. But wouldn’t this primeval soup which began replicating, essentially need to contain all of the genes for life. All the dna. Everything that encodes our current make up, and the make up of every other living creature. I find this hard to grasp. A couple of flashes of lightening/extreme earthly weather conditions and some inorganic amino acids are essentially converted into an organic amino acid with the ability to replicate (does this primordial replicator contain all the genes for life – or is the theory that these genes all essentially evolved over millions and millions and years – ie in essence they were all mutant genes at some point?

2. If humans have evolved from apes – why do apes still exist, but the intermediate species do not – (ie what ever species came before homosapiens – the species we ourselves derived from – [it may be homo-neandertahlesis,im not entirely sure]. Why isn’t half the world neaderthal and half sapien.

3. They say that human evolution is a product of the environment we are living in. So say for example – wings. How could humans evolve to have wings. If we were suddenly all put in an environment where we needed to fly – how would we suddenly develop these wings. It stands to reason that my direct offspring wouldn’t have wings – or do they suggest that my ‘sperm’ would suddenly realise the world has evolved and be like – ‘oh **** we need wings – here’s a new mutant gene to develop them and my kid would be born with wings’ ??? If we were all ficked off out into outer space, would my next offspring suddenly have the ability to live without oxygen? I mean it stands to reason that if such a situation occurred the human race would just die out rather than evolve??

4. following on from the above - Do humans essentially have the genes to grow wings – they’re just not activated?

5. If the answer to the above is yes, then does it not stand to reason that the primeval soup we originated from also contained all out genes for growing kidneys hearts etc etc etc.??!

I thought dawkins selfish gene would clear everything up for me. And while I can see what he means on a basic gene level I find it hard to comprehend. Kind of a case of the theory being worked to fit the past, rather than it actually being substantive enough. I just can’t see how we can go from a primeval soup to a fully grown human being – unless the genes were already in that primeval soup. How can we just pull ourselves up from the mud by our bootstraps?


and on another level i thought that evolution was the key for why most people were atheists. i almost expected some epiphany after reading the book that would bring about a sort of eureka moment. but from my reading of it, none of it seems incompatible with a belief in a deity. (although i dont want this statement to detract from the thread - in fact ive though about deleting this last paragraph for fear it would derail my thread).

basically i just like the above five queries answered/explained to me.
i posted here as it seems to be a more active forum than the biology one.
thanks

dvpower

Did you read 'The Selfish Gene' or just the back cover?

Anyway, I can't answer all of these questions, but on the question of evolving from chimps: we aren't. We share a common ancestry with chimps (and every other living thing), although the common ancestor we share with chimps looked more like chimps than humans.


On the other questions, I think you're missing the point of evoluton. It is a gradual process with one advantagious change building upon another. We don't have turned off genes for wings, but we do share a common ancestry with birds. Both us and birds share a common ancestry with fish (who don't have wings). Fish do have gills, so if you were to ask if we had turned off genes for gills, there might be merit to the question.

FrankAmazing

FrankAmazing wrote: »

1. So the theory is that we have essentially originated from a primeval soup. But wouldn’t this primeval soup which began replicating, essentially need to contain all of the genes for life. All the dna. Everything that encodes our current make up, and the make up of every other living creature. I find this hard to grasp. A couple of flashes of lightening/extreme earthly weather conditions and some inorganic amino acids are essentially converted into an organic amino acid with the ability to replicate (does this primordial replicator contain all the genes for life – or is the theory that these genes all essentially evolved over millions and millions and years – ie in essence they were all mutant genes at some point?

No. The various modern structures in life would have been built up over millions of years by small incremental changes.
For example the genetic code for an eye would not have been present in the first simple organisms.
However the first step to what would become an eye would occur by a mutation in the simple organism's DNA causing some cells to become light sensitive, then much later another mutation could cause more of such cells, then maybe forming a groove... and so on.
The information for the complete, modern eye would not have been there, but would accumulate over time by various mutations of the DNA.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

2. If humans have evolved from apes – why do apes still exist, but the intermediate species do not – (ie what ever species came before homosapiens – the species we ourselves derived from – [it may be homo-neandertahlesis,im not entirely sure]. Why isn’t half the world neaderthal and half sapien.

Well humans both evolved from apes and are apes.
Though I think you may be referring to modern apes such as gorillas and chimps. We did not evolve from these species, we evolved alongside them, stemming from a common ancestor which was also an ape.
It's put a lot better and in a lot more detail here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzuKlZf1qXU

FrankAmazing wrote: »

3. They say that human evolution is a product of the environment we are living in. So say for example – wings. How could humans evolve to have wings. If we were suddenly all put in an environment where we needed to fly – how would we suddenly develop these wings. It stands to reason that my direct offspring wouldn’t have wings – or do they suggest that my ‘sperm’ would suddenly realise the world has evolved and be like – ‘oh **** we need wings – here’s a new mutant gene to develop them and my kid would be born with wings’ ??? If we were all ficked off out into outer space, would my next offspring suddenly have the ability to live without oxygen? I mean it stands to reason that if such a situation occurred the human race would just die out rather than evolve??

Well your mistake here is that evolutionary changes don't aim towards a specific goal.
It works like this:
One generation passes it's genes onto the next which include various mutations.
Now most of these mutations do nothing. A few cause detrimental effects. But the odd time they give a benefit.
And if one of these benefits give the offspring that have it an advantage over the others in it's generation and therefore produce more offspring which would have the same advantage.
These changes take thousands of generations to spread in a species and build up.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

4. following on from the above - Do humans essentially have the genes to grow wings – they’re just not activated?

5. If the answer to the above is yes, then does it not stand to reason that the primeval soup we originated from also contained all out genes for growing kidneys hearts etc etc etc.??!

No. Wings are very complex structures are the result of millions of years of evolution in a line totally separate from us.
We don't have the genes to sprout wings (either bird- or insect- like), though in theory we could eventually develop something like wings millions of years down the line.

Zombrex

FrankAmazing wrote: »

1. So the theory is that we have essentially originated from a primeval soup. But wouldn’t this primeval soup which began replicating, essentially need to contain all of the genes for life. All the dna.

No. DNA evolved like everything else. The original self replicating molecules would have been far simpler. On candidate is a simpler version of RNA, which is still used in our cells today.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

2. If humans have evolved from apes – why do apes still exist, but the intermediate species do not – (ie what ever species came before homosapiens – the species we ourselves derived from – [it may be homo-neandertahlesis,im not entirely sure]. Why isn’t half the world neaderthal and half sapien.

Humans didn't evolve from apes, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Neanderthals died out a few thousand years ago, but they were our cousins, we didn't not evolve from them. They were a seperate species in the homo genus.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

3. They say that human evolution is a product of the environment we are living in. So say for example – wings. How could humans evolve to have wings.

If you are asking how do wings in general evolve scientists already know the answer to that as the evolution of wing is documented in the fossil record. One way is for skin between the arm and chest to mutate so that it is webbed. This produces the ability for the animal to initially glide, progressively improving over the generations until full flight is possible.

That is one way, there are others.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

If we were suddenly all put in an environment where we needed to fly – how would we suddenly develop these wings.

We wouldn't, we would all die. The vast majority of species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct. The ones that evolve are the lucky ones, the ones that have beneficial mutations that adapt them to the changing environment.

This is why rapid environmental change can be so damaging to species, such as human made pollution, the species does not have time to adapt and all the animals simply die.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

It stands to reason that my direct offspring wouldn’t have wings – or do they suggest that my ‘sperm’ would suddenly realise the world has evolved and be like – ‘oh **** we need wings – here’s a new mutant gene to develop them and my kid would be born with wings’ ???

Evolution is a gradual process. Your off spring won't have wings. They might though have pre-cursor to wings that over a few thousand years could evolve into wings.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

4. following on from the above - Do humans essentially have the genes to grow wings – they’re just not activated?

No, humans as far as I know have not evolved from any species that can fly, so there is no change we have deactivated genes for flights.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

5. If the answer to the above is yes, then does it not stand to reason that the primeval soup we originated from also contained all out genes for growing kidneys hearts etc etc etc.??!

The primeval soup did not contain DNA. It contained chemical compounds that when exposed to heat begin to form molecules that replicate themselves. DNA evolved much later, possible 1 billion years after this process had started.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

I thought dawkins selfish gene would clear everything up for me. And while I can see what he means on a basic gene level I find it hard to comprehend. Kind of a case of the theory being worked to fit the past, rather than it actually being substantive enough.

The Self Gene is probably a poor book to start with if you don't understand the basic princples of evolutionary biology, which judging by your questions seems to be the case. A more general book on evolution is a better place to start, even the ones by Dawkins. The Self Gene was written for those who already understood evolution in detail and as thus does not explain the core concepts, which can lead to confusion if you don't know them first.

Learn about the basics of evolution and then go back to the Selfish Gene, you will find it a lot more enjoyable.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

I just can’t see how we can go from a primeval soup to a fully grown human being

Of course not, the process takes billions of years and trillions upon trillions of changes. Attempting to visualize the entire process is impossible for a human. Its like saying imagine all the grains of sand in the world.

Evolution is a subject that requires understand at the individual stages. Only then does the whole thing make sense. Again it is assumed in the Self Gene that the reader already has grasp of basic evolutionary biology. Without this the book will appear confusing.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

How can we just pull ourselves up from the mud by our bootstraps?

Chemistry. Certain molecules that we know were found on the early Earth will replicate themselves given heat. Once this starts evolution takes over. You go from a simple molecule to a cell in about 1 billion years. In another billion years you have multi-celluar organisms. Then in about 633 million years you have us.

It takes a very long time, but it starts from quite simple chemicals.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

and on another level i thought that evolution was the key for why most people were atheists.

There are two aspects to that. Firstly evolution explains how complicated beings such as ourselves can exist and appear to be designed without actually being designed. This realization has existed since Darwin's time.

A new realization that also leans people atheism is modern understanding of religion in terms of evolutionary biology. It seems clear now that humans have a natural tendency to imagine human like agents in nature that act in human like manner, even though they do not exist. This provides a scientific explanation for why humans believe they are interacting with gods, and why such concepts seem so mentally pleasing, without requiring that they actually exist.

So it is commonly a combination of the fact that we don't require a god to explain how we exist, and the realization that we have a natural tendency to make up gods. This leads people to atheism.

Galvasean

I can assume either

A) The OP did not read said book

or

The OP is fairly stupid.

or

C) The OP is taking the mic.

Zombrex

Well in fairness the OP has not expressed any misunderstanding of evolution that isn't common in society these days, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

While some of his questions seem taken straight from Creationist literature, time will tell if he is genuine or not. I hope it is the former, it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory such as evolution.

DjFlin

Wicknight wrote: »

Humans didn't evolve from apes, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Well said. The idea that we came from apes is a pretty common misconception.

Wicknight wrote: »

Neanderthals died out a few thousand years ago, but they were our cousins, we didn't not evolve from them. They were a seperate species in the homo genus.

Speaking of Neanderthals, I read recently that homo-sapiens may have bred with our neanderthal cousins, resulting in some advantages genes. Not sure how true it is, considering I read it here on Gizmodo

Daftendirekt

Right, I'm no expert by any means, but I'll have a go.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

1. So the theory is that we have essentially originated from a primeval soup. But wouldn’t this primeval soup which began replicating, essentially need to contain all of the genes for life. All the dna. Everything that encodes our current make up, and the make up of every other living creature. I find this hard to grasp. A couple of flashes of lightening/extreme earthly weather conditions and some inorganic amino acids are essentially converted into an organic amino acid with the ability to replicate (does this primordial replicator contain all the genes for life – or is the theory that these genes all essentially evolved over millions and millions and years – ie in essence they were all mutant genes at some point?

Okay, first thing I need to mention, the primordial soup idea deals with abiogenesis (the origin of life) rather than evolution (the complexity of life), so there's no point getting too caught up on it. Dawkins uses it in The Selfish Gene as an example, but he deliberately chooses a different theory in other books.

That said, no, it isn't necessary for any DNA to be present in the primordial soup.

Try and rid yourself of the idea that things are either living or non-living, with no grey area in between. Non-living material doesn't have to become living in a single jump. All that's necessary for life to get going is a molecule (simpler than DNA) with the imperfect ability to replicate itself. Once you have this, some form of evolution is as inevitable as a dropped apple falling to the ground.

Just as a disclaimer, I know very little about this topic in particular, so take everything I've just said with a grain of salt. It's just my understanding of it, and it's far from perfect.

2. If humans have evolved from apes – why do apes still exist, but the intermediate species do not – (ie what ever species came before homosapiens – the species we ourselves derived from – [it may be homo-neandertahlesis,im not entirely sure]. Why isn’t half the world neaderthal and half sapien.

You don't see the intermediate species walking around because they became us, to put it simply.

Don't take the idea of 'intermediate species' too literally. It's more like there are intermediate individuals who're slightly different than their ancestors and their descendants. You look slightly different to your mother, your mother looks slightly different to your grandmother, your grandmother looks slightly different to your great-grandmother, and so on.

Going back far enough, you'd never reach a point where you'd suddenly say "Whoa! So this is the intermediate species!" It'd be much more gradual.

There's a great story about a Christian and an atheist who go back in time that illustrates this perfectly. It was posted on this forum before, but I can't find it at the moment.

By the way, humans didn't evolve from apes, we are a type of ape.

3. They say that human evolution is a product of the environment we are living in. So say for example – wings. How could humans evolve to have wings. If we were suddenly all put in an environment where we needed to fly – how would we suddenly develop these wings. It stands to reason that my direct offspring wouldn’t have wings – or do they suggest that my ‘sperm’ would suddenly realise the world has evolved and be like – ‘oh **** we need wings – here’s a new mutant gene to develop them and my kid would be born with wings’ ??? If we were all ficked off out into outer space, would my next offspring suddenly have the ability to live without oxygen? I mean it stands to reason that if such a situation occurred the human race would just die out rather than evolve??

You've actually answered this question in your first sentence: evolution is a product of the environment. The environment shapes the direction evolution takes, kind of like a sculptor shaping clay. And sticking with the sculptor simile, it does this by removing rather than adding.

Most living things have mutations of some sort in them. For the most part, these are neutral, and don't help or hinder the organism in any way.

Sometimes these mutations are harmful, i.e. they reduce the organism's chances of surviving long enough to reproduce. An organism that doesn't reproduce doesn't pass on its genes, and so these harmful mutations disappear from the gene pool.

But occasionally, a mutation will enhance an organism's chances of survival (and reproduction - reproduction is what really counts here). It might make it a little bit faster, or stronger, or it might be something even more subtle.

This organism is now a little bit more capable of hunting, or fending off predators, or whatever. So it has a better chance of reproducing and passing on its 'good' genes. And its offspring have the same advantage. So in time, the new-and-improved organism out-breeds it's less capable counterpart. (There's a bit more too it than that, but hopefully you get my point.)

It's the accumulation of these little mutations that drives evolution.

4. following on from the above - Do humans essentially have the genes to grow wings – they’re just not activated?

No. If humans found themselves in an environment where wings were advantageous, more... aerodynamic?... humans would be more likely to survive and reproduce.

5. If the answer to the above is yes, then does it not stand to reason that the primeval soup we originated from also contained all out genes for growing kidneys hearts etc etc etc.??!

No.

HUNK

FrankAmazing wrote: »

and on another level i thought that evolution was the key for why most people were atheists. i almost expected some epiphany after reading the book that would bring about a sort of eureka moment. but from my reading of it, none of it seems incompatible with a belief in a deity

Well, there are many reasons why an individual might become an atheist. You'll find most (myself included) atheists, particularly on this forum, have arrived at atheism through critical thinking, science, and through a healthy amount of skepticism. Evolution only plays a small part.

When it comes to the septic tank that is 'creationism' however, evolution is the man! :pac:

Anyway, have a look through these videos. They might help clear a few things up.

You might want to have a gander at this website as well if you want a better understanding http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness the OP has not expressed any misunderstanding of evolution that isn't common in society these days, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

While some of his questions seem taken straight from Creationist literature, time will tell if he is genuine or not. I hope it is the former, it is always good to seek understanding of such an important scientific theory such as evolution.

The fact that he says he read The Selfish Gene raises a red flag. It goes on and on about primordial soup and RNA and replication.

[Come to think about it, I came away from it, and remain, fairly confused]

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

The OP is taking the mic.

Indeed.

sponsoredwalk

FrankAmazing wrote: »

1. So the theory is that we have essentially originated from a primeval soup. But wouldn’t this primeval soup which began replicating, essentially need to contain all of the genes for life. All the dna. Everything that encodes our current make up, and the make up of every other living creature. I find this hard to grasp. A couple of flashes of lightening/extreme earthly weather conditions and some inorganic amino acids are essentially converted into an organic amino acid with the ability to replicate

Well first off you need to know what prokaryotes & eukaryotes are.

"The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that
these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of
protobionts. In general, the eukaryotes are thought to have evolved later
in the history of life. However, some authors have questioned this
conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have
evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of
simplification.Others have argued that the three domains of life arose
simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single a gene
pool" link.

So already you see that there is no definite answer on what the first type
of cell was. In any case what you've described is a possible extrapolation
based on the Miller-Urey experiment but "There is no truly "standard
model" of the origin of life.". Here's another possibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

So you see the lightning hitting a swamp causing "muck to man", as a
famous philosopher on this site terms it, is only one possibility but the
idea that it turns inorganic amino acids into organic amino acids is a
misconception of what it means to be organic. A molecule is classed as
an organic molecule if it contains carbon. All amino acids contain carbon.

Galvasean wrote: »

I can assume either

A) The OP did not read said book

or

The OP is fairly stupid.

or

C) The OP is taking the mic.

I hope you'll apply the same standards to yourself next time you're
confused about something asking for help & are more than understanding
when the people you ask a question of respond with insinuations about
your intelligence & motivations...

FrankAmazing wrote: »

I thought dawkins selfish gene would clear everything up for me. And while I can see what he means on a basic gene level I find it hard to comprehend. Kind of a case of the theory being worked to fit the past, rather than it actually being substantive enough. I just can’t see how we can go from a primeval soup to a fully grown human being – unless the genes were already in that primeval soup. How can we just pull ourselves up from the mud by our bootstraps?

I'd recommend hours & hours of youtube video lectures on evolution over
that book:

http://www.youtube.com/user/YaleCourses#g/c/6299F3195349CCDA
http://www.youtube.com/user/NatCen4ScienceEd
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

liamw

I would recommend you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins which answers all your questions.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

The Self Gene was written for those who already understood evolution in detail and as thus does not explain the core concepts, which can lead to confusion if you don't know them first.

Learn about the basics of evolution and then go back to the Selfish Gene, you will find it a lot more enjoyable.

I disagree - 'The Selfish Gene' was the first book I read on evolution and I understood it fine. I didn't know much about evolution and natural selection before reading it. 'The Extended Phenotype' is the second book I read and I would not recommend that as an initial book

Dawkins has a precursor to 'The Selfish Gene', 'The Greatest Show On Earth' - although I haven't read it I'd probably recommend to read that first.

Undergod

King Mob wrote: »

Well your mistake here is that evolutionary changes don't aim towards a specific goal.
It works like this:
One generation passes it's genes onto the next which include various mutations.
Now most of these mutations do nothing. A few cause detrimental effects. But the odd time they give a benefit.
And if one of these benefits give the offspring that have it an advantage over the others in it's generation and therefore produce more offspring which would have the same advantage.
These changes take thousands of generations to spread in a species and build up.

This is the best way I've seen it put, I think. I find this is the single most misunderstood thing about evolution.

liamw wrote: »

I would recommend you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins which answers all your questions.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

The only book I’ve read is the selfish gene so my knowledge is limited.

FrankAmazing wrote: »

and on another level i thought that evolution was the key for why most people were atheists. i almost expected some epiphany after reading the book that would bring about a sort of eureka moment. but from my reading of it, none of it seems incompatible with a belief in a deity. (although i dont want this statement to detract from the thread - in fact ive though about deleting this last paragraph for fear it would derail my thread).

basically i just like the above five queries answered/explained to me.
i posted here as it seems to be a more active forum than the biology one.
thanks

It is no way incompatible with belief in a deity!

Rev Hellfire

This topic makes me weep for the Irish education system.
Bring back the nuns I say... well perhaps not.

FrankAmazing

Thanks to all who answered my questions with the same sincerity that I had in posting.

Your answers have cleared things up somewhat for me but I will look through those videos as well to come to a clearer understanding.

To those who ridiculed me; it is that arrogance, snide posturing and ''witty'' supreme stance which lends itself to the stereotypical views that people hold of atheists. It's like you've seen how much vitriol Dawkins ires in the general public and decided to immitate it on a message board. In future I would implore you to treat each query with sincerity. Do you think I would waste my time writing out a circa 1000 word post 'just to take the mic'.

I'm no idiot. I'm a qualified accountant with no background in evolutionary biology bar 1st to 3rd year in secondary school and one read through of The Selfish Gene. Sorry for trying to educate myself and in the process not completely understanding a concept which if it was so self explanatory wouldn't have taken so long to produce in the first place.

Thanks again to those who helped.

MrPudding

Seriously, don't be offended. We have seen people making 1000s of posts to make the mick, 1000 words is nothing. If you hang about you will see that we get quite a few "drive by" posters, and your first post kind of fitted that profile.

If you are genuinely interested there are a bunch of people on this board who will point you in the right direction and answer your questions.

MrP

Zombrex

I think the hostility came from the fact that you were (how ever inadvertently) repeating some common Creationist myths in your questions.

Unfortunately we get a lot of Creationists on this forum trying to demonstrate to us that evolution cannot happen or doesn't make sense. This naturally irks some posters.

I'm glad to hear you are no one of them and that you are genuinely interested in learning more about evolution. Happy learning, it is a fascinating subject.

MagicMarker

I'd definitely recommend The Greatest Show on Earth as a better introduction to Evolution than The Selfish Gene imo.

liamw

Apologies if you are making a geniune effort to educate yourself on evolution, but your post read exactly like a drive-by creationist - our brains have been poisoned . Perhaps you didn't understand a lot of the core concepts in The Selfish Gene. Try reading 'The Greatest Show on Earth' first and revisit that book afterwards.

I am sincere when I say The Selfish Gene answers many of your questions which is why your post sounded weird.

fatmammycat

I second (third?) The Greatest Show on Earth as a more accessible book to begin with. Good luck and happy reading.

The Mad Hatter

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'd definitely recommend The Greatest Show on Earth as a better introduction to Evolution than The Selfish Gene imo.

I'd ditto this.

I'd also be inclined to agree with Frank that we need to be less prejudicial when someone comes onto the board with (seemingly) genuine questions. Lack of knowledge is not a crime, and curiosity is important, and not something that should be shot down.

Some people are saying, justifiably, that because we have a fair few trolls on here it's ok to be sarky when someone seems to be trolling, but I'd rather let 100 trolls feel smug and self-satisfied and teach one person something new than make anyone with genuine questions feel like they shouldn't have asked them.

I'd honestly rather posters like J C had no influence at all. If because of people like him we wind up leaping down the throats of people with genuine questions about evolution, then I think he's been more successful than he deserves.

AhSureTisGrand

I thought only trolls were allowed here. If it's genuine move it to the biology forum :pac:

fatmammycat

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'd ditto this.

I'd also be inclined to agree with Frank that we need to be less prejudicial when someone comes onto the board with (seemingly) genuine questions. Lack of knowledge is not a crime, and curiosity is important, and not something that should be shot down.

Some people are saying, justifiably, that because we have a fair few trolls on here it's ok to be sarky when someone seems to be trolling, but I'd rather let 100 trolls feel smug and self-satisfied and teach one person something new than make anyone with genuine questions feel like they shouldn't have asked them.

I'd honestly rather posters like J C had no influence at all. If because of people like him we wind up leaping down the throats of people with genuine questions about evolution, then I think he's been more successful than he deserves.

Agreed, that's why I feel it would be better if people ignored his tripe, cut his oxygen supply so to speak. He's an obvious fraud and a liar, I don't understand why he is tolerated and indulged as much as he is.

Kivaro

"The Greatest Show On Earth" should answer your questions OP. It will give you such an insight that it should clear up any misconceptions that you may have.

Also, you need to be clear on the "evolving from monkeys/apes" notion: We just shared a common ancestor.
That's the answer to the creationist "I’ll believe in evolution when I see a monkey give birth to a human baby" argument; an argument that lacks any knowledge in the sciences.

Dades

liamw wrote: »

Apologies if you are making a geniune effort to educate yourself on evolution, but your post read exactly like a drive-by creationist - our brains have been poisoned

This is the problem here, OP.

You'd be amazed at the number of threads that seem innocently started and then become abundantly clear that the OP has no interest in the facts only with promoting their own world-view.

Apologies on behalf of the more paranoid amongst us!

Galvasean

FrankAmazing wrote: »

To those who ridiculed me; it is that arrogance, snide posturing and ''witty'' supreme stance which lends itself to the stereotypical views that people hold of atheists. It's like you've seen how much vitriol Dawkins ires in the general public and decided to immitate it on a message board. In future I would implore you to treat each query with sincerity. Do you think I would waste my time writing out a circa 1000 word post 'just to take the mic'.

Well I guess I owe you an apology (and all of you who thanked my post - ya'all are as bad as me!). Few things in this world make my blood boil than seeing someone ask along the lines of, "If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?" We get drive by troll posts here every second week with opening posts eerily similar to your OP.

PS Though: Implying that an atheist does something because they saw Dawkins do it is another really big faux paux 'round these parts.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Well I guess I owe you an apology...

Here ya go, eat it all now dear.

Zillah

FrankAmazing wrote: »

It's like you've seen how much vitriol Dawkins ires in the general public and decided to immitate it on a message board.

"Ire" is a noun, not a verb you silly creationist!

CiaranMT

For my tuppence worth, I wouldn't be Dawkins' biggest fan, and neither would a few people here I reckon.

Sarky

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

I was a microbiologist a long time before I even heard of him. Knowing who he is is certainly not necessary to understanding evolution.

liamw

Sarky wrote: »

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

Which you'll agree has no reflection on his talents as an evolutionary biologist and author on the subject. He also has a strong ability to articulate scientific concepts into language that a lay person can understand.

I can only suggest you read some of his books and you might change your opinion. I have only found him to be abrasive and rude to those who talk sh*t.

There's an interesting debate online between him and Laurence Krauss where they argue the soft vs. hard approach when debating the religious and religious concepts.

MagicMarker

Sarky wrote: »

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

OMG CONTEXT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEl4QfcAK2o

Roger Hassenforder

Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Sagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oXFWKpJiA&feature=fvwrel

Kivaro

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Sagan.

Now there's a God if I ever met one.

mewso

Sarky wrote: »

The only thing I've read by Dawkins was that quote he said somewhere that went something like "Science is interesting, and if you don't think so you can f*ck off." From what I've gathered here, he's clever and very knowledgeable, but also abrasive and sometimes rude.

I don't think Dawkins is particularly abrasive or rude. He is very direct and won't soften his language when explaining things which will inevitably rub some people up the wrong way. I admire him for that because I'm the type of person who would soften my language depending on who I'm talking to. There is an innocence to people who approach things that way ("how could they be offended by the facts") but also an optimism in that we may hope people will some day not label someone offensive/rude for being direct about any truth be they harsh or otherwise. He 'aint perfect by any means (see his comments about elevator-gate) but I definitely admire the guy.

Roger Hassenforder

he doesnt suffer fools all right

sponsoredwalk

Here are a bunch of .pdf's from a course on evolution based off of this book.
The syllabus is entirely composed of that book, the pdf's & Dawkin's Selfish
Gene so you might like to browse the slides & hopefully get the book to go
more in depth.

goose2005

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Met Dawkins, disappointed. Very soft hands too, never thinned mangles I reckon. Would prefer to have met Satan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2oXFWKpJiA&feature=fvwrel

fyp. After all, he's our real leader, Dr. D's just his viceroy on earth.

amacachi

mewso wrote: »

I don't think Dawkins is particularly abrasive or rude. He is very direct and won't soften his language when explaining things which will inevitably rub some people up the wrong way. I admire him for that because I'm the type of person who would soften my language depending on who I'm talking to. There is an innocence to people who approach things that way ("how could they be offended by the facts") but also an optimism in that we may hope people will some day not label someone offensive/rude for being direct about any truth be they harsh or otherwise. He 'aint perfect by any means (see his comments about elevator-gate) but I definitely admire the guy.

Aye, if someone isn't amazed everytime they look at the stars then I have no time for them. :pac:

Chuck Stone

The OP will mutate and adapt and those who ridiculed him will stagnate and expire! :P

Mark Hamill

FrankAmazing wrote: »

Have been doing some study on evolution and would like some things cleared up for me if someone would be so kind.

Just curious, but why did you ask this here, in the A&A forum, and not in the Science forums?

zico10

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just curious, but why did you ask this here, in the A&A forum, and not in the Science forums?

FrankAmazing wrote: »

Have been doing some study on evolution and would like some things cleared up for me if someone would be so kind.

From the same post;

FrankAmazing wrote: »

i posted here as it seems to be a more active forum than the biology one.
thanks

Roger Hassenforder

thats biology for you!
slow progress.
Should see the geology fora

Gregor Samsa

Galvasean wrote: »

Few things in this world make my blood boil than seeing someone ask along the lines of, "If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?"

Someone asked me that in work during the week. I answered the question, and someone else said "So, do you really believe that we evolved from monkeys?" - as if such a thing was on a par with the really, really mad end of Scientology or something.

I'd understand if this person was a devout creationist Christian - at least they'd have a dogmatic belief in opposition to evolution that they'd see as the truth, but she's just your average cultural catholic. I certainly don't mind people asking questions, but it nearly made me weep for our secondary school science curriculum if the very notion of evolution seems so outlandish even to educated people.

Although thinking about it, this was the same person that asked me if I had to get permission from my Parish Priest when I got married in a Registry Office. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

Few things in this world make my blood boil than seeing someone ask along the lines of, "If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?"

My response is usually "If you were born from your parents, why are your parents still alive?"

if adults come from children why are there still children??!


yeah, bet you didn't think of that one, atheists :mad:

except mad hatter. grmbl grmbl

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote: »

except mad hatter. grmbl grmbl

Yours is better

Mark Hamill

bluewolf wrote: »

if adults come from children why are there still children??!

I was looking for this pokemon related one to post, when I came across this:

made me laugh .

seamus

phutyle wrote: »

I'd understand if this person was a devout creationist Christian - at least they'd have a dogmatic belief in opposition to evolution that they'd see as the truth, but she's just your average cultural catholic. I certainly don't mind people asking questions, but it nearly made me weep for our secondary school science curriculum if the very notion of evolution seems so outlandish even to educated people.

There's a very valid reason why people ask the "Why are there still monkeys" question.

It's because of this very well-known image/idea:


When you get a summary of evolution in school or college, or anywhere basically, you get the above image. Which basically shows what is clearly a chimpanzee, morphing into a human being. If this diagram is not accompanied with the "common ancestor" discussion, then the person is immediately going to assume that we came from chimpanzees, which in turn leads to an obvious question: Why did we change and the chimpanzee didn't?

I wouldn't level criticism at the people who ask the question. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm glad that some people look at the image and manage to see a very obvious flaw in it, all on their own. When presented as an visual explanation of evolution, it needs volumes to explain exactly what's being described. But it's typically presented as an description of evolution all in itself.