One little point: Intelligence is not a trait governed by genetics or herdity but rather by the social factors affecting ones upbringing. One that is taught to value knowledge will undoubtedly seek it.
I also beg to differ on the point that preserving "Bad" genes will ultimately have a negative impact on our society. If anything, preserving them adds to our genetic diversity, and when the time comes for us to begin spreading to the stars, even a bad gene can confer an advantage given the correct environment.
By the way, there is evidence that the "**** Gene" survives because it actually boosts fertility. <a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html' target='_blank'>Link</a> <a href='http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Homosexual+Gene+Fertility&btnG=Search&meta=' target='_blank'>Google Search</a>
And hence the reason that homosexuality is passed down. Even so, the gene only increases the probability that one will be homosexual, it does not account for all homosexual people and the study didnt consider lesbians.
{Edit}
Fixed the google search link. Silly forum swear filter futzing with the search string.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+Mar 15 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Mar 15 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One little point: Intelligence is not a trait governed by genetics or herdity but rather by the social factors affecting ones upbringing. One that is taught to value knowledge will undoubtedly seek it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it isn't genetic, but my point is that the stupid will only make more stupid.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Mar 16 2005, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Mar 16 2005, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+Mar 15 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Mar 15 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One little point: Intelligence is not a trait governed by genetics or herdity but rather by the social factors affecting ones upbringing. One that is taught to value knowledge will undoubtedly seek it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it isn't genetic, but my point is that the stupid will only make more stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mantrid gets my vote.
Insted I shall say that this is probably the 2nd topic I have ever seen in here that has actually whispered to my curiousity. I thank you apos for the lovely discussion about the facts. Kudos my friend, you definately deserve an accolade in here for this.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2005
Humans are still under evolutionary pressure. By definition, evolutionary pressure is <b>impossible</b> to avoid. To say that we are no longer to evolutionary processes is to demonstrate a complete failure to understand the concept.
I should have been clearer in my post with regards to selective pressure. Whilst it is true that external selective pressures have lessened, our ability to reproduce is still limited by human factors. If you are a crack addict, seriously disabled, unpopular or ugly you won't get laid. If you don't get laid, you won't reproduce.
There are less biological factors that affect our evolution nowadays, but they still exist. Fertility, congenitive diseases, heart disease and a whole other host of biological traits still affect our ability to pass on our genes. It's just that social factors, like income and geopolitics have a much greater impact. I, for example, am unlikely to ever have children, because I am too poor. That is no reflection on my genetic structure, just my socio-economic position.
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 05:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apos I am curious on one issue.
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We're the only animals that consume huge quantities of Whoppers, donuts, and milkshakes.
Any animal will develop problems if it doesn't have the right diet.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
1) The human lifespan is vastly longer than it's meant to be. We are designed to die around 45 years old at the latest. It's amazing our heart lasts as long as it does, to be honest.
2) Heart disease is exacerbated by smoking and a diet rich in processed foods. Not an issue that affects animals much.
3) Heart disease is an illness that develops <b>after</b> a person's reproductive phase. There's no reason why it would be eliminated by selective pressure.
I know I'm not Apos, but I felt like answering it anyway. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 05:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apos I am curious on one issue.
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, we're not. You can find defects and diseases in almost any organ in almost any animal there is.
Of course, heart disease in the US happens to be in part a cause of terrible diet and poor exercise because of a lifestyle evolution never anticipated (since it cannot anticipate anything).
Evolution cannot promise perfection, and time, wear, and entropy are harsh mistresses.
Ian Musgrave knows a heck of a lot more about biology than I, than almost anyone I know.
So it's no wonder that when he looks at a creationist argument like the one Pepe tried on me, he can see what's wrong with it more clearly and with a much fuller grasp of the actual science behind things like eye structure. And, by coincidence, he happens to have written an article about the inverted eye issue where he completely rips to shreds the arguements of Denton, Behe, and others. And he points out things even I didn't know: such as the very feature which creationists laud as being the whole point of an inverted eye is actually a sloppy kludge made NECESSARY by the inverted eye: to compensate for problems it causes!
You guys are obviously much smarter than I am, but one thng that has always confused me is how gender came into play. In my biology class we studied one cell organisms and asexual reproduction etc etc, but it seems to me that a jump from one gender to another is a huge leap, because if it is off just a little, then the whole species cannot reproduce and thus cannot continue to exist.
<!--QuoteBegin-Lawpark+Mar 16 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lawpark @ Mar 16 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You guys are obviously much smarter than I am, but one thng that has always confused me is how gender came into play. In my biology class we studied one cell organisms and asexual reproduction etc etc, but it seems to me that a jump from one gender to another is a huge leap, because if it is off just a little, then the whole species cannot reproduce and thus cannot continue to exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sexual reproduction has huge advantages of asexual reproduction. Good genes can propogate a lot faster through sexual reproduction because they'll be mixed in with the genes of all other organism in the species, as opposed to only the descendants of the organism in which the gene was first mutated and not the descendants of any other organism. Sexual reproduction also allows greater versatility, because instead of just copying your genes and passing them down (in essence, creating a clone), you mix the genes of two organism together, every single time.
Some bacteria do exchange genes with each other, but not through sexual means.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did gender evolve?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't answer the exact mechanics of how it evolved, but I've just tried to give a brief overview of the advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual. I'm sure someone else will go into greater detail.
<!--QuoteBegin-Lawpark+Mar 16 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lawpark @ Mar 16 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You guys are obviously much smarter than I am, but one thng that has always confused me is how gender came into play. In my biology class we studied one cell organisms and asexual reproduction etc etc, but it seems to me that a jump from one gender to another is a huge leap, because if it is off just a little, then the whole species cannot reproduce and thus cannot continue to exist.
How did gender evolve? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know that some bacteria species have structures that allow the exchange of genetic information, so you could make a case that there is some kind of sex even in bacteria. However this transfer of information isn't close to actual reproduction; it's not necessary for reproduction, and only small bits of code are exchanged, most of which isn't even a part of the bacteria's "real" genetic information (the bits of information that are exchanged are on plasmids, separate rings of RNA outside of the ring of bacterial DNA).
While this exchange is probably not even remotely related to how sex as we know it developed, it shows that - even if it's not necessary - reproduction is definitely enhanced by the exchange of genetic information between two individuals, because it leads to so many more combinations than mutation alone. So in a way, the rise of different sexes was almost an inevitability for more complex organisms. When exactly it happened, and how it happened, I'll leave that to Apos; all I know is that it's not surprising that it happened once you see the benefits it gives. Of course, there are always situations where asexual reproduction is preferable, and indeed there are fish and lizard species that can switch between the two systems freely, but there are always exceptions to everything. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[edit]You know, I read all 21 pages of this thread, but I don't read the last post before mine. Yay for repetition. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Mar 16 2005, 10:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Mar 16 2005, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [edit]You know, I read all 21 pages of this thread, but I don't read the last post before mine. Yay for repetition. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's OK, Sky. You wrote two paragraphs on a topic I only gave 1 sentence on. I can clearly say that this thread (and the entire human race, perhaps) clearly benefitted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 11 2005, 04:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 11 2005, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Understanding it and accepting it as fact are two entirely diffent things. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it is <i>highly</i> unlikely that understanding it will allow one to disbelieve it
it is not something counterintuitive like quantum mechanics can be; it is merely seemingly difficult for many people
people only think they understand it. they come with preconceived notions and bias.
Off Topic-> so do I, however in this world very few things can be known for certain. without going into philosophy, let us say that much of what we know about the world, we must bet on. we must start from the ground up seeing these and that little things and working out a model that will fit- kneading out logical congruency from the observed phenomena of the universe - figuring out possible outcomes and situations that the observer is willing to bet on as more likely to be true than others
those whose brains best approximate reality win
this tangent is going nowhere so i will stop now. middle of the night ftw
but people only think they know. and many people either are not especially suited to intellectually understanding evolution or are simply unwilling for whatever reason, perhaps simple laziness
at its very core, evolution is like math. it is impossible to dispute, else you might as well repudiate the universe, and one is free to do so
is something holding us and everything we see in daily life down to the ground? yes, it is. Is it gravity? Is it really there, even if we never gave thought to it, even if someone in particular doesn't understand it's nature? what if that someone never formulated the idea of gravity and mass and universe and space-time and that things can be floating above the ground?
that doesn't change the fact that things <i>are</i> stuck to the ground, whether or not that person can imagine otherwise.
just the same, those maladapted to a given situation enough to affect their reproductive success are disadvantaged, and the better adapted strain will predominate within those environmental parameters a generation or so down the line
in this way, all things change. this is evolution
you can try to dispute timescales or wonder why everything is as it is, but you cannot dispute that individuals differ, and each is perfect tailored to a particular set of environmental parameters, all of which have safety buffer margins of error, but sometimes those margins are unforgiving or the environment the individual is currently in is otherwise vastly different from ideal in one or more important ways. the individual variant will die or be otherwise compromised - there is no alternative
also, the why is more philosophical, although it can resonate deeply, we may be far from understanding why that is beyond that our brains are built to favor such. as for timescale, those who would argue such had better be able to prove it mathematically, and i mean prove it objectively and not feelingwise. feelingwise is not enough, and a faulty understanding of math does not behove you. there may be other objections but i am not here to brainstorm them. the core of evolution, after all, is untouchable - just like gravity, and math, and your very existence
EDITed to add only this sentence and an "otherwise". vanity ftw
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Mar 13 2005, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Mar 13 2005, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The idea of "racial memory" is fascinating. Anyone have any idea how racial memory works? How is it passed down? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it's like "racial memory" for sugar and sex. hope that gets you the idea. exactly the same
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 16 2005, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 16 2005, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Humans are still under evolutionary pressure. By definition, evolutionary pressure is <b>impossible</b> to avoid. To say that we are no longer to evolutionary processes is to demonstrate a complete failure to understand the concept. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> this is correct. we are merely smart with complex interactions with our environment and each other; we have not escaped evolution. the "environment" simply allows things to happen in this and that way because of its nature
also, intelligence is partly hereditary
am too tired for eloquence, having stayed up finishing the thread, because i have the day off tomorrow (and by extension the weekend puaha)
I just wanted to add on here a point that I hope will be easy to understand that I haven't seen explicitly stated:
Evolution occurs right now, but only occurs in cases where things die before they are able to reproduce(i.e. Natural Selection.) So if you say why do people have heart attacks still why haven't we evolved into beings that dont have them, the answer is that most heart attacks occur after reproduction which removes the chance of them being used to naturally select non heart attack prone people.
This is true especially with humans who do not have to fight one another(generally) for life. Because of the society that we are accustomed too, and the dominance we have other other creatures (excluding micro-org,) we have nothing by which we are naturally selected. Everyone gets to eat, and if you can find a mate (shocker!), you can generally reproduce.
But I am sure that this complacency will slowly dissappear when people are forced to actually fight for life, and we will probably become a stronger species when it happens. (If we dont blow ourselfs up)
I haven't read through the discussion, ignore me if these questions have been asked before.
1. What put the bang in the big bang or what caused life to first exist? What caused everything to "be"? (This coming from the law of "cause and effect" - what is the cause here? or the assumed cause, or just your opinion will do.)
2. What about order to chaos? How is evolution working against entropy? Or is it?
EDIT:: 3. What about studies done with fruit flies that show that genetical data can only be altered so far? If everything evolved, why can't we "evolve" something using genetical experimentation? (i.e. tampering with genetic data.)
Source: <a href='http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fruit_fly_experiments_produce_only_fruit_flies' target='_blank'>http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fruit_fly_...nly_fruit_flies</a> (I read this elsewhere but a quick googling found me the link above)
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. What put the bang in the big bang or what caused life to first exist? What caused everything to "be"? (This coming from the law of "cause and effect" - what is the cause here? or the assumed cause, or just your opinion will do.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I am not Apos and I really don't have a complete understanding of everything that has gone on here, though this thread is extremely interesting I thought I could tackle at least this first one.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang' target='_blank'>Big Bang on Wikipedia</a>
Using wikipedia, I came up with this for an explanation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipeida+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wikipeida)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density. Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch, the universe expanded exponentially during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma where the constituent particles were all moving relativistically. By an as yet unknown process, baryogenesis occurred producing the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter. As the universe grew in size, the temperature dropped, leading to further symmetry breaking processes that manifested themselves as the known forces of physics, elementary particles, and later allowed for the formation of the universe's hydrogen and helium atoms in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate over radiation. After about 300,000 years the radiation decoupled from the atoms and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Review of basic forces of physics, which can not be completely applied to the sub-atomic particle level. In order of strenght. 1. Strong force. (Between Protons and Neutrons) 2. Weak force. (Between the electrons holding them in orbit) 3. Repulsion of Protons to Electrons (I have forgotten the scientific term) 4. Gravity.
As I understand it, everything was one tiny little particle.. and as time progressed we are talking about nanoseconds here. There was enough pressure to overcome the "Strong force" of keeping everything together. Thusly the universe expanded and has been ever since.
After that, I kind of get glazed eye look... because I haven't been in the loop of subatomic particles for a few years. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 23 2005, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 23 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. What about order to chaos? How is evolution working against entropy? Or is it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No. Order only turns into chaos in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system; sunlight is being added into all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. What about studies done with fruit flies that show that genetical data can only be altered so far? If everything evolved, why can't we "evolve" something using genetical experimentation? (i.e. tampering with genetic data.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here is a semi-official response to this question, but I'll also address this from what I know: <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html</a>
The thing is, evolution can take thousands of years, if not millions, to change a species enough so that it can be separated from a species that came before it. We've only been experimenting with fruit flies, for a couple hundred years, at the most.
Here's a story, where we can see two species of fruit fly that have split off from each other extremely recently: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm</a>
Just because we haven't witness fruit flies changing into new species (although we may have, I remember reading a story in which a new species of fruit fly spontaneously emerged, although I can't find the story, so I could be remembering wrong), doesn't mean that we haven't witnessed other species changing. There are numerous examples of recorded speciation: <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html' target='_blank'>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html</a> This page also gives an example of a <i>Drosophila</i> speciation event, which means that fruit flies may have had an observed speciation event in a laboratory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?
I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.
EDIT::
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 24 2005, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 24 2005, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From your fruit fly link...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?
I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.
EDIT::
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, in quantum physics, there are many particles that jump in and out of existence at random.
I shall use an example from the one of the wikipedia links.
Take a little chamber, and suck all of the air out of it, creating a vaccum. (AKA where there is nothing in there.)
With that in mind, scienctists have conducted experiments that show on the quantum level (read sub atomic) particles pop in and out of existence at will. The particles are called quarks which make up protons and neutrons.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles' target='_blank'>List of current known subatomic particles</a>
Now going from here is all strictly what "could" have happened. Since the univerese supposedly started as one of these subatomic particles, just with more mass. It wasn't able to be held together by the "strong nuclear" force that binds the protons and neutrons together. Thusly we have a big bang and it exapands from there.
One issue with that, and yes please do leave "Intelligent Design" out of it, is how it works. Sadly, we do not know and probably won't for a while. We are making consistant progress with antimatter, and fusion technologies, but even then we are only scrapping the surface of what is possible with such unlimited energies.
After all if we were able to perfect some form of fusion (preferrably at a more effiencent level then now) there would be no need for oil, natural gas, nor wind power. Ahh well.. I hope I helped a little bit.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 24 2005, 01:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 24 2005, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From your fruit fly link...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't really understand that either. They mean that anything that evolved from a fruit fly would remain in the same genus, order, phyla, family, etc. as a fruit fly, which is true. However, they also said that it would remain a fruit fly, which confuses me, since I thought species was a different from the other taxonomical designations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> New groups don't really emerge. "Groups" are really just a way of organizing species in a way that is helpful to scientists. Groupings are created by man in order to make life easier for us. New species that emerge are placed inside old groups, if I understand that link correctly, so I guess new groups wouldn't emerge at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you want to learn more about evolution, then read one of Richard Dawkins' books. He does an excellent job at writing for the layman.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 24 2005, 01:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 24 2005, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From your fruit fly link...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, we <i>are</i> looking at the world through the lens of a few billion years. If you think about it, everything is related, just some things are more closely related than others. Classification is one of the more confusing topics in biology; in fact, there is a movement now to scrap the old Linnaean system in favor of something that actually makes logical sense. The current system wasn't created with a knowledge of genetics; it was originally designed to group everything that looked relatively similar together. The result is criss-crossing of heritage lines that don't make any sense to anyone other than someone who has studied the system extensively.
If you want to think about how groups emerge, just think about this. Start with one organism. Some members of that species evolve away from the original, we now have two species. Both of these species are in the same lowest grouping; they are directly related. Now, this process continues for quite some time. Species have arose, died out, evolved, reevolved, etc. If you take any two species from this mix, there is no guarantee that they will be very similar. So, to classify these species, we have to create higher and higher levels of classification, tracing them back to where they split by comparing which features they both share. Taxonomists do this with every new species: they compare it with current ones, then trace it back to where it split by comparing it to known classifications. Groups didn't "emerge", man created the groups to make sense of everything. The fact is, the system wasn't really designed scientifically. Many species have multiple names, because they don't fit in predefined categories. Species don't evolve cleanly enough that man can just go through and classify them easily. So....groups exist because without them, the current classification system just wouldn't work.
If anything, this is proof of evolution; the species we observe now are just not static groups of individuals, and they are not always distinct from their neighbors. How are you supposed to classify a subspecies that can breed successfully with another subspecies, but not with a 3rd subspecies....yet the 2nd subspecies CAN breed successfully with that 3rd subspecies. It doesn't make any sense in the Linnaean system.
Comments
I also beg to differ on the point that preserving "Bad" genes will ultimately have a negative impact on our society. If anything, preserving them adds to our genetic diversity, and when the time comes for us to begin spreading to the stars, even a bad gene can confer an advantage given the correct environment.
By the way, there is evidence that the "**** Gene" survives because it actually boosts fertility. <a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html' target='_blank'>Link</a> <a href='http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Homosexual+Gene+Fertility&btnG=Search&meta=' target='_blank'>Google Search</a>
And hence the reason that homosexuality is passed down. Even so, the gene only increases the probability that one will be homosexual, it does not account for all homosexual people and the study didnt consider lesbians.
{Edit}
Fixed the google search link. Silly forum swear filter futzing with the search string.
I know it isn't genetic, but my point is that the stupid will only make more stupid.
I know it isn't genetic, but my point is that the stupid will only make more stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mantrid gets my vote.
Insted I shall say that this is probably the 2nd topic I have ever seen in here that has actually whispered to my curiousity. I thank you apos for the lovely discussion about the facts. Kudos my friend, you definately deserve an accolade in here for this.
I should have been clearer in my post with regards to selective pressure. Whilst it is true that external selective pressures have lessened, our ability to reproduce is still limited by human factors. If you are a crack addict, seriously disabled, unpopular or ugly you won't get laid. If you don't get laid, you won't reproduce.
There are less biological factors that affect our evolution nowadays, but they still exist. Fertility, congenitive diseases, heart disease and a whole other host of biological traits still affect our ability to pass on our genes. It's just that social factors, like income and geopolitics have a much greater impact. I, for example, am unlikely to ever have children, because I am too poor. That is no reflection on my genetic structure, just my socio-economic position.
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ?
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're the only animals that consume huge quantities of Whoppers, donuts, and milkshakes.
Any animal will develop problems if it doesn't have the right diet.
2) Heart disease is exacerbated by smoking and a diet rich in processed foods. Not an issue that affects animals much.
3) Heart disease is an illness that develops <b>after</b> a person's reproductive phase. There's no reason why it would be eliminated by selective pressure.
I know I'm not Apos, but I felt like answering it anyway. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Obviously the more prevalent disease in the US is heart disease, and dismissing any outside factors are there evolutionary theories behind why we seem to be the only mammals with this defect of the main blood flowing organ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, we're not. You can find defects and diseases in almost any organ in almost any animal there is.
Of course, heart disease in the US happens to be in part a cause of terrible diet and poor exercise because of a lifestyle evolution never anticipated (since it cannot anticipate anything).
Evolution cannot promise perfection, and time, wear, and entropy are harsh mistresses.
So it's no wonder that when he looks at a creationist argument like the one Pepe tried on me, he can see what's wrong with it more clearly and with a much fuller grasp of the actual science behind things like eye structure. And, by coincidence, he happens to have written an article about the inverted eye issue where he completely rips to shreds the arguements of Denton, Behe, and others. And he points out things even I didn't know: such as the very feature which creationists laud as being the whole point of an inverted eye is actually a sloppy kludge made NECESSARY by the inverted eye: to compensate for problems it causes!
<a href='http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000872.html#more' target='_blank'>http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000872.html#more</a>
How did gender evolve?
Sexual reproduction has huge advantages of asexual reproduction. Good genes can propogate a lot faster through sexual reproduction because they'll be mixed in with the genes of all other organism in the species, as opposed to only the descendants of the organism in which the gene was first mutated and not the descendants of any other organism. Sexual reproduction also allows greater versatility, because instead of just copying your genes and passing them down (in essence, creating a clone), you mix the genes of two organism together, every single time.
Some bacteria do exchange genes with each other, but not through sexual means.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did gender evolve?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't answer the exact mechanics of how it evolved, but I've just tried to give a brief overview of the advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual. I'm sure someone else will go into greater detail.
How did gender evolve? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know that some bacteria species have structures that allow the exchange of genetic information, so you could make a case that there is some kind of sex even in bacteria. However this transfer of information isn't close to actual reproduction; it's not necessary for reproduction, and only small bits of code are exchanged, most of which isn't even a part of the bacteria's "real" genetic information (the bits of information that are exchanged are on plasmids, separate rings of RNA outside of the ring of bacterial DNA).
While this exchange is probably not even remotely related to how sex as we know it developed, it shows that - even if it's not necessary - reproduction is definitely enhanced by the exchange of genetic information between two individuals, because it leads to so many more combinations than mutation alone. So in a way, the rise of different sexes was almost an inevitability for more complex organisms. When exactly it happened, and how it happened, I'll leave that to Apos; all I know is that it's not surprising that it happened once you see the benefits it gives. Of course, there are always situations where asexual reproduction is preferable, and indeed there are fish and lizard species that can switch between the two systems freely, but there are always exceptions to everything. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[edit]You know, I read all 21 pages of this thread, but I don't read the last post before mine. Yay for repetition. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's OK, Sky. You wrote two paragraphs on a topic I only gave 1 sentence on. I can clearly say that this thread (and the entire human race, perhaps) clearly benefitted.
it is <i>highly</i> unlikely that understanding it will allow one to disbelieve it
it is not something counterintuitive like quantum mechanics can be; it is merely seemingly difficult for many people
Off Topic-> so do I, however in this world very few things can be known for certain. without going into philosophy, let us say that much of what we know about the world, we must bet on. we must start from the ground up seeing these and that little things and working out a model that will fit- kneading out logical congruency from the observed phenomena of the universe - figuring out possible outcomes and situations that the observer is willing to bet on as more likely to be true than others
those whose brains best approximate reality win
this tangent is going nowhere so i will stop now. middle of the night ftw
but people only think they know. and many people either are not especially suited to intellectually understanding evolution or are simply unwilling for whatever reason, perhaps simple laziness
is something holding us and everything we see in daily life down to the ground? yes, it is. Is it gravity? Is it really there, even if we never gave thought to it, even if someone in particular doesn't understand it's nature? what if that someone never formulated the idea of gravity and mass and universe and space-time and that things can be floating above the ground?
that doesn't change the fact that things <i>are</i> stuck to the ground, whether or not that person can imagine otherwise.
just the same, those maladapted to a given situation enough to affect their reproductive success are disadvantaged, and the better adapted strain will predominate within those environmental parameters a generation or so down the line
in this way, all things change. this is evolution
you can try to dispute timescales or wonder why everything is as it is, but you cannot dispute that individuals differ, and each is perfect tailored to a particular set of environmental parameters, all of which have safety buffer margins of error, but sometimes those margins are unforgiving or the environment the individual is currently in is otherwise vastly different from ideal in one or more important ways. the individual variant will die or be otherwise compromised - there is no alternative
also, the why is more philosophical, although it can resonate deeply, we may be far from understanding why that is beyond that our brains are built to favor such. as for timescale, those who would argue such had better be able to prove it mathematically, and i mean prove it objectively and not feelingwise. feelingwise is not enough, and a faulty understanding of math does not behove you. there may be other objections but i am not here to brainstorm them. the core of evolution, after all, is untouchable - just like gravity, and math, and your very existence
EDITed to add only this sentence and an "otherwise". vanity ftw
it's like "racial memory" for sugar and sex. hope that gets you the idea. exactly the same
this is correct. we are merely smart with complex interactions with our environment and each other; we have not escaped evolution. the "environment" simply allows things to happen in this and that way because of its nature
also, intelligence is partly hereditary
am too tired for eloquence, having stayed up finishing the thread, because i have the day off tomorrow (and by extension the weekend puaha)
Another "Ditto" FTW
but next time, really try to just "edit" your 1st post and make on big article
Evolution occurs right now, but only occurs in cases where things die before they are able to reproduce(i.e. Natural Selection.) So if you say why do people have heart attacks still why haven't we evolved into beings that dont have them, the answer is that most heart attacks occur after reproduction which removes the chance of them being used to naturally select non heart attack prone people.
This is true especially with humans who do not have to fight one another(generally) for life. Because of the society that we are accustomed too, and the dominance we have other other creatures (excluding micro-org,) we have nothing by which we are naturally selected. Everyone gets to eat, and if you can find a mate (shocker!), you can generally reproduce.
But I am sure that this complacency will slowly dissappear when people are forced to actually fight for life, and we will probably become a stronger species when it happens. (If we dont blow ourselfs up)
1. What put the bang in the big bang or what caused life to first exist? What caused everything to "be"? (This coming from the law of "cause and effect" - what is the cause here? or the assumed cause, or just your opinion will do.)
2. What about order to chaos? How is evolution working against entropy? Or is it?
EDIT:: 3. What about studies done with fruit flies that show that genetical data can only be altered so far? If everything evolved, why can't we "evolve" something using genetical experimentation? (i.e. tampering with genetic data.)
Source: <a href='http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fruit_fly_experiments_produce_only_fruit_flies' target='_blank'>http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fruit_fly_...nly_fruit_flies</a>
(I read this elsewhere but a quick googling found me the link above)
~ DarkATi
1. What put the bang in the big bang or what caused life to first exist? What caused everything to "be"? (This coming from the law of "cause and effect" - what is the cause here? or the assumed cause, or just your opinion will do.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I am not Apos and I really don't have a complete understanding of everything that has gone on here, though this thread is extremely interesting I thought I could tackle at least this first one.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang' target='_blank'>Big Bang on Wikipedia</a>
Using wikipedia, I came up with this for an explanation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipeida+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wikipeida)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density. Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch, the universe expanded exponentially during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopped, the material components of the universe were in the form of a quark-gluon plasma where the constituent particles were all moving relativistically. By an as yet unknown process, baryogenesis occurred producing the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter. As the universe grew in size, the temperature dropped, leading to further symmetry breaking processes that manifested themselves as the known forces of physics, elementary particles, and later allowed for the formation of the universe's hydrogen and helium atoms in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate over radiation. After about 300,000 years the radiation decoupled from the atoms and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Review of basic forces of physics, which can not be completely applied to the sub-atomic particle level. In order of strenght.
1. Strong force. (Between Protons and Neutrons)
2. Weak force. (Between the electrons holding them in orbit)
3. Repulsion of Protons to Electrons (I have forgotten the scientific term)
4. Gravity.
As I understand it, everything was one tiny little particle.. and as time progressed we are talking about nanoseconds here. There was enough pressure to overcome the "Strong force" of keeping everything together. Thusly the universe expanded and has been ever since.
After that, I kind of get glazed eye look... because I haven't been in the loop of subatomic particles for a few years. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'll let apos take it from here.
No. Order only turns into chaos in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system; sunlight is being added into all the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. What about studies done with fruit flies that show that genetical data can only be altered so far? If everything evolved, why can't we "evolve" something using genetical experimentation? (i.e. tampering with genetic data.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a semi-official response to this question, but I'll also address this from what I know:
<a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html</a>
The thing is, evolution can take thousands of years, if not millions, to change a species enough so that it can be separated from a species that came before it. We've only been experimenting with fruit flies, for a couple hundred years, at the most.
Here's a story, where we can see two species of fruit fly that have split off from each other extremely recently:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm</a>
Just because we haven't witness fruit flies changing into new species (although we may have, I remember reading a story in which a new species of fruit fly spontaneously emerged, although I can't find the story, so I could be remembering wrong), doesn't mean that we haven't witnessed other species changing. There are numerous examples of recorded speciation:
<a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html' target='_blank'>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html</a>
This page also gives an example of a <i>Drosophila</i> speciation event, which means that fruit flies may have had an observed speciation event in a laboratory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?
I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.
EDIT::
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?
I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.
EDIT::
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, in quantum physics, there are many particles that jump in and out of existence at random.
I shall use an example from the one of the wikipedia links.
Take a little chamber, and suck all of the air out of it, creating a vaccum. (AKA where there is nothing in there.)
With that in mind, scienctists have conducted experiments that show on the quantum level (read sub atomic) particles pop in and out of existence at will. The particles are called quarks which make up protons and neutrons.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles' target='_blank'>List of current known subatomic particles</a>
Now going from here is all strictly what "could" have happened. Since the univerese supposedly started as one of these subatomic particles, just with more mass. It wasn't able to be held together by the "strong nuclear" force that binds the protons and neutrons together. Thusly we have a big bang and it exapands from there.
One issue with that, and yes please do leave "Intelligent Design" out of it, is how it works. Sadly, we do not know and probably won't for a while. We are making consistant progress with antimatter, and fusion technologies, but even then we are only scrapping the surface of what is possible with such unlimited energies.
After all if we were able to perfect some form of fusion (preferrably at a more effiencent level then now) there would be no need for oil, natural gas, nor wind power. Ahh well.. I hope I helped a little bit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't really understand that either. They mean that anything that evolved from a fruit fly would remain in the same genus, order, phyla, family, etc. as a fruit fly, which is true. However, they also said that it would remain a fruit fly, which confuses me, since I thought species was a different from the other taxonomical designations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New groups don't really emerge. "Groups" are really just a way of organizing species in a way that is helpful to scientists. Groupings are created by man in order to make life easier for us. New species that emerge are placed inside old groups, if I understand that link correctly, so I guess new groups wouldn't emerge at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very little understanding of evolution's theories/concepts/ideas etc, so bear with me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to learn more about evolution, then read one of Richard Dawkins' books. He does an excellent job at writing for the layman.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is so, then how did new "groups" emerge? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we <i>are</i> looking at the world through the lens of a few billion years. If you think about it, everything is related, just some things are more closely related than others. Classification is one of the more confusing topics in biology; in fact, there is a movement now to scrap the old Linnaean system in favor of something that actually makes logical sense. The current system wasn't created with a knowledge of genetics; it was originally designed to group everything that looked relatively similar together. The result is criss-crossing of heritage lines that don't make any sense to anyone other than someone who has studied the system extensively.
If you want to think about how groups emerge, just think about this. Start with one organism. Some members of that species evolve away from the original, we now have two species. Both of these species are in the same lowest grouping; they are directly related. Now, this process continues for quite some time. Species have arose, died out, evolved, reevolved, etc. If you take any two species from this mix, there is no guarantee that they will be very similar. So, to classify these species, we have to create higher and higher levels of classification, tracing them back to where they split by comparing which features they both share. Taxonomists do this with every new species: they compare it with current ones, then trace it back to where it split by comparing it to known classifications. Groups didn't "emerge", man created the groups to make sense of everything. The fact is, the system wasn't really designed scientifically. Many species have multiple names, because they don't fit in predefined categories. Species don't evolve cleanly enough that man can just go through and classify them easily. So....groups exist because without them, the current classification system just wouldn't work.
If anything, this is proof of evolution; the species we observe now are just not static groups of individuals, and they are not always distinct from their neighbors. How are you supposed to classify a subspecies that can breed successfully with another subspecies, but not with a 3rd subspecies....yet the 2nd subspecies CAN breed successfully with that 3rd subspecies. It doesn't make any sense in the Linnaean system.