Biology Forum Evolution THEORY OF EVOLUTION

9 voices
8 replies
  • Author
    Posts
    • #629
      param
      Participant

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

    • #20998
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Plants and animals higher up the chain have superior characteristics than those lower on the evolution chain. For example, a frog’s heart has 3 chambers, while a bird’s heart has 4. A bird has steady methabolism, while a reptile does not

    • #21001
      biostudent84
      Participant

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

    • #21002
      James
      Participant

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

    • #21151
      Linaeus
      Participant

      I dont get the question? 😕

    • #21152
      reallyuniquename
      Participant

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

      Ben

    • #87350
      bebaloo19
      Participant

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

    • #87353
      Darwin420
      Participant

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

    • #87389
      canalon
      Participant
      quote Darwin420:

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

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.