History UsefulNotes / Evolution

19th Apr '16 5:56:19 PM Malchus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Firstly, the law actually states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in an '''isolated system'''--i.e., things in an isolated system tend to even out: hotter areas lose heat to cooler areas, friction takes energy from motion, and so on until the system achieves equilibrium. Hence, why there is no such thing as perpetual motion. However, biological processes take place in our planet, which is '''not''' an isolated system. Earth receives energy and material from the Sun and other space debris and phenomena, so applying this law to evolution as a whole is based on a faulty premise.
* Secondly, if the Earth actually was a closed system, then it is true that evolution would not happen--but neither would life in the first place. Life is just the distribution of energy from one lifeform to another in the form of several processes of conversion (photosynthesis, digestion, decomposition etc.), and that process would need a constant supply of energy or it would peter down to equilibrium instead of encouraging growth. The lowest rungs of most food (energy) chains usually begin with something requiring photosynthesis, which takes energy from an outside source, the Sun. Yes, some life does take its energy from geothermal energy, but that will eventually run down[[note]]Assuming that the Earth first doesn't get consumed when the Sun goes gigantic in its death throes or something large enough to affect the inner geothermal movements of Earth hits it[[/note]] as has already happened inside Mars.

to:

* Firstly, the law actually states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in an '''isolated system'''--i.e., things in an isolated system tend to even out: hotter areas lose heat to cooler areas, friction takes energy from motion, and so on until the system achieves equilibrium. Hence, why there is no such thing as perpetual motion. However, biological processes take place in our planet, which is '''not''' an isolated system. Earth Earth's biosphere receives energy and material from the Sun and Sun, other space debris and phenomena, and geothermal activity; so applying this law to evolution as a whole is based on a faulty premise.
* Secondly, if the Earth Earth's biosphere actually was a closed system, then it is true that evolution would not happen--but neither would life in the first place. Life is just the distribution of energy from one lifeform to another in the form of several processes of conversion (photosynthesis, digestion, decomposition etc.), and that process would need a constant supply of energy or it would peter down to equilibrium instead of encouraging growth. The lowest rungs of most food (energy) chains usually begin with something requiring photosynthesis, which takes energy from an outside source, the Sun. Yes, some life does take its energy from source (the Sun) and/or geothermal energy, but that will eventually run down[[note]]Assuming that energy (exclusively the Earth first doesn't get consumed when the Sun goes gigantic latter for life thriving in its death throes or something large enough to affect the inner geothermal movements of Earth hits it[[/note]] as has already happened inside Mars.places with no sunlight).
8th Mar '16 5:20:07 AM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* There are not "more evolved" (humans and apes) and "less evolved" (frogs, insects, plants) species. All living things are descended from a common ancestor, and have the same three or so billion years of evolution between then and now. (While species aren't more or less evolved, they can be more or less complex. Lineages can evolve from high to low complexity - think of lizards losing legs to become snakes.) If you really pressed an evolutionary biologist to pick "more evolved" organisms, they'd reason that natural selection is most effective with short generation times and large populations, and therefore choose bacteria.

to:

* There are not "more evolved" (humans (mammals and apes) birds) and "less evolved" (frogs, insects, plants) (reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, non-animal organisms) species. All living things are descended from a common ancestor, and have the same three or so billion years of evolution between then and now. (While species aren't more or less evolved, they can be more or less complex. Lineages can evolve from high to low complexity - think of lizards losing legs to become snakes.) If you really pressed an evolutionary biologist to pick "more evolved" organisms, they'd reason that natural selection is most effective with short generation times and large populations, and therefore choose bacteria.
7th Mar '16 8:34:23 PM FiliasCupio
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* There are not "more evolved" (humans and apes) and "less evolved" (frogs, insects, plants) species. All living things are descended from a common ancestor, and have the same three or so billion years of evolution between then and now. (While species aren't more or less evolved, they can be more or less complex. Lineages can evolve from high to low complexity - think of lizards losing legs to become snakes.) If you really pressed an evolutionary biologist to pick "more evolved" organisms, they'd reason that natural selection is most effective with short generation times and large populations, and therefore choose bacteria.
17th Feb '16 4:12:27 AM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The Linnaean Taxonomy has precedents stretching back to antiquity, organizing life by kind and in a kind of ladder. God above man above animals above plants. However the hierarchy breaks down in the face of history, as single-celled organisms are more numerous and diverse than multi-cellular organisms. They had three billion years plus to evolve, so this makes sense, but it flies in the face of the anthropocentric world-view that holds life in a hierarchy with ourselves at the top. Further, the divisions between groups break down when you consider, for example, the monotremes and marsupials, animals with characteristics common to reptiles and mammals, or when you learn that the birds are closely related to and recently descended from reptiles, making them closer cousins to crocodiles than crocodiles are to turtles, even though both of the latter are clearly reptiles!

to:

The Linnaean Taxonomy has precedents stretching back to antiquity, organizing life by kind and in a kind of ladder. God above man above animals above plants. However the hierarchy breaks down in the face of history, as single-celled organisms are more numerous and diverse than multi-cellular organisms. They had three billion years plus to evolve, so this makes sense, but it flies in the face of the anthropocentric world-view that holds life in a hierarchy with ourselves at the top. Further, the divisions between groups break down when you consider, for example, the monotremes and marsupials, animals primitive ancestors of mammals with characteristics common to reptiles and mammals, commonly seen in reptiles, or when you learn that the birds are closely related to and recently descended from reptiles, making them closer cousins to crocodiles than crocodiles are to turtles, even though both of the latter are clearly reptiles!
16th Feb '16 4:21:08 PM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In the same fashion, you have the clade Dinosauria, which includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Go back to an earlier ancestor and you have the Archosauria, which clade includes dinosaurs (including birds), pterosaurs and pseudosuchians (crocodiles and friends). Go back further and your clade includes Archosauria, Lepidosauria (the lizards and snakes) and maybe Testudines (turtles). At that point your clade includes all living reptiles and, under the Linnaean system, would have been considered Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Cordata, Class Reptilia. However, your clade ''also'' includes the birds, which under Linnaeus were sorted into the separate Class of Aves.

to:

In the same fashion, you have the clade Dinosauria, which includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Go back to an earlier ancestor and you have the Archosauria, which clade includes dinosaurs (including birds), pterosaurs and pseudosuchians (crocodiles and friends). Go back further and your clade includes becomes Diapsida, including Archosauria, Lepidosauria (the lizards (lizards and snakes) and maybe Testudines (turtles).(turtles, which were once though to be non-diapsid reptiles). At that point your clade includes all living reptiles and, under the Linnaean system, would have been considered Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Cordata, Class Reptilia. However, your clade ''also'' includes the birds, which under Linnaeus were sorted into the separate Class of Aves.
16th Feb '16 4:18:22 PM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In the same fashion, you have the clade of all dinosauria, which includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Go back to an earlier ancestor and you have the archosauria, which clade includes the birds, non-avian dinosaurs, and crocodylomorphs (crocodiles). Go back further and your clade includes both archosauria and squamata, the lizards and snakes. Further still, and your clade includes the testudines, the turtles. At that point your clade includes all living reptiles and, under the Linnaean system, would have been considered Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Cordata, Class Reptilia. However, your clade ''also'' includes the birds, which under Linnaeus were sorted into the separate Class of Aves.

to:

In the same fashion, you have the clade of all dinosauria, Dinosauria, which includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Go back to an earlier ancestor and you have the archosauria, Archosauria, which clade includes the birds, non-avian dinosaurs, dinosaurs (including birds), pterosaurs and crocodylomorphs (crocodiles). pseudosuchians (crocodiles and friends). Go back further and your clade includes both archosauria and squamata, the Archosauria, Lepidosauria (the lizards and snakes. Further still, snakes) and your clade includes the testudines, the turtles.maybe Testudines (turtles). At that point your clade includes all living reptiles and, under the Linnaean system, would have been considered Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Cordata, Class Reptilia. However, your clade ''also'' includes the birds, which under Linnaeus were sorted into the separate Class of Aves.
16th Feb '16 12:43:31 PM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->''"'''K'''ing '''P'''hilip '''C'''ame '''O'''ver '''F'''or '''G'''ood '''S'''oup"''[[note]](Motherfucker ''loved'' [[Literature/TheTaleOfDespereaux soup]].)[[/note]]

to:

-->''"'''K'''ing -->''"'''D'''ear '''K'''ing '''P'''hilip '''C'''ame '''O'''ver '''F'''or '''G'''ood '''S'''oup"''[[note]](Motherfucker ''loved'' [[Literature/TheTaleOfDespereaux soup]].)[[/note]]



Linnaean taxonomy classifies organisms based on their morphological characteristics into a hierarchical system. For example, humans are in '''K'''ingdom Animalia, '''P'''hylum Chordata, '''C'''lass Mammalia, '''O'''rder Primates, '''F'''amily Hominidae, '''G'''enus ''Homo'', '''S'''pecies ''sapiens''. Unfortunately, not everything fits into this neat arrangement, especially once common descent is taken into account.

to:

Linnaean taxonomy classifies organisms based on their morphological characteristics into a hierarchical system. For example, humans are in '''D'''omain Eukaryota, '''K'''ingdom Animalia, '''P'''hylum Chordata, '''C'''lass Mammalia, '''O'''rder Primates, '''F'''amily Hominidae, '''G'''enus ''Homo'', ''Homo'' and '''S'''pecies ''sapiens''. Unfortunately, not everything fits into this neat arrangement, especially once common descent is taken into account.
16th Feb '16 11:44:43 AM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Linnaean taxonomy classifies organisms based on their morphological characteristics into a hierarchical system. For example, humans are in '''K'''ingdom Animalia, '''P'''hylum Chordata, '''C'''lass Mammalia, '''O'''rder Primates, '''F'''amily Hominidae, '''G'''enus Homo, '''S'''pecies Sapiens. Unfortunately, not everything fits into this neat arrangement, especially once common descent is taken into account.

to:

Linnaean taxonomy classifies organisms based on their morphological characteristics into a hierarchical system. For example, humans are in '''K'''ingdom Animalia, '''P'''hylum Chordata, '''C'''lass Mammalia, '''O'''rder Primates, '''F'''amily Hominidae, '''G'''enus Homo, ''Homo'', '''S'''pecies Sapiens.''sapiens''. Unfortunately, not everything fits into this neat arrangement, especially once common descent is taken into account.



* The first incorrect assumption is a somewhat pedantic one: modern humans did not evolve evolve from modern monkeys, or at least from ancestors that would be fully classed as monkeys; in fact, both humans and monkeys evolved from some common antecedent that pre-dated the emergence of the first monkeys. It would be more correct to ask "If people evolved from ''apes''...", except that we're still apes. (Our closest relative is the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo bonobo]], which [[SexTropes may explain a lot]].)

to:

* The first incorrect assumption is a somewhat pedantic one: modern humans did not evolve evolve from modern monkeys, or at least from ancestors that would be fully classed as monkeys; in fact, both humans and monkeys evolved from some common antecedent that pre-dated the emergence of the first monkeys. It would be more correct to ask "If people evolved from ''apes''...", except that we're still apes. (Our One of our closest relative is the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo bonobo]], which [[SexTropes may explain a lot]].)



* Want something that'll blow your mind? The closest living relatives of the bears today are the pinnipeds; the seals, walruses, and sea lions. The hyena isn't a caniform at all! They're descended from a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_Palm_Civet civet-like creature]], making them feliforms more closely related to the mongoose! This is an example of convergent evolution and explains why biology is such a difficult and complex science; also, why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and the power of genetic studies.

to:

* Want something that'll blow your mind? The closest living relatives of the bears today are the raccoons, skunks, weasels and pinnipeds; the seals, walruses, and sea lions. The hyena isn't a caniform at all! They're descended from a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_Palm_Civet civet-like creature]], making them feliforms more closely related to the mongoose! This is an example of convergent evolution and explains why biology is such a difficult and complex science; also, why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and the power of genetic studies.
16th Feb '16 11:31:55 AM Spinosegnosaurus77
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->''"If Americans came from Britain, why are there still British people?" ''

to:

-->''"If Americans came -->''"Letís say upfront that asking 'if humans/apes evolved from Britain, monkeys, why are there still British people?" ''
monkeys?' is exactly the same as saying 'if there are snakes, why are there still lizards?', 'if there are tetrapods, why are there still fish', or 'if there are European Americans, why are there still Europeans?'."''
-->-'''[[Blog/TetrapodZoology Darren Naish]]'''

16th Feb '16 9:42:39 AM unokkun
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!!Myth: [[EvolutionaryLevels Evolution is leading somewhere, or knows where it's going, and that place is human intelligence.]]

to:

!!!Myth: [[EvolutionaryLevels [[GoalOrientedEvolution Evolution is leading somewhere, or knows where it's going, going,]] [[EvolutionaryLevels and that place is human intelligence.]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 165. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Evolution