This should be good.

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

thanks eden, nicer version...

No problem. I don't regularly follow that comic but I saw that particular installment and thought it was amazing.

Excellent - a very good explanation - and it's short enough for this age of tiny attention spans.

I'm still not completely sold on Evolution. I certainly agree that evolution happens within a species. Poodles and St. Bernards are vastly different types of dog, but they are still both dogs. Are the Galapagos finches different species of finches or different breeds of the same species. If we use the following as a definition of species:

Two individuals are the same species if they can interbred and produce viable offspring. [Therefore Tigers and Lions are the same species, Polar Bears and Grizzly bears, Horses and Donkeys, Dogs, Wolves and Coyotes, Cattle and Buffalo etc]

I completely agree that Natural selection occurs within a species that can make them quite different from other members of the same species (broad definition). It perhaps may make them different enough that they will not naturally mate in the wild, but can be interbred in captivity or under exceptional circumstances (Polar bears and Grizzly Bears, Lions and Tigers).

So My problem is the major non-incremental changes that have occurred in the past. Soft shelled eggs can not be laid on land, hard shelled eggs can not be laid in water, so how did the first Reptile that laid hard shelled eggs on land evolve? There are other examples, but I think that this is the one that I can't see a logical workaround out side of an 'Act from God'

There are no major non-incremental changes.

I like the first one that orathaic posted--it gives the outline on the basic reasons of evolution. Also another part of evolution the comic failed to cite was a divergence between a group of species, also called allopatric speciation.

There is also peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation. Artificial speciation is now more prevalent in science labs today and possibly more so in the future (for medical reasons).

Please refer to my Prezi (an online presentation software that our teacher assigned us to use) that I made for science class. The asterisks are for identity purposes, so when it says "by *** **** and acmac10", our real names would be there. The URL is this: http://prezi.com/h--dozxzwpzu/evolution-concept-map-speciation/

But if vastly different animals don't mate in the wild, but *could* like... lions and tigers I guess, doesn't that mean that in a few more million years they'll totally speciate?

@ joey1:

You need to do some reading on the phenomenon within evolution known as "speciation" - that is, the process by which new species come into existence.

An example of speciation which has been observed and documented is the three-spined stickleback. Originally, evidence shows, all three-spined sticklebacks were marine fish - that is, they lived only in salt water. Early marine examples of the species lacked the kidney function to survive for long in fresh water.

Over time, this fish evolved into a diadromous fish - that is, a fish able to exist in both fresh and salt water. Where it could not suvive in fresh water before, it now could.

Over more time, subspecies of three-spined stickleback evolved which live only in fresh water. These fish have, in my understanding, further evolved such that their kidneys gain water by osmosis - the opposite of the kidney function of saltwater fish which lose water by osmosis. Thus, a freshwater three-spined stickleback cannot live a healthy life in a saltwater environment.

So, pretty much, the kind of thing that you suggest cannot happen, in fact has happened, and does happen.

"There are no major non-incremental changes." - I don't understand how this is possible. Amphibians lay their eggs in Water, Reptiles lay there eggs on land. If an amphibian laid its eggs on land they would die and if a reptile laid its eggs in water they would die. So how did the first reptile start laying their eggs on land?

Why do amphibians and reptiles spell "their" / "there" differently?

I mean, it's very logical if you know basic genetics. Sometimes a mutation happens, or the binary code of the genetics for that gene turns "on" at an opportune time. If there is a lack of food in that salt water sea but an abundance in fresh water, it would only make sense to go to fresh water. The animals with that specific gene would survive, others would die.

I have another link for you non-believers: http://www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/index.html

Use the defaults for the settings, and you will see right before your eyes how evolution happens. This only uses height as an example, but this could be for long, leg-like arms or shorter and ready to use tools arms.

Thank you Jamie, that makes some sense. But are the Fresh water and salt water three-spined stickleback genetically compatible. If you crossed the two different fishes, would you get viable offspring that could live either in Fresh water, salt water or both depending on what genes it received for its Kidney function? And thus are they really 2 species or just variations of 1 species.

Different types of animals have different number of Chromosoms on their DNA. How are these new chromosoms created? What causes this? I understand natural selection and I agree with it for the minor incremental changes, but I can't see how this will result in major changes.

Often, mutations in genes. Major ones are no doubt rare, but evolution is a gradual process. It is not like it is a major change after another. It take thousands of years to make a change.

Personally, I don't understand how just adding ones to each other could possibly reach a hundred.

@ joey1: "But are the Fresh water and salt water three-spined stickleback genetically compatible?"

Not completely. I believe some of the freshwater sub-species will breed with their diadromous cousins, however some of them will *only* breed with other freshwater types.

"a good theory provides predictions about what we would find if we looked more closely, and when these predictions are true, it gives us confidence that the theory is true"

wonderful quote. wonderful.

@ joey1: "Different types of animals have different number of Chromosomes on their DNA. How are these new chromosomes created?"

There are probably a few different ways in which new chromosomes created. I'm not sure of them all, but I do know of one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

As you'll note, many species of plant, as well as some fish and reptiles, can multiply their number of chromosomes during the meiosis / mitosis stage of their reproductive cycle, such that the offspring has a different number of chromosomes than the parent.

Again, you're implying something is impossible which, in fact, is not only possible but has been widely observed.

The Theory of Evolution itself is viable, but the earliest life didn't just spontaneously form. There had to have been divine intervention at the very beginning. I think that God created the earliest life, sat back and let evolution run its course. In the Book of Genesis, the world was created in 7 "days" I think that in the context of the story, "days" is not an objective term. 7 "days" could really mean 7 billion or trillion years.

Gun: what is the earliest for of life?

_Form_ of life I mean.

I'm not talking to about 'will breed' but 'could breed' or even 'could be forced to breed'

With the Fish and Reptiles multiplying there number of chromosomes, then have we seen in a lab a new genetic species being created in this way? If so I will amend my beliefs. But I still can't reason the probabilities of completely new species being created by random. Especially different classes of animals and I think the biggest jump is from Amphibians to Reptiles.

Have humans ever mated with Chimpanzees or Gorillas and produced offspring? Are there any records of that? (I don't know, I am curious).

No one knows. Small, one celled bacteria. How did it get there? That's a question....

Call it God, a higher power, whatever. It could be a fourth-dimensional being that planted it in our universe.

Or it could be how I think it was, where it naturally occurred, through proof of quantum mechanics, of the high-entropy state of the universe. Let's say we were at the beginning of the universe, where it was hot and dense. Let's say we wanted an apple pie; we would spend less time looking for an apple pie itself rather than the necessary ingredients to make it.

I believe it occurred through entropy, perhaps from a star whose atoms did something weird.

I have a question. How are certain things created in an animal that weren't there before? For example, when fish began to evolve into amphibians and land-dwelling animals, how did they evolve lungs which are a completely new organ.

@"Two individuals are the same species if they can interbred and produce viable offspring. [Therefore Tigers and Lions are the same species, Polar Bears and Grizzly bears, Horses and Donkeys, Dogs, Wolves and Coyotes, Cattle and Buffalo etc]"

this is a faulty assumption. First a 'species', as defined by us humans, i just a convention. It is a convenience.

Second it is defined as two animals which can produce fertile offspring. This is because a large number of animal species are so closely related that their genetics CAN produce viable offspring, but those offspring are often infertile (due again to the genetic differences)

This includes all offspring of horses/donkeys/zebra, all large cats (lion/tiger pairings) and i would guess that bears (polar and grizzly) also fall into this category...

The major genetic differences are copying errors which result in duplications of chromosomes or a change in their orders.

So if a polar bear has chromosomes A - B - C, and a grizzley has A*-C*-B* (and two copies of each, because sexual reproduction involves getting one copy of each chromosome from each parent)

Then their offspring will have two copies, an A - B - C and A*-C*-B*, which is the right number of genes to produce a viable animal.

However that offspring mated with another of it's own kind will only give half it's chromosomes.

Thus a possible inheritance would be A - C*- C or A*- B - B*, and if this happens they will be missing an entire chromosome (which is a huge number of genes) and thus not be viable.

This kind of 'speciation' is still considered 'micro' by some creationists, but it is an example of genetic changes which can cause two animals to be sufficiently different that they can't share all their genes... because the offspring can't survive and reproduce. Thus two 'species' of the same animal family will exist with separate genes pools and without any cross-gene transfer... so they will increasingly diverge.

Genes are basically a binary code. So if you have a mutation that changes the gene that would be off to on. The lungs would grow over generation, so it would probably useless the first 100 generations or so, but then they would learn how to breathe through the lungs, just like we do.

@:'gene turns "on" at an opportune time.'

this is also cool, genetic information is not necessarily destroyed when a mutation occurs, it may just be ignored. Or turned off, this means that within your genetic code there are several pieces of DNA which don't currently have any use, when activated they may cause various genetic conditions - perhaps autism has a genetic component (though i suspect it is environmental) and this would be considered a distinct grouping, they have different behavioural traits and brain development....

Some animals exist which do not develop into their 'adult' form, this can happen when you alter environmental factors. I believe there is one South American amphibian which remains in it's larval form and only when placed in a warm, dry box and onto a ship taken to England did they 'grow up'.

In this case, some developmental change was inhibited by the environmental conditions NOT activating the bio-molecular mechanism which promotes anatomical changes...

You can see in bird development fingers, they 'develop' into wings, but did at one point develop into fingers when those species were dinosaurs. ( http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html )

Fingers still exist!

Wings are only useful in certain species!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/13879244

"Different types of animals have different number of Chromosoms on their DNA. How are these new chromosoms created? What causes this?"

random error, like this : 'Down syndrome, or Down's syndrome (primarily in the United Kingdom), trisomy 21, is a chromosomal condition caused by the presence of all or part of an extra 21st chromosome.'

Other example error would be the extra large 23rd chromosome which most humans have - the genes on this chromosome are carried in the other 4 apes on 2 seperate (smaller) chromosomes...