| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#131
-
ryderjamesbudde (01/31/2013) [-]
Well, the chicken's mother would have been a chicken. The difference between the two organisms would be the same difference between you and your mother, practically no difference, other than your gender. Nothing species changing. When we talk about evolution we're talking about thousands of extremely minor changes, one after another, that accumulate after thousands of years to create a different species, but the before and after are only different when the after is compared to a before that lived long ago, not when compared to a before that is its direct relative.
It's like this: who you are right now is basically the same as who you will be tomorrow. But who you will be next year is very different from who you are now, not necessarily because you suddenly woke up one day and said "I'm fucking different as hell today," (which is possible, but it doesn't happen very much.) but because you changed in unnoticeably small increments. As a large amount of days bearing unnoticeably small increments combine to form a year, those small increments also combine to form a drastic difference.
It all just depends on what you're comparing on the line. When comparing offspring and progenitors, they will almost always be the same species, but when comparing an organism that is indirectly related to one that lived several thousand years ago, they will almost always be different species.
So, kind of, yeah, what Neil said. It depends on where you draw the line between chicken and protobird.
It's like this: who you are right now is basically the same as who you will be tomorrow. But who you will be next year is very different from who you are now, not necessarily because you suddenly woke up one day and said "I'm fucking different as hell today," (which is possible, but it doesn't happen very much.) but because you changed in unnoticeably small increments. As a large amount of days bearing unnoticeably small increments combine to form a year, those small increments also combine to form a drastic difference.
It all just depends on what you're comparing on the line. When comparing offspring and progenitors, they will almost always be the same species, but when comparing an organism that is indirectly related to one that lived several thousand years ago, they will almost always be different species.
So, kind of, yeah, what Neil said. It depends on where you draw the line between chicken and protobird.
I agree completely except for there can be a quick change according to Darwinism if it was born with a beneficial genetic mutation. For example a type of moth that lived in Europe during the Industrial age. The moth used to be white to blend in with the white trees around to protect from predators. But then the trees got covered in ash from nearby pollution. But there was a genetic mutation that occurred where the moths that were born were black. These moths were able to blend in better and survive which led to the white moths dying out and the black moths, being stronger, surviving.
#216 to #213
-
ryderjamesbudde (01/31/2013) [-]
That's not really Darwinism, that's just the way things work. All of these little changes are the beneficial mutations. Usually, if something is born with an extreme difference, it is not beneficial. If you were born with lighter hair than every human on earth, that would be considered a mutation, but you would still be human.
Humans aren't exactly being born with four legs and four arms as a single being, and if they are, they aren't going to live long.
Humans aren't exactly being born with four legs and four arms as a single being, and if they are, they aren't going to live long.
#221 to #218
-
ryderjamesbudde (01/31/2013) [-]
Okay, yeah. I was thinking more about how Darwin didn't know about DNA and he didn't understand how mutations happened. I was thinking Darwinism is just about adaptation, how after a while, only the good is left over, and the whole mutation thing, you know, what natural selection selects from, is just a modern extension that I don't really consider to be a technical part of Darwinism. But you're not wrong, I'm sorry for getting all arbitrary.
#135 to #131
-
pariahlol ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
I've always thought of it as a huge ass game of Telephone. The phrase starts out as something like "I like Vagina" and after very minute changes over a long course of time it can turn into something like "I shit Lasagna". However, there's no one point where I like Vagina becomes I shit Lasagna. There are the individual points where something as simple as a letter changes, and this adds up to the end result.
#138 to #133
-
ryderjamesbudde (01/31/2013) [-]
Or when people think a fish turns into a lizard.
A fish doesn't turn into shit. It's just a fish its whole life. Maybe it has a kid who has slightly different fin bones and muscles, but even then, it's not a lizard. It's still a fish. Then maybe its great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter will develop lung-like structures in a later period of life, like a frog, but even then, a fish never became a lizard.
A fish doesn't turn into shit. It's just a fish its whole life. Maybe it has a kid who has slightly different fin bones and muscles, but even then, it's not a lizard. It's still a fish. Then maybe its great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter will develop lung-like structures in a later period of life, like a frog, but even then, a fish never became a lizard.