Could someone explain this to me.
Discussion
I watched a TV program last night about evolution (no,not Mitsubishi).The presenter was showing some sort of worm with a backbone and said that we evolved from that.If we did and evolution is the survival of the fittest,how come that worm still exists?Shouldn't it have disappeared a long time ago? 
Evolution sometimes isnt survival of the fitest, more like specialisation of the unfit.
Ok so if the design evolved is niche or plain bad then it can fail.
But often a species is pushe dout of its niche by overcrowding, other species, climate change etc and develops to deal with it. Look at humans, webbed hands/feet - only 'ape' to have them, and stand upright, thats because we couldnt cope with copetition where we were and moved on to somewhere we needed those adaptations.
What probably happened is that those worms still exist because there still a good design for where they are, but at some time past , somewhere , conditions changed so some of them had to develop to survive, is all.
Ok so if the design evolved is niche or plain bad then it can fail.
But often a species is pushe dout of its niche by overcrowding, other species, climate change etc and develops to deal with it. Look at humans, webbed hands/feet - only 'ape' to have them, and stand upright, thats because we couldnt cope with copetition where we were and moved on to somewhere we needed those adaptations.
What probably happened is that those worms still exist because there still a good design for where they are, but at some time past , somewhere , conditions changed so some of them had to develop to survive, is all.
esselte said:
I watched a TV program last night about evolution (no,not Mitsubishi).The presenter was showing some sort of worm with a backbone and said that we evolved from that.If we did and evolution is the survival of the fittest,how come that worm still exists?Shouldn't it have disappeared a long time ago?
Its not quite so simple. That worm is evolved very neatly for the ecological niche it fills. Everything thats alive today is.
The worm they pointed to wasnt the one we evolved from, it was simply something that looked like it, as it too has been subject to billions of years of evolution.
Any form of science TV is very much "lies to children" to quote terry pratchet. Its often simpler to say something untrue that makes it easier for people to understand, than a more painstaking explanation thats more correct but causes confusion.
Was quite an interesting program though, lots of footage from walking with beasts and the bbc seas documentary.. but good all the same.
Edited to corrrect spelling, grammar and idiocy.
>> Edited by TheLemming on Friday 15th April 10:00
The key to understanding this is "common ancestor." For example we did not evolve from chimps, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. In the same way humans and that worm had a common ancestor and the two diverged many hundreds of millions of years ago (or considerably more recently in the case of professional fottballers)
esselte said:
The presenter was showing some sort of worm with a backbone and said that we evolved from that.If we did and evolution is the survival of the fittest,how come that worm still exists?Shouldn't it have disappeared a long time ago?
Amphioxus? It's famous as being the first known chordate (ie a link as invertebrates evolve into vertebrates) but the process of evolution is firstly random and spontaneous mutations. Some work better than the original, some don't. A creature with a mutation that makes it 'fitter' for its environment will out-survive or out-breed the ordinary versions, so that it eventually takes over. It's a bit like market forces, but using nature.
Intelligent design is creationism dressed up in the emperors new clothes... Backed primarily by American religious groups.
What ID does is attempt to fog the issue by taking a pseudo scientific approach - it looks convincing until it's dissected carefully.
For example, they hold up the various eyes as examples of something that they claim could not have happened through evolution, but we can see the various stages of proto-eye and debunk pretty much everything they can come out with on this. It even looks like they have evolved 3 or 4 times... However, they will then change tack, deny they said anything about it and focus on something else we cant edequately explain.
Have a look at the latest new scientist - there is a great article on there on the evolution of everything from eyes to a brain.
What ID does is attempt to fog the issue by taking a pseudo scientific approach - it looks convincing until it's dissected carefully.
For example, they hold up the various eyes as examples of something that they claim could not have happened through evolution, but we can see the various stages of proto-eye and debunk pretty much everything they can come out with on this. It even looks like they have evolved 3 or 4 times... However, they will then change tack, deny they said anything about it and focus on something else we cant edequately explain.
Have a look at the latest new scientist - there is a great article on there on the evolution of everything from eyes to a brain.
MilnerR said:
Always being intrigued how eye brows made our ancestors more able to survive in their environment.... 
I suspect it might be a mate choosing characteristic
Some things are just "there", mutations that dont affect breeding or survivability.
Eyebrows on the other hand, thought these prevented blood from head injuries, water, rain, mud etc from getting in the eyes? A bit of a shield for drips from above.
A bit redundant now, but with the more jutting brows of ouor ancestors, they may have done a much better job.
esselte said:
I watched a TV program last night about evolution (no,not Mitsubishi).The presenter was showing some sort of worm with a backbone and said that we evolved from that.If we did and evolution is the survival of the fittest,how come that worm still exists?Shouldn't it have disappeared a long time ago?
In my experience some people haven't moved much further up the evolutional scale.
TheLemming said:
Always being intrigued how eye brows made our ancestors more able to survive in their environment....
I suspect it might be a mate choosing characteristic
Some things are just "there", mutations that dont affect breeding or survivability.
Eyebrows on the other hand, thought these prevented blood from head injuries, water, rain, mud etc from getting in the eyes? A bit of a shield for drips from above.
A bit redundant now, but with the more jutting brows of ouor ancestors, they may have done a much better job.
Shave off your eyebrows and go for a run, then you'll see how unnecessary eyebrows are, salty sweat in the eyes stings and temporarily blinds, not a good idea for a species that relies on hunting things bigger and stronger than it is.(even if we now usualy do it in Tescos)
srebbe64 said:
Not always the case.
We evolved as a result of mutation from this lifeform NOT by replacing it.
Does that mean chavs will still be around in a million years?
Considering the way they have evolved to fit their circumstances I would say so, after all, cockroaches and rats have been occupying a similar niche for millions of years.
wolves_wanderer said:
italiano said:
Not always the case.
We evolved as a result of mutation from this lifeform NOT by replacing it.
Does that mean chavs will still be around in a million years?
Considering the way they have evolved to fit their circumstances I would say so, after all, cockroaches and rats have been occupying a similar niche for millions of years.
I think that their niche:- 'workshy layabout dolescum', will not survive the death of the last person who actually does any work, and therefore pays for their miserable existances.
Here's an interesting article - where they've actually managed to demonstrate real genetic changes as a result of environmental pressures. Things like this are a big two fingers up at the 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creationist' mob, who still don't believe evolution exists.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1
Tuna said:
Here's an interesting article - where they've actually managed to demonstrate real genetic changes as a result of environmental pressures. Things like this are a big two fingers up at the 'Intelligent Design' and 'Creationist' mob, who still don't believe evolution exists.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1
Therefore its not evolution, rather environmental determinisim?
srebbe64 said:
Not always the case.
We evolved as a result of mutation from this lifeform NOT by replacing it.
Does that mean chavs will still be around in a million years?
I don't believe so. They'll have mutated into soemthing equally as dreadful and the original Chav will die out due to lack of breeding.
The amount of material one can point the adherents of creationism and ID at are endless, however at the end of the day, they cannot be convinced through reasonable discussion.
Their response tends to be one (or more of the following):
The bible said this, so its true...
I cant see how we are descended from monkeys...
So its only a theory then...
People on the whole (and I remove the vast majority of PHers from this category) do not have the education, interest or intelligence to understand the arguements.
Hence their blind adherence to what someone told them simply because they cant understand the truth.
Their response tends to be one (or more of the following):
The bible said this, so its true...
I cant see how we are descended from monkeys...
So its only a theory then...
People on the whole (and I remove the vast majority of PHers from this category) do not have the education, interest or intelligence to understand the arguements.
Hence their blind adherence to what someone told them simply because they cant understand the truth.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff