It doesn't matter wether you right or wrong ? just try to sum up your ideas , you can say it in one sentence , but it will be great if you are more generous with words !!
feel free to share your knowledge , some may find what you say more helpful than academic books !
Thank you so much Nelson for your detailed and easy-to-follow answer , I really appreciate that ...
Now the bees exmaple that Dawkins used makes sense , I took things literally and thereby couldn't grasp the meaning ... I am working on acquinting myself with the terminology of biolgy and hope that this will lead to a better understanding of such books !
thanks again for your time Nelson
I see what you mean Reg ; so many non-religious scientist on a video I watched on youtube say that if there is a ''god'' , it cannot be the same god of nowadays religions or all the previous religions...they went further (joking) and said that aliens helped by providing the right conditions for The Primordial Soup .
That actually has (at least) three totally different and plausible interpretations:
Evolution of our Universe?
Evolution of our Solar System?
Evolution of life on Earth?
Presumably you referring to the last, so I'll give it a shot (without using google or reading other responses!):
It starts with Abiogenesis, which is the study of how biological life started. Still a bit in it's infancy, there is good evidence of how the available molecules would arrange themselves to form the building blocks of life. Life as we know it is based on carbon, which is the most versatile (in forming chemical bonds) molecule and a natural building block. It would attract sugars and proteins, and eventually end up forming DNA. The DNA then attracted lipids to form a protective shell, thus forming the first proto-cells.
These carbon based cells needed carbon to replicate, which incidentally was quite common on the young earth due to volcaning activity. This process (via photysynthesis) released massive amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, a molecule which has been shown to turbo-charge evolution of life. Cells which could "cooperate" with other cells had a higher probability of successful reproduction, and the march towards multi cellular life started.
After this initial phase, there is very much repetition over a theme. As DNA replicates, there are always some small mistakes (mutations), and (more importantly) certain offspring may have different combination of alleles switched on and off creating genetic drift. As conditions changed throughout the Earth's history, these first multicelluar globs evolved into basic oceanic lifeforms, from which subsequent life can trace its roots.
Certain traits proved to be better adapted to the environment and carriers of these traits would reprocreate more successfully than the average population. The less well adapted variants would eventually die out, and the highly adapted ones would continue to evolve, etc.
I can probably write a lot more, but I think that should probably contain enough schoolboy mistakes for any evolutionary science literate person to get a good laugh. :)
Mutations should not be considered “mistakes”. If cells are constantly dividing and replicating (passing on DNA) then mutations creep in. So if it happens once in a billion (that is a very small number on the genome level) a sequence in the DNA chain is altered. This may result in the mutation getting naturally selected or rejected depending on whether or not it is beneficial to the life (survival) of the organism. That decision is based upon the environment where the organism is living. It is really only this decision that is important as Evolution is only concerned with survival NOW in order to pass on its genetic code. Another way of looking at it is that Evolution has no long term goals.
One thing to bear in mind (sorry for repetition) and is a great one to hit the fundamentalists with is that Evoultion does not explain how life on Earth began. It has nothing to do with it. I have often heard them say “But the Theory of Evolution does not explain how life started”. No it does not is my reply because that is not what it is about. The fact that fire heats water does not explain why water freezes. It only seeks to explain how life evolved after it got started.
It can be a difficult idea to see clearly because it is based on changes made over time – usually a very long period of time. We generally cannot imagine what 100,000 years is like but life on Earth began over 500 million years ago. I have a few video on my page about evolution. I am not a Fronkey hunter for nothing you know !!!
Thanks for correcting me.
I think I grasp the fundamentals of the concept, but yet oh so much to learn about it before having even the right to hold any objection to it, if I ever would.
I actually saw the last video linked before and left a statement which should have been a question: Couldn't her claim be contradicted by punctuated equilibrium?
In the bare minimum terms, a genetic trait simply needs to arise, and it needs to be propagated. The mechanisms for both cases are numerous and varied.
disclosure: I'm simply using the worms as a hypothetical example because they're already on the table for conversation. I have no idea how these worms actually evolved or what factors were at play.
The trait for arsenic resistance in worms may have existed prior to arsenic contamination of their environment. It could have been a trait that had neutral impact on individuals carrying it, insufficiently negative impact to hinder survival, or was beneficial in some other way. The important thing is that individuals carrying the trait survive and propagate it, even if the trait itself is not immediately beneficial for survival.
Now introduce arsenic into the environment. The trait of arsenic resistance, even if only at a rudimentary stage of development suddenly becomes very relevant for survival. Those worms carrying it are far more likely to survive and propagate. Those worms not carrying it will not survive, no matter how fit they are by all other standards. Depending on how much genetic variation there was in the overall population and how many worms were killed off in the arsenic, you may see a considerably change in the allele frequencies in the population inside the affected areas. Some traits may disappear entirely from that population. If you compare worms in the affected area to worms outside the affected area, you'll see different sets of selection factors being applied to groups with possibly different allele frequencies and different levels of genetic diversity.
I don't know that much about worm reproduction or genetic variation, but a hundred and seventy years is probably over one hundred generations. That still seems like a remarkably short amount of time to diverge into a new species, but under those conditions, it seems somewhat plausible.