|
A lot of people don't believe that evolution, in the sense of all species being related, really happened. And I can appreciate that - I don't agree, mind you, but evolution is a) easy to get wrong and b) easy to dislike.
Maybe you're someone who don't think it's true; maybe you think the evidence is lacking or ambiguous. If that's the case, I'd like to share with you what is possibly my favourite bit of evidence for the interrelatedness of all living things. I love it because unlike a lot of concepts in this field it's wonderfully straightforward and intuitive, and doesn't rely upon the kind of statistical analysis that 85% of people mistrust. It's called the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, and you have one running down the left side of your neck.
I want you to begin by picturing a maypole. If you don't know what that is, it's just a tall pole with ribbons tied to the top. Before computers and telly, kids would sometimes hold onto the other ends of the ribbons and dance around each other, weaving in and out to braid the ribbons together. Got that? Good.
Now, the laryngeal nerve on the right side of your neck is thoroughly unremarkable. It just goes from the base of your brain to your larynx, end of story. The one on the left, however, makes the same journey via your chest. It leaves your brain, dives down your neck, loops around one of the arteries leaving your heart, then heads back up into your neck. On the face of it, there is no imaginable reason for this. The right-hand nerve shows how the job ought to be done. What gives?
Then we think about the maypole, and how the ribbons become entangled. It happens because the ends move around one another while maintaining their connection. "Hmm," we think, "What if the nerve and the artery have become entangled because the innards of the human body moved around somehow?"
At this point, it's really tempting to cut to the chase and say "Hey look, evolution!" But that would be cheating, because the process of your individual nerve and artery becoming entangled during your development as a foetus is not itself evolution. It just indicates that there's something slightly screwy about human foetal development: a foetus starts growing with a particular layout of veins and nerves, which then get tangled up as they rearrange themselves on the way to becoming a person.
It's worth taking a moment here to think about what 'evolution' would involve if it had in fact happened. Most people - myself included - tend to focus on the idea of changes in the adult form of a creature, which leads us astray because if we bother to think at all about the gestation and growth of that creature, we're tempted just to to extrapolate back and think of it as being this new and different organism right from the moment of conception. So... what's the right way to think about it?
Well, consider all the people you know, and how different they look. Yet they all started out as a single cell, superficially identical. The differences which accumulated into adulthood are largely a matter of timing: how many times certain cells divided to make bones longer or shorter or a different shape, etc etc. There are genetic and nutritional and environmental factors controlling this - it even makes a difference if they favoured lying on one side when they were a baby.
So when we think about evolution and whether it has happened, we should be thinking about and looking for evidence of an accumulation of changes to the growth processes of organisms, as well as commonalities between very different species. For instance, we might find a particular pattern in the fossil record: bony fish appear, then amphibians alongside the fish, then reptiles alongside amphibians and fish, then mammals turn up, then primates, then apes, then us - all of which inspires us to examine their growth processes. And sure enough, the more recently these species seem to start leaving evidence of their existence behind, the more their growth processes have in common.
In particular, we can return to the good old recurrent laryngeal nerve. What we see is that all animals (by which I mean birds, reptiles, mammals etc) start their gestation like fish do. They're initially quite hard to tell apart. But where in fish the layout of nerves and arteries remains sensible right into adulthood, in all mammals (for example) that development process diverges at an early stage, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve becomes entangled. From that point, further divergences of growth seperate the various species of mammal, but they all inherit that early twist. Including the poor giraffe, whose laryngeal nerve is consequently obliged to make a pointless fifteen-foot detour into and out of its chest cavity on its way from brain to larynx.
There's a monumental amount of evidence for the historical and ongoing process of evolution, but this is, as I said, my favourite piece. I love it because you start with a thing that seems outrageously stupid, yet it turns out to be the key to something profound; it turns out that it makes sense.
I hope I've made as much sense explaining it. Thanks for reading.
 
|
I believe in evolution. I think it's really difficult to argue against evolution, but some people don't seem to want to believe it.
|
We also have empty eggsacs as embryos that don't stay for a long time, and serve no purpose to us.
Fun stuff!
|
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
|
|
|
blasphemy!!!!!!
raep him my brethrin!!!!
i like reading blogs/articles where the person is really passionate about what they are writing about
good read.
|
Evolution is 100% provable the only problem is it conflicts with certain sectors.
Quick example: In England there are many old buildings and you would be supprised by how low the door frames and ceilings are that's because people where shorter back when they were made. Kinda cool to think.
|
lol I think its my favorite fact too. I almost wish I studied biology so I could add something interesting.
|
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters.
Fun read tho bruh
|
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
|
On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
|
What he just said had science written all over it wow some people.
I agree Butigroove.
|
As far as I'm concerned evolution is a 100% a proven fact... especially when the other major choice is "creationism" which has been proven wrong countless times (just look at the age of certain rocks? lol) ..
don't understand how people out there still argue against evolution (oh right I forgot it goes against their "religiuos beliefs".... maybe stop taking the bible 100% literally?)
|
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
Thoery of evolution describes the process of natural selection. Your absolutely right that it describes the "how" of how we came to being, but you seem to infer that it's obligated to have the answer to the "why" question of why we came to being (purpose). Your correct evolution does not answer why, but its not meant to!
The question of why is answered by in your case faith, not claiming that you don't but i just wish people of faith would do themselves the justice of admitting that it's faith (belief without rational evidence).
|
its one of god's wonders!
j/k
|
6180 Posts
On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
|
On June 18 2010 22:24 Butigroove wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science. Just sayin'. Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same. The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Not believing in evolution is not ignorant. Evolution is still a theory and everyone has the right to agree or disagree after having informed him/herself.
Natural selection over millions of years is not evolution itself but a mechanism of evolution? Yes, carpentry is not the same as the mechanism of carpentry, but do you really want to nitpick here?
|
|
|
i believe in evolution. u cant get a charizard without a charmander or charmeleon11
|
Succinct and well-stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
