Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

Luck, genetic drift, rocks falling out of the sky, etc, are all perfectly good mechanisms of natural selection. They fit into standard Darwinian theory smoothly and easily. If we can't discern causality there, then the theory is that much weaker for it How so? As no particular cause is implied by the theory, and root causes of differential reproductive success are often obscure and complex, being able to pin down a specific cause for a specific example is hardly to be expected in general.

I am a supporter of evolution, and I often see creationists claiming that evolution is not scientific because it fails to meet the requirements of the scientific method. They claim that any scientific idea must be testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable, and this is true. I know that direct observation is not always possible in science, but I want to know, how do scientists test evolution (changes that create new species)? How is it observable? I am not referring to natural selection, like bacteria resistance or changes within the same species, I am referring to those changes above a species level, which create new ones. How do scientists test and confir…

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080 This link goes to a recent article in Nature magazine, in which a group of scientists working in various areas of evolutionary biology propose that evolution theory -- the Modern Synthesis -- needs to be reworked, because so many new discoveries don't fit neatly into the current model. What do you think? Are the authors on to something, or are they over-reacting? There's also a rebuttal from other researchers who think the current model is just fine.

How is the transition to flowering plants from non-flowering plants an evolutionary adaptation and what benefits does it afford to the ecosystem in general ?

In the evolution of the changing prevalence of the colour of peppered moths in the industrial revolution – light versus dark - was the sooted surfaces of their habitats a stochastic effect or classed as natural selection? To my mind the sooted surfaces is stochastic and the predation on the poorly camouflaged whites was natural selection. Is this correct?

When food is scarce, tool use among non-human primates does not increase. This counterintuitive finding leads researchers to suggest that the driving force behind tool use is ecological opportunity -- and that the environment shapes the development of culture. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141111205906.htm I dont understand this driving force named "opportunity". They would also name it "curiosity" imho.

So, I've been debating with someone over the existence of god, and we eventually reached the subject of intelligent design. This is his argument: Being someone who has no special interest in biology, I don't know how to refute this. What do you guys think? In order to prevent redundancy, I'll type down the arguments I've made so far: I've shown him Niel deGrasse Tyson's video on stupid design and Richard Dawkin's video on a nerve in a giraffe to show that a competent engineer (an intelligent designer) would never have created nature the way it is. I've also used Richard Dawkin's video (specific time here) to show how evolution can explain what intelli…

This kind of relates to a discussion I started once about the terraforming of other planets. I don't remember if we covered this part. Here's the scenario I was wondering about; -Something came crashing into Venus. -Said object was big, heavy and fast enough to knock away the harsher parts of the atmosphere. -The planet is now on a different axis that causes it to rotate the same way as Earth. -Before the whole incident there were already primitive microorganisms on the surface. Under the new, Earth-like conditions that have befallen Venus in this scenario, what would happen to said microbes? Would they start to evolve, or would they stay unchanged?

Hi, me again, with another problem involving my story concept from before. One of the alien races in the story is situated on Venus, which of course would not be a suitable place for life as we know today. I was thinking what if the Venusians were underground dwelling beings who could survive extreme heat (up to 1000 degrees Celsius), and breathed carbon dioxide. They would also need something that would grant them immunity to sulphuric acid rain. But what would they have to be made of to survive the conditions on that planet?

Is the lion truly the king of beasts ? Or is this a misnomer? Why not the elephant for its size, the chimpanzee for its intelligence or the humble ant for its networking (social) intelligence? (I personally think an ant colony is the precursor to social networks). Please advise.

Just reading Schrodinger's book Mind and Matter and came across a description of evolution which is meme theory in all but name (under a section called behaviour influences selection). I thought the theory germinated with Richard Dawkins, but it seems the idea has been in the background from some time before. Schrodinger mentions Julian Huxley as an influence in the book a few times, of whom I know very little, and I was just wondering whether Huxley also had similar ideas.

Could homosexuality be explained with ''prenatal modification''? Let's say certain genes during embryogenesis are active in the brain and body which causes masculinisation, so different kind of hormon levels compared between different fetus during a critical time in the whomb could be explanation why some people are homosexual?

I'm attempting to write a set of historical fiction novelettas, set during the Pleistocene in Africa. My goal is (through fiction) to guide the reader through human evolution, which is not only a subject that I find extremely appealing, but the more research I do, the more interesting (to the reader) I see that these stories can become. Simply trying to tell the tale of an ordinary homind struggling to survive can be very interesting. As of this moment I'm writing the 3rd story, which takes place 1.5ma ago in what is nowadays northeast Kenya. My two main characters are homo ergasters: one male and another female. I used the first act to describe interchangingly through e…

Why are men more violent than women? Several theories have been proposed, trying to explain this phenomenon, most of them being from social psychological theories. But the most relevant in explaining the genesis of aggression in men proved to be the approaches from an evolutionary perspective. Take a look here for more information: url deleted

The answer is C, but I don't understand how or why it is :/

They say gay animal do exist. Well, this means there are male animals who are 100% attracted to other males and show no sexual interest for females. Ok, but when we look at gorillas or chimpansees male homosexuality is not seen realy. When you talk about gay chimpansees, we are talking about a chimpansee which only wants to have sexual intercourse with other males. But there aren't such chimpansees. I have never heard about a gay brown bear! I saw in CNN about a gay Pinguin couple. But this gay Pinguin couple break up and find later other females for procreating and child parenting. So I would be a little bit careful when you talk about ''gay Pinguins''!

Could natural particles collision with genetic tissues be a casual causal of genetic mutations or evolution ? Like the ones observed in a cloud chamber, or others that escape observation, hitting by chance a key/sensitive location of a gene? Would deep undersea creatures have less chance to evolve if this is factual ?

Life based on carbon needs very especial conditions to thrive, life on earth is a clear example of that. Lots of time and research have been dedicated trying to find carbon based life elsewhere on the Universe, but that search may be too narrow because that search assumes that life can only be based on carbon. The genesis of Life somehow appears to contradicts the second law of thermodynamics( locally, it is known that the law holds in the system under consideration), this law in essence state that: the degree of disorder or randomness(entropy) in our Universe always is increasing, but Life is characterized by an increase in order( a decrease in entropy ). It appears tha…

If we were to compare Homosapiens with Homoneanderthal, HomoHominid, HomoErectus, or even Australopithecus. What similarities would we share? The Homosapein to mice to chimps is pretty cool - https://genomics.soe.ucsc.edu/research/comp_genomics/human_chimp_mouse So I can't find any genome templates (Not sure what exactly to call it?) of Neanderthal, Erectus, Hominid, Or Australopithecus. The best I've found is from the national center of biotechnological information - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Selector/taxse.cgi They have Neanderthal and Denisovan Hominin. Yet it's coded for a program so I can't really see it - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/U…

I have a perception of diversification which I'm not sure is correct. Or it might be just partly true. There is often talk of a more primitive type within a group and this is the one that branches off first in a particular tree. I'm a little uneasy about why this should be because they have had an equal amount of time to evolve to the present day. For example, amongst apes, the gibbons branched off first, and they resemble the ancestral ape more than other modern apes. OK, I'm thinking aloud here, I've just realised that if gibbons branched off 18 million years ago, so did 'the rest off' apes, on the other branch. But the other branch so happened to diversify more…

what evolutionery process is acting in HIV virus population? how they evole and from whom?

if, according to darwin, all living things on Earth, including plants, animals and microbes, come from a common ancestor, there must be a common feature in the genes of all living creatures showing the root of a common ancestor. is there any such common element in the genetic structure of all living creature?

Sub-saharan Africa is prone to fires and showers of considerable quantity. If we are to assert that use of fire first came into being by opportunistic means, Which would you think is more likely? a) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from yearly fires that burnt a wide area of grasslands b) most of earliest fire management by hominds came from lightning strikes to trees during storms

With the advent of genetic evidence to suggest that Humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans have interbred and led to the world population as it is in its modern form. How likely would you consider it that there have always been many closely related species, simply geographically seperated and reunited via migration over time. Would this be a good way to look at human evolution (and all evolution)? The aquatic ape hypothesis can be easily discounted if we accept a monoculture for speciation, but if we consider two seperate populations, one living in semi aquatic lifestyle, perhaps coastal migration, meeting up with a population adapted to savannah type living, wouldn't it be…

If 99 percent of our evolutionary history happened in Africa.... would it make the most sense that the best fruits, herbs and vegetables for humans are the ones that grow in Africa?