NationStates Jolt Archive

I have two questions regarding evolution. I understand the premise, and a lot of the science (just from reading both these forums and random articles that I find), but two things need to be reconciled in my mind.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?

Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?

Not that it specifically answers your question, but one thing to remember is that evolution is not a direction or a decision, it's a bunch of random shit and if the dudes have the random shit happen to them get to bonin', that's what's going to pass on.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?Well, there are plenty of insects with exoskeletons - skeletons on the outside. I'd imagine that would be an intermediary step.

Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?Probably evolved from birds in the southern hemisphere over the course of various ice ages.

Just think of evolution as a combination of random mutations and and selective pressures. I'm just going to assume you're mainly talking about the bone function as a support system and not as a site of blood cell production, heavy metal sequestration, etc. The strength of bone comes from the deposition of insoluble calcium phosphate around a type of bone cell called osteoblasts. Both calcium and phosphate ions are relatively abundant in the body and can be separated by bonding them with other mineral ions and molecules, sequestering them into separate cellular compartments etc. so they can be localised together by the action of specific cells. It's as easily explained as all cell differentiation, and by that I mean by incredibly complex regulation of gene expression and protein activation/modification, but if you can relate to different cells having different functions then it's no different for osteoblasts. Separation of vertebrates and invertebrates can be explained by natural selection. For example, the animal necessity for movement and the size differences between endoskeletal and exoskeletal animals give a 'reason' for the existence of endoskeletons whilst also pointing out that they aren't necessary for life, hence skeletons are not ubiquitous in living things. I'm not even really providing a decent argument for this, just a quick explanation based on limited knowledge and educated guesses.

As for the penguin - wow, that would be one hell of an area to cover. Considering penguins aren't exclusive to Antarctica I'd be inclined to say that different species of penguin adapted to their specific environments, same as every other species on the planet. What's so special about penguins anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin#Evolution

Not that it specifically answers your question, but one thing to remember is that evolution is not a direction or a decision, it's a bunch of random shit and if the dudes have the random shit happen to them get to bonin', that's what's going to pass on.
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.
.

What's so special about penguins anyway?They share an interesting trait with people: a subcutaneous layer of fat. Perhaps, we were once aquatic apes (http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm)?

As far as the specific evolution of the spine its all part of a continuing process.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notochord for an intermediary step between invertebrates like worms and vertebrates like eels. Hag fish are notochords to give you some idea where they might fit in in that spectrum.

I think a lot of the problems people have with evolution is they miss that it is continuum. People see creatures as being separated into species. But its a pretty artificial separation. Its only really a valid separation for organisms that have sex... which happens to be most of the creatures that we can see with the naked eye.

In fact species are like little islands of evolution. Cut off from the rest of the organisms around them by one thing and one thing only. Their ability to have sex with them. Species tend to form by other types of separation though in the first place. These are usually ,but not always geographical separations.

There might be a population of lizards that inhabit one side of a river, because they can all interbreed any change that occurs in a single organism has a chance to be spread through the whole population by breeding. But lets say a pregnant female lizard happens to end up on the other side of the river. She gives birth to her young. Now any change that happens in the population on the original side of the river won't effect the new population on the other side of the river. If these 2 populations are separated long enough they may acquire enough changes so that the 2 may not even be able to breed with each other. This can take a long time and there are a number of examples of species that are in the middle of this process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The point is that even though the 2 species may end up very different, they are linked by a continuum of individuals... those individuals are most probably gone.. but the further back in time you go the more similar they will be.. until at some point in the distant past they are in fact the same. (assuming a single origin of life.. which may not be the case)

So not only are chimps similar to humans but at some point back in time they were in fact the same. (lets call them chumans) Their common ancestor wasn't a chimp or a human just a population of individual chumans that got separated at some point and became chimps and humans...

Just like worms didn't become hag fish and hag fish didn't become eels.. but at some point in the past they arose from the same population of individuals...

the spine didn't just appear there were millions of generations of things that had steps along the way to developing a spine.

As for penguins.. see above ;)

I have two questions regarding evolution. I understand the premise, and a lot of the science (just from reading both these forums and random articles that I find), but two things need to be reconciled in my mind.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?

Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?
It looks like other people have addressed your specific questions, but I just wanted to add that if you want a great source for information about evolution and biology you should check out the science blog Pharyngula. It's written by a biology professor, but he has a great talent for speaking in terms that a layperson can understand.

Here's a sample. What unique organ is found only in mammals, but not in fish, amphibians, reptiles, or birds?

For the answer, check out:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/evolution_of_the_mammalian_vag.php

Evolution is a fairly tale made up by atheist, communist elitists.



What? The thread was far too one sided for NSG.

:DEvolution is a fairly tale made up by atheist, communist elitists.



What? The thread was far too one sided for NSG.

For NSG? From what Ive seen, not really at all. Trolls would probably think this is a flame...Hey, lets start a really pointless shout flame about whether evolution is a fairy tale made up by atheist communist elites!:)

Evolution is a fairly tale made up by atheist, communist elitists.

The weird thing is a lot of YECs do seem to believe that, despite the fact that Darwinian Evolution was disgarded by Stalin for ideological reasons.

The weird thing is a lot of YECs do seem to believe that, despite the fact that Darwinian Evolution was disgarded by Stalin for ideological reasons.

YEC?? Young evangelical churches?

YEC?? Young evangelical churches?

Young Earth Creationist. The nuts who think that the world's only 6-10 thousand years old.

Young Earth Creationist. The nuts who think that the world's only 6-10 thousand years old.

It isnt :p

This is the wierd thing Tom Cruise is in, and he thinks the world is like...created by aliens or something?

the spine didn't just appear there were millions of generations of things that had steps along the way to developing a spine.Yeah, this guy's just worried about the development of bone structure? Hell, I'm much more perplexed by how a bunch of single celled organism would clump together and then begin to tell each other what was happening and what to do.

And the most perplexign question - how on Earth did the first organism itself come about.

And viruses, where did they come from? They're not like any other organism on this planet.

Yeah, this guy's just worried about the development of bone structure? Hell, I'm much more perplexed by how a bunch of single celled organism would clump together and then begin to tell each other what was happening and what to do.

It worked for Mitochondria.

And the most perplexign question - how on Earth did the first organism itself come about.

Abiogenesis or Panspermia.

And viruses, where did they come from? They're not like any other organism on this planet.

They're just an evolutionary niche.

It isnt :p

This is the wierd thing Tom Cruise is in, and he thinks the world is like...created by aliens or something?

Cruise is a member of Scientology if I remember rightly.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?


The notocorda (spell? the central "string" typical of Cordates, anyway, with the main nerves in it). Plus, cells can use calcium to build rigid structures - think of the chicken egg.
Is having a skeleton effective? Hell yes. So who has a bone structure survives better.


Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?

You should remember that when the evolutionary line of the feathered reptiles (birds) separated from dinosaurs, Antarctica wasn't in the polar area. It was a tropical continent (evidence from stratigraphy of the antarctic rocks). So it is possible that the penguins have developed there.

Still, I think it is most likely that the penguins emigrated from other continents, like South America, to Antarctica - just three weeks ago a penguin swam about 5000 km from Patagonia to northern Chile.

It worked for Mitochondria.You're simply saying that it happened, but not offering any explanation as to how it happened, and therefore not answering my question at all. I'm not questioning whether or not life exists (a perhaps slef defeating question - unless you ask certain philosphers), just how it came to be. A question which science isn't able to answer at the moment.

Abiogenesis or Panspermia.Panspermia simply moves the problem on and isn't a solution at all. Abiogenesis, whilst having a fine sounding name, is quite an empty theory - it essentially boils down to 'yeah, well... it happened by chance din't it'. It offers very little insight into the mechanism of how life first came about, other than that it shows how about half of the amino acids needed for life can be produced by chance. There is no given mechanism of how the rest could be produced, nor how they would combine to in such a way to be self replicating. This is an area of science where it is very much blind and has little idea of what or how it happened.

They're just an evolutionary niche.Again, that doesn't answer the question at all. You're simply stating that viruses exist (well done), but make no attempt to describe how they first came about.

Cruise is a member of Scientology if I remember rightly.

Scientology...Wait, this is the one without any science involved??

Abiogenesis, whilst having a fine sounding name, is quite an empty theory

It isn't empty. Experiments have shown that in a Type I atmosphere and ocean (H2, CH4, NH3, H2O), when a lightning strikes, amminoacids (spell? anyway, the basic "bricks" of proteins) are formed.

So, abiogenesis is a good theory. It also explains why the elements that make up living beings are the same elements who make up the non-living matter.

You're simply saying that it happened, but not offering any explanation as to how it happened, and therefore not answering my question at all. I'm not questioning whether or not life exists (a perhaps slef defeating question - unless you ask certain philosphers), just how it came to be. A question which science isn't able to answer at the moment.

Science is more than capable of answering it, Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence.

The key requirement for a transition between single and multicelled organisms is the ability to communicate between cells; this has been observed in some forms of bacteria which are capable of communicating and cooperating to break down a food source. I used mitochondria as an example of two independant organisms joining to become one, hence making the transition from single to multiple celled organisms possible.

Panspermia simply moves the problem on and isn't a solution at all.

Panspermia has suggested ways in which life could have formed in outerspace which wouldn't work on a planet, to dismiss is as a non-solution is foolish.

Abiogenesis, whilst having a fine sounding name, is quite an empty theory - it essentially boils down to 'yeah, well... it happened by chance din't it'. It offers very little insight into the mechanism of how life first came about, other than that it shows how about half of the amino acids needed for life can be produced by chance. There is no given mechanism of how the rest could be produced, nor how they would combine to in such a way to be self replicating. This is an area of science where it is very much blind and has little idea of what or how it happened.

So because we haven't found all the answers it is an "empty theory" whcih "boils down to 'yeah, well... it happened by chance din't it'?"?

The famous Urey-Miller experiment was performed again recently, after making adjustments based on our updated knowledge about the early Earth: the results showed an abundance of amino acids being produced.

Again, that doesn't answer the question at all. You're simply stating that viruses exist (well done), but make no attempt to describe how they first came about.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses#Origins) is your friend, it presents two possibilities:

* Small viruses with only a few genes may be runaway stretches of nucleic acid originating from the genome of a living organism. Their genetic material could have been derived from transferable genetic elements such as plasmids or transposons, which are prone to moving within, leaving, and entering genomes.

* Viruses with larger genomes, such as poxviruses, may have once been small cells which parasitised larger host cells. Over time, genes not required by their parasitic lifestyle would have been lost in a streamlining process known as retrograde-evolution or reverse-evolution. The bacteria Rickettsia and Chlamydia are living cells that, like viruses, can only reproduce inside host cells. They lend credence to the streamlining hypothesis, as their parasitic lifestyle is likely to have caused the loss of genes that enabled them to survive outside a host cell.

Scientology...Wait, this is the one without any science involved??

Yep.

Yeah, this guy's just worried about the development of bone structure?

I've heard it said that "bones" first started out as a place to stash excess phosphorous. Then evolution "realized" that these proto-bones made good structural elements. I don't remember where I heard that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Hell, I'm much more perplexed by how a bunch of single celled organism would clump together and then begin to tell each other what was happening and what to do.

Bacteria colonies show some specialization. If a colony falls on hard times, they use chemical messengers to "pick straws," some of the bacteria commit suicide to form a spore wall, while other bacteria survive and form the inside of the spore. It makes evolutionary sense because the bacteria in the colony are all siblings/clones and share most of their genetics.

True multi-celled organisms are "just" the same thing taken to an extreme. Your skin cells sacrifice themselves for the good of their brothers, your sperm and/or eggs.


And the most perplexign question - how on Earth did the first organism itself come about.

1) RNA can serve both as information-carrying nucleic acid (like DNA) and as work-performing protein. 2) Proteins are just strings of amino acids. IIRC, nucleic acids are amino acids on a chemical backbone. 3) Amino acids and the chemicals that make up the backbones of nucleic acids chemically attract each other. 4) We've found amino acids out in the comets, and it's possible that comets seeded the young earth with amino acids. Or else the young Earth also had a supply of amino acids.

Based on all that, our best guess is that some mechanism started producing random strings of RNA or some similar protein/nucleic acid long molecule. As Richard Dawkins puts it, survival of the fittest is a subset of the survival of the stable: some of these RNA strings had a knack for self-repair or even replication, and lasted longer than the other strings. Once you get an RNA string that can replicate itself, evolution takes over.

I've also heard speculation about how a precursor of cell membranes could have arisen non-biologically. That could have helped concentrate this RNA.

And viruses, where did they come from? They're not like any other organism on this planet.

Looks like scientists ain't sure themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins It's not so much that they can't think of a way, but that there are a lot of candidates and not much evidence to suggest one hypothesis over another. To add another to Wikipedia's list, IANAEB (I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist), but a plasmid gone to the dark side has a certain appeal.

Scientology...Wait, this is the one without any science involved??Well, that's not the distinctive feature.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?

Just tacking on a bit extra to all the sciency goodness (especially Moo_Cow_Is_Coming's - great job there Moo).
You can start by looking at the phylum Chordata, especially the Lancelets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet), one of the more primitive Chordates.

Young Earth Creationist. The nuts who think that the world's only 6-10 thousand years old.
It isnt

This is the wierd thing Tom Cruise is in, and he thinks the world is like...created by aliens or something?

Nope. Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. They belive earth's a lot older than 6-10 thousand years, as Xenu brought humans to "Teegeeack" 75 million years ago on DC-8 spaceplanes. [1 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/)], [2 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/minton-essay.txt)] (BTW, I just saved you the $US360,000 that most Scientologist pay to learn that. Co$ indeed.)

Nope. Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. They belive earth's a lot older than 6-10 thousand years, as Xenu brought humans to "Teegeeack" 75 million years ago on DC-8 spaceplanes. [1 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/)], [2 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/minton-essay.txt)] (BTW, I just saved you the $US360,000 that most Scientologist pay to learn that. Co$ indeed.)Teegeeack?

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back,

Thats actually a much debated hypothesis. The RNA world hypothesis currently has more support and evidence than the other types

and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?

There us a phylum called Chordate. They have a small, hard strip (notochord) along their back they lose this at adulthood (along with gaining sexual maturity). They also become sessile (rooted to a location).

The theory is at some point a small group of these chordates matured sexually and never formed the adult stage. This meant that not only did it have a permanant internal skeleton but that it also was able to move around throughout their life. This is the subphylum Vertebra.

Yeah, this guy's just worried about the development of bone structure? Hell, I'm much more perplexed by how a bunch of single celled organism would clump together and then begin to tell each other what was happening and what to do.

Eh, it could be that a genetic mutation allowed the cells of a single cell organism to "stick" together when they replicated themselves, providing an advantage of some sort.


And the most perplexign question - how on Earth did the first organism itself come about.


Doesn't matter as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution doesn't care how life began so much as how it changes.


And viruses, where did they come from? They're not like any other organism on this planet.

Virus' really aren't that amazing, actually. They are pretty much small clumps of genetic material, within an encasing. Their genetics are very similar to the animals they infect, which has led some to the idea that it is possible that virus are break-offs of DNA and such, some time ago.

a very simple argument AGAINST intelligent design, and any other form of creation, is energy transfer.

life on the surface of this planet is able to survive for one main reason...the energy from the sun. so, plants, algae, and plankton (and other things, i'm sure) all convert energy from the sun into sugar (basically). this is the heart of the food chain. every other living thing that doesn't get it's energy directly from the sun get it's energy by eating plants, or eating other things that eat plants. this process of consuming other living things as a source of energy is highly inefficient, and quite wasteful. there are lots of conversions and chemical reactions that must take place, all of which require energy.

now, i'm just a regular guy. i'm not a deity (as far as i know). wouldn't it be a good idea for all lifeforms to get their energy directly from the sun? wouldn't that be...intelligent? cut out the middle man. seems like a good idea to me. but, alas, we live on a planet where living things have to die so that other living things can continue to live.

Virus' really aren't that amazing, actually. They are pretty much small clumps of genetic material, within an encasing. Their genetics are very similar to the animals they infect, which has led some to the idea that it is possible that virus are break-offs of DNA and such, some time ago.

They're basically just clumps of DNA or RNA encased in protein packets. They're really not that interesting.

They're basically just clumps of DNA or RNA encased in protein packets. They're really not that interesting.However, some of the diseases they cause, are. :)

They're basically just clumps of DNA or RNA encased in protein packets. They're really not that interesting.

I can't remember who said it, but my favourite definition of a virus is "nucleic acid with attitude".

However, some of the diseases they cause, are. :)

Most certainly, but I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that people would understand that I was speaking from an evolutionary perspective.

Most certainly, but I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that people would understand that I was speaking from an evolutionary perspective.
You believe in evolution?

You believe in evolution?

You're...surprised?

You're...surprised?I am never surprised. And I only asked.

You believe in evolution?

Not on the first date! :eek:

They're basically just clumps of DNA or RNA encased in protein packets. They're really not that interesting.

Prions are nifty.

I am never surprised. And I only asked.

I guess I just recall having been in evolution vs. ID/Creationism discussions you were a part of before, so I was a bit surprised you weren't aware.

Prions are nifty.

No they are not! *smack*

...ok maybe they are, but still...

Evolution? Explain
Why not just read a science book? I know fanatics like to pretend that evolution is a political view, but the reality is that it is a field of science.

Why not just read a science book? I know fanatics like to pretend that evolution is a political view, but the reality is that it is a field of science.You believe in evolution?

They share an interesting trait with people: a subcutaneous layer of fat. Perhaps, we were once aquatic apes?

We _were_ once aquatic apes, most likely that was what kicked us upright at first. However, there are also animals with subcutaneous layer of fat that spend some of their time in hibernation. Hibernating humans, anyone? :p

Hell, I'm much more perplexed by how a bunch of single celled organism would clump together and then begin to tell each other what was happening and what to do.

Similar cells (as in multicellural organisms) or different cells (mitochondria, etc.)? Answer depends on definition.

You're simply stating that viruses exist (well done), but make no attempt to describe how they first came about.

Unlike computer viruses, organic viruses are not created by intelligent beings. If anything, viruses are a proof of there being NO intelligent design behind any of this. However, the viral evolution is one of the hot potatoes in science currently, so no-one can give you an exact answer. The most prominen theory holds that they started out much like bacterial plasmids (circular strands of DNA replicating independently of the host cell, tradeable between bacterial cells, carrying certain genes, etc.) but then mutated in ways that made the infected cells forsake everything in favour of making viruses. Also there are so many types of viruses that you really should take a university-level course or two to learn more. I know I did. :D

Experiments have shown that in a Type I atmosphere and ocean (H2, CH4, NH3, H2O), when a lightning strikes, amminoacids (spell? anyway, the basic "bricks" of proteins) are formed.

Aminoacids have even been found in interstellar space in dust clouds that have at some point only contained oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and a few other materials, and have then been exposed to a lot of energy (like a nearby star exploding). So if the molecules can make it in near-vacuum, why not on a newly-formed planet where things are gaseous, liquid and even solid, and interaction between atoms and molecules is much easier and probable.

every other living thing that doesn't get it's energy directly from the sun get it's energy by eating plants, or eating other things that eat plants.

*cough* Chemotrophs FTW! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotrophic

Prions are nifty.

But only "bad" prions are interesting. :p

You believe in evolution?

There's no need to _believe_ in evolution as it's not a belief, it's a process. I don't _believe_ in fermentation, but for some reason the berry juice (in a bottle) I left on the table instead of the fridge, still fermented in a week or so and forced me to dump it and its microcosmos of single-celled organisms down the drain.

No they are not! *smack*

...ok maybe they are, but still...

Owww, that hurt :( .

Bacteriophages that take up host dna instead of their normal viral dna/rna are neat as well.

They're basically just clumps of DNA or RNA encased in protein packets. They're really not that interesting.

Thats not fair, I think some of the ways they are able to penetrate the cells and swim around etc.. are very interesting.

Owww, that hurt :( .

Bacteriophages that take up host dna instead of their normal viral dna/rna are neat as well.

Ah, I'm not very versed on viral biology. Yes, yay prions!

*unsmack*

Thats not fair, I think some of the ways they are able to penetrate the cells and swim around etc.. are very interesting.no, that's sperms

We conformed to nature's society.

The most prominen theory holds that they started out much like bacterial plasmids (circular strands of DNA replicating independently of the host cell, tradeable between bacterial cells, carrying certain genes, etc.) but then mutated in ways that made the infected cells forsake everything in favour of making viruses. Also there are so many types of viruses that you really should take a university-level course or two to learn more. I know I did. :D

Some bacteria require a host to replicate.

Cool, I'm doing a 2nd year bio course (micro, genetics then biochem) course.

*cough* Chemotrophs FTW! :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotrophic

Some chemotrophs aren't prototrophs though ;) .

But only "bad" prions are interesting. :p

That is true, though to be more specific bad prions that affect humans are the really interesting ones.

Ah, I'm not very versed on viral biology. Yes, yay prions!

*unsmack*

I'm not too hot at it either.

*Does the unsmack dance*

You believe in evolution?

The religious concept of "belief" is irrelevant. Scientific methods deal with evolutionary theory.

The religious concept of "belief" is irrelevant. Scientific methods deal with evolutionary theory.You believe in the soundness of evolutionary theory? Do you trust science?

You believe in the soundness of evolutionary theory? Do you trust science?

Do you understand the difference between scientific theories and science?

Science is a method. Theories are the product of that method and the method frequently refines and changes them. However, just because theories can be refined, does not mean they are useless. Compare Newton's physics to our modern understanding. Technically you might say Newton was "wrong", but they still teach it in schools. Why? Because it is still a good model, it is just not as refined as modern physics and the differences are not things that children need to concern themselves with at that level. Similarly our modern understanding could be called "wrong", because we will inevitably make improvements in the future. But it's still good enough to base a functioning aeroplane design on, so it's hardly worthless.

Teegeeack?

Yep. That'c Co$ speak for Earth.

75 million years ago, the galactic overlord for this sector of the galaxy was
called Xenu. He was in charge of 76 planets, including Earth (at that time
known as Teegeeack).

All of the planets Xenu controlled were over-populated by, on average, 178
billion people. Social problems dictated that Xenu rid his sector of the
galaxy of this overpopulation problem, so he developed a plan.

Xenu sent out tax audit demands to all these trillions of people. As each one
entered the audit centers for the income tax inspections, the people were
seized, held down and injected with a mixture of alcohol and glycol, and
frozen. Then, all 13.5 trillion of these frozen people were put into
spaceships that looked exactly like DC8 airplanes, except that the spaceships
had rocket engines instead of propellers.

Xenu's entire fleet of DC8-like spaceships then flew to planet Earth, where
the frozen people were dumped in and around volcanoes in the Canary Islands
and the Hawaiian Islands. When Xenu's Air Force had finished dumping the
bodies into the volcanoes, hydrogen bombs were dropped into the volcanoes and the frozen space aliens were vaporized.

However, Xenu's plan involved setting up electronic traps in Teegeeack's
atmosphere which were designed to trap the souls or spirits of the dead space
aliens. When the 13.5 trillion spirits were being blown around on the nuclear
winds, the electronic traps worked like a charm and captured all the souls in
the electronic, sticky fly-paper like traps.

The spirits of the aliens were then taken to huge multiplex cinemas that Xenu
had previously instructed his forces to build on Teegeeack. In these movie
theaters the spirits had to spend many days watching special 3-D movies, the
purpose of which was twofold: 1) to implant into these spirits a false
reality, i.e. the reality that WOGS (Hubbard's derisory term for anyone not a
Scientologists) know on Earth today; and, 2) to control these spirits for all
eternity so that they could never cause trouble for Xenu in this sector of the
Galaxy. During these films, many false pictures and stories were implanted
into these spirits, which resulted in the spirits believing in all the things
that control mankind on Earth today, including religion. The concept of
religion, including God, Christ, Mohammed, Moses etc., were all an implanted
false reality that to this very minute are used to control WOGS on Earth.

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema, they started to stick
together in clusters of a few thousand and remained that way until mankind
began to inhabit the Earth. Today on Earth all the spirits of these aliens
have attached themselves to our bodies and are the root cause of the false
reality that all but Scientology's "Homo Novis" or OT 8's on earth experience.
It is the job of all Scientologists to remove this false reality from the
world by auditing each and every space alien spirit and human on earth and the entire universe to CLEAR. For those who oppose Scientology and stand in their way like the Lisa McPherson Trust and all Scientology critics, Scientology
promises to do away with them "quietly and without sorrow".

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/minton-essay.txt

(What do you expect from a money making scheme thought up by a hack pulp SF writer?)

They share an interesting trait with people: a subcutaneous layer of fat. Perhaps, we were once aquatic apes (http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm)?

Nope. That got ripped apart recently.

Do you understand the difference between scientific theories and science?

Science is a method. Theories are the product of that method and the method frequently refines and changes them. However, just because theories can be refined, does not mean they are useless. Compare Newton's physics to our modern understanding. Technically you might say Newton was "wrong", but they still teach it in schools. Why? Because it is still a good model, it is just not as refined as modern physics and the differences are not things that children need to concern themselves with at that level. Similarly our modern understanding could be called "wrong", because we will inevitably make improvements in the future. But it's still good enough to base a functioning aeroplane design on, so it's hardly worthless.Aha. So the scientific method has produced information on evolution? How? They put dinosaurs in a lab and watched their offspring change over a couple of million years?

Nope. That got ripped apart recently.

OMG is she still pitching it?

Aha. So the scientific method has produced information on evolution? How? They put dinosaurs in a lab and watched their offspring change over a couple of million years?

UB, do you believe in evolution?

Aha. So the scientific method has produced information on evolution? How? They put dinosaurs in a lab and watched their offspring change over a couple of million years?

Eh? What are you saying? The scientific method is also called macro evolution?

Eh? What are you saying? The scientific method is also called macro evolution?

http://www.littlezenminds.com/image.php?productid=461

http://www.littlezenminds.com/image.php?productid=461

:D

Eh? What are you saying? The scientific method is also called macro evolution?The scientific method is called the scientific method. And it includes empirically testing hypotheses, does it not?

It isn't empty. Experiments have shown that in a Type I atmosphere and ocean (H2, CH4, NH3, H2O), when a lightning strikes, amminoacids (spell? anyway, the basic "bricks" of proteins) are formed.

So, abiogenesis is a good theory. It also explains why the elements that make up living beings are the same elements who make up the non-living matter.

Yeah, it's fully feasable. The only problem is that you would need to generate more electricity than is physically capable by a single bolt of lightning. You'd probably need somewhere along the lines of several hundred thousand terrawatts to even get the process going, and then you've gotta have someone watch it for the next several millenia to see if anything grows out of it.

Penguins make sense because, presumably, once they wound up in Antartica, being able to swim made it easier to catch fish then flying.

Penguins make sense because, presumably, once they wound up in Antartica, being able to swim made it easier to catch fish then flying.You mean, because the fish are in the water? At least most of the time?

You mean, because the fish are in the water? At least most of the time?

Yes, they do seem to have that habit.

Yes, they do seem to have that habit.

The mudskipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper) must piss of some people.

Nope. That got ripped apart recently.

Link please?

The mudskipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper) must piss of some people.how?

Many views surround evolution. For example, here (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except) is one that is more moderate than most.

Link please?

No link is needed. Humans lived in the savannah, not the coast. We know this from fossils. You can't exactly be aquatic when you're not near water.

No link is needed. Humans lived in the savannah, not the coast. We know this from fossils. You can't exactly be aquatic when you're not near water.

Having read Elaine Morgan's books, and the information at this link (http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm), the aquatic ape theory seems legitimate to me. I'm no expert, so I'm willing to entertain a refutation, but dismissal out of hand is unacceptable. Link please.

Having read Elaine Morgan's books, and the information at this link (http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm), the aquatic ape theory seems legitimate to me. I'm no expert, so I'm willing to entertain a refutation, but dismissal out of hand is unacceptable. Link please.So you are saying that humans did not only come from the east african rift valley area, they came from the lakes there?

how?

It's a fish that doesn't spend a lot of time in the water.......

So you are saying that humans did not only come from the east african rift valley area, they came from the lakes there?If you're interested in the aquatic ape theory, there's information at the link provided. I am not so well-versed as to answer specifics. But I will not accept a refutation without a reputable link.

Having read Elaine Morgan's books, and the information at this link (http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm), the aquatic ape theory seems legitimate to me. I'm no expert, so I'm willing to entertain a refutation, but dismissal out of hand is unacceptable. Link please.

So, being in the exact wrong area does not work as a refutation?

So, being in the exact wrong area does not work as a refutation?

If the fossil record clearly refutes the aquatic ape theory, then surely someone has posted a detailed analysis on the internet to which you can link. If you do not wish to, for whatever reason, even if you're just too lazy, that's fine. But I will not accept a dismissal out of hand.

See here (http://www.aquaticape.org/)? I've gone and found one myself. Was that so hard? And, no, I haven't read it yet, but I will, which is more than you would bother :mad:

See here (http://www.aquaticape.org/)? I've gone and found one myself. Was that so hard? And, no, I haven't read it yet, but I will, which is more than you would bother :mad:

I'm reading it. And it mentions in the very opening the reason why I couldn't be bothered to refute it. There's no point to doing so, since there's no evidence.

I'm reading it. And it mentions in the very opening the reason why I couldn't be bothered to refute it. There's no point to doing so, since there's no evidence.

If there were not at least casual (not causal, casual, no sp) "evidence," it wouldn't be a "theory" (although "idea" may be a better term). Refutations such as this are crucial to the promulgation of science among a lay populace. Waving your hand dismissively is never an apropriate response.
You're still just lazy.

how?

They cause vampirism, sheesh.

Cool, I'm doing a 2nd year bio course (micro, genetics then biochem) course.
We grow in number...

Yeah, um, just finished my second year of Biochemistry, just trying to decide what to do for my final year project. If you're doing any of the serious biochem then unlucky, microbiology doesn't massively interest me but I'd rather learn that than specific residue interactions of enzymes and substrates.

As for the rest of this. Cell signalling's a huge factor in the formation of multicellular organisms, a phenotype almost exclusive to eukaryotes. Factors such as production of specific extracellular signals and receptors, the whole MAPK pathway, the difference in gene expression, subcellular compartmentalisation...the list goes on - they all contribute to the potential for differentiation by providing the potential for complex organisation of cells.

Abiogenesis still isn't a scientific theory. There's some very basic evidence pointing towards it, such as the experiments in the 50s and 60s with production of amino acids and odd nucleotides. They aren't definitive because there was never anything close to life produced, as well as the problems associated with racemic mixtures inhibiting each other IIRC. Panspermia's just an extension of abiogenesis with space thrown in, interesting but ultimately devoid of proper evidence. Neither explain why the specific 20 amino acids (not counting others such as selenocysteine or amino acid modifications) are the only ones in use. I mean, they're perfect for their roles which suggests that evolutionary forces weeded out the crappier ones, but there's actually no evidence for that either.

The evolution of viruses is something I'd never questioned, actually, which irks me because I like to think I'm fairly inquisitive :p Simpler viruses such as the lanbda phage exhibit plasmid-like phases in their lytic lifestyles, producing a circular DNA vector.

Nucleotides are not amino acids on a backbone, they're a nitrogenous base, a ribose sugar and a phophate which polymerise via the sugar and the phosphate. They are completely manufactured from amino acids and sugars though and provide other roles than simply the genetic material.

Viruses are interesting and bloody useful too, not just their pathogenic properties but also to genetic engineering, oncology, evolution, etc. Just because they don't have the ability to thrive without a host doesn't make them uninteresting. GE basically wouldn't exist without viruses as there would be no reverse transcriptase, no restriction endonucleases, no cDNA libraries, very little, if any, gene therapy...they present a huge asset in simply understanding biology at the cellular level. How anyone can even argue that they're uninteresting is beyond me. Their subtle complexities are incredibly clever and their ability to evade destruction is commendable in any living organism :p

Prions are cool and I'm ashamed to admit I know very little about them. Is it just a simple protein-protein interaction, or do they affect protein production at the chaperone level? I can't say I've heard of bacteriophages taking up foreign DNA either, although my virology's limited. Once again, NS has made me feel a lot more ignorant in a field in which I feel I'm fairly well-versed. Damn you all! :(

Why not just read a science book? I know fanatics like to pretend that evolution is a political view, but the reality is that it is a field of science.

Because the opportunity cost of doing so would mean less time on nationstates. :)

We grow in number...

Soon we will be strong enough to take those pesky physicists (EDIT: It was 'phycisists' but I realise that I spelt it wrong) down a peg or two!

Yeah, um, just finished my second year of Biochemistry, just trying to decide what to do for my final year project. If you're doing any of the serious biochem then unlucky, microbiology doesn't massively interest me but I'd rather learn that than specific residue interactions of enzymes and substrates.

I like looking at the greater interactions between different organisms (though there is a fair amount of internal work).

The evolution of viruses is something I'd never questioned, actually, which irks me because I like to think I'm fairly inquisitive :p Simpler viruses such as the lanbda phage exhibit plasmid-like phases in their lytic lifestyles, producing a circular DNA vector.

Viroids are even simpler than viruses. Now virusoids (like a larger viroid that needs a virus to help it infect) they are odd.

Nucleotides are not amino acids on a backbone, they're a nitrogenous base, a ribose sugar and a phophate which polymerise via the sugar and the phosphate. They are completely manufactured from amino acids and sugars though and provide other roles than simply the genetic material.

Like being used for tRNA and use in ribosomes.

Prions are cool and I'm ashamed to admit I know very little about them. Is it just a simple protein-protein interaction, or do they affect protein production at the chaperone level?

It is a protein-protein reaction between two of the same primary structure proteins (though there is a minority opinion that it is viral in nature). They interact by one catalysing the deformation of the other into a beta structure fibre. It is a bit hazy on how much chaperones are used (in genetically based ones, like with fatal familial insomnia they seem to be used but in the transmitted varieties they seem to be only partially used at best).

Human ones (and mammal ones in general I think) form amyloids & plaques.
The normal protein used by the human/bovine prion is a surface/transmembrane protein so the proteins being changed tends to destroy the cell.

There is a 'seed' state which can last for several years until it is stable enough. Then it splits and forms new seeds, though these seed stages are much quicker.

I can't say I've heard of bacteriophages taking up foreign DNA either, although my virology's limited. Once again, NS has made me feel a lot more ignorant in a field in which I feel I'm fairly well-versed. Damn you all! :(

I have my prac book here, it'll give me the correct term.... Transduction. During the assembaly of the virus population some bits of bacterial DNA can get trapped inside the protein casing instead of the virus DNA/RNA.

This can then be used to infect other bacterial to give them the genetic material it only happens in a small amount of the virus particles and can only hold as much material as its head. So you could give an auxotroph the part that would allow it to synthesise a certain enzyme but not a big one.

Soon we will be strong enough to take those pesky phycisists down a peg or two!

Not in a million years. Especially if you can't spell physicists right :D

Not in a million years. Especially if you can't spell physicists right :D

Dammit, I switched the s and c!

I guess that shows that I should go to bed.

At least the biophysicists haven't had an uprising yet.

Further...the question is. How can information be randomly generated? It is a principle of science that information cannot be generated from nothingness.

For even one chromosome of the Human genetic structure to develop on its own by chance is impossible.

Evolution is a theory...not a fact. And people close their minds to the evidence that Evolution may not be true in its entirity...or really for the most part.

Further...the question is. How can information be randomly generated? It is a principle of science that information cannot be generated from nothingness.

Energy/Matter cannot be created from nothing. Information cannot be passed faster than the speed of light, that is about it for this situation.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't help the no-evolution side because Earth is not a closed system; We have a massive input of energy that has existed since Earth has existed: The Sun.

For even one chromosome of the Human genetic structure to develop on its own by chance is impossible.

Well, considering that we inherited the basic structure of that chromosome from our ancestors and it gradually changed as we evolved I wouldn't say that it suddenly popped up ready made. That would be silly.

You can even trace the eukaryotic chromosomes into our prokarytiotic relatives.

Evolution is a theory...not a fact. And people close their minds to the evidence that Evolution may not be true in its entirity...or really for the most part.

Facts are observations. A theory is used to explain it an observation or is designed in a way that it can be tested, allowing an observation to be made.

We have the experience of some kind of influence keeping us rooted to the Earth (fact) we have gravity to explain that (theory).

Now if you were talking about string theory I would be inclined to say a theory can be weak (as it is not falsible or testable yet or in the near future) yet the theory on evolution is not. It has a wealth of observations, from genetic histories to physical divergence and even how bacteria/viruses populations respond to new environmental conditions (such as anti-biotics).

Theories can change if verified observational information contradicts part or the entirity of it.

Evolution probably will change in some part, probably to account for the complete theory on how life began, but for now it has nothing to contradict it.

At least the biophysicists haven't had an uprising yet.I do some biophysics. Worst. Field. Ever.
Further...the question is. How can information be randomly generated? It is a principle of science that information cannot be generated from nothingness.

For even one chromosome of the Human genetic structure to develop on its own by chance is impossible.

Evolution is a theory...not a fact. And people close their minds to the evidence that Evolution may not be true in its entirety...or really for the most part.Aah, I'm torn. Do I give the troll the nourishment they need in return for a mildly scientific answer, or do I deprive them of sustenance and hope they go away?

Actually screw it, Soleichunn did it for me. I get to take the high ground by posting this:
http://www.guineafowl.com/board/dnf.jpg
:p

Further...the question is. How can information be randomly generated? It is a principle of science that information cannot be generated from nothingness.

I think you need to understand what random means.

I do some biophysics. Worst. Field. Ever.

Would that be trying to work out the energy transfer between enzymes, their substrates and products? Biophysics isn't a readily defined discipline from what I could tell.

Aah, I'm torn. Do I give the troll the nourishment they need in return for a mildly scientific answer, or do I deprive them of sustenance and hope they go away?

Actually screw it, Soleichunn did it for me. I get to take the high ground by posting this:
http://www.guineafowl.com/board/dnf.jpg
:p

Fine then, make me slog through the mud to answer that person!

Be the king (or queen) of the hill then :p .

Would that be trying to work out the energy transfer between enzymes, their substrates and products? Biophysics isn't a readily defined discipline from what I could tell.
I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago...¬_¬

Or, alternately, I could just tell you that I had a unit entitled "Biophysics, Enzymology and Ligand Binding" and that it contained information about proteomics methods, intricate enzyme interactions (including transition state stabilisation all the fricking time) and stuff like the Scatchard and Hill plots and related maths. It's pretty much anything too small to be directly witnessed. Wikipedia does it justice tbh, especially since everything wikipedia says must be true :D

EDIT: King of the Hill! Definitely King.

I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago...¬_¬

I need no impressing. Someone who manages to do third year biochem is impressive enough.

Biophysics isn't even a department in universities, or so a spirit told me :D .

Or, alternately, I could just tell you that I had a unit entitled "Biophysics, Enzymology and Ligand Binding" and that it contained information about proteomics methods, intricate enzyme interactions (including transition state stabilisation all the fricking time) and stuff like the Scatchard and Hill plots and related maths. It's pretty much anything too small to be directly witnessed. Wikipedia does it justice tbh, especially since everything wikipedia says must be true :D

EDIT: King of the Hill! Definitely King.

Ligand, ligand, ligand. Thats when a metal has a weak, non-ionic bond, making a complex isn't it?

Proteomatics? It sounds way too equation heavy (wikipedia mathamatical articles scare me).

Wikipedia is nothing but lies. Now Uncyclopedia on the other hand is pure, unfettered truth...

This (http://www.ls.manchester.ac.uk/research/themes/structuralbiology/biophysics/) is our biophysics lot, part of the Structural biology department. Proteomics is just the study of the proteome via different techniques e.g. 2D-PAGE, HPLC, IMAC columns and the like, although the maths of the more structural biology side was...interesting (X-ray diffraction patterns, kill me now). As for the whole ligand binding, in enzymology it refers more to enzymes binding to their substrates, inhibitors and activators, with the latter group being the ligands. Mathematically it was simplistic rearrangements but it quickly became difficult.

Also, shame on you for not spotting the Anchorman quote. :p

This (http://www.ls.manchester.ac.uk/research/themes/structuralbiology/biophysics/) is our biophysics lot, part of the Structural biology department. Proteomics is just the study of the proteome via different techniques e.g. 2D-PAGE, HPLC, IMAC columns and the like, although the maths of the more structural biology side was...interesting (X-ray diffraction patterns, kill me now). As for the whole ligand binding, in enzymology it refers more to enzymes binding to their substrates, inhibitors and activators, with the latter group being the ligands. Mathematically it was simplistic rearrangements but it quickly became difficult.

The only one of those abreviations I know is HPLC.

X-ray diffraction patterns and trying to work out the tertiary structure using only the primary? I feel sorry for you.

So the enzymology bit works a lot with cofactors?

True biochem: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry

Also, shame on you for not spotting the Anchorman quote. :p

Anchorman quote? Where?

I clearly have not seen that movie enough though I must say I love lamp.

Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?

Same way the kangaroo is only in Australia, way back 200 million years ago when Pangea (all the continents were 1 piece) animals separated.

[QUOTE=Soleichunn;12723005]
True biochem: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry


I love uncyclopedia

True biochem: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry


I love uncyclopedia

It is one of the best sites on the 'tubes.

The only one of those abreviations I know is HPLC.

X-ray diffraction patterns and trying to work out the tertiary structure using only the primary? I feel sorry for you.

So the enzymology bit works a lot with cofactors?

True biochem: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry
HPLC covers a massive range of proteomic methods - basically any that can be performed under MPa pressure, which is alot. The whole X-ray diff. patterns was frankly impossible, we learned the basics and then cried for some time. Cofactors were covered in enzymology but weren't exclusive - biotin, NAD, FAD etc. were covered extensively but nowhere near made up the majority. Also, that uncyclopedia article is spot on, I haven't a clue what I'm doing and plan to go into medicine :D


Anchorman quote? Where?

I clearly have not seen that movie enough though I must say I love lamp.Dude, seriously. Watch it much more.I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago...is Anchorman.

Same way the kangaroo is only in Australia, way back 200 million years ago when Pangea (all the continents were 1 piece) animals separated.

Eh, Pangea didn't split for about a hundred million years there, buddy. Same basic concept. Really, strange animals occur whenever an offshoot population becomes isolated from the "general" population, without contact for a very long time, and successfully survives. Australia... madagascar... Antarctica... the list goes on of "strange" animals from isolated places.

Eh, Pangea didn't split for about a hundred million years there, buddy. Same basic concept. Really, strange animals occur whenever an offshoot population becomes isolated from the "general" population, without contact for a very long time, and successfully survives. Australia... madagascar... Antarctica... the list goes on of "strange" animals from isolated places.Like Mormons in Utah? A dead end of cultural evolution?

Like Mormons in Utah? A dead end of cultural evolution?

Lol. We went over them in Archeaology class actually(It was part of the whole pseudo-discoveries section my Prof. was going over-Kensington Rune Stone, moundbuilder myths, etc), and they are HILARIOUS. Their leader found their golden tablets underneath a tree... but nobody has ever seen them accept for him. Or how Jesus came to America, regardless of no ocean fairing ships existed at the period of time, nor for nearly a millenia. Also, the reason for the polygamy is due to their endogenous nature, and for economic reasons. Apparently they have a very low population of males to females.

They'll die off quickly.

I have two questions regarding evolution. I understand the premise, and a lot of the science (just from reading both these forums and random articles that I find), but two things need to be reconciled in my mind.

First, bone structure. Assuming we all developed from a combination of amino acids way way back, and grew from there, how the hell did we get from invertebrates to creatures with an internal skeletal structure? Or how did we separate into the two groups in the first place, if it's not a simple matter of cause and effect?

Invertebrates did not evolve from arthropods. Both evolved from a common ancestor. Those with an internal support structure (not yet bones) were more maneuverable and it led to wildly different survival strategies than shelled creatures.

Second, the penguin. How did this animal evolve? How did it end up in Antarctica? Did it split off from other penguins in the southern hemisphere and somehow change into a new species, or did it develop on its own after Antarctica broke away?

Prey animals have a broad range of survival strategies to choose from in the face of predation. They can simply breed so fast that casualties don't matter, like rats and rabbits. Become fast enough to outrun a lot of predators, like gazelles and rabbits. Or you can find territory that predators have a hard time following into, like goats and rabbits.

Each of these strategies requires other adjustments, but the territory one concerns us here. Penguins live where most predators can't find them. It would be a weird mountain lion that could follow a penguin to Antarctica. But once there, it doesn't need to fly to get away from predators. There aren't any on the land. They also don't need to fly to collect food like other birds. There aren't any trees to keep food out of reach of ground animals. All the food is underwater. Lots of seabirds can fly and swim, but they've got reason to keep flying. They still live around predators. Penguins however need to protect themselves from cold more than eagles. So they become better swimmers than fliers and forgo nest building because there aren't any sticks to use.

Penguins however need to protect themselves from cold more than eagles. So they become better swimmers than fliers and forgo nest building because there aren't any sticks to use.

I guess I should have been more clear on the stages.

Birds who live near the ocean and hunt fish have ways of insulating themselves from the water so that they can fly while wet. Those who are quick enough to pluck a fish out of the water don't really need to swim very well. They just swoop.

As you go south the beaches have less and less to attract fish to the surface. They are deeper and deeper swimmers. This means that hunting birds can't just pluck them off the top anymore. They have to be able to give chase a bit. The good part is that there's something luring all those eagles away. Fat fish next door.

But if fishing gets to poor, the eagles will come south to feed on weaker birds. Some of them will move further south. Those who are able to stand the colder water and chase the slightly deeper fish will stick around and have babies that are also good at putting up with the cold and chasing the deeper fish.

This process will continue all the way from the equator down to Antarctica where you will have birds who are so good at chasing fish that they don't even need to fly surprise their food. They can just run it down. So the difference between a sea eagle and a penguin would be the difference between a leopard and a wolf. Wolves don't need to sneak up on you. They'll just chase you until they kill you.

This process will continue all the way from the equator down to Antarctica where you will have birds who are so good at chasing fish that they don't even need to fly surprise their food. They can just run it down. So the difference between a sea eagle and a penguin would be the difference between a leopard and a wolf. Wolves don't need to sneak up on you. They'll just chase you until they kill you.

Eh, not quite. Wolves will infact sneak up on you. However, once they get the jump on prey, they have the endurance to outlast almost any other animal. Wolves have been known to chase prey for over five miles. However, this is only a last resort, as it is preferable to take down prey as quickly without chase. However, the way they hunt is vastly differently than a leopard. A leopard relies almost solely on sneaking up on its prey. If you don't get the jump, and the animal starts to run, a leopard will likely give up chase quickly, in search of easier prey. Wolves as well will try to surprise prey, but to cause confusion. Now, single wolves have a difficult time with prey, however tactics used by packs are marvelous to watch.

The tactics are similar, but the purpose is often quite different. One is to make a quick kill, the other is to confuse the prey.

If there were not at least casual (not causal, casual, no sp) "evidence," it wouldn't be a "theory" (although "idea" may be a better term).
It's not a bloody theory. It's a hypothesis at best, and that's being amazingly generous, since it isn't science.

It's not a bloody theory. It's a hypothesis at best, and that's being amazingly generous, since it isn't science.Well, speculations about a past species' habitat are never too scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin#Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farce_of_the_Penguins