Evolution - how exactly does it work?

I have read many books on evolution trying to find the exact step by step procedure on how we evolve. Although scientists admit they still dont know exactly, the best answer i could come up with is natural selection. is this a choice of the animal to change certain genes? how does it pass this off to its offspring? or is it more likely contributed to a kind of genetic mutation?

If you really want to know search out the "Urantia Book".

The book is good and real and very discriptive.

Good Luck!

Originally posted by Incarnated
If you really want to know search out the "Urantia Book".

The book is good and real and very discriptive.

Good Luck!

thank you but that is a religious book which is exactly what i am not looking for.
i want evidence based on scientific fact

i think your question is one of the, if the majkor reason people have problems believing evolution. They dont understand its workings, possibly because its hard if not impossible to see working in ones lifetime. Before i attempt my sah and short explanation, im not at all an expert. It is not in any way a choice. but merely a natural progression, natural selection if you will. Lets say that a deer is born with a mutation or some change in genes making it smaller and weaker than the rest. It will be killed easier and sooner than others because it cant escape or defend it self against prey so it doesnt pass on it genes. But lets another deer is born that for the same reason a change in genes makes it maybe only slightly larger and stronger than the rest. It can better escape/defend itself from prey. It can compete better for mates and food and therefore has more young and passes on its genes. over time these mutations can create entirely new species. If it helps imagine it with humans. If your bigger and stronger than other humans, you can out compete them for food and mates and propigate more. The genes of you are now passed onto your children

Another key to understanding evolution is realizing that when people say mutation it just means a random change in genes, it doesnt have to be a negative.

for me the best evidence is in a field that i cannot remember the name of, but that studies unborn babies of many species.

These studies show that human fetuses accutually have gill slits, and that many bird species have teeth buds as fetuses. This to me and many others means that we still have some of the genetic information for things that distant ancestors had before evolving into humans. Although many say that gill slits arent real, and im not enough of an expert to properly support of fight that claim. And now i remember the name for these features. They are called vestigial organs/features. If you wikipedia r google them you can find many examples.

reply to post by SmokeyTheBear


The 'gill slits'
and similar embryonic stages by Haekel, was proven FAKE.
And He was a professor!
Yet, many STILL believe it!

Originally posted by mamasita

Originally posted by Incarnated
If you really want to know search out the "Urantia Book".

The book is good and real and very discriptive.

Good Luck!

thank you but that is a religious book which is exactly what i am not looking for.
i want evidence based on scientific fact

There is no religion based around the Urantia Book. It is been proven scientifically.

Unless you mistake spiritual things for "religion", sure that book is dealing with spiritual things, but sorry to say you'll never understand if you will to rule out parts of the truth.

thank you clear skies, i wasnt sure about it, thats why i threw in the warning in the following sentence. Although im positive that vestigial structures exist, many appearing to evolutionary left overs.

reply to post by SmokeyTheBear


thank you for that but i'm am already aware of how that works - should've made that clearer in the oringal post.
however i'd like to know how animals have adapted to their habitats - for example a certain lemur has an extremely long finger to claw out insects in trees. what is the factor that drove the genes to form such a limb? is it by choice or chance?

reply to post by mamasita


I think one of the best examples of what you are talking about is with the Galapagos finches. Some of them have long, thin, curved beaks (I am not an ornithologist, so I apologize if my info on the actual birds is off) which are specialized adaptations needed for feeding off of the nectar (or whatever it is) that is found deep within a flower. They need the beak to reach into the flower to the place where the food is. If birds have a gene for a slender beak, they will be able to reach the food. They will eat, and they will survive and reproduce and the gene is passed on to their offspring.

If a bird does not have the correct beak for getting its food, it will starve to death. It may die before it reproduces, or it may pass on the short beak gene to its offspring, who will also starve to death. Either way, eventually, all that will remain in the population will be the slender beaked birds.

There is also another really good example with light and dark colored moths in Englad. I will see if I can find a link about it.

Peppered Moth

Darwin's finches- Wikipedia

[edit on 1-1-2008 by TheHypnoToad]

reply to post by mamasita


So to answer your question, it's definitely not by choice. Although I think "chance" might be oversimplifying it.

It comes down to whether the animal with the characteristics necessary to survive reproduces and passes the genes for those characteristics to its offspring.

reply to post by TheHypnoToad


The peppered moth is a fraud, too.
The men 'showing' the 'evidence' had to glue them on the tree. peppered moth

Here's another site
He knows more about it than I do.


[edit on 1-1-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


Can you find evidence to support this that does not come from a religious site?

And just to keep from being a one liner: I believe that evolution is real, and that it occurs because God causes it to.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by TheHypnoToad]

Originally posted by mamasita
what is the factor that drove the genes to form such a limb? is it by choice or chance?

What you're basically asking is whether mutations can be truly directed (by an individual).

Mutations are random to the fitness needs of the organism. Some mutations can be more likely than others, indeed, under certain conditions the rate of mutation might increase (i.e., hypermutation; a type of adaptive mutation - thus, the genome can respond to environmental stress). But I don't think there is evidence of an individual being able to direct its own mutations to provide fitness benefit - you know, sort of, I need thinner fingers to use my laptop properly, and kappow, genes change.

There is some work on epigenetics, which some see as a form of lamarckism, where the environment feeds back into the expression of the genome. This appears to also be heritable. But the reach of such effects is less well-established.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheHypnoToad


I don't think so, since
Most creationists ARE religious.

reply to post by Clearskies


The second site that you gave is the same one that I gave. It does not say that moths were glued to trees.

It says that the information regarding the peppered moth study is "incomplete." It does not say that it is wrong. It says that one of the factors was natural selection caused by predation.

That site answersingenesis also makes reference to a Creation Museum. Is it possible that an agenda is being advanced on that particular site in order to sell tickets to a museum? I say that based on particular words used in various articles on the site. I am not making accusations, just rasising a possibility.

Originally posted by Clearskies
The peppered moth is a fraud, too.
The men 'showing' the 'evidence' had to glue them on the tree. peppered moth

Sheesh, it wasn't a fraud. For some illustrations, the researcher glued them on a tree.

The research was not methodologically ideal, but it wasn't fraudalent. Indeed, it was recently replicated and verified by one of Kettlewell's main critics, Majerus.

news.independent.co.uk...

I had a look at that urantia website, jeez theres alot to read

reply to post by Clearskies


And therein lies the problem. It's like having one candidate in an election get his votes recounted by his opponent. The bias is far too great to assume that the results are not agenda-driven. Providing articles refuting the studies that were penned by other Darwinists would hold a fair bit more water than linking to creationist websites, now wouldn't it?