7 Animals That Are NOT Evolving Right Before Our Eyes
May 26th, 2011 | Published in Spirit | 23 Comments
Cracked recently put out an article called 7 Animals that are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes by Kristi Harrison. This article starts out with a somewhat condescending attitude toward creationists…
People who doubt evolution tend to have one main argument: “If evolution is true, why do we still see monkeys running around today, all chimp-like? Where are all the monkey-men I was promised?”
Well, if you or someone you know refuses to believe that organisms change over time without proof on a monkey-man level, here are a buttload of animals in the middle of getting their evolve on. Well, seven anyway.
I was very interested in this article, since I am a creationist and would love to see proof that crushes my current understanding. To my surprise this article came up drastically short. Not only does the “proof” fall short of proving anything about macro-evolution, the writer of this article clearly does not understand the basic tenets of biology, evolution, and even freedom of choice.
#7. Elephants are Evolving to Lose Their Tusks (and Avoid Poachers)
So elephants have decided to take matters into their own hands … or trunks or weirdly rounded three-toed feet or whatever. To make themselves less appealing to their greatest enemies (poachers), elephants all over the world have begun selecting against having tusks at all.
At what point in high school biology are students being taught that we have the ability to choose how our species evolve? Ok, I admit, she doesn’t actually believe that elephants are making this choice… she believes that “nature” is making this choice.
Which is incredible, because it’s not like tusks are the elephant version of wisdom teeth. They’re weapons and tools, and they’re needed to dig for water and roots and to battle for the love of a lady. Which means nature decided poachers are a greater threat to the elephant’s existence than its diminished ability to forage or to score.
Of course, a simpler and more naturalistic answer would be that tusk-bearing elephants are being killed off before they reproduce and therefore fewer and fewer tusk-bearing elephants are in the gene pool, thus producing fewer elephants with tusks. But sure, “nature” is making a “choice” because it fears poachers. By the way, I’d like to point out that none of these elephants are turning into turtles.
#6. Russian Dogs are Evolving to Learn the Subways
while you and Brain the Dog were perfecting parlor tricks, the stray dogs of Moscow have evolved to master the city’s subway system. . . . And that’s not all they’ve figured out. Roving gangs of begging dogs have learned how to send out the smallest and cutest among them to do their begging. And big dogs have learned the bark and grab: jumping and barking at on a person eating a snack, making them drop it, then pouncing on the dropped food.
Seriously, is this journalism? What biological structure changed in these dogs? Dogs are fairly intelligent, we’ve introduced a new system into their lives and they’ve learned it. That doesn’t mean they’re “evolving”. It’s not like nature has any idea what a “subway” is and encodes in their biology the ability to walk around a subway. My dogs weren’t created with the biological predisposition to stay in the electronic fenced in area… but they do. This isn’t even evolution, this is just learning by intelligent creatures.
#5. Hudson River Fish are Becoming Immune to Toxic Waste
Over the past 20 to 50 generations, the tomcod has done something that would usually take thousands of years or a comic book origin story to pull off: They’ve evolved immunity from the poison in their water. . . . Most fish have a receptor gene that contains a protein which regulates the effects of toxins. The tomcods have that gene, but over the past few years, their version has dropped six base pairs, the part of the DNA that toxic molecules stick to.
Ahha! Proof! These fish turned into cats! Oh wait, no they didn’t. Again, the simplest answer is that the fish that were already predisposed to not have this gene survived the poisoned waters better and were able to produce more, which created more fish without this gene. Notice, nothing new was created. The fish actually had a mutation that caused a loss of genetic information. The fish did not create a new gene that allowed them to survive poisonous water. Guess what, mosquito’s don’t create new genes that allow them to survive DEET either.
#4. Lizards are Evolving to be Dancers
Probably the best way to explain what she says it to embed the video that she embedded…
I actually believe this is a perfect example of evolution (micro-evolution). But it is like the elephant tusk example above. The main consideration that needs to be answered is, have any of these specific lizards had the “dance” ability before fire ants were introduced? If so, then this is easily explained… those lizards were able to reproduce more and thus created more dancing lizards. If not, then this is simply learned behavior. I guess a simple way to test would be to take the offspring from a dancing lizard, keep one away from any fire ants and the other near fire ants. When they are adults and have finished most of their survival learning, place them both in a fire ant nest and see what they do. If they turn into birds, then we have creation-theory crushing proof.
#3. Other Lizards are Rewiring Their Own Guts, Right Now
In 1971, scientists introduced 10 Italian wall lizards to an island in Croatia, but right after they dropped them off, the Croatian War for Independence prevented the researchers from following up on their little lizard guinea pigs. In fact, the scientists couldn’t get back to the island until 2004. When they did, they found 5,000 lizard descendants who had not only annihilated the entire indigenous lizard population, but also rewired the shape of their own innards to accommodate the local diet.
Scientist left 10 new lizards completely unobserved for over 30 years (right before our eyes?). This is not science! Any number of things could have happened to these lizards for 30 years, including breeding with other lizards. Is this evolution? Not monkey-to-man evolution… but yes, the species did seem to change. The how and why isn’t really answered and can’t be. No intelligent creationist would argue with this… but an intelligent evolutionist should understand that we do not have enough information to make a claim that this proves macro-evolution. One thing we know for sure, the lizard was still a lizard when the scientists came back.
#2. Peppered Moths Are Changing Color Due to Pollution
Seriously, people are still talking about these?
Before there was such a thing as “environmental awareness” or “clean air laws,” factories lived the lives of rock stars: raw materials came in, smoke, waste and soot came out. No regulations, no apologies, no craftily staged PR campaigns proving they were really the good guys all along. As a result, 19th-century England was a craphole of a country. Soot was everywhere; trees, buildings, streets, children, waistcoat stores — everywhere. . . . The peppered moth’s mottled-grayish color was just about the same color as the lichen and tree trunks that the moths rested on. Which was important, because moths are bird food and birds can’t chomp on things they can’t see. BUT, as the trees trunks got sooty and the lichen died from pollution, the light-colored moths stuck out like sore thumbs. They also got eaten. It wasn’t long before people noticed peppered moths started turning the color of filth-covered trees. . . . But the story doesn’t end there. Over the 20th century, England cleaned up its act and the tree trunks went back to tree trunk color … as did the moths. That’s right, evolution doesn’t just plow relentlessly forward. It goes whatever damned direction it needs to.
At most I can say that this is evidence of natural selection (micro-evolution). Unless the moths turned into jack rabbits. You should read Answers in Genesis’ look at the case of the Peppered Moths in An Examination of Error.
#1. Grolar Bears are Coming to Get You
Polars and grizzlies have decided it’s time to know each other biblically, and this time without the involvement of an ark and a horny old man. Not only have they started boinking in the wild, they’re also making babies. Grolar bear babies.
The Labradoodle... proof that Monkey evolved into Man?
Le Sigh… This is your final proof that evolution is happening before our eyes? Why not choose the labradoodle? Guess what, a bear mating with another bear does not make a case for evolution. Unless of course the Grolar bear babies are actually Jelly Fish. Will the Grolar bear have different traits than its Polar and Grizzly parents? Probably… it will probably be able to adapt in different ways to different climates. It may have the best or the worst traits from his ancestors. In short, a Polar bear and Grizzly bear mating may make adorably cute cubs, but it does not make a case for evolution “right before our eyes”.
In Summary
I know this was a Cracked article, whose current popular topics include “boobs”, “zombie apocalypse”, and “hipsters”… but this article is a perfect example of how undiscerning we are as individuals. At the writing of this post, the Cracked article has received 1,112,688 views. Not only does the author of the article have a vast misunderstanding of the Creationist arguments that she blatantly condescends, but it appears that she doesn’t even have a firm grasp on modern biology.
My advice, think a little before you believe. Creationist use the same evidence as evolutionist… they just come to different conclusions based on that evidence in regards to how it all started. I have yet to meet an intelligent creationist who disagrees with an evolutionist on basic biological tenets. But as Kristi points out, our main argument is “Why do we still have monkeys?”
June 1st, 2011 at 02:28 PM (#)
Okay.. First do you know what evolution even is? Evolution is when there is a change in a species DNA traits or characteristics, whether they be chemical, physical, behavioral, or otherwise. It is Evolution thorough adaptation. These changes are being passed from parent to offspring, then to the offspring’s offspring, and so on and so forth. Over generations and generations. That is exactly what these animals are doing. They are trading one trait, or deciding (whether that be consciously or subconsciously) that this will better help them survive, because that is all they are programed to do, to survive.
***First the elephants.***
“Of course, a simpler and more naturalistic answer would be that tusk-bearing elephants are being killed off before they reproduce and therefore fewer and fewer tusk-bearing elephants are in the gene pool, thus producing fewer elephants with tusks.”
Umm…. yes… that is called adaptation and natural selection. Humans (poachers) are just another predator that the elephant has to adapt to. You adapt to survive, or you stay the same and die.
Animals are programed to keep their species alive. Who’s not to say that the female elephants are not realizing that the males with tusks have a lower survival rate, not saying that elephants can now do math, but it’d be pretty hard not to notice that there are significantly less mates with large tusks stomping around. So in order to protect their future offspring, they choose to mate with small tusk males. Eventually, the tusks begin to get smaller and smaller in each generation as it is realized by more females that small tusks are favorable. So over time, this is a change in physical traits, as well as a behavioral change. This is evolution by adaptation and natural selection in it’s purest form.
f”At what point in high school biology are students being taught that we have the ability to choose how our species evolve?”
Well technically, if we all decided webbed toes and fingers were favorable because of some reason, then we started mating to produce that trait, eventually most offspring would have the webbed toes and fingers trait. This would be an evolutionary adaptation, one that we chose. So it is possible that we could choose, in some small way, how our species evolves.
But that is ridiculous, possible, but ridiculous. As for the whole “nature’s choice” comment. It is nature at work. It’s not nature literally deciding as if it were some kind of entity making a choice, it’s a personification of nature, because we understand things better when they’re relatable.
oh and one last thing….
“By the way, I’d like to point out that none of these elephants are turning into turtles.”
I really don’t even know how to respond to this…. This is just… Was this seriously part of you’re argument? Please tell me you were just trying to get a laugh? Please Please Please tell me you did that just for the laugh.
***Dogs.***
Well I see where the author of the article was coming from. This could constitute as a behavioral change, but I see it more as a kind of conditioning.
***Hudson River Fish***
That’s how evolution works. I’ve explained this to you. If there were the mutation in some fish, the ones that survived, and that passed on. That is evolution happens. It’s a slow gradual process that starts out by a small mutation or change that eventually the entire species receives over generations and generations. It’s not like something randomly turns into an entirely different creature over night…. The article is called “7 animals that are EVOLVING right before our eyes.” Catch that word ending? ing? EVOLVING? not evolved, evolvING. As in the process of.
“Ahha! Proof! These fish turned into cats! Oh wait, no they didn’t.” Uhhh… Again? Really?
***Dancing Lizards***
It said in the video that their natural response was to sit there and do nothing. That obviously wasn’t working. So they tried something new. This is a good example. But you said it’s like the elephants. So if you believe the lizards are a good example, then why not the elephants?
And clever you left out the skinks…. hmmmmm…. And why would you possible do that?
***Rewiring Gut Lizards***
One lizards species, mating with another lizard species, having tons of babies, in effect creates a new lizard species. Yes it is still a lizard, but a different kind of lizard. It does not prove evolution, but it certainly helps it’s case.
***Moths***
Good, you are getting it.
***Grolar Bears***
Another example of the Polar Bear being forced to make a decision to keep it’s species alive, even if that means changing into a different kind of bear species and taking on some new traits. It’s what’s required for the species to survive. And come on, they’re just so dang gone cute. :)
In Summary.
I’m not trying to start a fight here, I’m really not. I just wanted to point out some basic points behind evolution that you overlooked. Evolution is not magic. I would also like to point out that I am not an evolutionist, or purely a creationist. I believe in a strange mix of the two. In which God created life, and set up ways for it to protect itself and adapt to it’s changing surroundings by way of evolution. If he hadn’t allowed for adaptation and evolution, I don’t think we would have the vast species that we do today. I believe it’s all part of his plan.
And before you ask, no I don’t believe we came from monkeys. I believe that monkeys did come before humans though. The human body was made perfect, in the image of God. The similarities between humans and monkeys are there because why mess up perfection? But in order for man were to be dominant over the earth, then nothing but God could exceed man’s perfectness. Do you understand what I’m saying. Kinda having trouble putting it into exact words, but you get my point.
I would love to discuss this more with you though, and get you’re views on other topics as well. Thank you for your time and you can email me at lilchris0293@hotmail.com . Have an amazing day, and God bless.
June 1st, 2011 at 02:59 PM (#)
Hi Christopher,
I think you’re missing my point, it may help to read my previous posts about evolution (and yes I know what “evolution” is). The point of this specific post was to point out that the author of the article linked to was trying to prove X by proving Y.
X = Fish => Birds
Y = Finches w/ Small Beaks => Finches w/ Big Beaks
When I say “evolution” in this article, I am referring to the idea of “Macro” evolution (X above). As I have said in previous articles, every creationist I know of believes in “Micro” evolution (Y above). The author’s first paragraph is an attempt to thwart the creationist’s view by showing things that creationists already agree with! Only, she does a horrible job of it (because she’s trying to be funny… or she’s just ignorant of the topic).
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! By the way, I have to seriously disagree with you when you say, “if we all decided webbed toes and fingers were favorable because of some reason, then we started mating to produce that trait, eventually most offspring would have the webbed toes and fingers trait. This would be an evolutionary adaptation, one that we chose. So it is possible that we could choose, in some small way, how our species evolves.”
Can you give me an example of this ever happening in history? Why do Chinese people still produce girls? They seem to mostly will and wish for boys.
Godspeed.
Lew
P.S. I understood what you were saying about God/Evolution/Man/Monkeys :).
July 28th, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#)
Millions of years of micro evolution adds up to macro evolution…..am I missing something here? Just because moths aren’t turning into jackrabbits in your lifetime doesn’t mean that those kinds of changes can’t happen.
July 29th, 2011 at 08:51 AM (#)
Are you sure? Millions of years of an animal kind adding no new DNA information and staying within its own kind adds up to an animal kind turning into a different kind?
Sure, anything is possible, I suppose. I’d prefer to see a little evidence though. But hey, I’m just a crazy skeptic.
Lew
August 1st, 2011 at 09:36 PM (#)
“Can you give me an example of this ever happening in history? Why do Chinese people still produce girls? They seem to mostly will and wish for boys.”
Girls are mostly attracted to larger males and thus over time the average height of humans has increased…
Don’t get your point about Chinese people wishing for boys I think sometimes your grasp on what evolution is can be blurred
August 1st, 2011 at 11:55 PM (#)
Andy,
That was in response to Christopher. He seems to think that we can “will” evolution to happen. My point is that girls have historically been considered bad in China. Most chinese parents want a boy. So after thousands of years, why do Chinese people still have girls? Maybe they’re not willing hard enough.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Girls are mostly attracted to larger males and thus over time the average height of humans has increased.” In fact, until now I’ve never heard anyone suggest that we’re taller now because girls think it’s hot. Though in purely natural selection terms it may be feasible if more women procreate with men who are taller. Unfortunately, our average height has dramatically increased over the past 100-200 years (since we’ve started being more healthy). We also have to contend with the fact that the average male height varies world-wide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height). Even if what you claim is true, it would be impossible to prove as Christopher was claiming that we can “will” evolution. It is much more likely that women just choose taller men and thus “taller” genes are passed down.
I think I have a pretty firm grasp on what both evolution is and what it isn’t. But I’m always up for a good challenge :).
Thanks for stopping by.
Lew
August 10th, 2011 at 11:17 PM (#)
Lets get something straight just because something changes or adapts over time does not support evolution , because if your belief is that we evolved here and that there is no God than your theory of evolution is just ridiculous , but if your theory of evolution is that things change and adapt all the time well no kidding of course they do, but iTs God almighty that still did the creating and holds all things together. Many things change and adapt to there environment based on different needs ,but just. Because species do that does not mean something forms out of nothing or from something else by itself. Just because a caterpillar becomes a butterfly ,it’s CREATED TO DO THAT, just because species adapt does not mean they morph into something else entirely give me a break, just because something adapts and changes does not mean it wasn’t created. If our advancement comes only from evolving to this position than how come we can solely create on our own a species alive and well that has never existed before we can’t successfully do it , we have the ability to create things but not living things that are solely unique , because we are not God and we don’t get here by evolving, we were created and created with the ability to adapt change and grow.
August 30th, 2011 at 05:52 AM (#)
Lew,
I think that there’s a great misunderstanding here; “It is much more likely that women just choose taller men and thus “taller” genes are passed down.” That is exactly what Andy meant. When he said “your grasp on what evolution is can be blurred”, he thought that YOU thought evolution could be willed (in a strange way, “wishing” to have a son instead of a daughter).
You have tried to separate ‘natural selection’ and ‘will to evolve’, when they are the same thing. While there is no proof that it has happened in history within the human species(it most likely hasn’t), there is plenty of proof of natural selection. All that Andy suggested was possible was that we ourselves chose, not nature.
It may be possible, but difficult (at least with humans). With the ‘webbed feet’ example; are we supposed to seek out everyone with larger webbing than normal and mate them? It would be an extremely concious decision, we couldn’t unwittingly do it because we know that earth may be flooded in a few years. Allowing nature to just kill off those who can’t survive in the flooded environment, leaving the best survives to continue to breed, is much easier.
An example of it in practice is dog breeding. Although dogs themselves are not making the decisions in their evolution, nature isn’t either. We are. We can pick out the dogs who are best at sniffing and chasing foxes and breed them until we have a new subspecies (dog breed). If we continued to selectively breed this subspecies, it may become so different from normal dogs that it becomes classed as a separate species entirely.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:36 PM (#)
My ony problem with creationism is that i just can’t bring myself to believe we just appeared fully formed from nothing. That makes about as much sense as the atheist theory of there was nothing and then for no reason it exploded.
December 21st, 2011 at 02:49 PM (#)
Well, most creationist believe that something caused us to be be formed. Hence the term… there was a “Creator”. I think of both theories, Creationism is slightly ahead of Evolution. Since we have an explanation of how we got here (a creator). An Evolutionists opinion is that it just “happened” from nothing. But I’m open to being wrong :).
December 21st, 2011 at 03:24 PM (#)
I guese my beliefs lie somewgere inbetween. I belive that the universe was created by god nut I also belive in evolution both macro and micro. I think a good example of modern macro(i think) evolution is the skink which according to the article is in the process of losing its legs and giveing live birth in some areas. I think that if this continues it will probably no lpnger be apropriate to refer to these creatures as lizards at all. And isnt that what evolution is wgen you get down to it. Correct me if Im wrong.
December 26th, 2011 at 04:01 PM (#)
Cracked is not a scholarly journal and shame on you for expecting terse scientifically accurate language from them. The articles are written to be fun and informative with embedded links to more reputable sources for further information, empirical science just isn’t as entertaining.
That being said, you’ve also failed to attack the premise of the article itself. In almost every instance in this article, you support the occurrence of micro-evolution, the only form of evolution observable on a human time-scale (and the only thing that is supposed to be covered by this article). You can question whether evidence of active micro-evolution implies how His work may occur on a larger scale, but that isn’t what the article is saying. Six of those “animals are [micro]evolving right before our eyes.”
You say Cracked doesn’t understand your arguments, saying you’re ignorantly calling for monkey-to-human evolution to happen every day. That’s the sort of blatant form of vile strawman-creationist propaganda that is so disgusting about… Oh wait, in this rebuttal you called for “elephants [turned] into turtles”, “fish turned into cats”, and “moths turned into jack rabbits” as the only clear and decisive evidence that could convince you as supporting evolution (see? I can take humorous commentary as factually absolutist statements too!)
But seriously a do respect your opinion and your right to voice it. What bothers me as a fan is your insinuation that the hardworking writers of Cracked are professional journalists. I’m sure they would be just as appalled.
December 27th, 2011 at 07:51 AM (#)
I know Cracked isn’t a scholarly journal, but that doesn’t make it any less propaganda. Cracked is a somewhat main-streamed magazine, which means people read this much more than they read any scientific journal… and people tend to believe what they read. You must have missed the first two quotes I took from this article:
If they are talking about micro-evolution, then they sure tricked me. What strawman did I put up?
Thanks for the comment :).
February 6th, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#)
Christopher Thomas is completely right. Evolution is not birds suddenly becoming fish. Evolution is survival of the best-adapted. Darwin said thtin every species, there is variation. If a certain trait helps an animal or plant survive, only those with the trait will survive to reproduce. Soon, the entire population will have said trait. After lots of different traits undergo this, the species will look very differenent.
For example, imagine two people have purple skin (this may sound weird, but is true). They have twenty kids. Ten have slightly bluer skin and some hav slightly redder, but they are all purple. They are overcrowded, and the children move out. Five of the bluish and five of the reddish move to one area, and the others to another. In the first area,there is some environmental factor that hurts the blueish people. It gets worse and worse and two of th blueish people die from it. They have no children. Now there are 5 reddish and 3 bluish. They have kids, and the next generation is slightly more red than blue. The environment gets worse for the more bluish of this generation, until eventuallythey are completely red. In the other population, there wasn’t this occurence because of their environment. Now, there is a purple group and a red group. Eventually, more environmental factors hurt a certain group, and ventually, the purple and red cannot interbreed because they are too far apart.
Also, if one population (let’s say they can have either green or white hair) shrinks a lot due to famine, the likeliness that both traits will survive is lessened. What I mean is, for example, let’s say a guy has two cans infinitely full of blue paint and two of orange. A guy aks him to fill his four paint cans. If the men keep passin paint, eventually, all will be one color, just by luck, if the colors are randomly chosen. Eventually all will have white hair, even when the population gets bigger again.
This doesn’tjust happen with color. It can happen with chromosome-number, tooth-size and many other things, like inelligence. THAT’S EVOLUTION!
February 7th, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#)
Sorry about the typos. Also, I just looked it up on Wkipedia, and they also have my paint example. I got this from my 9th-grade biology teacher, and the guy who wrote the article probably had the same teacher as me.
February 7th, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#)
Hey Dustin, I believe you are arguing my point for me :). I probably didn’t make it clear, but the author of the original post was making “creationists” out as people who do not believe in evolution. Which is only half-true. Creationists do not believe in Macro-Evolution, that is, evolution where lizards turn into birds. But we do believe in micro-evolution, that is natural changes within a species or “kind”. In your example, the purple humans are just as much human as the red humans. A perfect example of this in real terms would be to compare Chinese to Africans. Both are still human, they just look different.
February 8th, 2012 at 08:57 AM (#)
Once you account for teeth and chromosomes, you have different species. This is how chimpanzees and humans split and polar bears and grizzlies. Macro-evolution is lots of micro-evolution put together. Soon you have one group with purple skin and white hair with 25 chromosome-pairs and superintelligence. They qualify as a whole different species from the red. This is all survival of the best-adapted.
February 8th, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#)
My friend has smaller teeth than I do and I’ve seen people with really large teeth. I assume their DNA is slightly different too, does that make them a different species? Grizzlies and Polar bears are actually the same species, just different breeds. I have two beagles and I use to have a Shih Tzu, both are dogs (same species) but are different breeds, and they look quite different. Humans and chimps are completely different species, and this is where we disagree. The best example is the belief that that lizards turned into birds, but what evolutionary (survival of the fittest) benefit did a lizard get by slowly starting to develop wings and feathers. More importantly, the lizard’s lung system is COMPLETELY different from a birds lung system. So how could it be possible for a lizard to survive with lungs that require flight? or a bird to survive with lizard lungs? (http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm)
February 16th, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#)
Lizards didn’t turn into birds, dinosaurs turned into birds and it was a very slow process. And the benefit they gained from developing wings is escaping predators and finding food (insects).
February 17th, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#)
Neilandio,
Did the flying dinosaurs turn into birds or did the four legged dinosaurs turn into birds? Which dinosaurs specifically? How did they survive the long/slow process of developing wings if they needed them to escape predators? How did they survive developing a completely different lung system?
March 2nd, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#)
My power just went out, and I don’t feel like typing that all again, but I wrote out a long list of physical and behavioral differences that make polar bears different from brown bears. Do to all of these, even though polar bears are closer to grizzlies than either are to european brown bears genetically, Ursus polaris is a different species from Ursus arctos. I know people will complain about the name, but in school, I learned that Polar Bears are Ursus polaris. If you must abuse the content of my posts, please abuse my scientific opinions. Although, I suppose you could put the polar bear in either species. It’s purely amatter of opinion.
March 2nd, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#)
Oh, and by the way, you and your frien have very similar teeth. They are proportionally almost idenical. It is just a smallsize difference that you are thinking of. I mean large proportioanl and size difference by tooth size.
March 2nd, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#)
Also, (next time I’ll read all comments and respond to them in one big comment) evolution is not just the reation of a new gene. Tht i a part of evolution caled mutation.
Mutations can either die out or becom a major factor in the physiology of the species. It could even be that you will die without this mutation. However, evolution in a nutshell is favoring certain traits over others.
We do have some control over our evolution. For examle, women find height, wide shoulders, a deep voic and a large penis attractive. Men who have these traits aremore likely to have sex more often, leading to more men having them in the next generation. Humns have surprisinglywide shoulders, large penises an deep voices. And then, there’s eugenics, but that’s a whole ‘nother matter. The same selection is tre for men choosing omn, if I didn’t already say that.