by Squirel December 22, 2006
In the beginning we were all fish, swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands, and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something, and made retard frog-squirrel. And then that had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog, and then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with another monkey, and then that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey, and then that screwed another monkey and then that made you. So there you go, you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel, congratulations.
by mrs garrison July 15, 2008
The idea that organisms change over time, and that is change occurs through natural selection which allows favorable traits to be passed along through generations. It has been refered to as a theory, which, in science, means it is an idea that has not been disproven. Many scientists are moving towards calling it the Law of Evolution, similar to the Law of Gravity, in order to help reduce frivolous claims that it is "only a theory" by people ignorant of what a scientific theory entails.
Some (especially miseducated critics) refer to macro and microevolution. There is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. Fruit flys, rats, frogs, etc., have all been observed undergoing character change in laboritories, resulting in the inability to mate with other members of the base species (the control), thus forming a new species. Several examples of so-called macroevolution (the change at a genus level) have been observed by biologists in the rain forest. Furthermore, good fossil evidence shows transition between genera, and even higher taxanomic orders (incorrectly called Kingdom, Phylum, etc. - current work in phylogentic taxonomy does away with Linnean ranks). Representatives of higher order change in the fossil record includes change with fish, fish to amphibians, with amphibians, within reptiles, "reptiles" to dinosaurs, within dinosaurs, dinosaurs to "birds", within "birds", "reptiles" to mammals, within mammals, and other mammals to humans. I am not mentioning invertebrates here, as I do not deal with them in my line of work. See current molecular and physical phylogenetic phylogenies in Nature, Science, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., all of which are peer reviewed, something most parties who oppose evolution will not do (publish in peer-reviewed journals).
Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang - that is astronomy, not biology.
The synthysis and subsequent radiation and adaptation of life is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and far more complex than the, "We don't look like fish, so can't have evolved," argument presented by many whom view evolution/natural selection as the work of the devil.
Some (especially miseducated critics) refer to macro and microevolution. There is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. Fruit flys, rats, frogs, etc., have all been observed undergoing character change in laboritories, resulting in the inability to mate with other members of the base species (the control), thus forming a new species. Several examples of so-called macroevolution (the change at a genus level) have been observed by biologists in the rain forest. Furthermore, good fossil evidence shows transition between genera, and even higher taxanomic orders (incorrectly called Kingdom, Phylum, etc. - current work in phylogentic taxonomy does away with Linnean ranks). Representatives of higher order change in the fossil record includes change with fish, fish to amphibians, with amphibians, within reptiles, "reptiles" to dinosaurs, within dinosaurs, dinosaurs to "birds", within "birds", "reptiles" to mammals, within mammals, and other mammals to humans. I am not mentioning invertebrates here, as I do not deal with them in my line of work. See current molecular and physical phylogenetic phylogenies in Nature, Science, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., all of which are peer reviewed, something most parties who oppose evolution will not do (publish in peer-reviewed journals).
Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang - that is astronomy, not biology.
The synthysis and subsequent radiation and adaptation of life is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and far more complex than the, "We don't look like fish, so can't have evolved," argument presented by many whom view evolution/natural selection as the work of the devil.
A good example of evolution is the fossil record showing the transition between fish and amphibians, or dinosaurs and birds.
by Robert Gay - Biologist December 5, 2003
Evoluting: (Verb) Taking ownership of one’s own consciousness and working to evolve it to a higher level of understanding. To begin to see the bigger picture.
by Evoluting November 13, 2019
Wow, there are people who STILL deny the solid and obvious fact that is evolution? Well, I guess the condition of being sentient kind of subverts the "survival of the fittest" thing. This one dude, he married this lady, she was like 400 lbs...ANYWAY, the resulting child-thing, what with the combined genes of its parents, will a be new specimen added to humanity. A new specimen is different from other specimens, thus, genes are mixed & matched when this specimen procreates, leading to even more change within the human gene pool. Change adds up over time, thus, evolution. Even if it results in the downfall of mankind.
Now, let's go to wildlife. Wildlife does the evolution the right way. Why? Because if you're a morbidly obese sheep, you can't outrun that bear who's keen on eating you, and therefore you don't get to spread your fat ass genes. Sucks to be you. Now, on the other hand, if you're a sheep born with a slight genetic mutation that makes you physically stronger than most sheep, you're going to have a much better chance of outrunning that bear and living to spread your super genes. Very gradually, as more and more sheep with super genes and less and less sheep with fat ass genes mate, the sheep gene pool will be significantly swayed. As a result, a species of sheep who is better adapted to survive bear attacks will evolve. At the same time, bears will have evolved to be better equipped to take down sheep, since bears who could catch sheep were able to mate while bears who couldn't feed themselves didn't get to score. The process continues forever, until something catastrophic, like a meteor or urban development, wipes out a species faster than it can procreate.
That's evolution.
Now, let's go to wildlife. Wildlife does the evolution the right way. Why? Because if you're a morbidly obese sheep, you can't outrun that bear who's keen on eating you, and therefore you don't get to spread your fat ass genes. Sucks to be you. Now, on the other hand, if you're a sheep born with a slight genetic mutation that makes you physically stronger than most sheep, you're going to have a much better chance of outrunning that bear and living to spread your super genes. Very gradually, as more and more sheep with super genes and less and less sheep with fat ass genes mate, the sheep gene pool will be significantly swayed. As a result, a species of sheep who is better adapted to survive bear attacks will evolve. At the same time, bears will have evolved to be better equipped to take down sheep, since bears who could catch sheep were able to mate while bears who couldn't feed themselves didn't get to score. The process continues forever, until something catastrophic, like a meteor or urban development, wipes out a species faster than it can procreate.
That's evolution.
Waterbears can survive almost ANYTHING because only the toughest waterbears were able to mate frequently enough to have a profound effect on the genepool. This is a prime example of evolution.
by Everbound Venvel January 26, 2009
The theory that life forms change over time that is now being more widely accepted as the Law of Evolution.
For those idiots out there who argue with it on accounts of "But why are there still apes then?" or "Do you have any idea how unlikely it was for a single cell to evolve, our entire world too?"
you can easily go on believing that we humans were created by a god to be the dominant species on Earth, or you can face the fact that sooner or later a new type of human will emerge.(As long as we don't screw the planet up too badly before.)
Also; the chances? Not very high, but considering the fact that there is a chance and that it has happened don't you think that it probably already has? And will? Countless times? But then again why the hell should we humans care, we only live 80 years or so.
For those idiots out there who argue with it on accounts of "But why are there still apes then?" or "Do you have any idea how unlikely it was for a single cell to evolve, our entire world too?"
you can easily go on believing that we humans were created by a god to be the dominant species on Earth, or you can face the fact that sooner or later a new type of human will emerge.(As long as we don't screw the planet up too badly before.)
Also; the chances? Not very high, but considering the fact that there is a chance and that it has happened don't you think that it probably already has? And will? Countless times? But then again why the hell should we humans care, we only live 80 years or so.
by TheAlienSmiley:D January 18, 2011
by Loller July 9, 2003