On the Origin of Species: Mew: Investigating the inspirations behind Pokémon

[Shiron]

im still lost
how could mewtwo exist in the games if mew wasn't intended to exist at all originnally?
:S

What he means is that Mew just wasn't planned to be put into the first set of games, not that Mew itself wasn't created until the very end. Since they put in Mewtwo, they had already though of the idea Mew, and Mewtwo's origins and all of that, but they didn't actually want to put Mew into the game itself, and instead save it for sometime later. The decision to actually put Mew into Red and Green after all was a last-second thing among just a few people who worked on the games, when they noticed they had space for one more Pokemon, and so they did.

 

[RamboBabe]

I always thought it was funny how people say this thing's cute and it's based of a fetus in evolution. :lol:

 

[Vulkon]

Darwin's theory is a theory. Darwin himself didn't believe it was true. He disowned it towards the end of his life. I'm curious--why do so many people want to believe that this theory is true?

Mew is a cute pokémon, but the fact that it's kinda based off of embryos and a uterus... ew. I admit that both Mew's head and a uterus is triangular, but why would Game Freak go that far? Would they make a penis-shaped pokémon?--of course not, that's too vulgar. So why with Mew?

I'm not trying to put a ban on Mew or anything... just putting some things out there to think about. 8D

 

[apenpaap]

Darwin's theory is a theory. Darwin himself didn't believe it was true. He disowned it towards the end of his life. I'm curious--why do so many people want to believe that this theory is true?

Because of the mountains of evidence supporting it mainly. Darwin renouncing his theory on his deathbed is an apocryphal lie, and even if it was true, that doesn't change a thing about whether or not evolution is right. And a scientific theory means it has been tested over and over again (for the last 150 years, in this case) and no evidence against it has yet been found.

 

[sajuukar]

Would they make a penis-shaped pokémon?--of course not, that's too vulgar. So why with Mew?

Have you seen Palkia?

If you ask me, it's only vulgar if you assign that quality to it, or if it's done with the *intent* to offend. To a flower, vileplume would probably be pretty... vile... considering its hugely over-sized reproductive organs.

Life and it's replication and, yes, even embryos, are beautiful things man

 

[Bikini Miltank]

Have you seen Palkia?

Don't forget Combusken. Now that's what I call a fighting cock.

Uh, anyway, two things.

Darwin's theory is a theory. Darwin himself didn't believe it was true. He disowned it towards the end of his life. I'm curious--why do so many people want to believe that this theory is true?

Mew is a cute pokémon, but the fact that it's kinda based off of embryos and a uterus... ew. I admit that both Mew's head and a uterus is triangular, but why would Game Freak go that far? Would they make a penis-shaped pokémon?--of course not, that's too vulgar. So why with Mew?

Firstly... an embryo is as offensive as a penis now? Exactly how easily-offended do you have to be to have a problem with embryos? I can understand that some people may be a little squeamish about them, sure, but to describe it as "vulgar"? We must live in very different worlds.

Plus, it's pretty much universally accepted that Mew is based on an embryo. This isn't just some pet theory of mine.

Secondly... oh dearie me. Darwin disowned his own theory? Would you mind providing a source for that?

There is a story about Darwin supposedly having a deathbed conversion, but it's so widely discredited that even the bloody awful anti-science website 'Answers in Genesis' says there's no evidence for it. Besides, as Apenpaap says, it really doesn't matter: years of research since then have proven Darwin's ideas to be, by and large, correct.

Also... I get the impression that when you talk of "Darwin's theory", you're referring to the notion of evolution itself. My column pointed out that Darwin didn't even come up with the idea of evolution, which was already accepted by many naturalists of the day. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism behind it, which was natural selection.

Finally, the idea that it's "only a theory". I fear you may have misunderstood what a scientific theory actually is. It isn't just some explanation that somebody pulled out of their arse: it has to meet very specific criteria. The following definition comes from the United States National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

To give another example, Germ Theory is the theory that many diseases are caused by microscopic organisms. It's still called a theory, but nobody today would question it. In science, an idea has to have considerable evidence behind it before it gets to be called a theory.

 

[Vulkon]

Because of the mountains of evidence supporting it mainly. Darwin renouncing his theory on his deathbed is an apocryphal lie, and even if it was true, that doesn't change a thing about whether or not evolution is right. And a scientific theory means it has been tested over and over again (for the last 150 years, in this case) and no evidence against it has yet been found.

What evidence supports it? If you could provide some, I would be grateful.

Have you seen Palkia?

If you ask me, it's only vulgar if you assign that quality to it, or if it's done with the *intent* to offend. To a flower, vileplume would probably be pretty... vile... considering its hugely over-sized reproductive organs.

Life and it's replication and, yes, even embryos, are beautiful things man

D8< I've never thought of Palkia that way until you mentioned something about it. xDDD

But the creators DO have to keep in mind that what they are selling is intended for children--how many mothers would want their children playing games where the creatures resemble reproductive organs? Soon, we would have MAP (Mothers against Pokémon) getting on their case, and Game Freak would have to seriously censor their games.

But they make them innocent enough, and there are nerdy older people who buy the games anyway. Like those of us on this forum. 8D For a moment, I imagined a world where Pokémon was so banned, kids would be selling them like weed on the corner. xDD

And I began to write a lengthy response to Bikini Miltank, but my interwebs decided to screw up and I'm in no mood to re-write two paragraphs and also add to it.

By the way, I wasn't trying to bash the article in any way, and I apologize if that's how I came off. I enjoy reading these articles, I really do. I just happened upon Mew through the forums and decided to add my own opinion, that's all.

ALSO, I do apologize and retract my "Darwin's doubt" statement. It's just something I heard and falsely accepted with no evidence, if for the only reason being because I heard it from people I trust. I'll try and do my own research from now on. 8D

 

[apenpaap]

What evidence supports it? If you could provide some, I would be grateful.

Ok. Let's start with the fossil record. It shows how species slowly transition into new species to adapt to their surroundings. In no layers of stone older than 350 million years do we find fossils of reptiles, we find no amphibians older than ~500 million years (More or less, my memory is a bit foggy on the exact amount), and we find no vertebrates older than ~800 million years (Again, a bit foggy on the exact time). We basically see lifeforms becoming simpler the more we go back in time.
There are also some great species that show key steps in evolution:
Archaeopteryx (Saurischoid dinosaurs -> birds)
Tiktaalik (Fish -> amphibians)
Australopithecus (Apes -> humans)
Pikaia (Very primitive vertebrate)
Eoraptor (Archosaurs -> both orders of dinosaurs)
And those are just the ones that immediately sprang to my mind. There's loads more of them.
But we don't need to look at the fossil record: we can look at the same birds that helped Darwin come to his theory of evolution: Darwin's finches. These finches live on the Galapagos islands, and all stem from a common ancestor, but on each island the local finches are highly adapted to the conditions on each island.
We can look at other current species for more evidence. If you look at the fins/front legs/wings/arms of all vertebrates, you'll notice each have the same bones. They have different shapes between the classes, of course, but it's clearly the same set of bones. Other such homologies are everywhere in different groups of species.
Another piece of evidence for evolution is that we see it happening. Not with big creatures of course, as their generational time is way too long to have really had a noticable effect in the past 150 years, but with bacteria. The reason bacteria keep becoming immune to medicines is because they evolve, as the use of a medicine actively selects bacteria with a better resistance to that medicine.
Another piece of evidence is in our genes. You have probably heard that chimpanzees and humans have 98% the same genes. A fruitfly has 70% the same genes. A cucumber has 25% the same genes. (These figures are plucked from the dusty corners of my memory and may not be exact, but I do know the general principle is true) The farther in the past a species shared a common ancestor with us (Or, indeed any other species), the less our DNA is the same.

It should be noted that I wrote this post in a hurry, and probably forgot some really good pieces of evidence. If you are looking for more, I advice you to read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Kambash]

There's also that new finch that was found in the Galapagos. No one ever saw it on those deserted rocks until just recently, which sort of just proves it. However, I dislike it when people say birds aren't theropods or dinosaurs. Just because something takes a new form doesn't mean it stops beeing that thing. This also explains why everything share various parts of our genetic codes. Kambash, out!

 

[Sanpo Nepenti]

Mew being based on an embryo is a beautiful concept, in my opinion. Very well-written and presented article. (The uterus angle I hadn't thought about, possibly because I'm still recovering from the revelation that that's what Relinquished from Yu-Gi-Oh was.)
The mention of Mew and the DNA reminds me of (please shoot me) Disney's Atlantis movie, where the Atlanteans were spontaneously able to speak any modern language because theirs was the proto-language upon which all modern languages are based. It bugs anyone with logic. But the pseudo-science and the supernatural win out, and that's perfectly fine.
As for uteri/penises and their representation in the popular media, penises are jokes and uteri are sacred. At least, that's the impression I've always gotten.
As for evolution... thank you apenpaap.

--"What Is" Jack

 

[Bittersweet]

Darwin's theory is a theory. Darwin himself didn't believe it was true. He disowned it towards the end of his life. I'm curious--why do so many people want to believe that this theory is true?

Mew is a cute pokémon, but the fact that it's kinda based off of embryos and a uterus... ew. I admit that both Mew's head and a uterus is triangular, but why would Game Freak go that far? Would they make a penis-shaped pokémon?--of course not, that's too vulgar. So why with Mew?

I'm not trying to put a ban on Mew or anything... just putting some things out there to think about. 8D

"Darwin's theory is a theory"
Yes, this is true...
"SCIENTIFIC THEORY: A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for a real world observation, these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. Usually, theories are large bodies of work that has resulted from many contributors and are often built up over time. They unify the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example; biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang."
-RationalWiki (emphasis added)

The scientific definition of "theory" is very different to that of the one we use in everyday speech, which is more akin to "hypothesis".
In the scientific hierachy, there's nothing HIGHER than a theory. They're the top of the pyramid.

Darwin did not disown the theory of evolution by natural selection on his deathbed; that is complete rubbish. Even if it was true that he did, it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't affect the evidence.

QUOTE: "I'm curious--why do so many people want to believe that this theory is true?"

Nobody wants to believe the theory is true... They believe it to be true because of all the evidence!

In conclusion, Mew looks cool.

 

[Vulkon]

Ok. Let's start with the fossil record. It shows how species slowly transition into new species to adapt to their surroundings. In no layers of stone older than 350 million years do we find fossils of reptiles, we find no amphibians older than ~500 million years (More or less, my memory is a bit foggy on the exact amount), and we find no vertebrates older than ~800 million years (Again, a bit foggy on the exact time). We basically see lifeforms becoming simpler the more we go back in time.
There are also some great species that show key steps in evolution:
Archaeopteryx (Saurischoid dinosaurs -> birds)
Tiktaalik (Fish -> amphibians)
Australopithecus (Apes -> humans)
Pikaia (Very primitive vertebrate)
Eoraptor (Archosaurs -> both orders of dinosaurs)
And those are just the ones that immediately sprang to my mind. There's loads more of them.
But we don't need to look at the fossil record: we can look at the same birds that helped Darwin come to his theory of evolution: Darwin's finches. These finches live on the Galapagos islands, and all stem from a common ancestor, but on each island the local finches are highly adapted to the conditions on each island.
We can look at other current species for more evidence. If you look at the fins/front legs/wings/arms of all vertebrates, you'll notice each have the same bones. They have different shapes between the classes, of course, but it's clearly the same set of bones. Other such homologies are everywhere in different groups of species.
Another piece of evidence for evolution is that we see it happening. Not with big creatures of course, as their generational time is way too long to have really had a noticable effect in the past 150 years, but with bacteria. The reason bacteria keep becoming immune to medicines is because they evolve, as the use of a medicine actively selects bacteria with a better resistance to that medicine.
Another piece of evidence is in our genes. You have probably heard that chimpanzees and humans have 98% the same genes. A fruitfly has 70% the same genes. A cucumber has 25% the same genes. (These figures are plucked from the dusty corners of my memory and may not be exact, but I do know the general principle is true) The farther in the past a species shared a common ancestor with us (Or, indeed any other species), the less our DNA is the same.

It should be noted that I wrote this post in a hurry, and probably forgot some really good pieces of evidence. If you are looking for more, I advice you to read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.

I’ve started writing my responses in Word so that I don’t lose information like I did last time. xD

It seems to me like creatures have become simpler as time goes on. Archaeopteryx is a great example. How many birds do you see out there with teeth and finger-claws on the ends of their wings? I do believe that our modern birds show that once, their ancestors had teeth and fingers on their wings. So, if our creatures are more complex, then why did they lose the information needed for them to develop teeth and fingers? Not to mention that wicked-long feathery tail, which I don’t see on many birds today (the exception being the Peacock, which doesn’t really have a bony tail but a beautiful feathery tail that looks good on any woman who dares wear it). I also have a tail fetish, so if I happen to mention tails a lot, you’ll know where it came from (and it’s one of the reasons why I love Vulpix and Ninetales so much. 8D).

Isn’t it true that creatures lose information in their genes rather than gain it? I’ve heard it somewhere before, but I trust that real people on this forum can affirm it for me. I’m kind of lazy at the moment and don’t want to google it. xDD

I read that Titaalik is the ancestor to amphibians, not fish. D8< While it is claimed to be a fish, it sounds more like an amphibian to me. True, it was fish-like. Now I’m curious—where to frogs get their legs? Is it possible that Titaalik went through the same sort of metamorphosis and we have only found a fossil of its tadpole stage? Imagine the size of that frog! (Don’t confuse “tadpole” with what we now know today to be a tadpole—I’m using it as an expression—it might not have changed into a froggy creature, per-se, but maybe something different that we haven’t found yet.)

Also, why would Titaalik need to prop itself up, if those wrist joints couldn’t help it to really walk? The artist’s impression of it makes it look more like an alligator or crocodile than a fish. I admit, those eyes on the top of its head makes it look more creepy than cute (because to me, all creatures have a bit of cuteness in them—babies would be out of luck if we didn’t fall for their deceptive cuteness xDD).

Australopithecus seems to have more monkey-like qualities to it (which I assume is the thought behind it xD) than humanoid. Again, I have to go back to the “gene-loss” argument. These creatures were smaller than most of humans today. They grew to have skulls and bodies as large as ours? I would think that the creature with less body mass would have less information stowed in it, and therefore, less prominence to evolve into something larger and more intelligent. And who’s to say that these creatures weren’t any more intelligent than modern apes, chimpanzees and orangutans today? They could have been—I do believe that none of us were there to say they weren’t.

Pikaia resembles something of a slug and an eel, in the artist’s rendition. What exactly evolved from it? The Wikipedia page doesn’t say much about it. Could you possibly elaborate for me?

I just love dinosaurs—don’t you? Eoraptor is a pretty cool dinosaur (psst—my favorite is the Gigantoraptor—Game Freak, please make a Pokémon based on this creature and I will love you forever! 8D). I’m just curious—if this dino is the ancestor to all dinosaurs, then where do saurischians get their obviously different-shaped pelivises? Did one breed of these dinosaurs just suddenly have pelvises that were slightly more saurischian than their parents, and that breed happened to grow into what we consider sauropods today? Or maybe, is the Iguanadon and its cousins the link between Ornithischids and Saurischids, because it has traits of both creatures? If Eoraptor is the ancestor of all dinosaurs, why isn’t it more like all of the rest of them? I also don’t believe that just because something is found to be the oldest of its kind, then it must mean that it is the first or ancestor to them all.

It would seem smart of those finches to change their shape so that they adapt to their environment, but I don’t believe that finches have that ability. There are few creatures in this world that actually have that ability—I once saw a show where it featured a bacterium that had four stages in its life. I don’t remember its name, but if I find it, I’ll be sure to post it. 8D Anyway, even humans, whom we consider ourselves to be the most intelligent if not the most accomplished species on this Earth, don’t have the ability to naturally change the way we look. Sure, we can try and breed ourselves with others who have favorable traits, but we don’t have control over what the child will look like, more or less act like (there are scientists out there, I hear, who are experimenting with fetuses and trying to change the DNA so that the child will be born with certain traits, but I haven’t heard of it actually working yet). It’s possible that these finches do the same—breed themselves with those that have desirable traits and thus make babies with those desirable traits—sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The creatures that have the undesirable traits die off—as is the rule in “survival of the fittest”. Maybe finches are smarter than we think, despite having a tiny brain compared to ours. And I think it’s been proven before that the size of your brain doesn’t make you any smarter or more adept on certain things—I’ve seen twelve-year-olds stun philosophers with what they have to say. xD

Thinking of dinosaurs now, why don’t we have creatures as tall as 30-storey buildings now? I would have been kind of psyched to ride a dinosaur to school as a kid. 8D

I have noticed that bacteria is changing to try and keep us sick. Swine flu is a prime example. It is a mutation of regular flu, right? The only change it has is that it is immune to the medicines we try to feed it—by the way, what is the medicine we try to pump into flu? Don’t we just get a weak dosage of the flu and our white blood cells kill it, which makes them strong enough to kill the bad stuff? I’ve never understood how it works, but I guess it works. xD

I haven’t heard that we have that many genes that are the same—and at that percentage, I can see why people believe we evolved from them. I find it hard to believe, though, that a fruit fly has anywhere near 70% of our genes—that’s more than 50%, which to me means a passing grade. xDD Anyway, all creatures do share similarities with each other, because the similarities we have means that there must be something working for those traits. We are similar to fruit flies in that we have bodies, legs, eyes, a mouth—do flies have noses and ears? Well, they are certainly smaller than we are, by a great deal. I wonder, who’s the ancestor of insects and arachnids? I’ve also heard somewhere that humans are very similar to bananas. I don’t know how much by, but I would feel weird eating a banana if it turns out that it has something around 85%. xDD It would be like eating my brother!

In all, I’m not trying to put down natural selection, because there obviously is selection going on in this world. It’s why people of all ages are committing suicide—because they feel like they aren’t selected for anything good in this world, and their life is worthless. If only we had a theory that gave people hope for their lives, that they’re more than just a bag of bones and muscles and tissue and blood and all that stuff we’re made of, then possibly everyone on our planet would be happier, more optimistic, even look forward to the next day.

Also, I’m not trying to prove anything, even if I seem to be (I’m a writer than tends to get carried away T^T). I’m on a quest for truth. 8D

Okay! Now for the second part. 8D

Don't forget Combusken. Now that's what I call a fighting cock.

Uh, anyway, two things.



Firstly... an embryo is as offensive as a penis now? Exactly how easily-offended do you have to be to have a problem with embryos? I can understand that some people may be a little squeamish about them, sure, but to describe it as "vulgar"? We must live in very different worlds.

Plus, it's pretty much universally accepted that Mew is based on an embryo. This isn't just some pet theory of mine.

Secondly... oh dearie me. Darwin disowned his own theory? Would you mind providing a source for that?

There is a story about Darwin supposedly having a deathbed conversion, but it's so widely discredited that even the bloody awful anti-science website 'Answers in Genesis' says there's no evidence for it. Besides, as Apenpaap says, it really doesn't matter: years of research since then have proven Darwin's ideas to be, by and large, correct.

Also... I get the impression that when you talk of "Darwin's theory", you're referring to the notion of evolution itself. My column pointed out that Darwin didn't even come up with the idea of evolution, which was already accepted by many naturalists of the day. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism behind it, which was natural selection.

Finally, the idea that it's "only a theory". I fear you may have misunderstood what a scientific theory actually is. It isn't just some explanation that somebody pulled out of their arse: it has to meet very specific criteria. The following definition comes from the United States National Academy of Sciences:



To give another example, Germ Theory is the theory that many diseases are caused by microscopic organisms. It's still called a theory, but nobody today would question it. In science, an idea has to have considerable evidence behind it before it gets to be called a theory.

Firstly, I would like to say that we do live in very different worlds. 8D

I’ll try to be more precise from now on, so my fingers running off the keyboard don’t confuse people. 8D I’m not trying to say that embryos are vulgar—disgusting as they are, and oftentimes creepy. Seriously, have you seen a human embryo, at any stage? Whether it’s a 3D or artist’s rendition, ultrasound or picture of a dead, aborted one, there’s really no way to get around the fact that they’re pretty ugly. Sugimori made the embryo cute with the creation of Mew—it looks more like a cat than anything else, at least to me. Reproductive parts just happen to make me think of what they’re for—which can be beautiful or gross, depending on who’s looking at it and what function it’s serving. Once again, when you consider who’s buying these games, you have to consider their morals and beliefs. Pokémon happens to hide the grossness of an embryo underneath a cute kitty—which is what kids will might automatically think once they see Mew for the first time, never having heard about it. They would also derive the name “Mew” as a hint towards its origin—which they would wrongly assume is a cat.

What I’ve learned in my life is that just because something is accepted universally, doesn’t exactly mean that it’s true. I don’t have any lead to go on to say that Mew isn’t based on an embryo—nor do I deny that that is that it’s based off of. I never said that I didn’t believe the origin of Mew came from embryos.

Also, I had never heard anything about a “deathbed conversion” until lately, when you mentioned it. All I had heard was that he rejected his theories—nothing about any conversion or “Lady Hope”. And I do believe there’s no need for name-calling for anything at all, even if it is a website. I would hope that religious sects don’t reject science at all, because there is a lot to learn from science. How else would we be able to understand our world better if we didn’t dig deeper into it?

I guess I should change my words from “Darwin’s theory” to “evolution” then, shouldn’t I? xD But many people credit him for the whole idea behind evolution—again, wrongly, but there isn’t much talk in schools about the other naturalists. Everyone just remembers Darwin’s name and thinks of nothing else—My hope is that in the future, children will be more well-informed on who started what and where it came from.

So, if Darwin’s theory can be proven as a fact, why don’t they just call it “Darwin’s Fact” and leave all the ambiguity out of it? What about “Cell Fact” or even “Heliocentric Fact”? Do we not change the names because it just doesn’t sound cool enough? I’ll admit, “theory” is a pretty cool-sounding word. Very smart and scientific, no? It almost sounds like a group of very intelligent men came together, decided these things were fact, and decided to add the name “scientific” to prove that this theory is no longer something that can be proven right or wrong.

But you’re wrong when you say nobody today would question it. People do question it—all the time. We have questions for everything—like, “Who am I? Why am I here? Is that a doughnut shop? What’s that thing over there—what is it called?” I think the most important questions have to be the “why” questions, because they are most mysterious. And it’s a little fun to look at the world though the eyes of a child anyway—always wondering, asking questions, and thinking we know everything once we learn about it. I wonder—will we ever know everything there is to know about the world we live in? Not just Earth—but the space surrounding it, too.

I just realized that I just kept typing and typing. I’m done nao. 8D

 

[Tag3r]

I’ve started writing my responses in Word so that I don’t lose information like I did last time. xD

It seems to me like creatures have become simpler as time goes on. Archaeopteryx is a great example. How many birds do you see out there with teeth and finger-claws on the ends of their wings? I do believe that our modern birds show that once, their ancestors had teeth and fingers on their wings. So, if our creatures are more complex, then why did they lose the information needed for them to develop teeth and fingers? Not to mention that wicked-long feathery tail, which I don’t see on many birds today (the exception being the Peacock, which doesn’t really have a bony tail but a beautiful feathery tail that looks good on any woman who dares wear it). I also have a tail fetish, so if I happen to mention tails a lot, you’ll know where it came from (and it’s one of the reasons why I love Vulpix and Ninetales so much. 8D).

Isn’t it true that creatures lose information in their genes rather than gain it? I’ve heard it somewhere before, but I trust that real people on this forum can affirm it for me. I’m kind of lazy at the moment and don’t want to google it. xDD

I read that Titaalik is the ancestor to amphibians, not fish. D8< While it is claimed to be a fish, it sounds more like an amphibian to me. True, it was fish-like. Now I’m curious—where to frogs get their legs? Is it possible that Titaalik went through the same sort of metamorphosis and we have only found a fossil of its tadpole stage? Imagine the size of that frog! (Don’t confuse “tadpole” with what we now know today to be a tadpole—I’m using it as an expression—it might not have changed into a froggy creature, per-se, but maybe something different that we haven’t found yet.)

Also, why would Titaalik need to prop itself up, if those wrist joints couldn’t help it to really walk? The artist’s impression of it makes it look more like an alligator or crocodile than a fish. I admit, those eyes on the top of its head makes it look more creepy than cute (because to me, all creatures have a bit of cuteness in them—babies would be out of luck if we didn’t fall for their deceptive cuteness xDD).

Australopithecus seems to have more monkey-like qualities to it (which I assume is the thought behind it xD) than humanoid. Again, I have to go back to the “gene-loss” argument. These creatures were smaller than most of humans today. They grew to have skulls and bodies as large as ours? I would think that the creature with less body mass would have less information stowed in it, and therefore, less prominence to evolve into something larger and more intelligent. And who’s to say that these creatures weren’t any more intelligent than modern apes, chimpanzees and orangutans today? They could have been—I do believe that none of us were there to say they weren’t.

Pikaia resembles something of a slug and an eel, in the artist’s rendition. What exactly evolved from it? The Wikipedia page doesn’t say much about it. Could you possibly elaborate for me?

I just love dinosaurs—don’t you? Eoraptor is a pretty cool dinosaur (psst—my favorite is the Gigantoraptor—Game Freak, please make a Pokémon based on this creature and I will love you forever! 8D). I’m just curious—if this dino is the ancestor to all dinosaurs, then where do saurischians get their obviously different-shaped pelivises? Did one breed of these dinosaurs just suddenly have pelvises that were slightly more saurischian than their parents, and that breed happened to grow into what we consider sauropods today? Or maybe, is the Iguanadon and its cousins the link between Ornithischids and Saurischids, because it has traits of both creatures? If Eoraptor is the ancestor of all dinosaurs, why isn’t it more like all of the rest of them? I also don’t believe that just because something is found to be the oldest of its kind, then it must mean that it is the first or ancestor to them all.

It would seem smart of those finches to change their shape so that they adapt to their environment, but I don’t believe that finches have that ability. There are few creatures in this world that actually have that ability—I once saw a show where it featured a bacterium that had four stages in its life. I don’t remember its name, but if I find it, I’ll be sure to post it. 8D Anyway, even humans, whom we consider ourselves to be the most intelligent if not the most accomplished species on this Earth, don’t have the ability to naturally change the way we look. Sure, we can try and breed ourselves with others who have favorable traits, but we don’t have control over what the child will look like, more or less act like (there are scientists out there, I hear, who are experimenting with fetuses and trying to change the DNA so that the child will be born with certain traits, but I haven’t heard of it actually working yet). It’s possible that these finches do the same—breed themselves with those that have desirable traits and thus make babies with those desirable traits—sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The creatures that have the undesirable traits die off—as is the rule in “survival of the fittest”. Maybe finches are smarter than we think, despite having a tiny brain compared to ours. And I think it’s been proven before that the size of your brain doesn’t make you any smarter or more adept on certain things—I’ve seen twelve-year-olds stun philosophers with what they have to say. xD

Thinking of dinosaurs now, why don’t we have creatures as tall as 30-storey buildings now? I would have been kind of psyched to ride a dinosaur to school as a kid. 8D

I have noticed that bacteria is changing to try and keep us sick. Swine flu is a prime example. It is a mutation of regular flu, right? The only change it has is that it is immune to the medicines we try to feed it—by the way, what is the medicine we try to pump into flu? Don’t we just get a weak dosage of the flu and our white blood cells kill it, which makes them strong enough to kill the bad stuff? I’ve never understood how it works, but I guess it works. xD

I haven’t heard that we have that many genes that are the same—and at that percentage, I can see why people believe we evolved from them. I find it hard to believe, though, that a fruit fly has anywhere near 70% of our genes—that’s more than 50%, which to me means a passing grade. xDD Anyway, all creatures do share similarities with each other, because the similarities we have means that there must be something working for those traits. We are similar to fruit flies in that we have bodies, legs, eyes, a mouth—do flies have noses and ears? Well, they are certainly smaller than we are, by a great deal. I wonder, who’s the ancestor of insects and arachnids? I’ve also heard somewhere that humans are very similar to bananas. I don’t know how much by, but I would feel weird eating a banana if it turns out that it has something around 85%. xDD It would be like eating my brother!

In all, I’m not trying to put down natural selection, because there obviously is selection going on in this world. It’s why people of all ages are committing suicide—because they feel like they aren’t selected for anything good in this world, and their life is worthless. If only we had a theory that gave people hope for their lives, that they’re more than just a bag of bones and muscles and tissue and blood and all that stuff we’re made of, then possibly everyone on our planet would be happier, more optimistic, even look forward to the next day.

Also, I’m not trying to prove anything, even if I seem to be (I’m a writer than tends to get carried away T^T). I’m on a quest for truth. 8D

Okay! Now for the second part. 8D


Firstly, I would like to say that we do live in very different worlds. 8D

I’ll try to be more precise from now on, so my fingers running off the keyboard don’t confuse people. 8D I’m not trying to say that embryos are vulgar—disgusting as they are, and oftentimes creepy. Seriously, have you seen a human embryo, at any stage? Whether it’s a 3D or artist’s rendition, ultrasound or picture of a dead, aborted one, there’s really no way to get around the fact that they’re pretty ugly. Sugimori made the embryo cute with the creation of Mew—it looks more like a cat than anything else, at least to me. Reproductive parts just happen to make me think of what they’re for—which can be beautiful or gross, depending on who’s looking at it and what function it’s serving. Once again, when you consider who’s buying these games, you have to consider their morals and beliefs. Pokémon happens to hide the grossness of an embryo underneath a cute kitty—which is what kids will might automatically think once they see Mew for the first time, never having heard about it. They would also derive the name “Mew” as a hint towards its origin—which they would wrongly assume is a cat.

What I’ve learned in my life is that just because something is accepted universally, doesn’t exactly mean that it’s true. I don’t have any lead to go on to say that Mew isn’t based on an embryo—nor do I deny that that is that it’s based off of. I never said that I didn’t believe the origin of Mew came from embryos.

Also, I had never heard anything about a “deathbed conversion” until lately, when you mentioned it. All I had heard was that he rejected his theories—nothing about any conversion or “Lady Hope”. And I do believe there’s no need for name-calling for anything at all, even if it is a website. I would hope that religious sects don’t reject science at all, because there is a lot to learn from science. How else would we be able to understand our world better if we didn’t dig deeper into it?

I guess I should change my words from “Darwin’s theory” to “evolution” then, shouldn’t I? xD But many people credit him for the whole idea behind evolution—again, wrongly, but there isn’t much talk in schools about the other naturalists. Everyone just remembers Darwin’s name and thinks of nothing else—My hope is that in the future, children will be more well-informed on who started what and where it came from.

So, if Darwin’s theory can be proven as a fact, why don’t they just call it “Darwin’s Fact” and leave all the ambiguity out of it? What about “Cell Fact” or even “Heliocentric Fact”? Do we not change the names because it just doesn’t sound cool enough? I’ll admit, “theory” is a pretty cool-sounding word. Very smart and scientific, no? It almost sounds like a group of very intelligent men came together, decided these things were fact, and decided to add the name “scientific” to prove that this theory is no longer something that can be proven right or wrong.

But you’re wrong when you say nobody today would question it. People do question it—all the time. We have questions for everything—like, “Who am I? Why am I here? Is that a doughnut shop? What’s that thing over there—what is it called?” I think the most important questions have to be the “why” questions, because they are most mysterious. And it’s a little fun to look at the world though the eyes of a child anyway—always wondering, asking questions, and thinking we know everything once we learn about it. I wonder—will we ever know everything there is to know about the world we live in? Not just Earth—but the space surrounding it, too.

I just realized that I just kept typing and typing. I’m done nao. 8D

... wow...

 

[Spikeheila]

Birds have longer vertibrae in their tail and have reminants of teeth while embryonic, vulkron. Just like dolphins and their hind flippers, certain genes force the appendages to go away, but if you put a specific gene inhibiting virus, which they have done to chicken embryos. As with the wings, birds still have a kind of 'fingers',just fused, and there were actual dinosaurs with similiar arms, but were spiked instead.

 

[apenpaap]

I’ve started writing my responses in Word so that I don’t lose information like I did last time. xD

It seems to me like creatures have become simpler as time goes on. Archaeopteryx is a great example. How many birds do you see out there with teeth and finger-claws on the ends of their wings? I do believe that our modern birds show that once, their ancestors had teeth and fingers on their wings. So, if our creatures are more complex, then why did they lose the information needed for them to develop teeth and fingers? Not to mention that wicked-long feathery tail, which I don’t see on many birds today (the exception being the Peacock, which doesn’t really have a bony tail but a beautiful feathery tail that looks good on any woman who dares wear it). I also have a tail fetish, so if I happen to mention tails a lot, you’ll know where it came from (and it’s one of the reasons why I love Vulpix and Ninetales so much. 8D).

The reason that species lose body parts they don't need over time is that these body parts still cost energy to grow and maintain, and can be in the way. Birds don't need teeth thanks to their beaks, and birds who get teeth are expending useful recources on a body part they'll never need. That tiny bit of energy will, once in a while, be the difference between life and death for an induvidual, and thus it will slowly disappear. The tail is even worse, as it makes flying harder and predators can grab you by it while you're fleeing from them. Peacocks and some other birds like the quetzal have it to attract mates, as surviving a hundred years doesn't mean much for evolution if you don't manage to get kids during those hundred years. The fingerclaws dissapeared for the same reason as the tail: they make flying harder.

Isn’t it true that creatures lose information in their genes rather than gain it? I’ve heard it somewhere before, but I trust that real people on this forum can affirm it for me. I’m kind of lazy at the moment and don’t want to google it. xDD

Well, it's not so much that creatures lose information in their genes, but more like they lose stuff they don't need/are bad for them. Like with the birds losing teeth above.

I read that Titaalik is the ancestor to amphibians, not fish. D8< While it is claimed to be a fish, it sounds more like an amphibian to me. True, it was fish-like. Now I’m curious—where to frogs get their legs? Is it possible that Titaalik went through the same sort of metamorphosis and we have only found a fossil of its tadpole stage? Imagine the size of that frog! (Don’t confuse “tadpole” with what we now know today to be a tadpole—I’m using it as an expression—it might not have changed into a froggy creature, per-se, but maybe something different that we haven’t found yet.)

Also, why would Titaalik need to prop itself up, if those wrist joints couldn’t help it to really walk? The artist’s impression of it makes it look more like an alligator or crocodile than a fish. I admit, those eyes on the top of its head makes it look more creepy than cute (because to me, all creatures have a bit of cuteness in them—babies would be out of luck if we didn’t fall for their deceptive cuteness xDD).

It is the ancestor of amphibians. With the (fish -> amphibians), I meant it's the link between fish and amphibians. I'm no paleontologist myself, but I heard adult skeletons and juvenile skeletons are very easy to distinguish, even in a previously unknown species, because there is something different about fully grown bones and non-fully grown bones (I hope there's a paleontologist reading this who can expand on it).
Tiktaalik would have propped itself up on land, even if it couldn't really walk well, for a simple reason: the land was virtually empty. Only plants and arthropods were on it back then, and thus a Tiktaalik could easily escape all predators by temporarily crawling onto land. Or maybe there were some landplants it liked to eat.

Australopithecus seems to have more monkey-like qualities to it (which I assume is the thought behind it xD) than humanoid. Again, I have to go back to the “gene-loss” argument. These creatures were smaller than most of humans today. They grew to have skulls and bodies as large as ours? I would think that the creature with less body mass would have less information stowed in it, and therefore, less prominence to evolve into something larger and more intelligent. And who’s to say that these creatures weren’t any more intelligent than modern apes, chimpanzees and orangutans today? They could have been—I do believe that none of us were there to say they weren’t.

I had held the skulls (well, replicas of them) of a chimpanzee, an Australopithecus, and a modern human all in my hands (I study biology), and when you can actually look at the skulls as three dimensional objects instead of just as a static picture it is much clearer how Australopithecus is an in-between stage between apes and humans.
They were not much smaller than modern humans, and while their skulls may have roughly the same size, their brains were a lot smaller (a lot larger than apes, though). The size of the creature doesn't matter much towards the size of it's genome, and the gene-loss argument only applies to things a species doesn't use. It should also be noted that Australopithecus is not the only species found to be between apes and humans. There's two or three dozen of them that, if you put their skulls on a row, very neatly show the transition from apes to humans. I'm sure there's a site somewhere on the internet that shows this.

Pikaia resembles something of a slug and an eel, in the artist’s rendition. What exactly evolved from it? The Wikipedia page doesn’t say much about it. Could you possibly elaborate for me?

I picked it not because of it's looks, but because of it's bones. It is one of the first species found to have sort of a spine, and may in fact have been the common ancestor of all vertebrates.

I just love dinosaurs—don’t you? Eoraptor is a pretty cool dinosaur (psst—my favorite is the Gigantoraptor—Game Freak, please make a Pokémon based on this creature and I will love you forever! 8D). I’m just curious—if this dino is the ancestor to all dinosaurs, then where do saurischians get their obviously different-shaped pelivises? Did one breed of these dinosaurs just suddenly have pelvises that were slightly more saurischian than their parents, and that breed happened to grow into what we consider sauropods today? Or maybe, is the Iguanadon and its cousins the link between Ornithischids and Saurischids, because it has traits of both creatures? If Eoraptor is the ancestor of all dinosaurs, why isn’t it more like all of the rest of them? I also don’t believe that just because something is found to be the oldest of its kind, then it must mean that it is the first or ancestor to them all.

I am very fond of dinosaurs too. It was through my love for these creatures, in fact, that I first heard of the theory of evolution. To me, it Eoraptor looks more saurischian than ornithischian. It does not have the same pelvis as saurischians, but it is a lot closer to it. I don't know why saurischians and ornithischians evolved seperately. I think either each form of pelvis had it's own advantages for different types of dinosaurs, or Eoraptor is only the ancestor of the saurischia, and the ornitischia evolved from a different reptile. As I said before, I am not a paleontologist, and am not certain about this.

Thinking of dinosaurs now, why don’t we have creatures as tall as 30-storey buildings now? I would have been kind of psyched to ride a dinosaur to school as a kid. 8D

That's a pretty good question. I think it is because being so immensely large while living on land (it's a lot easier for sea creatures, but you're obviously not talking about them) brings with it a whole lot of troubles. You need very thick bones to keep your own weight up, you need a very powerful heart to pump the blood up, very thick muscles to move such massive limbs, because a large creature's surface area is relatively small compared to a small creature, it is very hard to lose heat (Not much of a problem for sauropod dinosaurs, as they were probably cold blooded, but a big problem for mammals), etc.

I have noticed that bacteria is changing to try and keep us sick. Swine flu is a prime example. It is a mutation of regular flu, right? The only change it has is that it is immune to the medicines we try to feed it—by the way, what is the medicine we try to pump into flu? Don’t we just get a weak dosage of the flu and our white blood cells kill it, which makes them strong enough to kill the bad stuff? I’ve never understood how it works, but I guess it works. xD

I was mainly talking about antibiotics, which are simply medicines designed to kill the bacteria. Vaccines, which you describe, are a much better way of dealing with a disease, but unfortunately they only work if they are given before someone gets the disease. Antibiotics and other medicines work when you are already infected (unless the bacteria have become immune to it)

I haven’t heard that we have that many genes that are the same—and at that percentage, I can see why people believe we evolved from them. I find it hard to believe, though, that a fruit fly has anywhere near 70% of our genes—that’s more than 50%, which to me means a passing grade. xDD Anyway, all creatures do share similarities with each other, because the similarities we have means that there must be something working for those traits. We are similar to fruit flies in that we have bodies, legs, eyes, a mouth—do flies have noses and ears? Well, they are certainly smaller than we are, by a great deal. I wonder, who’s the ancestor of insects and arachnids? I’ve also heard somewhere that humans are very similar to bananas. I don’t know how much by, but I would feel weird eating a banana if it turns out that it has something around 85%. xDD It would be like eating my brother!

I think the fruitfly figure was roughly correct. We are really more like fruitflies than you'd think. Our cells are virtually identical, we both breathe oxygen in and CO2 out, we both need to eat other living creatures to survive, our muscles work the same way, we have limbs, etc.
For the common ancestor of insects and arachnids, I refer you to the Tree of life , a very cool website that allows you to view the entire evolutionary path of all organism. Well, that's what it aims for: it's not complete yet. At the moment it is down, so I can't look it up right now.
I don't think bananas would be much more similar to humans than cucumbers. That would be rather weird, but pretty cool at the same time. 85% the same is still a pretty big difference btw. If you consider that fruitflies have 70% the same genome, I'm guessing fish would have something like 85% the same genome as us. So, unless you're a vegetarian, most of the food you eat comes from animals even closer than that.

In all, I’m not trying to put down natural selection, because there obviously is selection going on in this world. It’s why people of all ages are committing suicide—because they feel like they aren’t selected for anything good in this world, and their life is worthless. If only we had a theory that gave people hope for their lives, that they’re more than just a bag of bones and muscles and tissue and blood and all that stuff we’re made of, then possibly everyone on our planet would be happier, more optimistic, even look forward to the next day.

You gotta remember that evolution is just the science. It does not say we are a bag of bones any more than the theory of gravity or the Wall Street stock market values do. Some people believe God or some other supreme being guided evolution to produce humans. Personally, I don't believe in god(s), but that isn't really relevant. The point is: evolution is just the facts, how you place it in your worldview is your own choice.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

Yours was a very long post, Vulkon, so I hope you'll excuse me if I skip over a few sections. If you feel I'm ignoring points that you'd like addressed, then please let me know.

It seems to me like creatures have become simpler as time goes on. Archaeopteryx is a great example. How many birds do you see out there with teeth and finger-claws on the ends of their wings? I do believe that our modern birds show that once, their ancestors had teeth and fingers on their wings. So, if our creatures are more complex, then why did they lose the information needed for them to develop teeth and fingers? Not to mention that wicked-long feathery tail, which I don’t see on many birds today (the exception being the Peacock, which doesn’t really have a bony tail but a beautiful feathery tail that looks good on any woman who dares wear it). I also have a tail fetish, so if I happen to mention tails a lot, you’ll know where it came from (and it’s one of the reasons why I love Vulpix and Ninetales so much. 8D).

Well, firstly, one could argue that modern birds are more complex in other ways. From Archaeopteryx's skeletal structure, we can infer that it probably wasn't the best of fliers. Modern birds have refined the process, so in that sense, they could be said to be more complex.

Secondly, and most importantly, evolution doesn't necessarily mean an increase in complexity. There's no 'rule' that creatures have to become more complex as they evolve: they simply adapt to their environments, and this may involve becoming more complex or less complex. Let's look at cavefish, for example. Cavefish have no eyes, but they evolved from fish with eyes. How did this happen? Well, imagine that a species of fish moves into dark environments where eyes are of no use to them. But they still have to put energy into making and maintaining their eyes, which are highly complex organs. They're still susceptible to diseases of the eye, such as parasites. Basically, having eyes now puts them at a disadvantage, and should one of them be born without eyes, it would now have a small but still tangible advantage over its fellows. Thus, it would have a better chance of breeding and passing on its genes, as would its eyeless offspring.

In a similar way, birds simply didn't need teeth and claws, and so, over millions of years, they lost them.

Isn’t it true that creatures lose information in their genes rather than gain it? I’ve heard it somewhere before, but I trust that real people on this forum can affirm it for me. I’m kind of lazy at the moment and don’t want to google it. xDD

Both can happen, but as a very rough rule, the more complex a creature is, the more genes it has. But don't confuse 'complex' for evolved: in a sense, every creature alive today, is as evolved as any other, because we've all been evolving for the same amount of time. There's even an argument that if any creatures could be said to be 'more evolved' than others, then it would be bacteria, because they reproduce very quickly and so have had more generations in which to adapt themselves.

I read that Titaalik is the ancestor to amphibians, not fish. D8< While it is claimed to be a fish, it sounds more like an amphibian to me.

You are indeed correct: Tiktaalik is a 'link' between fish and amphibians.

Also, why would Titaalik need to prop itself up, if those wrist joints couldn’t help it to really walk?

It's thought that they originally evolved to help anchor it to the sea floor during a strong current. They would have allowed Tiktaalik to drag itself around on land to some extent... not really 'walking'. But it didn't matter if Tiktaalik wasn't especially agile, because it was probably the first vertebrate to be able to move around on land at all. It wouldn't have had any predators on land, and it would have had access to a new food source: land-based vegetation that no other creatures could get to.

Australopithecus seems to have more monkey-like qualities to it (which I assume is the thought behind it xD) than humanoid. Again, I have to go back to the “gene-loss” argument. These creatures were smaller than most of humans today. They grew to have skulls and bodies as large as ours? I would think that the creature with less body mass would have less information stowed in it, and therefore, less prominence to evolve into something larger and more intelligent. And who’s to say that these creatures weren’t any more intelligent than modern apes, chimpanzees and orangutans today? They could have been—I do believe that none of us were there to say they weren’t.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but I can confirm that most scientists take the view that Australopithecus actually wasn't any more intelligent than the modern apes. It's simply one of the best fossils we have, showing a creature developing human-like features, but maintaining many features of the primates it evolved from.

Pikaia resembles something of a slug and an eel, in the artist’s rendition. What exactly evolved from it? The Wikipedia page doesn’t say much about it. Could you possibly elaborate for me?

Pikaia is thought to be an ancestor of all vertebrates (animals with backbones). That would make it the ancestor of all fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

It would seem smart of those finches to change their shape so that they adapt to their environment, but I don’t believe that finches have that ability.

They don't, because that's not how evolution works. It isn't a conscious thing, and it can't be done by a single creature. Evolution works over many generations, and in large populations.

A finch doesn't arrive in a new habitat and say "uh oh, better change the shape of my beak so I can adapt to this new environment. What actually happens is that a large population of finches arrives. Within that population, there will already be some variation in beak size and shape. The best-suited individuals are the ones that thrive and get to reproduce. Their offspring will also have some variation in beak size/shape... and so it goes on, until you have a new species.

And I think it’s been proven before that the size of your brain doesn’t make you any smarter or more adept on certain things—I’ve seen twelve-year-olds stun philosophers with what they have to say. xD

When comparing different species, brain size does make a difference. It isn't the only factor: you also have to take brain structure into account. But a creature with a very small brain is almost certainly going to be less intelligent than one with a very big brain, for the same reason that a computer with 128MB of RAM will be slower than one with 8GB.

Thinking of dinosaurs now, why don’t we have creatures as tall as 30-storey buildings now? I would have been kind of psyched to ride a dinosaur to school as a kid. 8D

Because evolution doesn't mean 'stuff gets bigger': it can go either way. Also, large animals tend to be more susceptible to sudden environmental changes, which means they're usually the first to die in mass extinctions.

I have noticed that bacteria is changing to try and keep us sick.

They're changing, but that isn't the reason. Infectious bacteria are mostly changing in response to the drugs we're using against them. Think about it: you take an antibiotic and it kills 99.9% of the bacteria causing the infection. But 0.1% of the cells have a very slight natural immunity to the antibiotic, so they just manage to hang in there. Let's say that you don't finish the full course of the antibiotics, and so you never kill off this remaining 0.1%. These will then reproduce, and your body will soon be full of bacteria that are all somewhat resistant to the antibiotic you took. And because of natural variation in the population, there will be some that have less resistance, and some that have even more. This is how antibiotic-resistant bacteria evolve, and it's happening all the time.

Swine flu is a prime example. It is a mutation of regular flu, right? The only change it has is that it is immune to the medicines we try to feed it—by the way, what is the medicine we try to pump into flu? Don’t we just get a weak dosage of the flu and our white blood cells kill it, which makes them strong enough to kill the bad stuff? I’ve never understood how it works, but I guess it works. xD

Flu is a bit different, because it's a virus rather than a bacterium. We don't have many good antivirals, and so we usually immunise against it. You seem to have the gist of it: an immunisation might contain deactivated viruses, or simply bits of protein from the viruses. Your immune system will recognise them as foreign, and develop a defense against them, so if you do get the virus, your body will already be prepared.

I haven’t heard that we have that many genes that are the same—and at that percentage, I can see why people believe we evolved from them. I find it hard to believe, though, that a fruit fly has anywhere near 70% of our genes—that’s more than 50%, which to me means a passing grade. xDD Anyway, all creatures do share similarities with each other, because the similarities we have means that there must be something working for those traits. We are similar to fruit flies in that we have bodies, legs, eyes, a mouth—do flies have noses and ears? Well, they are certainly smaller than we are, by a great deal.

I know that we seem very different from other living things, but that's only on the surface. When you get down to a smaller scale, you discover that we're all built from the same stuff. We all have cells, and those cells work in the same way. The cells all contain DNA, RNA and proteins, which all interact in the same way. It's hard to explain without getting into some hardcore molecular biology, but all living things contain the same fabulously complicated systems for building and maintaining their cells and bodies.

I wonder, who’s the ancestor of insects and arachnids?

There's still a bit of debate about this, but scientists are agreed that the ancestor of arthropods was likely something small and worm-like.

Also, I had never heard anything about a “deathbed conversion” until lately, when you mentioned it. All I had heard was that he rejected his theories—nothing about any conversion or “Lady Hope”.

There's no doubt that Darwin was refining his theories until the day he died, but that's not the same as rejecting them. I mentioned the deathbed conversion story because it's a common one that gets passed around despite having no basis in truth: I assumed that this was what you were referring to.

And I do believe there’s no need for name-calling for anything at all, even if it is a website. I would hope that religious sects don’t reject science at all, because there is a lot to learn from science. How else would we be able to understand our world better if we didn’t dig deeper into it?

I consider myself as a tolerant type on the whole... I'm happy for people to have their beliefs. Though I'm an atheist, I come from a Catholic family, and my fiancee's family are LDS, so I'm surrounded by religious people, all of whom are lovely. So my issue isn't with religion itself.

The problem starts when people try to intentionally mislead in order to reinforce their ideology. That's my issue with Answers in Genesis and its ilk. They're set up to knock down evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith. But rather than posing a proper argument against the well-established principles of evolution, they build themselves a cartoon version of it to demolish. They willfully misinterpret data, cherry-pick misleading statistics, present long-discredited ideas as if they're part of current evolutionary theory, and flat-out make stuff up in order to get their argument across. And because it's all being done under the banner of Christianity, people are inclined to trust them. I think this is appalling behaviour, using something that people trust as a platform to mislead.

Speaking as a scientist, there's little I find more infuriating than people adopting the language of science to trick and mislead people for their own agendas.

I guess I should change my words from “Darwin’s theory” to “evolution” then, shouldn’t I? xD But many people credit him for the whole idea behind evolution—again, wrongly, but there isn’t much talk in schools about the other naturalists. Everyone just remembers Darwin’s name and thinks of nothing else—My hope is that in the future, children will be more well-informed on who started what and where it came from.

It was a nitpick, really. Darwin is the man who made evolution work, by proposing a solid mechanism for it. But I do think it's odd that he's the one who gets demonised for it, when he was essentially just building on an idea that was increasingly accepted at the time.

So, if Darwin’s theory can be proven as a fact, why don’t they just call it “Darwin’s Fact” and leave all the ambiguity out of it? What about “Cell Fact” or even “Heliocentric Fact”? Do we not change the names because it just doesn’t sound cool enough? I’ll admit, “theory” is a pretty cool-sounding word. Very smart and scientific, no? It almost sounds like a group of very intelligent men came together, decided these things were fact, and decided to add the name “scientific” to prove that this theory is no longer something that can be proven right or wrong.

Firstly, the term 'theory' is a bit more nebulous than 'fact': it refers to an explanation of observed phenomena. Secondly... do you think calling it "Evolutionary Fact" would change anything? Do you think Creationists would shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, it's a fact now, can't argue with that"? Sadly, I suspect not.

And finally, a quote that's been buzzing around my head recently, from the excellent Dara Ó Briain...

Jesus, homeopaths get on my nerves with the old "Well, science doesn't know everything!" Well, science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise, it'd stop.

 

[Bittersweet]

... wow...

I concur...
I've never seen so many misconceptions and misunderstandings in one place.

 

[Kambash]

*sheds a manly tear of joy* It's so nice to see that there are people who know the difference in definitions of scientific theory and normal theory.

 

[AlexandraTheZoroark]

I LOVED that article! I even put it in my Favorites!

 

[cityvillain]

This could be a little bit off topic. I'm just very curious.
So is there any other way you can obtain Mew in the green/red/blue without glitching or hacking? There was no wifi event before and I read Mew in the early games is only tradeable. But where can you get it?