itt feel free to ask me anything about evolution or ecology

What is the evolutionary advantages of tonsils? They just get infected and fuck my shit up.

File: IMG_1205.jpg (325KB, 974x527px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 974x527px

>believing in evolution

>>2471022
cells of immunologic system are created there

>>2471025
burger detected

File: 1500778238259.png (84KB, 250x256px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 250x256px

>>2471025
>believing
Its called understanding evidence.

File: 7f085eaa192045c7e031a44838b94312.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

How did dinosaurs evolve feathers? Did their scales just grow longer and weirder until they ended up looking like this?

File: Flight-Thoughts.jpg (726KB, 1574x787px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1574x787px

>>2471028
>(((evidence)))

Are seeds alive?

>>2471028
you cannot check whether all evidence is legitimate
some scientists might fake results of their research
you need to believe that they are not dishonest

>>2471032
Theories of the scale-based origins of feathers suggest that the planar scale structure was modified for development into feathers by splitting to form the webbing; however, that developmental process involves a tubular structure arising from a follicle and the tube splitting longitudinally to form the webbing.[1][2]

>>2471035
they usually have almost no metabolism, but they are a form of life

>>2471022
Weak genes

Is selective breeding evolution?

>>2471018
Why are orangutans so chill?

Ecologically speaking, what is the sexiest animal

>>2471118
I demand you answer my question anon

>>2471018
Is it possible that if I inseminated the right woman, our seed could potentially-- through an X-Men-type genetic mutation over several generations of careful selection create a son capable of bending steel?

File: dream_awp463lgsgs (2).jpg (216KB, 640x641px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 640x641px

What species concept do you subscribe to? If sequencing prices go down to the level that destitute evo departments can afford, can we toss out morphology as a phylogenetic tool?

>>2471034
?. How is this against evolution or science? Science changes its theories with new evidence? Isn't that whats happening in this picture? Why is this bad?

File: r-k-scale_med.jpg (38KB, 806x276px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 806x276px

>>2471018
In all species, only a few organisms will get to reproduce successfully, while most others die out. even in K-selected species this seems to be true, and judging by the fact that humans had many more offspring in the past we are not an exception.

so, evolutionarily, what will be the effects of almost any humans who wants to reproduce being able to reproduce? how will this affect our species?

>>2471373
Probably not, because they would take an insane amount of energy for an organism.

If evolution is real, how come monkeys and ur mum still exist?

Checkmate atheists

>>2471403
There is a definition of a species that goes something like: a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals to produce viable fertile offspring, so defining species by their genes or morphology isn't really a thing

File: 11215796_995075993836974_5921868732753363227_n.jpg (92KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x900px

>>2471546
>defining species by their genes or morphology isn't really a thing

What? The definition your provided is one of the oldest, broadest ones. Shit's weak when you see viable intergrades all over the place. Either molecular markers in mtDNA or insertions/deletions + point mutations should be the one true god of phylogenetics. Death to all other methods.

>>2471088
yes

>>2471139
depends on who is judging

>>2471118
it is not scientific question

>>2471373
no single mutation can cause it

>>2471403
yes
but i think that we should allow competitiveness of hypothesis and methods and definitions as paul feyerabend said

>>2471531
dysgenics

>>2471542
no troling plox

File: 9758758c-0b61-4f32-9194-e47131f9b662.jpg (75KB, 800x487px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x487px

Why did living fossils pretty much stop evolving? Are they so well adapted that there is no more selection of certain traits?

>>2473212
Environment hasn't shifted enough to cause a significant change. To the horseshoe crab, the beaches of the Jurassic are the same as the beaches of the Quaternary.

Which was the first creature with eyes?

>>2471018
are you some uppity bio undergrad or why should anyone care about your expertise

>>2473234
>>2473212

This is a very misleading statement. Sure, appearance wise the horseshoe crab has not changed much. But if you look at, for example, its immune system, then it has most definitely not stopped evolving.

Furthermore, there are also phenomena like genetic drift and meotic drive. Which both basically boil down to that on a genetic level all species are in a constant state of flux and they never "stop evolving".

>>2473254
Not op but it depends on your concept of eyes... Technically the first photoreceptor proteins were developed about 540million years ago within cells that were similar to modern Euglena

>>2473255
i dont want you to believe me because of my authority

>>2471088
i would consider this as metaevolution

Human activity is a very recent and very strong selective pressure. The current dialogue is we're causing extinction and so we should stop basically everything, but long-term, how damaging to the ecosystem are we really? Won't the more fit individuals survive while the less fit die off as usual? Won't the ecosystem generate balance as niches are closed/opened and species take advantage of the shift?

>>2471597
What spider is that!? Also, was the bat trying to eat it?

File: Red-algal-bloom-at-Leigh-near-Cape-Rodney.jpg (154KB, 990x810px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 990x810px

>>2474589
Strong selective pressure will result in more pronounced survival of the fittest. Bear in mind that survival of the fittest doesn't mean favourable individuals survive and the population becomes better in some way. No, survival of the fittest means the individuals who best fit their ecological niche will be more successful.
So as time wears on, and selective pressures change then the populations subject to them will evolve.
The current dialogue isn't really concerned with humans causing an extinction event, although that's a bit of a bummer, and we might miss out on what could be hugely beneficial discoveries. Just imagine what the world would be like if penecillium had become extinct in the year 1000BC.
The much bigger concern is that we are changing our environment from one in which we ourselves can thrive into one in which we can not. Take nutrient pollution for example, if we dump enough fertiliser into the waterways then we can kill all the fish. Then we won't have any fish to eat.
While there is an argument to be made that not causing extinction would be a good thing intrinsically, I personally regard it as a weak position. I find it much more reasonable to think of the environment in more pragmatic ways.

>>2474591
That is a bat fly

>>2474634
>a good thing intrinsically
makes me laugh every time.
there is no intrinsically good or bad thing, it's situational. If humans are extinct neither exists from our point of view.

File: alb1.jpg (21KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x329px

>>2471597
>Death to all other methods.
you're now aware that we have no genetic record for 99%+ of the history of life on Earth.