Erm, turbo evolution?

Relating the 2001 comedy movie Evolution, where the bacteria from the asteroid crashed down, and the evolution of them was 1 or 2 millions years in a single day.
Would this really be possible?
If so, in two, or three weeks, nearly every living organism on Earth would be replaced by these aliens.

Nope. See, what you are talking about is a movie. Being a movie, they really got the evolution part wrong. (Thank you once again, Hollywood.) See, what they actually ended up demonstrating was rapid growth, (if I remember the film right, I saw it more than a few years ago) and rapid replication.

Evolving, regardless of..."ability, let's say...takes lots of time. To evolve, you must have some factor that forces you to adapt. To EVOLVE at that speed, your environment would have to constantly change at that speed.

Well if an asteroid crashed, wouldnt the environment change rapidly?

Ask the dinosaurs.

Yeah, it would change, but not CONSTANTLY. It would evolve a bit, then slow down, because it had adapted.

Rapid evolution did happen. Look at pygmy animals. They evolved to a smaller scale at such a rapid pace, that they produced several genetic abnormalities that didn't help them survive.

Ask the dinosaurs.

It's debatable that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid; massive environmental changes didn't kill the woolly mammoth, afterall. It survived for a good ten thousand years after the global temperature increased. The argument that dinosaurs were so simply killed by an asteroid seems... like a quick answer, considering that not a whole lot else died except dinosaurs.

A few things about evolution and mass extinction. Creatures evolve because of behavior; the alteration in behavior selects individual with certain characteristics from each, and each moves downward until new niches are created. Other times, positive attributes are selected while negative are not; red hair led to blonde hair in humans, it was selected because creatures with blonde hair appeared more attractive. Birds mate because of good song and good looks; a male bird that sing healthily and has bright, colorful plumage shows the female that it can take care of itself (certain foods are required to get that plumage, being able to find it implies they are good eaters and provide well). Not all evolution is necessity based. Also consider that the cohabitation of birds and small, feral animals with humans. Those animals which don't attack humans tend to survive, while those that attack don't. Selecting behavior patterns helps them survive.

So, dinosaurs killed by asteroid? Hardly. Dinosaurs died because, in light of dramatic ecological changes, they could not behave in an advantageous way. Species were too specialized, and could not alter it. The woolly mammoth did, but we killed it.

Now, back to rapid evolution like in the movie. It's possible that evolution can happen at such a fast scale, provided that it's already programmed in there. The creatures that landed on Earth are hard-wired to evolve and adapt as fast as possible. The DNA is already set up to adapt as readily with enough variation to adapt (and some innovations had to be found, like breathing our oxygen). DNA on Earth is not out of the box. It was built from the ground-up, and had to rebuild itself and reconstruct itself using its base coding to adapt.

It's not even certain that other creatures use DNA. DNA is so highly complex, but makes for such an exceptional transfer of information that it works. Other lifeforms may find different ways, allowing them to adapt in much different, much radical ways (i.e., allowing them to adapt in a single generation, rather than through reproduction).

I like what I read, but try to be precise and not write so much.

'Don't write so much' ?_? Perhaps you should learn to read faster.

I don't believe he's forcing you to look at it, besides, I enjoyed it fully and felt the length was a bonus.

It's true guys, Voiceofreason never stops winning.

I agree.

It's debatable that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid; massive environmental changes didn't kill the woolly mammoth, afterall. It survived for a good ten thousand years after the global temperature increased. The argument that dinosaurs were so simply killed by an asteroid seems... like a quick answer, considering that not a whole lot else died except dinosaurs.

It were an asteroid that done them in, damn it!

It's debatable that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid; massive environmental changes didn't kill the woolly mammoth, afterall. It survived for a good ten thousand years after the global temperature increased. The argument that dinosaurs were so simply killed by an asteroid seems... like a quick answer, considering that not a whole lot else died except dinosaurs.

It were an asteroid that done them in, damn it!

Nope that's not the right answer.

Nope that's not the right answer.

You realise without an explanation as to why this is, you appear as ignorant as the allegation of ignorance you're making?

How is "UR WRONG" any kind of rebuttal..? Say why he's incorrect and not that he simply is or stop wasting space.

Nope that's not the right answer.

You realise without an explanation as to why this is, you appear as ignorant as the allegation of ignorance you're making?

How is "UR WRONG" any kind of rebuttal..? Say why he's incorrect and not that he simply is or stop wasting space.

Technically, both Saladin and Miles Castea did the exact same thing. Seems a bit unfair to lecture him and not Saladin. I suspect neither post was serious anyway.

I wasn't serious, but you never know with the thickheads on this forum.

Most of my jokes go over everyone's head.

Well, I think we all had the 'asteroid story' stamped into our heads as children and should really need no further explanation, I also assumed Saladin was being comical and seeing that he's been here longer then me, I think he has the right to make a funny/pointless post once in a while. I was telling off the newb, who took Saladin's post as serious and said he was wrong with no further explanation.

Rather then deleting his post, I let him know his error. Get the fuck over it.

Meh, seems pointless to get upset over a worthless post by a newb when pretty much every thread in ID has a worthless post or two by Saladin. If you wanted to avoid clutter, it would seem that the more useful thing to do would be to stop Saladin, not the newb who's posted in one ID thread.

As well, I wouldn't assume the newb was being serious, as his phrasing didn't sound very serious. Furthermore, even if the newb did assume that Saladin was serious (not likely, since I think it's fairly obvious to anybosy that Saladin was joking and not arguing the meteor theory), you can't really ask him to rebut a post that has no legitimate content. As it is, you're just getting pissy at one person for posting a worthless post when there were in fact, two worthless posts, and the second was in response to the first. It seems like it's ignoring the problem to clamp down on the one post when it's existence is a direct by-product of the first worthless post.

All in all, your post, if it was intended to reduce clutter in ID, was ineffective.

Modern...that's flaming. Irony much? Break one rule to defend a guy who broke another?

And uh...mini modding too. Yeah.

If this topic were a steak, I'd kick the chef's ass. Far too done.