Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Evolution and mutations are two different things. Mutations are error codes while evolutions are adaptations.

Mutations are genetic error codes, Evolutions are adaptations, you got that much right. However Evolution and Mutation are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is possible because of genetic mutations. When the animal mutates, it either is given some small advantage or disadvantage over non-mutated animals. Let's give a small example.

A species gecko lived in a jungle, but the climate was getting hotter, and the jungle was dying out. Eventually the jungle started turning into a desert. The gecko's scaled were green, and used to allow it to blend into the jungle, but now is no longer blending into this brown and tan desert environment. Snakes started to prey on the gecko, and the species started dying out. Then, through a genetic mutation, the gecko's scaled started becoming brown, and allowed it to hide on the rocks that it used to sun itself. This allowed the brown geckos to live, while the geckos who were still green, died out. The genetic error code that changed the scale color allowed it to adapt.

I hope this cleared this up.

What caused the mutation that successfully led to evolution?

[Robert]

so wulf, is evolution comprised of mutations then?

[11_Panama_]

so wulf, is evolution comprised of mutations then?

Yeah Wulfi...is it?

[Darth Crater]

Robert/Panama: Evolution is the change of a species over time, caused primarily through natural selection. The traits that natural selection "selects" for come about through genetic changes (which include mutations, but also things like the recombination of DNA during reproduction).

Dread: Mutation can result from changes to the gametes caused by radiation, toxins, or other environmental factors. I'm not a biologist, so I'm unsure if those are the only factors involved, or if the definition of "mutation" should include more.

[Robert]

thanks for the info

[Darth Crater]

Found this news post: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?o ... view=false

Essentially, scientists managed (without much difficulty) to get single-celled organisms to develop cooperative multi-cellular clusters. I'm not sure what degree of rigor was involved (it would be nice to see it replicated by other scientists, using other forms of bacteria), but this suggests that the formation of multi-cellular life is easier than some used to think.

On an unrelated topic - I've been wondering why exactly it is that trees/plants tend toward green and yellow leaves. I know what gives them color (chlorophyll) but not the reason for that specific color. From what I know, the sun emits the most light at about 550 nm (yellow/green), so I'm not sure why it is that plants tend to reflect that color. Some internet searches didn't turn up any single trustworthy answer, so I was wondering if anyone here knew more.

[Duel of Fates]

If an object is green, it is absorbing that wavelength and reflecting the others. Black absorbs most of the wavelengths and reflects very little in comparison to white, which absorbs little and reflects the most. If plants are green, that wavelength is absorbed the most. Making it more efficient. Sorry, using an iPod so message might not be the most expansive. Will add more later. But hope that helps Crater.

[Darth Crater]

I thought it was the other way around - a green object appeared green because it was reflecting that wavelength of light?

[Duel of Fates]

Nope.

[Darth Crater]

Please explain. As I understand it, the color of an object is determined by what wavelength our eyes perceive it to be giving off. If a leaf appears green, it is giving off (in this case, reflecting, as it's not naturally luminous) green light. Thus, it's reflecting that light rather than absorbing it.