Natural selection is a way of helping a species to become stronger by survival of the fittest. The theory of “survival of the fittest” describes what happens when a mutation in a species causes them to have certain traits that make it easier for them to feed or grow stronger. When thinking of homosexuality, a question could be where is natural selection in this section of life.

Homosexuality is present in humans and even apes, birds, reptiles and fish. It doesn’t quite help these species to grow stronger as far as reproduction goes but its usually used as a way of relieving the sexual stress that it caused by natural hormones. It is said, “sex is important but very inconvenient”. This is true in more traditional species that take the time out to have breeding seasons where the males are separated from the females. During this time, male hormones aren’t reduced but instead are present to the point where “male guppies will court each other for weeks while confined in a one-sex group”. Basically, homosexuality isn’t a way of helping reproduction, but at the same time doesn’t stop it. “Homosexuality doesn’t prevent reproduction: Homosexuals reproduce and would therefore be able to pass on a genetic propensity for homosexuality or ‘gay genes’”, but at the same time, even if they didn’t reproduce, it is not definite that there is a gene for homosexuality. In fact, scientists say that “No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply ‘genetic.’” It is more possible that homosexuality is spontaneous and therefore will never become an extinct trait.

Still, there are people that will continue to adopt and continue on with their heterosexual capabilities despite their actions or feelings. Those male guppies still went on to have children after they were put back into their normal society, and this is the same across all of the species that adapt homosexual traits.

Citations:

Hunter, Preston. "Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution." Adherents.com. N.p., 1994. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html>.

"Is There a "Gay Gene"?." NARTH: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. N.p., 09 Feb 2008. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html>.

Here are some frequently made claims evolution followed by why they are false.

Evolution claims that humans are descended from monkeys

While it is true that humans are somewhat closely related to modern apes, it is not true that we are “evolved from dang-dirty monkeys.” The truth is that humans share a common ancestor with monkeys; it is believed that this ancestor existed between 5 and 8 million years ago. At some point in time, this ancestor’s species evolved into two separate lineages.

So, to provide an analogy, monkeys are more like our cousins than our parents.

Evolution is entirely random

Evolution is the result of natural selection; this means that organisms are more likely to pass on dominant gene traits than recessive gene traits.

Now, to clarify—natural selection does not determine dominance of genes directly based on interactions with the environment.  What happens is very simple—

Organisms with “dominant” genes survive.

Organisms with “recessive” genes do not survive.

Science!

Evolution is just a theory

Yes, evolution is classified as a scientific theory—this doesn’t mean that it has not been proven. It is it is important for one to note the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the contemporary definition of theory.

Contemporary definition of theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Scientific definition of theory: A scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. 

The theory of intelligent design is as feasible a theory as evolution

This is false; if not for many reasons, then for one:

Evolution is backed by empirical evidence.

Intelligent is not backed by empirical evidence.

More science!

Citations

Harding, Ken. (1999). But it's "just a theory!". Retrieved from http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

PBS. (C 2001). Evolution: frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

The attraction between a male ad female seems to always be a question well answered. However, I decided to focus on what actually makes a female attracted to a male. Is there an actual scientific reasoning behind it or is off of self judgment.  Could it be the way a male walks, or presents himself that makes a female attracted to him.

Through a study found from the book "human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women" I had found that women like men who are tall, who have slightly narrow waist and broad shoulders. Men who are athletic and have well toned muscles are more preferred because it symbolizes they are more likely to be a good hunter, which could mean they could provide for their family. With males being big and strong they can protect the family from other males and danger. Women are also attracted to male that are successful because it shows that males have the ability and resources to be able to provide for the family 

In conclusion, just like males, females are cautious about the male they choose to mate with because women believe that men have the most valuable reproductive resources to offer. Men produce thousands of sperm while women only produce about 400 eggs in their lifetime. The time of pregnancy and child bearing are long process which puts more pressure on what women find attractive about guys. They find the security and long relationship to be attributes that make the guy more attractive. In other words a women finds a man that can provide for them, will stay there for a long period of time, and will be able to protect them. Kind of the same things we need in society today to survive.

By: Dyamond Logan

P.S ( i was absent, I went on a college tour and i didnt have any internet connection)

(http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/printable/peacock.html)

The woman adorns her face in make-up, covers herself in perfume, removes all “unnecessary” hairs, puts on a most flattering outfit and enters the field. The man grooms himself, applies a hearty amount of cologne, and drapes himself in his finest clothing, entering that same realm. These are the stereotypical, if abbreviated, versions of preparation each human gender takes to make themselves a viable option for the opposite sex, a process that has only gotten more complex. Yet despite the understood belief, this is not the only species that undergoes such strenuous enticement methods. It exists everywhere regardless of the harm it may cause!

A grand example would be the peacock. This lovely creature is known for its noticeable plumage, an addition that both attracts the opposite sex as well as makes them a target for any predator on the prowl. This attachment has remained despite the danger it poses because of the higher probability of being chosen by the females for the proud honor of fatherhood. (No female can resist beautiful plumage.)

But why pick the incredibly-feathered peacock ? Or the cologne laden male? It can all be attributed to the implication. The female peacock will pick the male because if such a gentleman could survive despite the hindrance the tail causes and maintenance energy it requires, the female can safely assume this fellow is of a strong caliber and in possession of a quality genotype. This choice of the fittest mate, despite its troublesome side effects, is necessary in ensuring the peacock’s survival. Now if we look to humans, it must be acknowledged that there are somewhat more complex methods put in place but it is the same at heart. By primping oneself, it also implies the same strength and quality genome as the peacock feather. But here lays the greatest difference: humans have evolved the ability to mislead quite a bit better, meaning that such preparations may cover up an unflattering truth. (A thing no peacock can muster.) 

(http://www.haryana-online.com/images/Birds/David/Peafowl_3.jpg)

On a final note, the lady’s choice in mate is also chosen in consideration to the way their offspring will come out. A female will choose an attractive mate to give birth to others who will prove just as attractive, to ensure they will also be chosen. However, in the case of the male peacock and countless other species, these “attractive” traits are detrimental to their continued existence, yet they are chosen nonetheless. Oh how curious it is…

Hewett, C. (2003). Theory of sexual selection- the     human mind and the peacock's tale. The Great Debate,

Huk, T, & Winkel, W. (2008). Testing the sexy son hypothesis- a research for       

empirical approaches. Oxford Journals, 19(2), 456-461.

Co-evolution is how to species coexist in order to survive because no matter what species we are talking about we know that at one time it has caused another to either species to change the natural selection of another. Such as the common example of predator vs. prey:

Birds and plant coexist because one can’t survive without the other, with a bird who eats the flower or fruit from the plant, they get the nourishment they need in order to survive, while the plant started to produce regurgitating seeds for which the bird had to evolve, so the plant would find a way to share its seeds to grow more plants. They evolved to different types of birds to make sure they know where the plant would be.

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/27.Coevolution.HTML

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat08.html

The world in which we live in has many mysteries. One of the things we never think about is how we first became meat eaters. It is said that the first meat eating humanoids date back 2.5 million years ago. That is just long enough to teach us everything we know about the animals we eat, and possibly even change throughout evolution because of it.

There are many reasons why a person would need to include new things into their diet. One of those reasons is survival. Scientist Patricia McBroom of the organization, Public Affairs gave their reason behind why human ancestors began to include meat. “Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods”, University of California, Berkeley. 2 million years ago the loss of some plant life was said to be among the Earth. With the Ice Ages end different plant life was killed, and humans were left were hardly any plant life in which they felt contained the nutrients they believed they needed. This led to a diet of meat, which was full of nutrients that provided help through human evolution, for example the growth of the brain.

According to this idea of natural selection humans are still around today because of the adaptations we have developed as time has pasted. We use almost everything on our bodies to “survive” in this world, and to keep our species going. Sometimes though these certain adaptations we have acquired over time have stopped being about surviving. We stopped worrying about what could continue our species and began to only focus on our own wants and needs.

 Women overtime have formed a certain shape that we call an, hour glass figure. Consisting of broad hips, big chest, and small waist, we have classified this adaptation as normal. Many people attribute wide hips as a great necessity for child baring. Meaning a women with bigger hips are more suitable to bear tons and tons of children. But that mind set has changed, and not only because of time but because of cultural differences.

In an article in the Telegraph written by Andrew Hough, “..a man was more attracted to a woman based on the size of her waist compared with her hips.”  Which is not always true. In a study done by Women’s-Health.com 80% of the men tested preferred slim women. But according to evolution, a women of a slim stature would not be suitable for bearing children. So why would some men prefer this? Something that could mean the possible end of our species because of a halt in reproduction. This has also been proven to me when talking to my fellow classmates. Some boys talk about their love for a girl with amazing curves, and with smallest waist. While other boys gush over slim and trim girls. This proves that over time, we stopped caring about the aspect of reproduction and only the satisfaction of attraction.

Climate and environmental change are major parts of the evolution of species. If the environment changes the species generally either adapts to fit that change and becomes a new species or dies off. This is part of nature and always will be as long as there is life. So this brings up the question, if extinction is part of evolution, what is the point of protecting a species?

            There is no point to this actually. All it does is change how the species evolve or make it take longer for them to die off. However people find it necessary to fix these mistakes that are causing the extinction of species. However, the way to protect species isn’t to have them grow inside, being kept from living in the wild, it’s to fix the problems that human beings have caused by fixing what’s been done to the environment.

            However to argue against that, there is the point to be made that many endangered species are national or state symbols, like the bald eagle. There’s also the fact that many species are only able to survive inside because they’re environment has changed so drastically.

Overall this topic is something that is easily debatable from both sides. Possibly the simplest explanation of what the point of protecting species is, is that people find it necessary to find an immediate solution to the problem caused but don’t realize that the long term solution is the better one.

Source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/local/species.html

            The evolutionary process is relatively simple; if something about ones biology helps them to survive and thrive over others, then that trait will be passed down through their DNA sequence and those without it will slowly die off. This then begs a basic question: 

How come our taste buds haven’t evolved to appreciate the taste of fruits and vegetables over sugars?

• The answer to this question lies in our young history as a species.

            In most cases, obesity is a product of eating many foods that are unhealthy. Those with obesity have a much higher susceptibility to many illnesses such as diabetes. Since this is true, wouldn’t those with a liking for fruits and vegetables and a dislike for sugars be reproducing more leading to a decline in obesity?

            However, this is not the case, at least not yet. Only in the last couple hundred years of our history have we been able to obtain sugars whenever we get a craving. For the large majority of human history, our only natural sources came in small dosage along with whatever naturally produced food the sugars resided in (usually fruits). If we look at the problem this way, then we can make the prediction that if our eating habits continue like they have been over the last 100 years, obesity will eventually cease to exist.

The book, In Defense of Foods, Michael Pollan writes, "Sugar has it is ordinarily found in nature-in fruits and some vegetables-gives us a slow-release form of energy accompanied by minerals and all sorts of crucial micronutrients we can get nowhere else. One of the most momentous changes in the American diet since 1909 has been the increase in the percentage of calories coming from sugars, from 13 to 20 percent."

Why do we still crave sugars?

             We still crave sugars because it takes hundreds of generations to evolve. We are still in the early stages of evolution when it comes to our new agriculturally sound diet. In due time, we will probably start to enjoy all foods equally and just proportion them so that we get the correct dosage of each every day.

Sources

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/mpenaz/files/2010/09/taste-6.gif

http://mikesmixrecoverydrink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/sugar.jpeg

In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan

How have some animals evolved wings?

When learning about evolution, someone might wonder about how irreducibly complex parts of animals, such as wings, have evolved.  A wing only works when there is an entire functioning wing. So this brings up the question, how does an animal without wings evolve into an animal with wings? The most reasonable explanation would be that wings began evolving with a slightly different purpose. 

Theropods that lived in the trees would get around by jumping from branch to branch. If they missed the jump, they could fall out of the tree and die. These theropods evolved into birds. According to discovermagazine.com, birds and theropods both "Have three bones that appear to have evolved from the digits on a common five-fingered ancestor." A theropod with a small flap of skin between its fingers would have a slightly larger surface area when jumping between branches and that would decrease the chance of it falling. Through generations, that skin flap became larger and eventually evolved into a functioning wing where the animal could flap it's wings and fly away.

If I were to do further research, I would want to look into birds that don't fly, like penguins or emus. If they can't fly, what is the purpose of having wings?

Sources:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/18/how-dinosaur-feet-evolved-into-bird-wings-new-fossil-provides-clues/

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins