|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 07/16/06 - 21:12 Post subject: recent proof of evolution
recently jrjo asked for a proof of evolution well this link is a look at evolution of the Galapogos Finch in the last 20 years
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/15046801.htm
to sum it up in a a nutshell. new bird arrives on island and starts to eat the food the of a specific finch that those with longer beaks eat. the same species of finch that have shorter beaks tend to eat on other foods. as the new bird eats the food the long beaked finches at the rate of reproduction of long becked finches decline causing the rate of short billed finches to replace the long beaked version. hence the long beaked were better suited to deal with the new intruder and that genetic line has been passed on.
|
|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 08:10 Post subject:
There's plenty of evidence to support microevolution, but most creationists have problems with marcroevolution.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 08:36 Post subject:
I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 09:36 Post subject:
well natural selection is part of evolution and here is recent proof. more proof than a diety influencing things.
if your looking for massive leaps of change then you really don't understand the evolutionary process.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 09:38 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 09:46 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
no not really - natural selection gives us different forms of the same animal.
Humans have become quite good at this - look at the different breeds of cattle, horses, dogs - different strains of corn, wheat, colors of roses
Now if say the bird under stress in this case produced offspring with fur and teeth or scales and claws then it might be an example of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 09:53 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
"Natural selection" is the process of selecting traits to pass along. That is NOT evolution. Evolution is the theory of ever-changing mutant life without genetic predisposition. It's the theory of higher life form mutating from amebas and such. "Natural selection" is one small element of evolution that has credibility but to validate the entire evolutionary theory on one process is again, a giant leap of faith. Natural selection has never been a qualm of creationists. It's this mutant chain of evolving species from amebas where each mutation has astronomical odds of occuring yet somehow happened millions of times to get to modern man.
Even Darwin in his later days was dismayed at how his research on natural selection was bastage and used by evolutionists to assume theories waay beyond what he had.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 09:55 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
no not really - natural selection gives us different forms of the same animal.
Humans have become quite good at this - look at the different breeds of cattle, horses, dogs - different strains of corn, wheat, colors of roses
Now if say the bird under stress in this case produced offspring with fur and teeth or scales and claws then it might be an example of evolution. |
Natural selcetion is one of the processes of evolution. There are plenty of sites that clarify the definition; I can link one for you if you like. Selective breeding and genetic manipulation are responsible for developing different breeds of cattle, dogs and corn, with the natural element being decidedly missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 10:09 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
no not really - natural selection gives us different forms of the same animal.
Humans have become quite good at this - look at the different breeds of cattle, horses, dogs - different strains of corn, wheat, colors of roses
Now if say the bird under stress in this case produced offspring with fur and teeth or scales and claws then it might be an example of evolution. |
Natural selcetion is one of the processes of evolution. There are plenty of sites that clarify the definition; I can link one for you if you like. Selective breeding and genetic manipulation are responsible for developing different breeds of cattle, dogs and corn, with the natural element being decidedly missing. |
But where do you get the new species? That's the part that doesn't necessarily logically follow...
With that said, I don't see that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. It's a different discussion, but I think both work at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 10:10 Post subject:
CB but with natural selection if you start with a pig / cow / corn / tomatoe you end up with a pig / cow / corn / tomatoe in the end that's just breeding in desired traits. It really is no different than selective breeding to produce hybred corn. Now GMO corn and beans are whole other ball game.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 13:45 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
no not really - natural selection gives us different forms of the same animal.
Humans have become quite good at this - look at the different breeds of cattle, horses, dogs - different strains of corn, wheat, colors of roses
Now if say the bird under stress in this case produced offspring with fur and teeth or scales and claws then it might be an example of evolution. |
Natural selcetion is one of the processes of evolution. There are plenty of sites that clarify the definition; I can link one for you if you like. Selective breeding and genetic manipulation are responsible for developing different breeds of cattle, dogs and corn, with the natural element being decidedly missing. |
But where do you get the new species? That's the part that doesn't necessarily logically follow...
With that said, I don't see that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. It's a different discussion, but I think both work at the same time. |
after so many changes you no longer resemble the original form. say for example, you take an animal and and it's fur color is changed, and then it changes from fur to hair, and then the tail type, the body size and it's eye color. all this takes place in a time span of several generations. the end animal looks nothing like the original hence you get a new species.
look at all the different types marmosets and tammarins. the different types of squirrels. evolution is not all about any creature being able to turn into a radically different creature thru metamorphisis.
and if you need examples of how it works on a grand scheme look at australia and it's marsupial population, from hunters, to prey, from sub-terrarian, to ground to arboreal, the marsupial branched out from one basic feature, the pouched animal
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/17/06 - 16:45 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | | CB but with natural selection if you start with a pig / cow / corn / tomatoe you end up with a pig / cow / corn / tomatoe in the end that's just breeding in desired traits. It really is no different than selective breeding to produce hybred corn. Now GMO corn and beans are whole other ball game. |
ok, so look at fish, basic fish takes oxegyn from water, Bettas and Gouramis breathe aire fromt he surface, they even have a special organ for this, the then leads us to the lung fish of africa and the mudskippers, which can survive on land and travel great distance, as long as they stay moist, once again thru special adaptations, this then lead to the rise of the amphibians and then to the reptiles and then to the birds.
how can you look at a zebra and not think of a horse, but it's not a horse. look at okapi and you wonder horse? antelope? heck even it's markings are confused between a brown zebra and an antelope.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/18/06 - 12:41 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | wanttorun100 wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | jrjo wrote: | | I'd also say this is an example of natural selection and not evolution. They are two separate theories. Natural selection happens all the time, I won't dispute that. The article author has assumed the two are interchangeable in disproving creation and they're not. I would submit that creation occured at the beginning and natural selection has been happening since. Evolution is a different can of worms and this article doesn't connect that dot. |
Natural selection is a process through which evolution occurs. How are you defining evolution? |
no not really - natural selection gives us different forms of the same animal.
Humans have become quite good at this - look at the different breeds of cattle, horses, dogs - different strains of corn, wheat, colors of roses
Now if say the bird under stress in this case produced offspring with fur and teeth or scales and claws then it might be an example of evolution. |
Natural selcetion is one of the processes of evolution. There are plenty of sites that clarify the definition; I can link one for you if you like. Selective breeding and genetic manipulation are responsible for developing different breeds of cattle, dogs and corn, with the natural element being decidedly missing. |
But where do you get the new species? That's the part that doesn't necessarily logically follow...
With that said, I don't see that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. It's a different discussion, but I think both work at the same time. |
I'm with you. One doesn't prove or disprove the other
|
|
|
|
|
bburgoyne26
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 2959
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 07/28/06 - 20:56 Post subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gibbons22apr22,0,4223442.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
IT'S BEEN A TOUGH month for creationists. On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago. This scaly creature of the sea was in transition to becoming a land animal, the discoverers wrote in Nature.
A day later, molecular biologists reported in Science that they had traced the origin of a key stress hormone, found in humans and all vertebrates, back 450 million years to a primitive gene that arose before animals emerged from oceans onto land.
Both teams of scientists stressed that their findings contradicted creationists — and demonstrated how small, incremental steps over millions of years could indeed produce complex life, ranging from the intricate mechanisms of a hormone molecule to the assembly of limbs from fins.
But even as they were touting their results as yet another validation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, biochemist Michael Behe, a leading advocate of "intelligent design," dismissed the hormone discovery as "piddling."
As if in response to Behe's challenge, paleoanthropologists raised the stakes last week with yet another example of evolution unfolding in our own lineage. In the journal Nature, a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Ethiopia found an "intermediate" member of the human family that they say unambiguously fills the gap in the fossil record between two early types of human ancestors. Australopithecus anamensis was a creature the size of an orangutan that walked upright in the Rift Valley of eastern Africa about 4 million years ago, more than 2 million years after the human lineage split from the ancestor we share with chimpanzees........."
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
