Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[Avoid Page2 on] evolution

Thread Locked

Posted Jun 10, '13 at 10:33pm

tiger25691

tiger25691

142 posts

im having a hard time on this subject and I am not finding any of it to be true can someone give me some kind of good physical evidence that could prove this theory.

 

Posted Jun 10, '13 at 11:02pm

Bladerunner679

Bladerunner679

1,343 posts

im having a hard time on this subject and I am not finding any of it to be true can someone give me some kind of good physical evidence that could prove this theory.

first, we need to know what you have trouble understanding in order to help you understand. if it is the mechanisms of evolution, then the way it works is a random mutation occurs within the population that may be beneficial for the overall survival of the species is increased in its genetic frequency through the use of natural selection, where over multiple generations (usually over 20+) the minor mutation becomes so ubiquitous that it is the norm for the overall population. thus, the species benefits from evolution via mutation and natural selection.

in order to understand this aspect though, we need to look at its opposite situation, which is known as the hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. in this case, there is a large population with no mutations, no set selection pattern, no migration, and no genetic drift (essentially, the creationist view of how the animal population works). in this,nothing is changing, and thus no overall benefit is occurring. since we have observed that this is impossible in nature, due to natural selection, random mutation, and migration alone, then the overall pattern points to evolution.

a good example of this layout is the story of the peppered moth observations and how they evolved within a few generations to have darker colored wings to hide from predators back during the heavy pollution during the industrial revolution.

if you are really trying to learn, then I applaud you for looking for the answers. if you are a creationist looking to disprove evolution, then you won't last long on here. either way, this will be good for you.

-Blade

 

Posted Jun 10, '13 at 11:25pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

The examples we can find in our's and other animals genetic make up is one physical example of evolution.
Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics
Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes

An observation of a species of lizard evolving a completely new method of digestion for it's species. This also went along with changes to behavior in the species. These changes were in direct relation to changes to the environment it was in.
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

The Nylonase (nylon eating bacteria) is another example.
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug

A species of lizard evolved the ability to give live birth instead of laying eggs.
Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth

Ring species is yet another example of evolution in nature.
Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
Ring species -- the abridged version

Would you also like the fossil evidence?

 

Posted Jun 10, '13 at 11:30pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

a good example of this layout is the story of the peppered moth observations and how they evolved within a few generations to have darker colored wings to hide from predators back during the heavy pollution during the industrial revolution.

Just in case someone wants to argue against this one, already have a response refuting your argument in this video. You can skip to 2:40 to get to the refutation.
Rebutting Brad Harrub: Kettlewell's Peppered Moths

 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 9:19pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

i was expecting a evolution bomb... is it late? is it still coming?

 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 10:23pm

thepyro222

thepyro222

1,986 posts

Did you mean an evolution bomb like this?

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/2367619_f260.jpg

 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 11:31pm

tiger25691

tiger25691

142 posts

This is from the Lizards undergo Rapid Evolution after Introduction to new home link.
“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,”

Isn't it supposed to take thousands to millions of years for this to occur? If so why haven't we found remains of a like a half dinosaur half bird remains?

"Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

Isn't this micro evolution? since the lizards didn't change into a completely new species. They under went micro evolution because of their new home right? so they could feed off the insects and whatever else they could find and they changed color so that they could blend into their surroundings.

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 2:10am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,994 posts

Knight

Isn't it supposed to take thousands to millions of years for this to occur?

Nothing is supposed to. Usually speciation does take longer, but obviously some organisms have the potential to evolve faster. It also depends on the selective pressure they experience; they will evolve faster with increasing pressure.

If so why haven't we found remains of a like a half dinosaur half bird remains?

Apart from birds being dinosaurs, it would simply make no sense, and would actualy contradict evolution as we know it. This would mean that "bird" would be the planned next step to "dinosaur", implying a plan or schedule, which evolution does not have. Each form at any time was best adapted to their environment.

There are however fossils that clearly show the evolution from theropods to birds, like Archaeopteryx or Anchiornis, and more.
(Dinosaurs and Birds)

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 2:21am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,994 posts

Knight

Sorry for DP, hit submit too soon..

Isn't this micro evolution?

Where's the difference to macro evolution? Macro evolution, as in speciation, is just a chain of microevolutionary events. Some like to make a difference between the two to illustrate on which level they're speaking, but the difference is man-made, as are the definitions of species. It is all part of the same process.

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 5:03am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,672 posts

Knight

Isn't it supposed to take thousands to millions of years for this to occur?

If the species is adaptable enough, have many generations within a short period of time and are given the right environmental pressures we can see significant changes in relatively short periods of time. One of the interesting things about these lizards is it showed that this can occur even quicker than we had thought at the time.

What we are seeing here with the lizards would be an example of what's called punctuated equilibrium. This often get's contrasted with gradualism.

Basically with punctuated equilibrium we would see relatively little change over time with  sudden spikes where massive changes occur over a relatively short period of time.

I suspect both can be at play, where you can have relatively little change with sudden rapid changes and you can have cases where you get small accumulated changes resulting in big changes over a long period of time. It just depends on the factors at play driving the evolution.

Isn't this micro evolution? since the lizards didn't change into a completely new species. They under went micro evolution because of their new home right? so they could feed off the insects and whatever else they could find and they changed color so that they could blend into their surroundings.

I will admit that is poor wording. What they are saying there is the lizards with the new digestive track are direct relatives, and not the result of some sort of cross breeding.

micro and macro evolution is the same exact process, just at different scales. Macroevolution is microevolution that has has done to result in a change at or above the level of species.