londonbird
Sophomore
@londonbird
Posts: 250
Likes: 82
|
Post by londonbird on Feb 28, 2017 9:38:25 GMT
Humans. We are getting taller, less hairy, being born without appendix, tonsils etc, heal faster. I don't want to argue this with you but slowly the human race is evolving.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 28, 2017 10:51:17 GMT
Which means that we all must represent one of two remaining alternatives - that we are now fully evolved, or that nothing has ever evolved. So then, which do you plump for and why? Since apparently you don't believe anything until you see concrete proof, then I am sure you can point to some. While I appreciate it is hard to take an obvious poe seriously, for those who do I suggest researching 'anti-viral drug resistance' online by way of a corrective.
Is this the same Trump who assured me yesterday that he was 'not religious'? I think it is. And God - assuming this is the Creator in mind here - looked at what He had created and only found it "very good", i.e. not 'perfect' at all. Not surprising, really since He had allegedly just created cancer, the human knee, and miscarriages etc.
Of course like everything else humans are evolving, slowly but surely. For evidence of this we can take as examples such things as the fact we now drink milk, have more blue eyes among us, have become more disease resistant - even the fact that our brains have been shrinking (sic) over the last 30,000 years. So to see an animal which is the process of evolution, look in the mirror, perhaps while brushing the wisdom teeth that up to 35 percent of the modern population is now born without.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 28, 2017 11:07:50 GMT
It's important for this question to understand what evolution is. Evolution is simply change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
All living things are evolving as they reproduce from generation to generation. It's a reproductive process. It's merely genetic changes that are passed on.
The idea of "half" versus "fully" evolved makes no sense. It's a continual process of genetic changes via reproduction. There's no "half" or "full" of that.
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Feb 28, 2017 11:12:15 GMT
Animal's evolve all the time, and you know it. It doesn't usually happen before our eyes, but it happens over time. It's one thing to have issues with the monkey to human thing (even though it's obvious), but it's another to insinuate that evolution does not exist. mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving^ Interesting link. Some argue that it's "adapting", but that's exactly what evolution is. Changing to adapt to your current environment (which also changes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 11:53:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 28, 2017 13:02:22 GMT
You'd probably have to look at an animal or insect that lives in an urban area and is forced to adapt to new ways and their territory changing. That said, it would still take a very long time if it happened at all for them to evolve in some way. What a convenient excuse. Random mutations are very random and they happen suddenly. DNA of a species does not change over time. There is not a single animal or species that is half evolved. You claim that it takes millions of years for species to evolve. Show me one animal that is in the process of change. You can't. All animals were perfectly created. There are always anomalies like defective animals but they are not evolving. They are just bad tomatoes. Mutations happen all the time, yes, and very suddenly - yes. And for all intents and purposes, they are random, true. But mutations do not constitute evolution. Evolution is the natural selection of these mutations. This is why evolution is more readily observed where an organism is forced to adapt to a new environment, as opposed to where it finds itself in an environment to which it is already well adjusted. Because while both organisms experience mutations at the same rate, mutations are more likely to be selected against where the well-adjusted organism is concerned - but a mutation has a better chance of constituting a positive change for the unadjusted organism. Here is an evolution simulator which illustrates the principle very well: www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/index.htmlThe simulation is very basic, with creatures having but a single feature: hands. And only one variation: length. Random mutations cause hands to grow either longer (good!) or shorter (bad!). Longer hands have better chance at catching food than shorter hands, and will catch the incoming bug more often than the shorter hands. Sometimes a shorter hand will get lucky, but longer hands give a better probability. And as the hunger levels grow, hand-creatures die. New hand-creatures are born resembling their parents, maybe with a mutation, in which case it has either a longer or a shorter hand. Within not too many generations, you'll see the average length of hands significantly longer. The mutations are random, but the consequences were not. And so you see that in an environment where long-handed creatures already dominate, you're not going to see much change. From the onset, though, with short-handed creatures, you see rapid change as they compete for resources.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 28, 2017 13:08:08 GMT
Humans. We are getting taller, less hairy, being born without appendix, tonsils etc, heal faster. I don't want to argue this with you but slowly the human race is evolving. I lack the palmaris longus muscle on both my arms, meaning I am more evolved than most of you.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 28, 2017 14:00:33 GMT
Are you really interested in how they came to the conclusion that natural speciation is probably occurring? The thing that convinced me back when I was in grad school (in the 70s) was the case of the leopard frog. There are two species, the northern leopard frog and southern leopard frog. A northern leopard from from, say, New York can breed with the other leopard frogs in its area. A southern leopard frog from, say, Florida can breed with other leopard frogs in the area around it. But from what I can remember, the leopard frog from Florida is unable physiologically to breed with the New York leopard frog. BUT, again, as I recall, throughout the range of leopard frogs up and down the east coast, they can all interbreed with their neighbors. IOW, in the area where the two species overlap, they can interbreed but the ones at the both ends of the range can't. This suggested to me a species that is, for all intents and purposes, diverging. And, I reason, that if some geographical barrier formed where the two species couldn't interbreed, eventually they would form two species which could not interbreed at all. It is also interesting to compare speciation with, say, mountain formation. Show me a mountain that is forming. Sure, we can look at an existing mountain that appears to be rising, but it was already a mountain. The point being we can't really say a new mountain is forming because it takes too long. We can look back, geologically and infer that probably a given mountain range was originally a plain, but we can't SHOW the mountain forming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 14:17:04 GMT
I have to say these skinks are really fascinating animals. Have we got more examples of species like skinks ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 14:21:06 GMT
I have to say these skinks are really fascinating animals. Have we got more examples of species like skinks ? Skinks are lizards belonging to the family Scincidae and the infraorder Scincomorpha. Scincomorpha is an infraorder of lizards. They first appear in the fossil record about 170 million years ago, during the Jurassic period. They have been around for 170 million years, and yet they are still evolving. Fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Feb 28, 2017 14:29:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 28, 2017 16:33:52 GMT
"Half evolved". When they reach "fully" a little bell-timer goes off. *ding*!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 16:59:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Feb 28, 2017 17:41:10 GMT
After we get some proof that evolution happens maybe we'll get some proof that the Bible is divinely inspired.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2017 15:00:37 GMT
The opening lines of the very first link actually say "Like everyone else, I will point out that "half-evolved" is a mistaken term" lolPravdareport and bgrnathan both appear to be creationist sites, with such scientific nuggets gleaned there as "Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men". The last, pottsmerc contains such palpable nonsense as "Not only are there no indisputable transitional links, but the fossil layers themselves are not found in the geological order that evolutionists teach in their textbooks, and there is no evidence that the layers ever over-lapped. "As a poe, Trump needs to try better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 15:03:13 GMT
The duck billed platypus...
Still hasn't decided what it wants to be yet...
Gotta love the cute little buggers mind.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 18:42:53 GMT
"Like everyone else, I will point out that "half-evolved" is a mistaken term." So rarely does the first sentence of the first linked response so aptly underline what I'm laughing at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:54:33 GMT
"Like everyone else, I will point out that "half-evolved" is a mistaken term." So rarely does the first sentence of the first linked response so aptly underline what I'm laughing at. I knew what i was posting. Scientists are idiots. They think they know everything
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 1, 2017 20:19:46 GMT
Every time an animal has a child, that child doesn't have the same DNA sequence. Hence, evolution.
You know how language evolves by new words coming into use? It's still the same language right? And yet, we have a hard time reading Old English because it has changed significantly over time. It's the same reason Spanish is a Latin language but is no longer the actual language of Latin. And it's the same reason you are no longer an Austrolopithicus.
No animal evolves by itself, and every child born every is always the same species as it's parent. Yet the gene frequency changes significantly over time.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 2, 2017 16:43:31 GMT
"Like everyone else, I will point out that "half-evolved" is a mistaken term." So rarely does the first sentence of the first linked response so aptly underline what I'm laughing at. I knew what i was posting. Scientists are idiots. They think they know everything
|
|