Evolution is a joke part X

Yes... as I stated - we have turned kittens into glow in the dark throw pillows!!

Welcome back PC...

 

Why so?

 

They are both science...a study of the natural world.

 

Chemistry I would say is different... Chemistry is science, but evolution is biology...

 

Biology is a science...the study of life.

In fact, one of the first requirements is an introduction into organic chemistry.

Like why carbon is "the element"....because it has 4 electrons in its outer shell and is able to combine with so many other elements.

Or why water does not evaporate as quickly as alcohol.

 

And from this you conclude?

Ah, good find. A couple of quotes from your source would be even more helpful..

So. An excellent illustration of evolution. Very good, and thank you.

Oh no! Absolutely they are different species, VERY different. And they're different because evolution has introduced differences continuously for all that time.

I thought you understood about very tiny, very slow steps. After one step, you've basically gone nowhere. Evolution is not visible except at the genetic and DNA level until a large number of small steps add up.

If you are arguing that after one generation things stayed the same, then this is essentially correct. If you are arguing that things stayed the same for the next 25 million years, then this is not correct. You must specify your time scale.

Oh no, this is not correct at all! Consider the fossil evidence of the evolution of the horse.

But arguments from the fossil record should be made carefully. The fossil record "samples" historical organisms very sparsely. As an analogy, imagine if you are trying to construct the map of a city, and the data you are given are one square inch each in size. And altogether, the square inches you have cover about 10 square feet, out of a city that might be 20 square miles. Each individual sample would be meaningless, if you didn't already know that they were part of a map. Rejecting the idea that there is any city at all, because your samples are so widely separated and so small, is not very helpful when you have many other lines of evidence that you're looking at a city.

ALL species that survived the last mass extinction have gone extinct. Everything alive today evolved from those surviving species, however.

This is like saying that a Ford Fusion means nothing as an example of a car! What can anyone say to this?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Evolution produced all those genomes. Genetic and molecular analysis can produce an excellent approximation of the ant clade BECAUSE of the way evolutin works. Again, you are pointing to a perfect, excellent, ideal illustration of evolution and saying "this is not evolution". This strongly suggests that the "evolution" you are rejecting bears little resemblance to what is understood by the term, by today's scientists. If "evolution" was what you think it is, I'd reject it too. It's complete nonsense. But the actual theory is very real, and very well supported.

Yes, all members of the crocodile clade had a common ancestor which was another sort of crocodile. Evolution doesn't turn crocodiles into wombats, it turns crocodiles into very different crocodiles. The common ancestor of humans, gorillas, new and old world monkeys, and chimps WAS a primate, and so are all of those lineages that evolved from that ancestor. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If the common ancestor of crocodiles wasn't a crocodile, evolution would be nonsense. Now, consider the common ancestor of the crodocile, the allegator, and the cayman. We can have a pretty good idea what it looked like, and all of these lineages are similar to that ancestor.

I think I understand. Evolution implies common ancestry. You are arguing that common ancestry MEANS evolution doesn't happen, because dogs don't evolve into birds! And what you should understand is that IF dogs evolved into birds (or "dinosaurs" evolved into fish), the theory of evolution would be completely wrong.

We're back to the model of the tree. Branches do not merge back into other branches. If they did, evolution would be totally different from the way things work. As for the names we give things, if you look you will see that this is not true of the latin names, only of the popular names. And the popular names are based on visible similarity. So for example, we can say that "sharks" are very ancient. But what is a "shark"? If you look, you'll see what you saw with the crocodiles, but moreso. HUNDREDS of different kinds of sharks, that cannot interbreed, that have different diets and habitats, different sizes, different feeding mechanisms, etc. But they are all sharks. Evolution doesn't create crocasharks, it creates sub-branches from common ancestors. ALL descendent of the common ancestor of sharks will be sharks, forever. Some of them might someday leave the water and climb trees to eat leaves, but they will STILL be sharks.

The mass extinction (if that's what you're referring to) has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Why do you keep talking about it?

Now, I suppose some paleontologist finding a fossil of an ancient ancestor of a sand dollar might refer to that ancestor as a sand dollar, though this would be careless shorthand. Today's sand dollars are as genetically and morphologically different from those ancestors as humans are from chimps. But to an intelligent sand dollar, humans and chimps would look pretty much the same, and the sand dollar might well use the same word to describe both.

And hopefully you understand that evolution REQUIRES this. If your notion of sand dollars becoming trees were true, the current theory of evolution would never have been formulated, because it wouldn't match reality AT ALL. (And while sand dollars surely had an ancestor "billions of years" ago, that ancestor would be a bacteria. One population of bacteria evolved eukaryotic cells, etc.)

Yes, that's correct. Evolution deals with changes from one generation to the next. Not with individual organisms.

OK, let's look at your definition. Are you a successive generation from your father? Yep. Is your genetic composition different? Yep. Was that caused by mutation? Yep (sexual recombination is a form of mutation). Bingo, evolution.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

 

Flint, you're doing an awesome job trying to explain this to him, though I am afraid it may be futile. Can I nitpick one point? From my understanding, we wouldn't really call the genetic difference between father and son evolution. I'm pretty sure the definition relies more on populations rather than individuals. So, once a new allele fixes in a population, then it would be considered evolution. But I may be wrong on this.

 

DNA changes between generations, every time. Even bacteria that reproduce by budding off copies of themselves have copying errors that change the DNA. Human offpsring have on average about 200 genetic differences from their parents. Genes are composed of DNA.

This statement is too vague. How much knowledge is enough? We know in some considerable detail what the ancestral limbs were like that led to each type of wings. We know also in some detail the steps that eventually resulted in wings. We understand why bird wings are completely different from bat wings in every respect, from the skin/feathers to the bone composition and structure. At some point, it's perverse to say "we don't know how wings evolved", because the ony sensible response is, YOU don't know how wings evolved.

Again, this is a vague statement. Most food crops today are genetically modified - we tampered with the DNA. However, it's true that many DNA changes are fatal to the organism. Saying DNA "doesn't like" something is misleading. We modify DNA all the time, deliberately, for many purposes, using different techniques. But it's necessary to know which techniques to use, and which modifications are viable.

If you mean, in practice, this covers most everything. Cloning is still largely beyond us. If you mean, in principle, then the limits of what is possible given the correct foundation of theory and technology are undefined.

Yes. You might have to think about this. Driving a car across the country isn't hard. Driving it across the ocean is hard. Same car, same driver.

Another thing you can look up.

You're right, some bacteria fossilize. Your source emphasizes that the fossilized bacteria had "hard parts" - they secreted calcium - and it's the hard parts that fossilized.

Oh no, this is not true at all. The ediacaran fossils are known for at least 100 million years before the earliest proposed start of the pre-Cambrian. And THOSE fossils are often sizeable multicellular animals. The oldest eukaryotic fossils known come from FAR before the Cambrian. The oldest prokaryotic bacteria evidence dates from three billion years before the Cambrian.

Yes, if you wish to go back far enough, this is true. You'd probably have to go back 600 million years to reach the common ancestor of humans and oak trees.

Unless, of course, you care about evidence, about theory, about research, about predictions, about accurate models, about the scientific method itself, and so on. However, I'm coming to understand that YOUR misunderstanding of evolution is indeed a religion. Certainly your concept of what evolution is all about would flunk the very first scientific test.

(And as a footnote, one of the reasons creationists find Darwin so easy to quote-mine is because Darwin, like any honest scientist, presented the strongest possible case for each idea he intended to dispute. And of course creationists extract that portion and claim "Darwin said this." But the fact remains, as Darwin and any honest scientist understands, to dispute or overturn ANY claim, theory, or model you must address what that model actually says. If you're looking to score PR points for social and political purposes, of course, you cobble together some stupid straw-man idiocy, CALL it "evolution", and then make fun of it. You might persuade some ignorant suckers that way. But to persuade a scientist, you must address and dispute what evolution actually claims, you must dispute the theory itself and not some idiotic caricature of your own imagination.)

 

Why would anyone want to do that just because one can? DNA can very much be changed. And not all mutations are bad.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/12/gene-that-fights-alzheimer-may-inspire-new-treatments/

Here is a mutation that happens on the same gene, without the mutation people are more likely to get alzheimer's. With it, they are practicaly immune to it. That's how it works. A mutation with a benefit comes along and that favored mutation survives in a given envrionment. Hence, one species slowly becomes another. Even in humans.

That's the evidence you are asking for. You are asking to witness first hand evolution. You never will in your life time. Such a high level of evidence is not possible so you will never be satisfied until a fish gives birth to a lizard.

Yes we do. Dinosaurs running up trees to escape predators. They used their arms to gain momentum. Eventually, those with more wing like forearms escaped more often, survived, had offspring with varying degrees of forearms, and the ones that were more winglike escaped more often. They did a study with birds to show that birds will run up a vertical surface for food every time where they put their feet on it. They will only fly when they absolutely have no other choice.

We don't have the technology to give animals wings. YOu asked a specific thing and now you are applying it to a general case. Making cats glow is easy, one gene. Making something grow wings is hard, many genes. If you don't understand that then we can't discuss anything because you will forever be in a different framework.

We can't make life. We can put all the ingredients of life together, but it won't live, now will it. Does that mean everything we theorize about living cells is wrong? Or no? You don't understand the scientific method. Lab work is not the be all end all, it's merely a way to experiment with variables. But don't just limit it to biology, that's not the only science out there.

For us, yes. Making cats glow apparently is much easier. We do not have the means to make animals have wings. There are too many genes we don't understand how they all work or interact, and we don't have the knowledge yet. Someday will probably will and then you will likely be coming up with another excuse.

I said most fossils, it's hard to get fossilized soft tissue hence its hard to show organs and tissue. But all you've done is proven it can happen hence lending more credit to my argument, not yours.

It is the basis for your conclusion. The fossil record doesn't walk you through how every animal evolved, therefore, it doesn't support the conclusion of evolution. If I have got your position wrong, please correct me.

There is no evidence of life prior? Is that what you mean? That's false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Precambrian_life

You have failed and proven no such thing. There is no religion going on here, if you have a better theory or hypothesis, out with it. But just declaring that YOU disagree with evolution isn't going to make you right. Do you admit you could be wrong and evolution could be correct? If you can't admit that, then YOU are the one with the religion. I can admit evolution may be found an incorrect conclusion, I just haven't seen anyone prove it yet.

Sure it has. People such as yourself have been trying to prove it wrong for decades and fail because everything we discover supports it. Again, show a better conclusion or actual evidence that disputes it. The idea that we all evolved from a common ancestor is comletely understood. NOt sure what your point was with that. As for religion, you are a member of the anything but evolution religion. That's your drawback. I will gladly through evolution out the moment someone concludes something that better fits the facts. But the notion that life was "created" by some all powerful being is too complicated and unprovable, and the razor applies. Evolution is simply the best and simplist explanation for how life came to look as it does today and will look tomorrow.

 

I apologize, but we didn't study chemistry in biology... In microbiology a little, but not biology... Maybe others did - who knows.

 

Adaptation, per definition, is not evolution.

No problem. We have agreed on the definition of evolution. So, was that an example of evolution? By what we agreed on it is not. The bacteria adapted to its environment per definition. The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Adaptation
It was put in an environment that only had nylon and adapted. It did not evolve. There was no common ancestry/descent involved with the bacteria and when other bacteria was placed in the same ecosystem, it would adapt in the same way.

“Time” is insignificant… evolution is measured in generations. Also, evolution has nothing to do with “individuals”…. As I stated, your example is not evolution… Steps? What are steps?

Go to each species of your example of evolution by clicking on their specific link. Now, post what it states about (word for word) about what they evolved from… Then please let us know where these fossils were found – one was in Mongolia, another in Wyoming then explain why it’s evolution instead of just being different species like ants or dogs – what is the “evidence” of evolution you see – outside of them just “looking like” each other…

I provided links that said different…

Not it’s not. You are suggesting that your Fusion turned into a monster truck when it has always been a car…

Then you need to reject it - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

There is a problem with that way of thinking… So a croc evolved from a croc, and that croc evolved from another croc, and that croc evolved from another croc and that croc evolved from a puddle of goo 4 billion years ago? Also, what did the crocodile, alligator evolve from anyway?

How so?...

So, if a shark started to walk on land and eat grass it would still be a shark?

I keep talking about it because it is the only thing we can look at to see if life evolves. Where did the sand dollar come from and why hasn’t it evolved? The jellyfish… Why hasn’t it evolved… The ant and so on and so on… We have life that has lived on this plant since its beginning and has not evolved through major extinctions. If it didn’t evolve into what we see now – what did? How can we say there is evolution when we have a fossil record that doesn’t show life evolving? Great example is the K-T line we have in dirt.

I will let you answer your own question: Evolution deals with changes from one generation to the next. Not with individual organisms.

Also, mitosis or meiosis (I forget) is not, and I will repeat, is not a form of mutation…

 

I have not heard of such a thing – can you provide a link please…

Great – since you know… please – what was the first animal that introduced wing traits… not a “full wing”, but wing traits, must have been a whole bunch since we have so many winged animals…

We change the DNA in crops with its own species… It’s like changing DNA from one human to another to cure Sickle Cell…

Then why did you state that?

Then dealing natural events, what is the road and what is the ocean?

No need… Chromo 2 means nothing dealing with evolution. It’s a religious tactic from the Darwinist against the Creationist. In the real world, it means nothing… Do you know why it’s irrelevant?

Thank you… So, we know that bacteria has been around since the beginning of time and has not evolved…

Where were we going with this?... Sorry – been a weekend and all.

Oh… good gravy no.

I do care about all that – just like how it should be… and that is exactly how others feel also…


All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?
All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_50


So, if we don’t know how evolution happens – how is there evidence or how did it pass the scientific method? So, basically, it has never been witnessed or observed and thus the questions. So, yes, I do hold those things you listed as important. Until evolution produces those it will be a hypothesis since it hasn’t…

I have no idea what Creationist are doing… nor know anything about their ploys or tactics… All I do is use facts from sites that are well known Evolution Biology sites that state exactly what I have been saying for the past 10 threads.

 

You've never heard of DNA replication errors? Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me? So, you have no idea about something that is inherently essential to evolution, the cause of most mutations? Then how the hell can you sit here and pretend to know what you're talking about?

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.long

We don't know how gravity works either, genius, but General Relativity is still a scientific theory. You have a terrible understanding of the scientific method. And nothing from that excerpt claims that it has never been witnessed or observed, and in fact the Berkeley website gives examples of evolution. And really, we already know how evolution works, so that was a strange thing to put on the website. None of those questions has anything to do with the basics of how evolution occurs, just attributes that we still haven't precisely measured or observed. It literally is very comparable to the theory of gravity.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03

You just cherry pick your sources to make a terrible argument.

 

Not a mutation – “DNA Variant” Less than 1 percent of the population has these alleles," or DNA variants…

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...mer-may-inspire-new-treatments/#ixzz20oGV4hRm

It’s not “changing” DNA that you just listed – that like saying you just replaced tires on your car… All you did is take something that we already have within our population and slapped on someone…

Evolution should be happening “DAILY” to be honest… How could it not be? We should be seeing new species arise daily!!! Do you even know how much life is on this plant? In our oceans? Between of butt cheeks? In one square mile of rain forest?

I have never heard of anything like that… What is your source for this? Because for one thing – birds ARE dinosaurs…

That is incorrect… Please read the first sentence from this site: http://gawker.com/5839142/scientists-produce-glow+in+the+dark-cats

Incorrect… experimentation is the second step in the scientific method…

No excuses… just facts…

I just showed you that you were incorrect…

That is incorrect. I feel the fossil record is a horrible excuse of evidence for evolution. Now – just in one year – how much life lived and died in the ocean this year? Now- how much life lived and died on this planet from the beginning of time? And what percentage do you think we have found in fossils data?

Just facts…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

Still around today – didn’t evolve into the life at the Cambrian Explosion… As I stated…

You are mistaken… I am not trying to prove evolution wrong in any way – shape – or form. What I am trying to do here is tell you that you believe in a religion if you believe in evolution. Evolution is 100% faith based. You have “faith” that what the religious Darwinist have told you did happen in the past. I want you to think about something about “faith”… Have you seen evolution happen? The answer would be no… You have “faith” that it happened. Did someone tell you that evolution happened when they haven’t seen it themselves? No, but you have “faith” they told you what has been passed down from generation to generation to be true…

So, what is the difference between someone’s faith in Whatever (God, Gaia, Google) than your “faith” in evolution? It’s a faith based religion. Most that believe in evolution – repeatedly proven in these past 10 threads – have no understanding about biology nor their religion….

You have “faith” it supports it… and again, if 2 + 2 = 184 I do not have to provide a reason why it equates to four… Your answer is wrong – just like in school after a test there was no explaination of why you got your questions wrong – just that you got them wrong. The same works for the scientific method. If there is no second step – then it’s wrong – go back to Go and roll again… Plain and Simple. Evolution is about as retarded as String Theory… and I won’t even get into how retard String Theory is…

 

Back? Can't stay away? Nobody will play with you? Going to get banned for the third time? They say third time is a charm!!

Good luck...

Read one page back…

That’s what happens when you jump in on someone else’s conversation – you end up asking stupid stuff or saying something stupid…

FIRST - Gravity isn’t biology…

Second – let us read how you created your own FAIL shall we? - Grasping starts off with

Two sentences later Grasping states -

Exactly Grasping – it hasn’t been observed… I appreciate when you point things out to yourself… I guess you can start keeping track of your own FAIL’s now? Maybe?

Seriously Grasping… I am at a loss… Why do you post? All you’re going to do is say something ridiculous – mess up – talk about something you have no clue about and then I will fly into you and you’ll get all hurt feelers and start acting childish. Why put yourself through that over and over? You are your own worst enemy on this subject! Do you even know how many times you have said one thing then said the complete opposite just a couple posts later? It’s pathetic… And here you go again – jumping in on someone else’s post “thinking” you know what’s going on and you don’t…

I don’t know how you got “unbanned” last time, but if you keep posting you will be banned by the end of the week…

 

Hmmm. Evolution is a Joke Part X

Rapid Evolution in Hudson River Tomcod

Isaac Wirgin, Ph.D.
New York University School of Medicine
NIEHS Grants P42ES007381, P30ES000260, and R01ES015447

New research findings by NIEHS grantees suggest that Hudson River tomcod have undergone rapid evolution in response to industrial contamination of the river with polychlorinated biphenyls over the last 50 years. Natural selection, the driving process in evolution, usually takes place over thousands of years, but the research team reports that this is the first example in vertebrate animals of such a rapid evolutionary change.

The research team is made up of NIEHS and Superfund Research Program grantees at New York University and the Boston University School of Public Health. They found changes in the gene that codes for the Ah Receptor 2 (AHR2), which is important in mediating toxicity in early life stages. The AHR2 protein in the Hudson River fish is missing two amino acids, which causes a weaker bond between the receptor and PCBs, a necessary step in the metabolism of the compound. The variant is found in about 95 percent of the Hudson River fish and in about 5 percent in tomcod in two smaller streams in Connecticut and on Long Island. The variant can't be found at all in fish further down the Hudson.

Because the Hudson River fish is resistant to the toxic effects of PCBs, they are able to accumulate more of the chemical without becoming sick. However this evolutionary adaptation is not all good news for the ecosystem. Since the fish can bioaccumulate the compound at higher levels, consumption of them by other fish can lead to transfer of PCBs up the food chain.

Citation: Wirgin I, Roy NK, Loftus M, Chambers RC, Franks DG, Hahn ME. Mechanistic Basis of Resistance to PCBs in Atlantic Tomcod from the Hudson River. Science. 2011 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/sep/2011/tomcod/index.cfm

...could of fooled me.

Additional link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

 

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2008 ) — In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

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,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”

Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

“These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Change in diet also affected the population density and social structure of the Pod Mrcaru population. Because plants provide a larger and more predictable food supply, there were more lizards in a given area on Pod Mrcaru. Food was obtained through browsing rather than the active pursuit of prey, and the lizards had given up defending territories.

“What is unique about this finding is that rapid evolution can affect not only the structure and function of a species, but also influence behavioral ecology and natural history,” says Irschick.

Results of the study were published March 25 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders. Additional members of the research team include Anthony Herrel of Harvard University and the University of Antwerp, Kathleen Huyghe, Bieke Vanhooydonck, Thierry Backeljau and Raoul Van Damme of the University of Antwerp, Karin Breugelmans of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Irena Grbac of the Croatian Natural History Museum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Do you need more proof or are you good?

 

What the hey, I'm on a roll...

Shrews in the News -- Rapid Evolution of Shrews in Response to Climate Change
Released: 6/26/2012 1:00:00 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Shrews are among a diverse group of small mammals that have rapidly evolved in response to climate change, according to a new study released this month. Using historical climate data and modern molecular evidence from multiple genes, scientists found that some shrew species respond positively to periods of warmer and wetter climate through expanding geographic ranges and increased population sizes, while other shrew species respond the same way during periods of colder and drier climate.

The smallest mammals, such as mice and shrews, can reproduce rapidly yielding many generations of offspring in a short period of time. Because of this, they evolve comparatively quickly and as such are useful for studying how species in general respond to environmental changes. In addition, unlike many birds and larger mammals, they are non-migratory and thus exhibit both ecological and evolutionary responses to local conditions year-round. Shrews were therefore perfect model organisms to test predictions about the influence of historical climate change on resident species in the Arctic.

"Evolutionary adaptation is driven by necessity, favored by large gene pools, and accelerated by short intervals to reproductive maturity," said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. "All of these factors make shrews the ideal organism for examining genetic adaptation to climate change, understanding which is critical to helping manage wildlife in the decades ahead."

Climatic changes over the last 350 thousand years have caused dramatic environmental shifts at high latitudes. For example, glacial cold phases lasting approximately 75 thousand years were interspersed with warmer periods lasting 20 thousand years and the earth is now experiencing yet another of these warmer periods. Therefore, scientists conducting the current study used historical evidence to predict how small mammals in the Arctic have responded to past climate change and thus how such species may react to current and future climate scenarios.

“Our research suggests that early ancestors of this group of roughly a dozen shrew species experienced an ecological separation due to isolation in different areas, adapting to wetter or drier local conditions respectively,” said Dr. Andrew Hope, a geneticist with the USGS Alaska Science Center who led the research.

Following initial adaptation to different environments, each cold and dry glacial phase caused rapid expansion of one group of shrew species while those adapted to warmer and wetter conditions contracted into multiple small isolated areas. Then during each warm and wet interglacial phase the opposite dynamics occurred. As high-latitude climates alternated between warm and cold climate changes, species such as the shrews rode an evolutionary see-saw of alternating population growth and decline, which promoted the formation of new species. The result has been a rapid increase in number of species in the Arctic in a very short evolutionary timespan. Investigation of these shrews has also uncovered previously unrecognized genetic diversity possibly representing un-described species.

This study of historical evolutionary processes offers valuable insight into the future ecological responses of species to prevailing environmental trends. Resident small mammals constitute an important toolset for investigating biological responses to climate change.

Shrews are tiny mammals that rely on insects, worms and other invertebrates for food. Despite their diminutive size, they can be found in virtually every available terrestrial habitat in North America excluding the most arid desert regions, reflecting adaptation to a broad range of environmental conditions.

The article “A climate for speciation: Rapid spatial diversification within the Sorex cinereus complex of shrews” is published in the journal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, written by Andrew Hope and Sandra Talbot of the USGS Alaska Science Center, Joseph Cook and Kelly Speer from the Museum of Southwestern Biology at the University of New Mexico and John Demboski from the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3261&from=rss#.UASSNvXudIA

 

I already have been following this. You claimed that you had no idea that DNA changes from generation to generation. It's a simple statement and I didn't even need to be following the argument to point out how absurd it is that you had no idea DNA changes every generation.

Why do you keep saying this? It makes no difference what area of science the theory it is from, the scientific method doesn't alter based on whether we're trying to explain a biological phenomenon or a physical phenomenon.

Yeah, you're reaching pretty far, DBM. You have consistently posted the four questions that Berkeley has on their website in every single one of these threads. You then say "Aha, see, you can't answer these questions therefore evolution is a religion/absurd/false scientific theory!" That's just flat out intellectually dishonest because you are simply ignoring the conclusion that Berkeley makes: "All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIBigissues.shtml

Berkeley isn't saying that those four questions prove evolution false somehow, you are mischaracterizing a search for more precise models of an already existing scientific theory as a nail in the coffin for the theory. Once again, we don't know many things about gravity and we are still searching for a model that perfectly fits our observed phenomenon. Does this mean that General Relativity is not a scientific theory? No.

Honestly, it makes me laugh every time you try to shift away from the comparison because "Gravity isn't biology!", like that distinction makes any difference in how scientific theories are formed. Tell me, why does gravity not being a biological theory make it a false comparison? It had to pass the VERY SAME scientific method, did it not? We don't know something about a physical sciences theory, it doesn't mean the theory is a religion or didn't pass the scientific method. BUT, when the same conditions apply when we talk about a biological sciences theory... oh... that is a completely different story.

It's just the special pleading fallacy and it's honestly sad. You're the king of distractions, trolling, and of quote mining. I think the funniest thing is that you keep trying to prove evolution false by posting links to websites that say: "All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions."

 

How is it that none of you have learned yet that DBM is incapable of honest argument?

 

Evolution, as I thought we understood, is one type of adaptation. There are many many ways the word "adaptation" can be used, and evolution applies to one of those ways.

Then clearly we did not agree. Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book entitled "What Evolution Is". If you read it, maybe we CAN agree on the definition of evolution.

We are not communicating. Evolution is one form of adaptation. Per your definition, it involves changes in the structure or physiology (not necessarily the behavior) of a POPULATION of organisms, from generation to generation. The mutation that permitted metabolism of nylon was an evolutionary adaptation. It was passed along to subsequent generations. This is how evolution works. That IS evolution.

You are saying two different things here. First, of course there was common ancestry. Do you think the mutated bacteria just appeared by magic or spontaneous generation? They came from their ancestors. Now, whether another bacteria would have an analogous mutation isn't guaranteed. And since there are almost surely going to be as many DIFFERENT mutations as there are bacteria that experience them, saying they "adapt in the same way" is kind of like saying that since crows and wasps both fly, they "adapted the same way".

And generations take time.

And you can state that crows don't fly. You can state it over and over, but crows still fly. You can state that "we agreed" that crows don't fly, but this is now doubly incorrect.

A few posts ago, you said you understood about evolution taking place in innumerable small steps. Have you forgotten? We compared it to a walking journey where each step is tiny and takes 50 years. Remember?

They evolved from their ancestors. What are you asking here? Do you think they occurred by magic?

Do you understand how that clade was constructed? You know, by comparing (in great detail) the morphology, the genetics, and the DNA? Do you understand why DNA evidence settles legal cases? Same thing.

No, you didn't. Your links say just what I said they say. Again, you can SAY crows can't fly, but you might wish to be more accurate.

You took a wonderful example of evolution and you said "this is not evolution". I didn't quite know how to react to that. You remind me of some Pentagon types who can look you straight in the eye, tell you you're not there, and sincerely belive it. How do you respond to something like this?

But at the level of granularity of the presented clade, each of those crocs was far too different from any other to interbreed. The crocodile and alligator evolved from a common ancestor. The clade we're discussing doesn't go back that far.

Here is where your "obsolete" Linnaean taxonomy helps us out. This taxonomy is only possible because of the inherent nested hierarchies. What these mean is, when evolution happens on some new feature, that feature is found ONLY in species that descended from the original population that had that mutation, and often it is found in ALL subsequent species. For example, consider mammals. They suckle their young, they have hair (or fur if it's thick hair), they are warm blooded. ALL mammals have ALL these characteristics, and NO non-mammals have them all. And that means mammals had a common ancestor with these features. Dogs can't evolve into birds because all descendants of dogs must have dogs as common ancestors, and share features derived from those ancestors. If this were not true, the Linnaean taxonomy would not be possible.

Yes, in the sense that you are still a primate. Now, your new shark would be no more closely related to today's sharks as you are to today's chipmunks - both mammals.

Of course it has evolved. It is genetically MUCH too different from its distant ancestor to interbreed.

I wrote that ants preserved in amber for millions of years have been gene-sequenced, and they are VERY different from today's ants. I wrote this in response to the LAST time you said ants haven't evolved. You ignored it and repeated the same falsehood, this time KNOWING it was false. So I'll correct you again.

Mass extinctions are irrelevant. They do not affect the mechanics of evolution. I still don't understand why you think mass extinctions are relevant to anything. Evolution is driven by biological variation, at the genetic level. Mass extinctions are external events. We are currently living through a mass extinction event. So what?

Everything alive on earth today evolved from ancestors who also lived on earth.

But of course the fossil record shows life evolving. It is a most wonderful illustration of (and confirmation of) they theory. You could hardly ask for a more perfect proof. In fact, the theory is getting to the point where predictions about which new fossils will be found, and where, and in which strata, and what they will look like, are coming true with thumping regularity. Yep, another day, another confirmation. As if we needed another. As for the K-T boundary, it's irrelevant to evolution.

Yes, that's correct. Are you and your father different individuals?

Both of these terms refer to cell division. Meiosis is a special type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction in eukaryotes. These are processes in development. They are not forms of mutations, they are forms of cell division. However, not all cell division is perfect, errors get introduced and not corrected. Those errors provide the variation that selection works with. In that sense, evolution is involved. (And as a matter of fact, there is good evidence that evolution itself has evolved, in the sense that mathematical models indicate that if error correction were EITHER better or worse than it is, evolution would be less effective. OPTIMAL error correction is imperfect. Almost certainly, it's no accident that error correction is so nearly optimal. Trial and error are good at that sort of thing. And evolution is all trial and error.

 

I'll look for one. But considering you have about 20,000 genes, some minor differences making you a unique individual are to be expected.

Nobody knows the "first animal" possessing any trait. But knowing the process of wing evolution doesn't mean identifying any particular historical animal, which is probably not a useful question anyway - you are imposing a discontinuity onto a continuum. But certainly different sorts of flight evolved in many lineages in many ways. No biologist would say that birds, bats, and insects developed flight in the same way.

Oh no! This is not true at all! You vastly underestimate the power of common ancestry.

Well, it means very little. Chromosomes are just "bunches" of genes, and fusing chromosomes doesn't do more to the genes than move them around. Now, sometimes position matters. Usually it doesn't.

This makes no sense. The effects of the fusion have been studied. It's all science.

It's not entirely irrelevant. Fusion DOES cause some differences, perhaps especially during development from zygote to adult.

What? We know bacteria have been around just about since conditions made life possible form them. We know they have been evolving ever since, and continue to evolve. Indeed, because of their short generation times and because of horizontal gene transfer, bacteria evolve fastest of anything except viruses (there are an estimated 10,000 varieties of virus per species of bacteria) Where did you ever get the idea bacteria don't evolve? Ever heard of "disease"?

If we didn't know, this would be a good question. But you seem to be making the error of thinking that if we do not yet know EVERYTHING, therefore we don't know ANYTHING. And this is silly.

Yes, it has been witnessed and observed. Over and over.

We're back to the problem that your caricature of evolution is so preposterous that you make discussion difficult. You point to wonderful examples of evolution and you say "this is not evolution". You point to organisms which have almost ZERO in common at the DNA level, and say "these haven't evolved". You repeat the PRATTs of half-wings, dogs into birds, etc. as though evolution implied rather than prohibited such things. And THEN you complain because science has DISPROVED every one of your absurd misconceptions, and rather than LEARN, you claim science "can't demonstrate evolution."


Sorry, but science demonstrates evolution thousands of times a day. Science can't demonstrate YOUR misconception of what evolution is, because your misconception is so far from reality it's impossible.

The few links you've provided have enabled me to see that they invariably say exactly the opposite of what you CLAIM they say. You go to a site armed with a completely wrongheaded misconception of evolution, you see what you expect regardless of what's there, and then you actually provide the link where any curious person can SEE this!

Your thread title says evolution is a joke, and by now I can see that your idea of evolution IS a joke. Evolution is absolutely nothing like you seem to think it is. But I can't get through - you say one thing after another that's completely wrong, you get corrected, and a few posts later you repeat the same error!

 

It's going to take me a minute to answer all of this...

 

Though quite interesting, I see nothing that equates to evolution... I see the effects of PCB in an ecosystem, but no evolution - could you "bold" the common ancestry/descent please...

 

JoanofArk - I read your posts (well skimmed mostly after the first one) and noticed a trend. It seems that the people posting these are confusing adaptation with evolution or the reader is. They clearly state adaptation but also say evolution... There is a difference.