Modern proof of evolution.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Holy #. Stop spamming! You've posted that exact thing like what 9 times!?

I value evidence, gravity,

No.

What you're saying is that the apple never fell on Newton's head.

Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact.

I don't think you understand what is fact and what is theory. I don't think you understand what theory means within science.

Actually, I don't think you understand any of this at all.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedyman is the worst evolution thread troll there is... he has been shown "empirical evidence" of evolution multiple times in multiple threads, and conveniently ignores it every single time... and he is still parroting that he has never been shown any evidence!

Just a few examples of the evidence that has been presented to him (I'm not going to bother digging up the links):

• Bacteria becoming a new species in an experiment that is being repeated by the originators, and has also been repeated by another research facility, which has had similar results.
  
• Fruit flies that have "evolved" through multiple generations in a 20 year experiment, which is also being both continued and repeated.
  
• Multiple examples of different moths evolving; changing colours, sizes, food sources, etc.
  
• Example of two distinct populations of lizards diverging from egg laying to live birth, which helped us understand the mechanism for evolving the live birth trait, which we previously theorised differently (posted in other threads, but even posted in this thread... and ignored)
  
• Examples of human evolution.
  
• Distinct fossil chain examples showing a range of evolutionary steps.
  
• DNA mapping examples that support the previously defined fossil examples. The advent of DNA has time and again predicted results, and as of yet has not ever been shown to be wrong... pretty good evidence so far...
  
• ... and I'm certain there are a bunch more I have missed.
  

... and now a great piece of evidence of human influence causing an evolutionary change in an elephant population.

Great example OP!

Raggedy just doesn't understand science very well at all... evidence doesn't have to be falsifiable or repeatable, scientific theories do. A piece of evidence just has to be verified as real, but can exist in isolation, and can still fit into a broader puzzle to help verify theories.

Funnily enough, his reference to a scientist questioning evolution, which the scientist did at one point in the interest of scientific rigor, the scientist himself changed his opinion after learning more and researching, and eventually called his original statements incorrect... "Karl Popper has always said that Darwin’s core thesis — that all life is related through descent with modification — was not only testable, but was the most successful explanation of all the data."... which leads us nicely into the article that Raggedy has posted no less than 5 times in this thread, as if that one very badly written and sourced piece of writing somehow completely proves his point... Raggedy couldn't be more wrong... lol

That article is a complete piece of tripe, badly sourced and barely concealing the inaccuracy of Locke's starting statement of "I AM NOT A CREATIONIST", because he certainly sounds like one.

So I don't have to, here's a refutation of Locke's article: Essay:A Response to Locke's, "The Scientific Case Against Evolution"

There are definitely still gaps to fill in evolutionary theory, as science always improves itself, but many aspects of evolution are confirmed, scientifically proven, and have been used in modern medicine with predictable results.

Thanks evolution!

Evolution is a complete change from one species to another through mutation like changes.
This is an example of animal adaptation. Unlike evolution, adaptation, like with the finches of Galapagos, is subject to reoccurring species of the original state. Darwin's finches never evolved, the big beaked ones survived during that time period because their beaks could simply sustain them with the diet available. They still pass on small beak genes and eventually small beaks came to be as dominant as big beaks.
Darwin never put full credence in his own theory btw. Hence his entire chapter called "Darwin'a Doubts."

This erroneous distinction between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" only shows your ignorance to the science.

originally posted by: Tucket
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
I wonder how long it will take before the elephants turn into homosapiens..

And, why would you guess?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Please show "My lunacy". Make sure to reference a source.

a reply to: mnemonicmania

What? I have no idea what you mean.

a reply to: TheCretinHop

No it's not... modern evolutionary theory covers a range of different premises, with natural selection and adaption being part of the totality.

Current thinking is that any step or change is a form of evolution (ie. you have evolved from your parents), speciation is the cumulative effect of these changes.

ETA: Interestingly, it is now being theorised that evolution is continuously occurring even during a single lifetime, with genetics changing in a single specimen due to environmental factors. These small changes then increase the potential of passing on traits to offspring. For instance, if you condition yourself a certain way everyday throughout your life, your child has an increased chance of adopting those traits... it's why the obesity epidemic across the world is so frightening, and why it always pays to live a healthy lifestyle.

Modern evolutionary theory has moved on a long long way since Darwin's original work... really a long way... Our recent capabilities in DNA have confirmed or clarified many of the previous unknowns from a decade and more ago... DNA has yet to show evolutionary theory to be wrong, and in fact firmly confirms it every time.

Micro... and macro... are terms only used by people who know nothing of modern evolutionary theory... they just aren't used because they are the same thing... just varying magnitudes.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Sorry. I'm bouncing between threads. It's about that time for me. Aren't I just gone?

a reply to: mnemonicmania

I imagine so. So it's about time for both of us then, eh?

Well then sweet dreams.

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So you believe because elephants with larger tusks are targeted that as a matter of survival the elephants are now being born with smaller or no tusks

You're not understanding evolution correctly

Yep. This is not how evolution works, this is what happens when you consistently remove certain genes from a gene pool. This is unintentional eugenics.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

If you'd like a human example:

Modern medicine has allowed humans with severe food allergies to survive longer. Thus, they are able to breed. Food allergies in children has increased 50% between 1997 and 2011.
Source
Therefore, due to advances in modern medicine we are actually evolving to have more instances of severe food allergies.

Now, before you jump all over my source, it does NOT say that modern medicine is the culprit. That is just my personal theory based on how evolution works.

And, if you want to talk about teeth and evolution: WhyTF do we have wisdom teeth that have to be surgically removed because there's not enough room for them? Maybe evolution is driven by intelligent design, maybe it's not. But somewhere along the way smaller skulls/smaller jaws were selected for and the teeth just didn't keep up. I don't know why, I'm not claiming to know. But it is a byproduct of evolution...for whatever reason.

Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility that some other beings spliced us together with an array of genetics...and that is a byproduct of genetic manipulation?

The staunch believer of evolution also have very limited controlled thinking approach to just about everything i have noticed....I will take my genetically advanced imaginations over your EVOLVEMENT .

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: mOjOm

They see the word 'evolution' and freak TF out. TRIGGERED




I made this thread for those on the fence. So that maybe they could be informed as to what evolution actually entails.

How many times can you change the goal posts on this topic.

You honestly saying that these animals are changing to have smaller tusks is because the large tusked ones were killed is even remotely intelligent?

Evolution evolved apparently...it is no longer about genetics adapting to situation...but about controlled intelligent designers deciding what happens....interesting ironies.

Our creators are laughing once again.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

evolution [ biology ] :

the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time

the OP is spot on - it is not ludicous - it does not require faith and the only straws being grasped are by you

It IS ludicrous...evolution claims the changes happen because of adaptation...this is not..this is killing all of one kind and claiming genetics adapted.

Are you really being serious?

We can follow this logic more carefully if we like...GENOCIDE EQUALS EVOLUTION.

This proves the opposite.

You dont learn mutch from your rock. Evolution specifically says this cannot happen and goes to great lengths to prove that a missing limb or bound foot cannot be passed down.

Youve disproved what youve hoped to ignorantly support.

Ivory hunting is not a trade millions of years old. Are you claiming intelligence exists behind the adaptations of growth? ! To have taken place over a period of decades rather than billions of years required for the non-intelligent evolutionary model you essentially debunk in your pathetic attempts to bolster?!?!? Scientific blasphemy!!!!!!



I saw a baby last year that has since evolved into a toddler. Proof of evolution. Soon he will be a duck

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

If you'd like a human example:

Modern medicine has allowed humans with severe food allergies to survive longer. Thus, they are able to breed. Food allergies in children has increased 50% between 1997 and 2011.
Source
Therefore, due to advances in modern medicine we are actually evolving to have more instances of severe food allergies.

Now, before you jump all over my source, it does NOT say that modern medicine is the culprit. That is just my personal theory based on how evolution works.

And, if you want to talk about teeth and evolution: WhyTF do we have wisdom teeth that have to be surgically removed because there's not enough room for them? Maybe evolution is driven by intelligent design, maybe it's not. But somewhere along the way smaller skulls/smaller jaws were selected for and the teeth just didn't keep up. I don't know why, I'm not claiming to know. But it is a byproduct of evolution...for whatever reason.

Why do you refuse to entertain the possibility that some other beings spliced us together with an array of genetics...and that is a byproduct of genetic manipulation?

The staunch believer of evolution also have very limited controlled thinking approach to just about everything i have noticed....I will take my genetically advanced imaginations over your EVOLVEMENT .

Because there is no evidence. End of message.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

Gravity is a fact.

Fact. the downward accelerating force for those on earth is consistent and measurable.

Evolution is a fact.

False. The theory of evolution in terms of generating the diversity of life as we know it is not measurable nor has it been proven.

Also, the example in the OP is allele drift. Tusklessness was always present in the population, but environmental stress (poachers) caused tuskless elephants to survive with higher frequency. No new genes were created, it was an alteration in the frequency of already present phenotypes (tusklessness).

the mental gymnastics displayed by evolution deniers in this thread is truly exceptional :

but the gold medal must go to the person who cites the exact scientific definition of evolution - while claiming this is not evolution

and people wonder why i abandoned this thread several pages ago

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the mental gymnastics displayed by evolution deniers in this thread is truly exceptional :

but the gold medal must go to the person who cites the exact scientific definition of evolution - while claiming this is not evolution

and people wonder why i abandoned this thread several pages ago

Allele drift is an observable mechanism that allows populations to adapt. But evolution is not allele drift. What allele drift does not account for is the ability to mutate new useful genes without disrupting the homeostasis exhibited in the original specimen; allele drift can only work with pre-existing genes and therefore could not have generated the diversity of species since it cannot account for new traits. The definition of evolution involves the diversification of all life, which allele drift cannot account for because it cannot create new traits.

In this example, tusklessness was always present in the elephant's gene pool. This is not evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

Here, i'll give you an analogy to help you think your way through this:

To clarify this very important point, let’s use an analogy: Think of the hypothetical “evolution” of a brick arch-bridge. First, there’s no need for a bridge, there is just a pathway. But farms on each side of the pathway want to keep their cows in, so they put up fences. A mild earthquake creates a small crack, but people can still jump over it easily enough. But the crack widens over time, so some fence planks that are no longer needed are taken down and laid across the crack. As the crack widens, the planks begins to sag, so scattered bricks that have fallen from passing wheelbarrows are collected and stacked in columns beneath it for support. Initially, just a few bricks in single column are sufficient, but over time the crack continues to widen and deepen. As a result, gradually more and more stacks of bricks are added so that the supports eventually form a wall, like a dam. Eventually, increasingly heavy water flow through this ever deepening fissure knocks out some of the lower bricks; however, the bridge doesn’t need to be repaired because the upper bricks that used to be supported by these lower ones have now become equally well supported sideways by their ever-pressing neighbors. The lower bricks from the center of the span are allowed to wash away leaving an arch connecting either side of the creek. A creationist then comes along and points out that this must have been designed and built in one event as an arch bridge; after all, an arch bridge is “irreducibly complex”: what good is half and arch? Indeed, what could have held up half an arch? Well, in this case there never was half an arch. There were intermediate structures that served other purposes and worked well enough in their day. At each point in its history the bridge structure was "complete." At each step minor steps were taken for immediate needs using only the materials that were on hand at the time. And at no point was there a grand design, or an end game in mind.

Allele drift is the equivalent of one of those bricks... in time, if tusklessness is continued to be a beneficial trait, then we will see a population of tuskless elephants. As with the bridge, the loss of tusks may lead to a new trait to compensate for no tusks, such as a more agile or dexterous trunk.

Interestingly, recent studies are showing that epigenetic changes occur in somatic cells, especially when under stress, and these changes can be passed to offspring.

To relate that concept to elephant trunks, the loss of tusks which are used for digging to find sustenance, may put pressure on elephants to find new ways to dig. A young entrepreneurial elephant may realise that their trunk can serves almost as good as tusks to dig. So throughout their life, they use their trunk daily for this purpose, that both strengthens and toughens their trunk, which is expressed in epigenetic changes, which are then passed to their offspring. This means their tuskless young are predisposed to digging with their trunk, giving their offspring an advantage over the rest of the tuskless population. Through multiple generations of this, we may see a new type of elephant, with significant trunk differences to tusked elephants. Do this for enough generations, with enough varying environmental changes, and there may be a divergent species eventually emerge.

Allele drift is just one small brick in the wall of evolution.