Proof of evolution! It's all around you!

First lets understand, that evolution is an ongoing process. It didn't just happen all at once, it's always happening, we are still evolving, and always will be (privided we exist).

Now as for proof. It's really hard to view the step by step process of evolution on a large scale of an entire organism, but lets look at the microscopic part of evolution.

Viruses.

How do new strains come about?

They evolve! Molecular evolution (the evolution of molecules) is a fascinating area of evolution and of prime concern to any scientist wanting to understand viruses and how they spread. All genetic material can mutate, that is change its nucleic acids. The mutations are random, but their selection is not. "Selection" is another word for how well they survive and reproduce. Selection ensures that the mutations that increase a virus' ability to survive and reproduce will be represented in even greater numbers in the next generation. Mutations are the "fuel" for evolution because they provide the genetic variation on which selection acts. This is simply Darwin's old theory of evolution by means of natural selection, but on a microscopic scale.
www.synapses.co.uk...

I don't think anyone here can claim that viruses do NOT mutate without being laughed off the board as an idiot. So we agree that viruses mutate right? Hence, the worries of avian flu...and why you'll never see a flu vaccine. Ok, we agree viruses mutate now right?

When the body develops a defense against a virus/bacteria etc, antibodies can detect it and help fight it off. When it mutates, they can no longer detect it. Therefore, the old strain begins to fade away, while the new mutated one, that cannot be detected, spreads like wild fire.

So, while the mutation may be random, (and virsues etc mutate more than anything else, because they NEED to in order to survive), the ability for the new strain to outlive the old one, and therefore be part of "natural selection", gives this entire process the characteristic of what we call EVOLUTION.

The same thing happened to all large scale organisms. We are always changing, whether for the good or the bad, but usually only the good mutations survive.

So, do we agree that:
a) viruses mutate
b) the mutation allows the new strain to live and thrive, while the old one either fades off or just exists on a much smaller scale
c) the combination of the above two characteristics define evolution etc.

I ask, DO we agree, because although it seems evident to me and many other people, it may not to some, and I'd like your CONSTRUCTIVE input on this.

If anyone wants to claim that God is always mutating these viruses so that they can kill off humans/other animals, that I'd just like to say you have a wonderful God that you worship

So in conclusion, virsues/bacteria evolve, why can't any other organisms? It's just easier to see in viruses, because they have to evolove much faster in order to survive!

Mod Edit for ex tags

please review this link
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8-4-2006 by masqua]


Mod Edit: CAPS in title

[edit on 12-4-2006 by kinglizard]

Great point finally some real proof from a non-biased website. I've always wonderd, is the change from wild dogs and wolfs to our varied breeds of domestic dogs a form of evolution? Same thing with wild cats to domestic cats?

[edit on 8-4-2006 by edwardteach]

It's a form of selection. I read about a study done years ago, where they had a an entire pack of foxes I believe. Most foxes are really shy etc, and not too friendly/close with humans. However, what they did was, they selected a few of the friendliest foxes out of the entire group, and kept them. They then breeded them, and out of the foxes they got from that, they again, selected only a few of the friendliest/non shy foxes. They did this over and over and over, until finally all of the foxes being produced were just as friendly as your average domestic dog.

The same could be said for domestic dogs. Humans only really kept/breeded the friendly dogs, what happens if you have a dog that's really vicious? Most people get rid of it and put it down. This has helped lead to the domestic dog that we now know.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

Sorry!!!, correction! Yes, you do see vaccines for the flu. However, it's usually only effective for a short period of time, because a new evolved form of the flu comes around, which your vaccine is ineffective against.

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx

The same could be said for domestic dogs. Humans only really kept/breeded the friendly dogs, what happens if you have a dog that's really vicious? Most people get rid of it and put it down. This has helped lead to the domestic dog that we now know.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by xxvalheruxx]

Thanks for the info! That is really cool about the foxes, ive always wanted a friendly pet fox. (after seeing that cartoon movie "the fox and the hound" when i was like 4)

So nobody has anything to say about this? I guess we all agree it's true then?

I do not dispute that evolution happens, I dispute that Evolution happens (and yes, there is a differance).

In evolution there are mutation and changes, but a dog is still a dog and a flu virus is still a flu virus. In Evolution you go from a microbe becoming a human, and I see NO evidence of that.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
I do not dispute that evolution happens, I dispute that Evolution happens (and yes, there is a differance).

In evolution there are mutation and changes, but a dog is still a dog and a flu virus is still a flu virus. In Evolution you go from a microbe becoming a human, and I see NO evidence of that.

So we need to ask - where did homo Sapien come from? Why all the evidence of progressive macroevolution? What is the boundary that restricts macroevolution?

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
In Evolution you go from a microbe becoming a human, and I see NO evidence of that.

Try pulling your... I mean try opening your eyes

Originally posted by edwardteach
Try pulling your... I mean try opening your eyes

I have. And there is NO evidence of Evolution. All the evidence points to is evolution.

Have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human? What, pray tell, am I supposed to be looking at? Give me decent "evidence" an I will be happy to look at it. Until then, why don't you open your mind.

I mean, even Darwin didn't believe in Macro-evolution, only Micro-evolution.

[edit on 4/13/2006 by SwitchbladeNGC]

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
Have you ever seen a monkey give birth to a human? What, pray tell, am I supposed to be looking at? Give me decent "evidence" an I will be happy to look at it. Until then, why don't you open your mind.

I mean, even Darwin didn't believe in Macro-evolution, only Micro-evolution.

[edit on 4/13/2006 by SwitchbladeNGC]

Only the misinformed believe that ToE suggests a monkey ever gave birth to a human.

If you really want to learn about ToE. Watch the recent seminar by the geneticist Steve Jones...

www.royalsoc.ac.uk...

It's about an hour but it will help you understand what the current theory is, rather than the tripe that circulates. You don't have to believe it, but at least learn what it is about. It will even tell you how Darwin formed his theory and what he did believe.

Originally posted by melatonin
Only the misinformed believe that ToE suggests a monkey ever gave birth to a human.

I know it doesn't state thata monkey gave birth to a human, that was an oversimplification. My point is, you never see one species give birth to another species (and for Evolution to work that has to happen eventually)

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
I know it doesn't state thata monkey gave birth to a human, that was an oversimplification. My point is, you never see one species give birth to another species (and for Evolution to work that has to happen eventually)

Again, no, ToE states that a population will change over time. If we have two populations of the same monkey. One becomes separated for some reason, both groups will change over time (what you call 'evolution'). It is possible that with enough time these groups will diverge enough genetically, that if they are brought together, they will not be able to inter-breed, therefore we have separate species (speciaton). Over million year periods, they may well become very different - as different as a monkey and a human (what you would call 'Evolution').

As I said, if you are willing to learn watch the seminar - no need to discard/change belief but at least attempt to learn what it is all about.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
It is possible that with enough time these groups will diverge enough genetically, that if they are brought together, they will not be able to inter-breed, therefore we have separate species (speciaton).

Do you have any "proof" of this or is it all speculation? I mean, the title clearly states that the "proof" is all around us. Yet, as I stated, the "proof" is for micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
Do you have any "proof" of this or is it all speculation? I mean, the title clearly states that the "proof" is all around us. Yet, as I stated, the "proof" is for micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution.

speciation has been observed both in the wild and lab. Now if you're prepared to wait, hmmmm, maybe 20million years, we might be able to demonstrate, what you call, 'macroevolution' for you.

What you could tell me is what stops macroevolution?

[edit on 14-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx
So nobody has anything to say about this? I guess we all agree it's true then?

We are all in agreement. Evolution good. Creationism bad.

Originally posted by melatonin
So we need to ask - where did homo Sapien come from? Why all the evidence of progressive macroevolution? What is the boundary that restricts macroevolution?

The boundary that restricts macroevolution is the complexity of reproduction. Generally, if a species experiences a significant change or mutation in its DNA, it usually isn't able to reproduce any longer with members of its own species, so it dies out. But it's not an insurmountable barrier. It all depends on how the mutation is created. In most cases, retroviruses cause big mutations, since they can enter a cell, modify the DNA, and not kill the cell. If the mutations don't have a significant impact on reproductive systems (limited mutation), and a male and female both experience the same limited mutation, then it might be possible for them to reproduce, creating a significant divergence which can then micromutate into a separate species. Some of it happens fast, some slow.

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by xxvalheruxx
So nobody has anything to say about this? I guess we all agree it's true then?

We are all in agreement. Evolution good. Creationism bad.

Ummmm..... No?

Not sure about the virus mutating - is it better understood as adaption? I don't believe that any new genetic info is added in such examples - just a recombination of existing information.