It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Modern-Day Evolution in the making

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I've read many threads on Evolution and Creationism here on ATS, and I think I'll throw my hat into the ring now. I came across a few articles that I think are very interesting and show recent evolutionary changes in animals. I would like to know how those who say the theory of evolution is false respond to recent evidence of evolution.

The first article can be found here.



from the article Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes on LiveScience.com

For the first time scientists have observed in real-time evolutionary changes in one species driven by competition for resources from another.

In a mere two decades, one of Charles Darwin's finch species, Geospiza fortis, reduced its beak size to better equip itself to consume small sized seeds, scientists report in the July 14 issue of the journal Science.

"It's a very important one in studies of evolution because it shows that species interact for food and undergo evolutionary change, which minimizes further evolution," Grant said. 'It has not been possible to observe the whole process from start to finish in nature."


The finches had to evolve a smaller beak in order to survive on Galapagos Island, and the did it recently with researchers watching. That's pretty good proof for evolution don't you think?

And for the skeptics, here's another article. This time it's about a mussel.



From the article Mussels Evolve in an Evolutionary Heartbeat on LiveScience.com

Some 15 years ago, blue mussels knew their enemies and had a rather peaceful life in the New England waters. But when an invasive crab species turned up, the mussels moved quickly to defend themselves against this new predator by thickening their shells.

Such rapid evolutionary response is a "nanosecond" compared with the thousands of years that it normally takes for a species to respond to a predator.


So, given this evidence of modern-day evolution I'd like to hear what you all think about it. Even with evidence in front of you showing that evolution has happened recently and has been documented, will there be some that say evolution is a false theory?

~~~~~~~~
edit to include 'ex' tags





[edit on 15-8-2006 by masqua]




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Creationism(aka id): 0
Darwin...
well he's lost count now

hooray for science. now if only people could see that these snakes on my plane are evidence of evolution...

great find jenna!



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I could care less one way or the other on the whole God/science debate(as it doesn't really affect my life or ever will), but who is to say that evolution is not God's way of creation? It would be pretty pathetic if God( a super being) made beings/animals that simply could not adapt to thier environments, which are always in a state of change. Nothing would be able to live outside its original placement in the environment on earth.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by LordBaskettIV]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I am interested in modern human evolution, given that our species has always, like the animals the poster listed, changed to adapt to food needs.

Our ancestors grew more inteligent with bigger brains because they needed larger amounts of protien in their diet, that eventually led to current modern humans. Now, in these modern times we don't even eat real food, we eat chemicals and various acids, compounds.. you can't even go to a drive through and get real meat anymore.. ever break open a chicken nugget at windys?? Chicken should not look like that, ever! .. ever leave a frosty in your car in 90 degree plus temps?? It hardly melts.. forms a foam sticky mess... what the hell are we eating anymore......?

I am interested in anyone who knows anything about evolution/science to explain the possibilties that this will have on our evolution. Will we get stupid? Smarter? Taller? Be able to one day fully digest the keyboard I am typing on????



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
I could care less one way or the other on the whole God/science debate(as it doesn't really affect my life or ever will), but who is to say that evolution is not God's way of creation? It would be pretty pathetic if God( a super being) made beings/animals that simply could not adapt to thier environments, which are always in a state of change. Nothing would be able to live outside its original placement in the environment on earth.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by LordBaskettIV]


Indeed. I've hear some philosophers say that evolution is the hand and imagination of God.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
You know ... this is kind of interesting. Try going back in time, just 400 years ago and mention that evolution was god's way of creating... You'd have a sure fire way of getting yourself burned at the stake, then hung, then stoned, then thrown to a pack of wild dogs. Religion has no choice but to accept and adopt the facts and attempt to integrate it into it's belief structure. Seriously, these kind of comments today would've gotten you killed just for suggesting them. If there is a god, you should thank him that religion isn't supreme law of the land anymore!



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Evolutionism vs. creationism are 2 "isms" competing for the lead. Yes, there is evidence of ADAPTABILITY in pretty much all life forms. Those that don't adapt die. Check out all the now extinct species of plants and animals that couldn't/didn't adapt to mans' invasion of their space. There is no evidence whatsoever that one species EVOLVES into another species. The finches are still finches-just with smaller beaks. The mussels are still mussels-just with thicker shells. All of the so-called "missing links" showing mans evolution from ape-like being to homosapien have either been proven to be hoaxes or just bad science.
Two questions I'd like to pose to the evolutionists: 1) If Newtons' LAW (not theory) stating that all things go from a higher state to a lower state of being is true (and it is a LAW having BEEN proven) then how could evolutionism also be true? 2) If for as long as recorded history has been around we have sent our best off to be killed in wars and allowed the weaker, genetically flawed to breed, rounded up the independent thinkers and intellectuals to be sacrificed to the latest political coup, how has "survival of the fittest" occured? Wouldn't it be survival of the most ruthless? Are we not devolving rather than evolving? (More than 2 questions, I know).



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
here is another thread that has to do with that same article. thread



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
expect to see people with less teeth and smaller jaw bones in the next 20 - 50 years. Slowly our features will become more pointed, our chins narrowing as we have the need to chew less raw meat and produce. Its happening now as we type and live our lives.

I'll look for the article, but compared to even 100 years ago the size and shape of mans skull has changed a dramatic amount. I side with evolution every time, because thats the way God made it.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Sure, it's "evolution" with a small "e", also known as specific adaption. Please don't try to show this as proof of "Evolution" with a large "E", i.e. one-celled plants evolving into Man.

The finches are still finches, albeit with smaller bills. The mussels are still mussels, just with thicker shells.

When the mussels are walking ashore on legs and the birds are using their opposable thumbs to build spacecraft, then we can talk capital "e" evolution.


Urn

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
If Newtons' LAW (not theory) stating that all things go from a higher state to a lower state of being is true (and it is a LAW having BEEN proven) then how could evolutionism also be true?


correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you are reffering to the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy must always increase in a closed system. if this is indeed what you are reffering to, it only apllies to a closed system. the earth is not a closed system, but the universe as a whole (as far as we know) is.


Originally posted by whitewave
If for as long as recorded history has been around we have sent our best off to be killed in wars and allowed the weaker, genetically flawed to breed, rounded up the independent thinkers and intellectuals to be sacrificed to the latest political coup, how has "survival of the fittest" occured? Wouldn't it be survival of the most ruthless? Are we not devolving rather than evolving? (More than 2 questions, I know).


the process of evolution doesn't choose any sort of "direction" in which to progress. whatever genes (good or bad) survive, and/or allow an individual to procreate (for what ever reason) more than competing members of the species, get passed on, simple as that.

if that meens the species as a whole gets weaker, or less inteligent, then so be it. as long as those genes are being passed on to future generations, then they will stay in the gene pool.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
if weaker and bad genes get passed on predominantly, how do we evolve into higher life forms? wouldn't we devolve from higher life forms to less "evolved" life forms? also, I apologize. I thought the earth was part of the universe. what was i thinking?


Urn

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
if weaker and bad genes get passed on predominantly, how do we evolve into higher life forms? wouldn't we devolve from higher life forms to less "evolved" life forms?

look at flightless birds for example, it would probably be advantageous under almost any sercumtance for a bird to have the ability to fly,but they lost the ability over time due to the fact that they could survive in their environmental niche (for whatever reason) without that ability. so if a bird hatched with a lame wing, it could still survive to mate and pass that gene onto its offspring. given enough time that gene would work it's way through the entire population resulting in an entire species of flightless bird.
are those birds weaker, or less fit than their ancsesters? does it matter? no, they can survive that way...thats all that counts.

Originally posted by whitewave also, I apologize. I thought the earth was part of the universe. what was i thinking?

the overall entropy of the universe is increasing, but the earth itself is not a closed system, it is constantly being bombarded by energy from the sun. once the sun burns out, then it will essentially (for all intents and purposes) be a closed system.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Urn]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Urn,
Sorry to leave ya hanging there. I was off debating some other topic on another site.
In Matt Ridley's book "Genome" he states, If you still thought evolution was about the good of the species, stop thinking so right now. (page 113) He goes into a lengthy discourse about the genetic "war" being fought among many species; humans included. Of especial interest for the purpose of this discussion is his reference to the DAX gene found on the X chromosome and SRY gene on the Y chromosome. the DAX gene is "poisoning" Y chromosomes (this is the language and terms that the scientists are using-I'm not embellishing).
In the butterfly Acrea encedon the sex ratio is ninety-seven percent female as a result of this sort of genetic war. Just one of many cases known of this form of "evolutionary" conflict, known as sex-chromosome drive. Most known instances are confined to insects, but only because scientists have looked more closely at insects. The Y chromosome has shed as many genes as possible and shut down the rest. So effectively has the human Y chromosome shut down most of its genes that the great bulk of its length consists of none-coding DNA, serving no purpose at all-but giving few targets for the X chromosome genes to aim at. (above excerpts taken from GENOME)
The point of the examples given is that if we (or any species) continue to pass on altered genetic material a point will be reached where it is no longer possible to breed. At that point zero adaptable traits will be passed on.
The above mentioned butterfly is in danger of extinction because they have "naturally selected" and "adapted" themselves out of matable males. Nor have they "evolved" into some other life form (higher or lower) that is a result of those genetic changes.

FYI: a similar situation is occuring among homosapiens.
(Dang! Now I'll never get a date!)




top topics



 
0

log in

join