Modern proof of evolution.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't have to hold my feet to the fire LL

That must make things easier for you.

I am not claiming religion is a science.

Right. You submitted that religion doesn't have proof earlier. We are on the same page there.

I am asking for the evidence

Noted. I already addressed that. I don't care that you don't believe in evolution. Other people here are expressing some interest in educating you. Personally I think you should enroll in some courses at your community college.

I want proof elephants evolve into whales

...if not community college then look into MOOC. Plenty of related courses for free.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Micro evolution and macro, I want proof elephants evolve into whales

A mama elephant isn't just going to spontaneously poop out a whale baby.

But...
let's say there's some environmental factor- lack of food- that pushes elephant populations to the coast. And lets say there's a food source in the shallows. Then the individual elephants who happen to be born with mutations that somehow benefit them in the water would be more likely to survive longer and breed with each other. Lets say elephants with longer trunks are more likely to get caught and killed by predators, so over the course of multiple generations shorter trunks are selected for. In deeper water there is less predators and more food, so the populations continue to expand into deeper water. Excess skin on the legs and shorter, fin like appendages allow them to be more successful in their new aquatic environment. Over hundreds and thousands of years the population would much closer resemble a whale than what we currently know to be an elephant. And, as Lucid Lunacy stated, there would eventually be a point where the difference between the two would be so great that the new aquatic line would be unable to breed with the original terrestrial line. Thus, at that point it's a new species.

Evolution is a series of incremental changes. It doesn't happen overnight. Especially if we're talking about the development of a new species. My OP gives a pretty clear example of a specific trait being selected for. Since it's one trait and not a change into a whole new species we're able to observe it in a lifetime.

Unsuccessful traits are selected against in a similar fashion. Albino animals are so rare because they're easily spotted by predators. So they're not around to breed and increase the instance of a recessive gene like that in their population.

Another human example that has both pros and cons: Sickle cell. Black people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell. Their ancestors hailed from more tropic regions where mosquitos carrying malaria are. Sickle cell helps protect against malaria, so it was a trait that was selected for. Not on purpose, of course, but individuals that carried that mutation survived longed than individuals coming down with malaria. But sickle cell also causes all sorts of other health problems, so it's not always as cut and dry as "good trait more of this" "bad trait less of that". Sometimes mutations help in one area but cause problems in another.
Sickle Cell

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Raggedyman

Seeing as you're so adamant about denying reality, what do you propose is the explanation for biodiversity on this planet?

I know
I can make up a theory
Make it out scientific, get it published

The problem GH is the theory of evolution is stupid, it's ludicrous, it's not science, even science admits that evolution is stupid
I am not denying reality, if it's reality, show the empirical evidence
You show me the proof, not just pretty pictures but proof that evolution is real.

My opinion about how is irrelevant, just pointing out how stupid believing in evolution is
Your argument is silly, just because it's your only choice doesn't make it true, you are in a corner so have to have faith in evolution.
I don't need to so I can mock your religion and question the pseudoscience

Elephants tusks, again, just stupid
It's not evolution, it's an elephant with out tusks.
Where is the proof

You want to win the argument, show the evidence

a reply to: Raggedyman

You didn't even attempt to answer my question.

You want to win the argument, show the evidence

If there is to be an argument, there needs to be another side to the argument.

What do you propose is the explanation for biodiversity on this planet?

a reply to: Raggedyman

even science admits that evolution is stupid

Then why is it the consensus among scientists that evolution isn't 'stupid'? Evolution is the bedrock of biology.



98 percent.

a reply to: GetHyped

Raggedyman: Evolution is BS, show me proof.

Everyone on this thread: Here's X, Y, Z. Here's exactly how it works.

Rageddyman: Evolution is stupid.


SMDH. Obviously folks like him just refuse to even consider the possibility. I created this thread for those who are open minded, on the fence and wanting a clear contemporary example. Whatevs, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what other people believe, I just thought this article was fascinating. Kind of sad that tusks are being bred out, big bull elephants with huge tusks are cool! I'm skeptical about genetic engineering, but it would be super rad for them to bring back a population of wooly mammoths!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



If I were to tell you that these 2 people are separate species, how would you prove me wrong?

a reply to: Bone75

Perhaps you would like to offer up the explanation for the other side of the argument?

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bone75

Perhaps you would like to offer up the explanation for the other side of the argument?

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Lack of a better explanation doesn't make yours correct.

a reply to: Bone75

That's not the question I asked.

Why is it that those who deny the science of evolution are so shy to answer such a simple question?

originally posted by: Bone75

If I were to tell you that these 2 people are separate species, how would you prove me wrong?

DNA.

Definition of Species
As this article demonstrates, even scientists can debate how to define species. Nature is an infinite spectrum and sometimes you just have to settle on where to draw the line on things.

Generally speaking, two separate species can not interbreed. A dwarf and a giant are both Homo sapiens so even though they have outlying genetic mutations they would be able to breed and produce offspring.

Like everything else in the universe, there are exceptions to this rule:
horse + donkey = mule

Put simply, a donkey is the descendant of the African wild ass (of which there are only about 500 left in the wild today). Donkeys are a different species than a horse, but in the same family. They were originally bred in Egypt or Mesopotamia around 5,000 years ago.

So, the main difference between a donkey, mule, and a horse is genetics. Horses have 64 chromosomes; donkeys have 62, leaving the mule and hinny with 63. This mismatch in pairs leaves the mule and hinny almost always sterile, though there have been about 60 recorded instances of a female mule able to conceive with a horse or donkey.

So here's an instance where different species are able to interbreed, but the result is almost always sterile.

The paths of evolution are littered with the 'corpses' of failed species lines.

If you had a colony of human dwarfs and a colony of human giants and they each separately bred for several generations you would most likely eventually end up with separate human species that were unable to breed with each other.

Here's a human example that's an exception to the rule, you evolution deniers are going to LOVE this one:
Neanderthals interbred with Homo sapiens
At some point in our history modern humans managed to breed with Neanderthals even though there's enough difference between the two to consider them different species.

a reply to: GetHyped

people aren't denying the science of evolution, they are denying the non science. the part that isn't empirical, iow,the part that is religious belief.

jaden

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bone75

That's not the question I asked.

Why is it that those who deny the science of evolution are so shy to answer such a simple question?

Here's a "simple" question for you... how many known species are on this planet?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

how about an alternate explanation. there were no distinct differences between homosapien and neanderthal. scientists made the # up and then when they found the same dna in both modern humans and neanderthal, they made the # about interbreeding up to explain why.

people would be amazed about how much science has had wrong and continue to have wrong and make worse to maintain the paradigm s.


jaden

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Bone75

That's not the question I asked.

Why is it that those who deny the science of evolution are so shy to answer such a simple question?

Here's a "simple" question for you... how many known species are on this planet?

Yet again, you refuse to answer a simple question.

Why is that? Why are you so shy of answering the question?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

people aren't denying the science of evolution, they are denying the non science. the part that isn't empirical, iow,the part that is religious belief.

jaden

Would you care to answer the simple question:

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

originally posted by: GetHyped

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Define species.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: GetHyped

If genetic change sorted by natural selection isn't responsible for biodiversity, how do you explain all of the different species, past and present?

Define species.

Wow, you really are bending backwards to avoid the question.

Ok, I'll make it even easier: what is your explanation for the variety of lifeforms on this planet? Did they all appear at once? If so, when?

a reply to: Masterjaden

I'm not saying science is perfect and always right. And even one of my above linked articles shows how scientists are still debating about what exactly defines a species.

But to say there was no distinct difference between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is just plain silly.

First of all, scientists have found and mapped actual Neanderthal DNA:
Ancient DNA
So it's a fact that it is different from ours, not just a wild guess.

And even without the proof of DNA mapping, there's pretty obvious physiological differences:


I mean, it's not like there is only one Neanderthal skeleton in existence and there's a possibility that the one individual was a mutated Homo sapiens.

To date there have been over 400 Neanderthal skeletons discovered, and recorded. Amadee and Jean Bouyssonie and L. Bardon discovered the first relatively complete skeleton of a male Neanderthal in 1908, in France. It was nicknamed, "the old man of La Chapelle" and was estimated to be ~60,000 years old.

When 400 skeletons all dating around the same time all share similar traits that we don't have I think it's safe to say they're not the same as us.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

So I and my son's eat medium rare meat...that mean's my grandchildren should be born with incisor's and canine's and no molar's.

because

They aren't consciously breeding for these traits

I see...it's all as clear as mud.

Funny thing though, my grandparent's and the wifes ate more veggies than us...therefore my children should not have had incisors to begin with.

Your op title should lose the word "proof"

That's you making decisions in your environment, not you environment affecting you. In terms of evolution it would be more along the lines of, if 100% of our diet suddenly became meat, then the humans most adapted to eating meat would pass along more genes, and eventually there would be more humans that are closer to carnivores.

The speed at which evolution takes place is proportional to how quickly you reproduce though. So animals like humans which reproduce slowly (elephants too) will evolve much slower than something like a virus which reproduces every 20 minutes.