List of examples of evolution

[Copasetic]

What macro level changes have been observed?

What is a "macro level change" lion? You are just making up words and biology as you go. ALL CHANGES ARE AT THE LEVEL OF THE GENOME. PERIOD. This is genetics 101, if you can't keep--go learn genetics first then come back and talk to us.

Edit: I've written a primer for laymen like you on genetics. Click on my name, go to my 'about me page' and click the topic titled "genetics 101".

What environmental pressures trigger evolutionary mechanisms in a specie? Is extinction one?

Selection is from differential survival and reproduction; the environment (the sum of biotic and abiotic interactions, or niche if you will) is what drives which variation has non-equiprobable chances of survival and reproduction, we've been over that before. For some reason, I suspect you don't really want to hear the answers to your "questions" and would rather just parrot what you've been trained to repeat over and over with your fingers hold up in your ears.

What "evolutionary mechanisms" do you think the environment "triggers"?

Edited March 18, 2012 by Copasetic

[Lion6969]

What about animals facing extinction, why have we not seen them evolve into something else or evolve to survive?

What I mean by macro changes which evolutionist avoid is for example one specie evolving into a whole new distinct specie, has this been observed?

[Lion6969]

Look macro evolution is the logical extension of microevolution basically it's theory to say an accumulation of micro changes lead to the macro ie whole new specie, has it been observed?

[Copasetic]

What about animals facing extinction, why have we not seen them evolve into something else or evolve to survive?

Are you trying to ask why some species go extinct and don't "escape" via evolution?

What I mean by macro changes which evolutionist avoid is for example one specie evolving into a whole new distinct specie, has this been observed?

No. That isn't a "macro" change. Here it is again in case you missed it or your reading skills momentarily left you or you were momentarily struck with blindness. EVOLUTION IS ABOUT THE CHANGE IN GENOMES OVER TIME. SPECIFICALLY ALLELE FREQUENCIES IN POPULATIONS.

Can you please acknowledge you've read that bit there in boldface?

Right after that you can go back to parroting any kind of nonsense you wish, just understand that what you say isn't what biologist say and you speak only for yourself and other creationists with this nonsense.

I covered speciation above. Please go back and read the post. Then acknowledge you've read the post and you can again go back to claiming whatever nonsense you want to about "what evolution says or ought to say" (again so we're clear, understand you don't actually make any claims that biologists or evolution makes).

Look macro evolution is the logical extension of microevolution basically it's theory to say an accumulation of micro changes lead to the macro ie whole new specie, has it been observed?

Incorrect. There is no difference between the two save "time" and that "time" is some subjective human imposition on nature. Millions of years can go by with little "accumulation", what determines "accumulation" is selection acting on populations.

Yes speciation is observable and has been observed. Please go back and read post 39, then follow the links and learn. If you are unwilling to read and educate yourself and would rather remain ignorant then there really isn't much to discuss is there? I can't read for you.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Copasetic

[Lion6969]

It's a straight forward question Copa, what new specie has been observed to have evolved from another, what large changes have been observed? Ie the fish from water evolved to an amphibian, what have you observed change in the same dramatic sense.

As for reading your posts and links and well upto date with that trash, but it's not the point is it!

Rather than belittling anyone who disagrees with evolution as a bible thumping hicks or Quran bashing fundies, that's a little disengenous towards me and others. I'm discussing the claims only on an empirical level, because philosophically it's BS, and illogical? But I will not belittle you as a militant atheist evolutionist!

Speciation, alelle frequencies etc etc, either takes millennia and infinitesimal changes, which was later to be thought to be pure BS and thus theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed, do you adhere to this theory?

[Odin11]

It's a straight forward question Copa, what new specie has been observed to have evolved from another, what large changes have been observed? Ie the fish from water evolved to an amphibian, what have you observed change in the same dramatic sense.

As for reading your posts and links and well upto date with that trash, but it's not the point is it!

Rather than belittling anyone who disagrees with evolution as a bible thumping hicks or Quran bashing fundies, that's a little disengenous towards me and others. I'm discussing the claims only on an empirical level, because philosophically it's BS, and illogical? But I will not belittle you as a militant atheist evolutionist!

Speciation, alelle frequencies etc etc, either takes millennia and infinitesimal changes, which was later to be thought to be pure BS and thus theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed, do you adhere to this theory?

I don't remember where I got this picture, but it does a good job of showing "macro" evolution. But will you read it, or even show that you understand it? Your history tells me that you will not.

[Cybele]

It's a straight forward question Copa, what new specie has been observed to have evolved from another, what large changes have been observed? Ie the fish from water evolved to an amphibian, what have you observed change in the same dramatic sense.

It's a question based on either ignorance or disingenuity. Species don't evolve overnight; most easily observable phenotypic changes that occur take place over thousands or millions of years.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Cybele

[aquatus1]

Lion, that's enough. The process has been explained to you many times, and you continually refuse to acknowledge any of the explanations.

Stop asking questions if you are going to refuse to listen to the answers.

**Back on topic**

Edited March 18, 2012 by aquatus1

[Rlyeh]

But that's not evolution! By your logic, the Austrians and the Kenyans are two different species. They are not. Their differences have nothing to do with evolution. I don't know what you mean by "types of evolution." I'm talking about things like one species evolving into a different species.

So chimpanzees aren't a different species compared to humans?

[None of the above]

Lets all bear in mind that 'creationism' is only a minority view held by a few Christian, Muslim fundamentalists etc.

If it wasn't for the fact that the centre of fundamentalist Christianity happens to be the vocal 'bible belt' in the USA, creationism would get very little attention beyond it's extremist believers.

Let's not forget that most mainstream Christian faiths accept Evolutionary biology verbatim and simply 'work it into' their belief system, usually by making evolution a tool of creation. As for that matter do most other religions.

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution.

Creationists would like to pretend that somehow they represent Christianity as a whole and the argument is simply 'Christains/Creationists' versus godless atheists.

It's just not true.

The truth is that even amongst Christians, creationists are in the decline.

It's just not worth debating.

Lmao!!! I love it when atheists think evolution is their monopoly. Lol

@Lion6969,

I think you've missed the point there.... let me help

The post you quote makes exactly the point that evolution IS recognised as fact by everyone but a small minority of fundamentalists.

Atheists certainly don't have a 'monopoly' on accepting the fact of Evolution. Many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews can also see the obvious and proven truth too.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Atlantia

[CommunitarianKevin]

Lion-You are clearly not serious about the stuff you ask so please stop asking. You clearly have no interests in learning the facts. There is nothing wrong with not believing in evolution just like there is nothing wrong with not being in gravity or not believing the earth rotates around the sun. You can believe whatever you want but understand that accepted scientific theories are going to be taught in science classrooms.

Creationism is not empirically supported and is not logically valid. A valid logical argument involves a conclusion that is derived from premises. This is the typical form of a creationist argument…

Premise 1: God exists

Premise 2: If God exists we would see X

Conclusion: We see X, therefore God exists

This is not logically valid because the conclusion cannot be the same as one of the premises and the conclusion must follow from the premises. “God exists” is not testable or provable therefore the conclusion is not derived from the premises. It is not a logically valid argument.

In addition to that evidence for creation relies on abductive reasoning. An example of abductive reasoning… “The ground is wet, therefore it rained.” The ground being wet was enough proof for them to conclude it rained even though the ground could be wet for any number of reasons. This is similar to Dr. Henry Morris’ argument. He shows abductive reasoning perfectly in his book The Genesis Flood. Dr. Morris has a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in hydraulic engineering. He uses his Ph.D. to say “I know the power of water and I know what water can do.” And his conclusion is “The Grand Canyon could have been formed by the force of the water during the Genesis Flood.” To him the Grand Canyon is evidence and enough proof to validate the Flood, hence God. The problem is the Grand Canyon could have been caused by any number of things, such as a giant unicorn digging its horn into the earth. Another problem is that things, such as the Great Pyramids, predate the Flood (using the timeline given in the Masoretic text, or the young earth creationist timeline.) So the flood had so much force it caused the Grand Canyon, yet it left the pyramids untouched? There several conclusions…Either the Egyptians are better builders than God, your timeline is messed up, or there was no flood. The moral of the story is they ignore the vast amount of evidence and cling to one little piece of “evidence” to support their claim.

Also, as others have stated, most Christians accept evolution as a fact. The majority of “scientists,” and even biologists, believe in a god. Believing in evolution is an atheistic idea. Darwin was not even an atheist and never said evolution disproved God. That idea is one based on ignorance.

All of that leads me to my main reason for this post. If you want to understand things here is a list of sources…

1. The book On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

2. The book The Darwinian Revolution by Michael Ruse

3. After that read On the Origin of Species again

4. The book Bully for Brontosaurus by S. J. Gould

5. The book The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

6. The book Understanding Scientific Reasoning by Giere, Bickle, and Mauldin

7. The documentary Intelligent Design on Trial http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

And because you are such a fan of logic I suggest…

Introduction to Logic: Predicate Logic

Introduction to Logic: Propositional LogicBoth by Howard Pospesel

Any issues PM me…

[karmakazi]

(reason for edit - I posted before reading far enough in!) Edited March 18, 2012 by karmakazi

[Magicjax]

I should have known better then to think that this could get back on topic.

I was really hoping this would be a place to find examples of evolution that have been or can be observed. So others could see these examples and if so desire research and confirm or deny them.

Thanks to the few of you that a actually fallowed the OP.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Magicjax

[None of the above]

I should have known better then to think that this could get back on topic.

I was really hoping this would be a place to find examples of evolution that have been or can be observed. So others could see these examples and if so desire research and confirm or deny them.

Thanks to the few of you that a actually fallowed the OP.

MagicJax.

You asked the question in the 'spirituality Versus Skepticism' section of the forum. If you'd asked a unambiguous question in the science/nature etc section then it might not have been seen as another 'evolution/science Vs literal-creationism' debate.

But be that as it may be, why haven't you come back and discussed the examples mentioned? What about the huge list of transitional fossils for a start?

You haven't thrown out any examples of demonstrated evolutionary processes yourself?

If you don't like the direction that the thread has taken, then as the OP, steer it towards the areas you wish to explore.

I'll throw another one out there for you to look into and discuss.

What do YOU think about the 'so called' rapid evolution observed in some predator reptile species in Australia because of the introduction of cane toads?

Best

Gene

[Magicjax]

The thing is. I admit that I'm not all that educated in this area. It's obvious to me that evolution as I understand it makes a lot of sense. But I started this thread do I and others can read examples and do my own research on them. I feel it's wise to ask questions. Hense, the OP.

I've read about some of the examples shared so far. Such as the goose bumps, third eyelid, tail bone, appendix and whales.

I haven't yet looked into the observed rapid evolution observed in reptiles in Australia. But since you posted the example. I'll look into it.

See how it works? You shared an example. Now I can look into it.

[Alienated Being]

Arguing with a creationist is simply equivocal to attempting the conversion of water into wine - completely, utterly pointless. They refuse to accept the biological and evolutionary evidence that is right in front of them.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Alienated Being

[Magicjax]

After writing my last post I got to thinking. Even with my lack of official education (I never went to college). Evolution just makes sense. And in mind mind at least here's another reason why.

Look at life in earth and it's obvious that various species share common ancestors. Horses and zebras, Ostridge and Emu, hippos and rhinos, orcas and dolphins, squirrels and chipmunks, rats and mice, Komodo dragons and Nile dragons, humans and apes.

I'd imagine if someone where to observe life on this planet for the first time. These observations would be noted and a conclusion of what we call evolution would be reached.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Magicjax

[trancelikestate]

[CommunitarianKevin]

Don't remember if we said this...

Flu vaccine

antibiotic-resistant bacteria

Edited March 19, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[CommunitarianKevin]

After writing my last post I got to thinking. Even with my lack of official education (I never went to college). Evolution just makes sense. And in mind mind at least here's another reason why.

Look at life in earth and it's obvious that various species share common ancestors. Horses and zebras, Ostridge and Emu, hippos and rhinos, orcas and dolphins, squirrels and chipmunks, rats and mice, Komodo dragons and Nile dragons, humans and apes.

I'd imagine if someone where to observe life on this planet for the first time. These observations would be noted and a conclusion of what we call evolution would be reached.

Another point on this. Look at the distribution of things on this earth. The unique creatures on Australia. Creatures on the Galapagos Islands. ALL spieces of lemurs are found on Madagascar only.

[Parsip]

I think one of Lion's questions is interesting, and has always been one of my main problems with the theory of evolution. Do we have proof of one species evolving into a different species? Also, so as not to misunderstand each other, what exactly is a species?

I'd appreciate any civil replies. "Silence, denier!" and other unscientific responses will be ignored.

[trancelikestate]

I think one of Lion's questions is interesting, and has always been one of my main problems with the theory of evolution. Do we have proof of one species evolving into a different species? Also, so as not to misunderstand each other, what exactly is a species?

I'd appreciate any civil replies. "Silence, denier!" and other unscientific responses will be ignored.

look at the picture of the evolution of the horse I posted above. You can't deny the similarities between each step. a "species" is just a label really for a point in a creatures evolution.

[Parsip]

So, what exactly is a species? I mean, at what stage do the offspring become an entirely new species?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Parsip

[CommunitarianKevin]

So, what exactly is a species?

I personally define it as a group that has become too different to reproduce and make fertile offspring together. But it is an ongoing debate to what exactly make something a species. The same goes for the term race.

There are examples of new species being formed in our lifetime. We have seen fish do this. The problem it is hard to observe is most species reproduce too slowly to see the change in our lifetime. It takes thousands or tens of thousands of generations to happen. The best documented experiment dealing with observable evolution is the Lenski experiment. Try googling it, there is tons of info about it.

The point you are missing is microevolution (changes within a species) and macroevolution (change from one species to another) is the same thing. The process is the same, with amount of time being the only difference. The examples I listed above, mutations in the flu virus, are examples of this process. I think for the answer you want you need to address the fossil record because of the time needed.

[CommunitarianKevin]

So, what exactly is a species? I mean, at what stage do the offspring become an entirely new species?

A parent does not give birth to a new species. It is a change in a population that is isolated or selected (sexual selection) that makes it different from the other population. A modern example of fish is in a lake in which a group of fish became isolated in different locations of the lake. The two populations became so different that they are not considered different species. It is not a chicken or the egg argument.

Also I guess I will add that fish are tricky and once again it comes back to the whole what is a species question. I mean I breed fish as a hobby. I breed livebearers, specifically guppies, endlers (which are guppies I suppose,) mollies, platys, and swordtails. Guppies and mollies are different species but they will reproduce together. The same goes for Platys and Swords. But their offspring cannot reproduce and they are not as healthy. So are they a different species?

Edited March 19, 2012 by HuttonEtAl