Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
"That's not evolution! It's adaptation! They are totally different, I swear!!"

They are different. When I go to the rocky mountains my 2,3-BPG Blood levels adjusts to help acclimate to the changing levels of oxygen, this is my body adapting to the environment. Adaptation is not the same as evolution.

You just don't know when to pack it in, do you?

Long term adaption of populations IS evolution. How can you possibly reference something that only affects 1 individual during their lifetime (your blood oxygen claim above), when the study itself is in reference to entire populations changing over time? Time to move on. You aren't addressing evidence, you are making stuff up.

the act of adapting.
2.
the state of being adapted; adjustment.
3.
something produced by adapting:
an adaptation of a play for television.
4.
Biology.

- any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
- a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
- the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, especially because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

5.
Physiology. the decrease in response of sensory receptor organs, as those of vision, touch, temperature, olfaction, audition, and pain, to changed, constantly applied, environmental conditions.
6.
Ophthalmology. the regulating by the pupil of the quantity of light entering the eye.
7.

Yes, adaptation is part of evolution. This fact will not change, no matter how many times, you try to equivocate differing definitions as the same.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
"That's not evolution! It's adaptation! They are totally different, I swear!!"

They are different. When I go to the rocky mountains my 2,3-BPG Blood levels adjusts to help acclimate to the changing levels of oxygen, this is my body adapting to the environment. Adaptation is not the same as evolution.

And yet, your Physiological responses at elevations of more than 13,000 ft above sea level will be nowhere near as efficient as for example, a Tibetan who possesses the proper mutation on EPAS1, the gene thst regulates transportation of hemoglobin. You are making a very slight, short term adjustment whereas 90% of native Tibetan(and Denisocan) are born with this beneficial mutation which allows them not just to survive, but to thrive in an environment and ecological niche that would be hostile to the vast majority of HSS

originally posted by: cooperton
They are different. When I go to the rocky mountains my 2,3-BPG Blood levels adjusts to help acclimate to the changing levels of oxygen, this is my body adapting to the environment. Adaptation is not the same as evolution.

Sure, but when your grand-grand-grand kids get permanent changes.... it's called... wait... evolution!

en.wikipedia.org...

High-altitude adaptation in humans is an instance of evolutionary modification in human populations in Tibet, the Andes and Ethiopia, who have acquired the ability to survive at extremely high altitudes. The phrase is used to signify irreversible, long-term physiological responses to high-altitude environments, associated with heritable behavioural and genetic changes. While the rest of human population would suffer serious health consequences, these native inhabitants thrive well in the highest parts of the world. These people have undergone extensive physiological and genetic changes, particularly in the regulatory systems of respiration and circulation, when compared to the general lowland population.[1][2] This special adaptation is now recognised as a clear example of natural selection in action.[3] In fact, the adaptation account of the Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years.[4][5][6]

Thank you for pointing for good example of recent evolutionary changes in humans. This is clear evidence for evolution and quite visible and explainable! Also, note how people who live at different location got different kind of changes, also effected by time they migrated to given area.


This was fail on your account, what's next?!

a reply to: cooperton

guess why you do that? because millions of years ago, a fish like ancestor had the right kind of mutations to withstand the change in air pressure via the adaptations in what would become lungs.

oh yeah... evolution!

in the words of peter currie, humans are just modified fish.

originally posted by: peter vlar


And yet, your Physiological responses at elevations of more than 13,000 ft above sea level will be nowhere near as efficient as for example, a Tibetan who possesses the proper mutation on EPAS1, the gene thst regulates transportation of hemoglobin. You are making a very slight, short term adjustment whereas 90% of native Tibetan(and Denisocan) are born with this beneficial mutation which allows them not just to survive, but to thrive in an environment and ecological niche that would be hostile to the vast majority of HSS

Source please?

But, you're saying these tibetans are evolved? They're still homo sapiens. What you're describing is similar to the loss in skin pigmentation for those who migrated north (less annual sunlight, less required skin pigment) Map of Skin Pigmentation. Using your same logic, you are saying these northern folks who mutated to have paler skin are evolved? Humans are still humans. Fish are still fish. Assuming these adaptive mechanisms can gradually accumulate to the point of "evolving", for example, a fish into an amphibian, is exactly that... an assumption.

originally posted by: thedigirati
well the OP wanted proof, it came out today; Here ya go


evolution in real time


enjoy the read

bumping because this is exactly what the thread title asks for. you can all go home now.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

evolution in real time

bumping because this is exactly what the thread title asks for. you can all go home now.

Guppies were still guppies, how is this evidence for evolution? Oh, because a scientist says so... *puts head back in sand*

a reply to: cooperton

you are quite welcome to spend the money and time to educate yourself and then prove the study wrong. or is that just too much effort? I am an evolved mutation and I can prove it. both of my parents and siblings were between 5'8 and 5'10, I am 6'4, that is a mutation in height, not an adaptation. I was also the last born, I was a "preemie" when born I was 3lbs 4oz and 22 inches long. all of my sibling birth weights where in the "normal" range.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

evolution in real time

bumping because this is exactly what the thread title asks for. you can all go home now.

Guppies were still guppies, how is this evidence for evolution? Oh, because a scientist says so... *puts head back in sand*

"how is this evidence for dragons and satan? oh, because bronze age literature says so."

try actually READING the article. your refusal to absorb information is not a refutation of the information itself. you seem to confuse the two an awful lot. and if you read the article and still disagree with its conclusion, the solution is still fairly simple: design an experiment to prove the article incorrect. but until you do, dont expect any of us to take your word for it.

originally posted by: cooperton
But, you're saying these tibetans are evolved? They're still homo sapiens.

After all this time, you still haven't the foggiest about how evolution works. Everything is constantly evolving. Your statement is nonsensical. Nobody is "more evolved" than another person or species, they are better adapted to a different environment. A population can experience genetic mutations and natural selection without changing species.

Using your same logic, you are saying these northern folks who mutated to have paler skin are evolved? Humans are still humans. Fish are still fish. Assuming these adaptive mechanisms can gradually accumulate to the point of "evolving", for example, a fish into an amphibian, is exactly that... an assumption.

Define human.

Define fish.

There are hundreds of thousands of species of fish. Fish isn't a species, and how do you explain the fish that have been discovered with legs or leg remnants? There are also dozens of species of human as well. If a species changes, then the species changes. There is no assumption involved in claiming that a process that has been proven to show small changes won't continue and show more changes over more time. Why would it stop?

Guppies were still guppies, how is this evidence for evolution? Oh, because a scientist says so... *puts head back in sand*

Because they changed species as a result of genetic mutations and natural selection as documented in the study. Do you deny this? It is textbook evolution, denying this is lunacy.

You are just Mr false claim in this thread. Keep em coming. Keep showing that ignorance arguing against something you don't even know that basics about.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar


And yet, your Physiological responses at elevations of more than 13,000 ft above sea level will be nowhere near as efficient as for example, a Tibetan who possesses the proper mutation on EPAS1, the gene thst regulates transportation of hemoglobin. You are making a very slight, short term adjustment whereas 90% of native Tibetan(and Denisocan) are born with this beneficial mutation which allows them not just to survive, but to thrive in an environment and ecological niche that would be hostile to the vast majority of HSS

Source please?

en.wikipedia.org...

news.sciencemag.org...

www.nature.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

But, you're saying these tibetans are evolved?

Yes. A positive mutation that allows them to survive within a specific ecological niche has been added to and expressed in the gene pool at a rate of 90% of the population. and in outside populations, this mutation is in approximately 10% of the local Han Chinese population from which the Tibetan population split off from 2950 (+/-) BP

They're still homo sapiens.

And...?

What you're describing is similar to the loss in skin pigmentation for those who migrated north (less annual sunlight, less required skin pigment) Map of Skin Pigmentation. Using your same logic, you are saying these northern folks who mutated to have paler skin are evolved?

I'm saying that a mutation, that was beneficial to their survival, was selected for and passed down through generations until it became an important, necessary factor in the survivability of these particular populations within their ecological niches.

Humans are still humans. Fish are still fish.

And you seemingly, despite taking part in a number of these conversations, are still willfully ignorant as to what evolution actually is. You still don't even understand what the most basic tenets of evolution actually are despite being so adamantly against it.

To "evolve" does not mean one has to become a fully functional, brand new species incapable of breeding with its predecessors. Evolution, in the most simplified explanation, is a measurement of changes in allele frequency over time. What exactly is it that YOU believe defines evolution? It is after all YOU, who keeps circling back 'round to what I think constitutes 'evolved'.

Assuming these adaptive mechanisms can gradually accumulate to the point of "evolving", for example, a fish into an amphibian, is exactly that... an assumption.

No, its not an assumption. it's a fact and one that is detectable and measurable within various genetic codes. That you refuse to even understand the basics of what evolution is let alone learn further about the intricacies is rather telling and also discouraging because normally I'm all for trying to share what I've learned but honestly, what would the point be if someone keeps demonstrating willful ignorance?

a reply to: peter vlar

None of that matters. He has pictures on the internet, which obviously trump any and all scientific research.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: vethumanbeing

vhb:
I know this; would not want you in the audience of any of my star performers at the "Chuckle Hut Café and Review" improve venue. They would have to arm themselves with nerf balls to combat your jeers. I will give you a free ticket to mend a misunderstanding.

rnaa:I assume by that post that you are trying to say you were joking, perhaps sarcastic. OK, fine. I didn't get it. My suggestion would be that you not give up your day job.

Mine is 24-7 as I am the creator of the universe (who would take my place if I suddenly cashed it all in/retired). This job does not have a 401K attached or stock option benefits I could sell. Apparently I did not see the future trends and will (now, thanks to you) be known as the WORST job offer [accepted] negotiator ever.

originally posted by: peter vlar
What exactly is it that YOU believe defines evolution? It is after all YOU, who keeps circling back 'round to what I think constitutes 'evolved'.

According to the theory, it is the process by which the diversity of life arose from beneficial mutations leading to an organism being more fit for the environment and thus having increased "fitness". My problem isn't so much with evolution, because the data does make us assume that it would be possible (remember, its a theory) for the observable adaptive mechanisms to be able to accumulate in a fashion that ultimately gave rise to the great diversity of life. Rather, my main issue is with abiogenesis; life from non-life.

I know this has nothing to do with evolution, but if evolution is true, we are left with this problem: how did life occur from non-life? How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins??? Do you see the issue here? Let's say we have a rudimentary DNA strip that codes for polymerase, as would have had to have been the first gene because otherwise replication is impossible. Even if, against all odds, a DNA strip was randomly generated that coded for RNA polymerase.... it would not have RNA polymerase to make the RNA! nor would have it DNA polymerase to replicate itself. Creationism, or matter from consciousness, in my opinion, is a better explanation regarding the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: it was all created in unison.

Many creation stories share this concept: consciousness gave birth to matter. Greek philosophy (very similar to Genesis), Hermetic Philosophy ("Mind" created "The All"), Christian History, etc.

"If consciousness gave birth to matter it is a mystery, but if matter gave birth to consciousness it is a mystery of mysteries"

originally posted by: cooperton
According to the theory, it is the process by which the diversity of life arose from beneficial mutations leading to an organism being more fit for the environment and thus having increased "fitness". My problem isn't so much with evolution, because the data does make us assume that it would be possible (remember, its a theory) for the observable adaptive mechanisms to be able to accumulate in a fashion that ultimately gave rise to the great diversity of life. Rather, my main issue is with abiogenesis; life from non-life.

Here we go again. Please follow this short statements so that we can once and for all learn...

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (wiki)

2. Topic is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

3. Abiogenesis is not theory yet. It is just hypothesis how life might have formed in beginning, but as I've already said - it is not topic here. Just to note that there are several promising experiments that are working toward proving abiogenesis.

originally posted by: cooperton
I know this has nothing to do with evolution, but if evolution is true, we are left with this problem: how did life occur from non-life?

Why?? What if all this was God's plan?? How do you know it was not, or yet better, how do you know what is his plan??

originally posted by: cooperton
How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins??? Do you see the issue here? Let's say we have a rudimentary DNA strip that codes for polymerase, as would have had to have been the first gene because otherwise replication is impossible. Even if, against all odds, a DNA strip was randomly generated that coded for RNA polymerase.... it would not have RNA polymerase to make the RNA! nor would have it DNA polymerase to replicate itself. Creationism, or matter from consciousness, in my opinion, is a better explanation regarding the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: it was all created in unison.

As I have already said, some experiments are promising, but we did not move much from experiments form over a half century ago.

originally posted by: cooperton
Many creation stories share this concept: consciousness gave birth to matter. Greek philosophy (very similar to Genesis), Hermetic Philosophy ("Mind" created "The All"), Christian History, etc.

What create consciousness?? What Greek philosopher? Do you know how many God's did Greek believe in? Makes me wonder, why don't you believe they were right about Gods as well?! Care to explain??

originally posted by: cooperton"If consciousness gave birth to matter it is a mystery, but if matter gave birth to consciousness it is a mystery of mysteries"

You should really more follow this:

The most useful piece of learning for the uses of life is to unlearn what is untrue. ~Antisthenes

originally posted by: SuperFrog


1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (wiki)

2. Topic is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

3. Abiogenesis is not theory yet. It is just hypothesis how life might have formed in beginning, but as I've already said - it is not topic here. Just to note that there are several promising experiments that are working toward proving abiogenesis.

You're acting like there is anything more to learn... I "learned" the theory of evolution when I was 13... it is not a hard concept to swallow, especially because at that age I dismissed my teacher's interpretation of holy texts, so naturally I was willing to accept whatever science proposed as an explanation for our becoming. Get off your pedestal and keep searching for answers.

The most useful piece of learning for the uses of life is to unlearn what is untrue. ~Antisthenes

Exactly. Become like a child with a fresh slate in mind, and seek again.

originally posted by: cooperton
You're acting like there is anything more to learn... I "learned" the theory of evolution when I was 13... it is not a hard concept to swallow, especially because at that age I dismissed my teacher's interpretation of holy texts, so naturally I was willing to accept whatever science proposed as an explanation for our becoming. Get off your pedestal and keep searching for answers.

Where did you get that conclusion out of my post??? On contrary, there is plenty more to discover, but your bashing of evolution and calling it only a theory is just insulting because it was explained more then once what theory means, as well how big evidence is behind it.

I am sure I have already said that I am sorry that your teacher has failed you, and that you really did not learn how science works. Having teacher's interpreting holy text can explain that...

originally posted by: cooperton
Exactly. Become like a child with a fresh slate in mind, and seek again.

Not really.. more like acknowledging for something you learned its not true... for example Santa Claus... you know it does not exist (I hope), just like other fairy tale creatures...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

I am sure I have already said that I am sorry that your teacher has failed you, and that you really did not learn how science works.

I explained to you evolution, what did I say that was wrong? Your ad hominem attacks are making conversation difficult.

Not really.. more like acknowledging for something you learned its not true... for example Santa Claus... you know it does not exist (I hope), just like other fairy tale creatures...

Have you ever heard of Satan's clause? It is to possess the little kids with material possessions rather than grander spiritual truths. Your material reductionist viewpoints really fit this clause.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
What exactly is it that YOU believe defines evolution? It is after all YOU, who keeps circling back 'round to what I think constitutes 'evolved'.

According to the theory, it is the process by which the diversity of life arose from beneficial mutations leading to an organism being more fit for the environment and thus having increased "fitness". My problem isn't so much with evolution, because the data does make us assume that it would be possible (remember, its a theory) for the observable adaptive mechanisms to be able to accumulate in a fashion that ultimately gave rise to the great diversity of life. Rather, my main issue is with abiogenesis; life from non-life.

I know this has nothing to do with evolution, but if evolution is true, we are left with this problem: how did life occur from non-life? How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins??? Do you see the issue here? Let's say we have a rudimentary DNA strip that codes for polymerase, as would have had to have been the first gene because otherwise replication is impossible. Even if, against all odds, a DNA strip was randomly generated that coded for RNA polymerase.... it would not have RNA polymerase to make the RNA! nor would have it DNA polymerase to replicate itself. Creationism, or matter from consciousness, in my opinion, is a better explanation regarding the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: it was all created in unison.

Many creation stories share this concept: consciousness gave birth to matter. Greek philosophy (very similar to Genesis), Hermetic Philosophy ("Mind" created "The All"), Christian History, etc.

"If consciousness gave birth to matter it is a mystery, but if matter gave birth to consciousness it is a mystery of mysteries"

(remember, its a theory)

And please remember that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. It is fact-based and evidence-based.

Please get it right for a change.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
What exactly is it that YOU believe defines evolution? It is after all YOU, who keeps circling back 'round to what I think constitutes 'evolved'.

According to the theory, it is the process by which the diversity of life arose from beneficial mutations leading to an organism being more fit for the environment and thus having increased "fitness". My problem isn't so much with evolution, because the data does make us assume that it would be possible (remember, its a theory) for the observable adaptive mechanisms to be able to accumulate in a fashion that ultimately gave rise to the great diversity of life. Rather, my main issue is with abiogenesis; life from non-life.

I know this has nothing to do with evolution, but if evolution is true, we are left with this problem: how did life occur from non-life? How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins??? Do you see the issue here? Let's say we have a rudimentary DNA strip that codes for polymerase, as would have had to have been the first gene because otherwise replication is impossible. Even if, against all odds, a DNA strip was randomly generated that coded for RNA polymerase.... it would not have RNA polymerase to make the RNA! nor would have it DNA polymerase to replicate itself. Creationism, or matter from consciousness, in my opinion, is a better explanation regarding the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma: it was all created in unison.

Many creation stories share this concept: consciousness gave birth to matter. Greek philosophy (very similar to Genesis), Hermetic Philosophy ("Mind" created "The All"), Christian History, etc.

"If consciousness gave birth to matter it is a mystery, but if matter gave birth to consciousness it is a mystery of mysteries"

How could polymerase and all its necessary cofactors have been generated by accident, when DNA is what codes for these proteins???

Didn't you read anything about self assembly????

You simply refuse to do the research - this topic has been discussed ad infinitum - and you still don't get it.

ORIGINS

DNA Self Assembly:

1. Link to board discussion: www.abovetopsecret.com...
2. Summary: The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life.
3. www.sciencedaily.com...
4. www.nature.com...
5. www.science20.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...