Study Of Flower Color Shows Evolution In Action - More proof for Evolution!

Originally posted by Beneia
A female yucca moth flies into the flower of the yucca plant, where she finds pollen... she then lays a single egg, and pokes it into that hole in the flower...

True.

These two organisms could not exist without each other.

True.

Evolutionists tell us that plants were produced (by accident) on the Earth long before insects.

True.

If that were true, how could the yucca plant have lived?

It did not.

It did not exist before yucca moths evolved. Its immediate evolutionary ancestor did not use a yucca moth to have its sex for it. Coevolution

The plants you see around you didn't all come into being at once. They evolved. Here's an example that may surprise you: grass is only about 65 million years old. That's right: there would be no KEEP OFF THE GRASS signs in a real Jurassic Park.

The relationship between the yucca moth and the yucca plant could not have "just happened" by accident; it is too well designed.

It was designed. The designer was natural selection. This kind of design is called 'evolution'. Isn't nature wonderful? Far more wonderful than any simpleminded 'creator' dreamed up by our nature-designed brains, that's for sure!

reply to post by apacheman


You know nothing of Jesus. You should study Him and learn about Him.

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh really? The carbon-14 levels are constant?

physicsworld.com...

Beck and colleagues tested slices of a half-metre long stalagmite that grew between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago in a cave in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when carbon dioxide evaporates out of cave seepage water. They found that carbon-14 concentrations were twice their modern level during that period. Current records of the levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere only cover the last 16 thousand years, and this discovery extends those records a further 30 thousand years.

Originally posted by Astyanax
It did not exist before yucca moths evolved. Its immediate evolutionary ancestor did not use a yucca moth to have its sex for it.

right, well we can be fairly sure that the moth was laying eggs in flowers it liked and plants that were pollinated in the process were more likely to reproduce. i can't see it working the opposite way. tell me something, at what point did the non yucca flower become a yucca flower and why could the two be considered different?

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Give me a break!

This does NOT prove evolution. It only proves adaptation.
Show me a cow evolving into a horse and then you might have something.

It is already established that species can have minor changes. The problem with evolution is that there is NO proof of one species evolving into another species. This must have happened since the whole point of evolution is that we humans came from monkeys which initially came from sludge in a pool of water right?

Hi whatTheory/
Well said!

A variation within a definite kind of species,yes!
It does not prove or even suggest that one kind of species develops into another.
Quote///
''Let us see now what St. Basil(universal teacher-Theologian c.360?) believed about the "evolution" or "fixity" of species.
He writes: There is nothing truer than this, that each plant either has seed or there exists in it some generative power.
And this accounts for the expression "of its own kind."
For the shoot of the reed is not productive of an olive tree, but from the reed comes another reed; and from seeds spring plants related to the seeds sown.
Thus, what was put forth by the earth in its first generation has been preserved until the present time, since the species persisted through constant reproduction. (Hexaemeron, V,2.)''More on Genesis and Early man~

ICXC NIKA
helen

reply to post by Totakeke

I said I wouldn't, but...

The carbon-14 levels are constant?

For the most part, yes. And this is something that studies of rocks - and stalagmites - do show. The article you quote refers to a quite recent anomaly - a peak, in fact, between 11kY and 50kY ago.

Galactic cosmic rays create most of the carbon-14 in our atmosphere, while solar cosmic rays generate a smaller fraction. The Earth is partially shielded from galactic cosmic rays by its own magnetic field and the solar magnetic field, which fluctuates as the solar cycle proceeds. But these effects are predictable and are thought to have changed little in the last million years - which means they cannot explain the glut of carbon-14...
Beck's team concludes that either a jump in the cosmic ray flux or a fundamental change in the carbon cycle must have produced the sudden increase of carbon-14. The team speculates that a supernova shock wave could have produced a flurry of cosmic rays...

What this implies for very old objects (much older than the 50,000 years mentioned in the article) is that they are older, not younger, than the amount of C-14 they contain would imply. In fact, Beck's work has helped improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating: Stalagmite Triples Radiocarbon Dating Effectiveness.

Any more old 'creation science' to debunk?

reply to post by pieman

we can be fairly sure that the moth was laying eggs in flowers it liked and plants that were pollinated in the process were more likely to reproduce. i can't see it working the opposite way. tell me something, at what point did the non yucca flower become a yucca flower and why could the two be considered different?

Is this, like, a trick question? Okay, here's the standard biology-class answer; let's see what you plan to do with it.

The 'non-yucca flower' never became a yucca flower. One of its descendants did.

It was a mutant: a non-yucca flower that could no longer breed with other non-yucca flowers but could only produce viable offspring with... yucca flowers. Yucca flowers? Well, you know what they say: vice is nice, but incest is best.

Meanwhile, there was a non-yucca moth, which looked and behaved almost exactly like the yucca moth, only not quite. This moth was a symbiote of the non-yucca flower (which, of course, looked and behaved almost exactly like a yucca flower). One day, a non-yucca moth bred a mutant - a yucca moth. The rest is yucca history.

Go on, then. Your turn. Let's have it with the astronomical impossibilities of the simultaneous timing of mutations in two species, the micro-macro non-objection and all the rest of the creationist armoury. Unless, of course, you're as bored with all that ignorant tosh as I am, and can come up with something new in the way of debunkery.

[edit on 3/7/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


"For the most part" does not a constant make.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Astyanax


good god, drop the defenses. honestly, i'm a little bored with both sides. i'm not a creationist either, by the way. this thread is titled "evidence of evolution" which it isn't, i'm discussing the topic. generally i believe that evolution is incorrect as it stands.

mutation is not natural selection, mutation is mutation. the observation here is of natural selection. so if evolution=mutation in your head, this is not evolution.

now lets discuss mutation, mutation has never been observed to be beneficial and mutation does not sit well with natural selection because that requires a degree of equality in mutated vs normal features, making it a variation rather than a mutation.

beneficial variations are an observation after the fact. which is cause and which is effect is impossible to say. darwin suggested that it was environment selecting for the animal, i suggest that it is equally possible that the animal selects the environment.

if we consider the accepted version of the rise of man, we see that man adapted to the environment he occupied, which led to physical differences, but not speciation, a man is a man is a man, regardless of physical features.

evolution can be shown only if the narrowest definition of species is used, outside of minor physical differences it doesn't exist.

not to say it's untrue, just to say it's not as you or i have been thought it is and i suspect not as science believes it is. doggedly holding to any belief is ignorance.

Originally posted by pieman
i'm not a creationist either, by the way... generally i believe that evolution is incorrect as it stands.

You've found a third way? Neither evolution nor creation, but something else? Astonishing! Er... care to tell us what it is?

mutation is not natural selection, mutation is mutation.

Yes, you are quite correct. Natural selection is that which determines which mutations become fixed in a population and which are eliminated.

the observation here is of natural selection. so if evolution=mutation in your head, this is not evolution.

What on Earth are you talking about?

mutation has never been observed to be beneficial

Where do you creationists get hold of stuff like this? :shk:

Lactose tolerance

Skin pigmentation variance

Sickle cell mutation and malaria resistance

So much for humans. As for the animal kingdom, the case of 'Darwin's moths' is too well known to require citing yet again. Your yucca moth/yucca flower example involves numerous mutations, from among which natural selection again chose the appropriate ones and rejected the rest.

Some obvious beneficial mutations in animals

More beneficial mutations

Every heritable trait or character observable in any organism is the result of a mutation. Got that? Every one. And most are beneficial.

mutation does not sit well with natural selection because that requires a degree of equality in mutated vs normal features, making it a variation rather than a mutation.

Just to bring you up to speed: the difference between a variation and a mutation has nothing to do with how radical the change effected is. Mutation is specifically the result of a nucleic-acid copying error, while a variation is a perceptible difference in gene expression due to environmental factors.

Mutation def. from Biology Online Dictionary

Variation def. from Biology Online Dictionary.

Your predisposition towards creationist arguments makes you, in my book, creationist. However, we can still find points on which we may agree. Such as this:

doggedly holding to any belief is ignorance.

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

[edit on 7/7/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Knowing a lot about evolution doesn't make it right.

Let's go through those mutations:
First NYT lnik requires log-in, so I can't read that.
Skin colour has nothing to do with species. I'm not going down that road.
Sickle cell anemia is a disease resulting in low iron, blood clotting, and joint pain.
Pink and yellow spiders change their colours back and forth, so there doesn't seem to be any "change" at all
Bacteria are everywhere, living in quartz and in undersea vents and so on. No change there.
Selecting for size et cetera is easy. New limbs? Not so much.

Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose

I am not reading anything to that effect.

Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12

Or that.


So, other that the stuff I couldn't understand... I don't get how coulour and size changes create new species. Which is necessary, right?

Oh poo - Darwinism has had its fifteen minutes of fame.

If you want to hear for yourself, from scientists who were all former evolutionists, watch these videos.

Even they finally saw the light.



SevenParter

Or educate yourself on 'irreducible complexity'
info

[edit on 26-9-2009 by nomorecruelty]