Does Adaptation Confirm Evolution?

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

 

Epigenetics are still [by definition] heritable, though, even if alterations to epigenetics are more reversible in the short term than changes in DNA. So, while I will admit that I overlooked it (it took me six months to learn that it wasn't the same thing as epistasis), I feel that epigenetics are just another substrate for adaptation to occur through evolution.

It was only meant as an addition to your post. There are so many people on these forums that believe everything they read on the internet, that we might get everything right the first time.

reply to post by TheWill

Thanks to epigenetics Lamarck wasn't completely wrong

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Adaptation is a reality of science, we see it from the smallest of things in life such a viruses all the way to larger animals. Evolution says that adaptations stacked onto each other over millions of years produce a better and new species.
But if that was true where is the entire fossil record of all the changing species?
We are not talking about just one species but thousands, the fossil record shows nothing for thousands of missing links, not just for humans.

The fossil record seems to indicate that indeed animals did adapt but basically they have stayed the same.
Fish and animals such as the Sturgeon and Crocodile thought to have survived from prehistoric time have changed very little.

Adaptation does not rewrite DNA/RNA. Look at the all experiments with fruit fly's where accelerated generations of adaptations and mutations can be observed. In the end they are still fruit flies.

Please dont question the church evolution, you must have faith in Jesus the missing link one day he will return we will find it.

Originally posted by Kayzar
Please dont question the church evolution, you must have faith in Jesus the missing link one day he will return we will find it.

Which missing link would that happen to be?

Is it one of these?

(each word is a separate link)

There is no missing link, it's a bizarre notion found in nonscientific pieces of work, not an actual scientific concept.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


With evolution being small changes over time there should be several intermediate fossils from something like A.Robustus to Homo Habilis but as we find more we find different species with their own characteristics. So naturally the argument will shift into the punctuated equilibrium where evolution does not mean small changes over time but now means it happens in spurts, i guess you kind of have to change things to suit your beliefs. Where is that intermediate between no life and life?

Why were we the only ones to get smart? Take a look at where man was 50 million years ago and then take a look at where a horse was 50 million years ago. Since then man has created science,art and porn. The horse got bigger and has hooves instead of toes...

reply to post by Kayzar

With evolution being small changes over time there should be several intermediate fossils from something like A.Robustus to Homo Habilis but as we find more we find different species with their own characteristics.

I always find it entertaining that people coming from a Young Earth, we-did-not-evolve-because-the-odds-are-stacked-up against it perspective never even point to fossilisation of terrestrial animals as a potential miracle. It's not easy to do. You have to die in the right place, settling into an anaerobic environment ASAP to prevent every last scrap being broken down before you even make an impression and, which is possibly more, someone has to dig you up before the filled-in impression of your decay erodes away to nothing.

Add to that the variability of current humans. We have not, and to my mind will not, ever discover an entire fossilised population of individuals, and to assume that the one or two that we do dig up are at the top of the bell-curve is pushing it. They could fall anywhere on the bell-curve, and the chances are, there would be a great deal of variation away from their particular form at any given point in history.

So naturally the argument will shift into the punctuated equilibrium where evolution does not mean small changes over time but now means it happens in spurts, i guess you kind of have to change things to suit your beliefs.

Classification of different forms as different species, which I note has its roots in the work of a creationist (Linnaeas) does of course give an image of punctuated equilibrium. I would suggest that many of the pre-human homonid fossils do not actually represent distinct species, just members of the ancestral H. sapiens population whose characteristics were not passed on to any great extent. Of course, i would also suggest that we and the genus Pan are actually congenic, so...

Where is that intermediate between no life and life?

Viruses, prions, self-replicating units of non-coding DNA or RNA within the genomes of life forms...

Why were we the only ones to get smart? Take a look at where man was 50 million years ago and then take a look at where a horse was 50 million years ago. Since then man has created science,art and porn. The horse got bigger and has hooves instead of toes...

Define smart.

Chances are, your definition ends up being analogous to "human-like in thought".

Where it comes to horses, well, they have certain challenges to face: 1) find sufficient food to sustain body, 2) avoid being eaten, 3) have babies.

They work very well at doing these - better, in fact, than a lot of humans.

When it comes to intelligence, in a domestic horse, this is not usually considered a good thing - a horse that realises that it does not have to put up with being kicked and beaten for the sake of oats and the odd carrot, and also that, provided that its rider does not have a knife or gun to hand, it can do a lot more damage to its rider than vice-versa, is liable to throw its rider, trample them for good measure, and run off to make a new home in the new forest.

Breeders don't, as such, tend to choose such particularly "spirited" horses as stallions, and so a male horse with that attitude would historically have lost his reproductive capabilities through castration or death. An unrideable horse still makes a serviceable steak. A female horse with such an attitude would be harder to sterilise, but would tend to respond aggressively to the (usually aggressive) advances of a stallion, and might well render herself effectively sterile.

Of course, this has changed recently. People are not so happy to put a bullet in a bad horse's brain, especially when the horse comes with a valuable pedigree, and a certain level of fight is often a very good thing when it comes to racing. But a couple of hundred years of relaxed selection on the relatively limited gene-pool of domestic horses is unlikely to be sufficient to completely reverse trends going back thousands of years.

reply to post by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

With evolution being small changes over time there should be several intermediate fossils from something like A.Robustus to Homo Habilis but as we find more we find different species with their own characteristics.

...there are intermediate fossils. The problem is that we don't have a fully chronology due to the rarity of fossilization and the population sizes of these groups. We also do see gradual shifts in these species. They are different species with progressive changes. Alterations in skull structuring being primary. The change in forehead shape and cranium size are markedly progressive between these species, and the changes can easily be arranged along a continuum according to when they were fossilized.

So either they've all evolved or there were random species of hominid popping into existence and then out.

So naturally the argument will shift into the punctuated equilibrium where evolution does not mean small changes over time but now means it happens in spurts, i guess you kind of have to change things to suit your beliefs.

That is a blatant straw man, as anyone who has ever studied the work of Stephen J. Gould would know. Punctuated equilibrium relates to isolated populations of a species evolving faster due to gene pool restraints, moving back into populations, etc. And no, I don't need to appeal to it to explain this. Thank you for both misrepresenting Dr. Gould's work and putting words in my mouth.

Where is that intermediate between no life and life?

Um...that's not a topic for evolution to cover. That's abiogenesis.

Why were we the only ones to get smart? Take a look at where man was 50 million years ago and then take a look at where a horse was 50 million years ago. Since then man has created science,art and porn. The horse got bigger and has hooves instead of toes...

Yes, because evolution doesn't work towards intelligence, it works towards survival. Horses didn't need to be smart to survive, their traits were useful enough as it was without that addition.

Now, take where a horse was 50 million years ago and take us...why aren't we as fast as a horse? Because we didn't need it.

Thanks for the welcoming

Today I was walking around on the campus I'm working, and guess what?! There where a lot of students talking about the ufo's they are seeing, the 2012 prophecy and the things I am reading here on this forum. We carry a lot of christian students also, I was wondering if it is fear to give them a change to talk about this experience in maybe an education way., for example a Guest College or a class debate. We also have a note on this school that moslim-students ca get a day off on Ramadan.

What do you think about it?

I've got Wubbo Ockels maybe on a Guest college next week.
Love to hear your feedback!

reply to post by indunedain


Query as to why you duplicated a post from your Introduction-to-Amy thread?

(censored), how did I end up with a double post? It wasn't even a particularly important post in the first place, and my post count has gone up by two because of it.

Grr.

reply to post by indunedain


Not even the right forum.

I smell a troll.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The problem is that we don't have a fully chronology due to the rarity of fossilization and the population sizes of these groups.

But we have more than one Australopithecus afarensis fossil yet they are all Australopithecus afarensis with very simmilar characteristics. Sure there are very small variations between each fossil but from modern man to modern man there will be small differences.

They are different species with progressive changes. Alterations in skull structuring being primary. The change in forehead shape and cranium size are markedly progressive between these species, and the changes can easily be arranged along a continuum according to when they were fossilized.

Really? Easily be arranged in a continuum? That only works if you throw dates out the window and throw out the fact that many of the transitional species lived at the same time. We keep finding fossils that are similar within their own species we are not finding fossils that are similar between the two different species.

So either they've all evolved or there were random species of hominid popping into existence and then out.

????
So either has to be evolution or random species performing magic appearing and dissapearing tricks? More importiantly how does the evolutionary tree work with fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Um...that's not a topic for evolution to cover. That's abiogenesis.

Why wouldn't it? If the theory of evolution were to be true we would eventually have the law or laws of evolution. Living things are not exempt from the laws of motion just because it's biology not physics.

reply to post by Kayzar

Originally posted by Kayzar
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

But we have more than one Australopithecus afarensis fossil yet they are all Australopithecus afarensis with very simmilar characteristics. Sure there are very small variations between each fossil but from modern man to modern man there will be small differences.

Yes, and there are also differences between each progressive species on the way to humanity. And again, we have only a small segment of the population of any hominid fossil.

Really? Easily be arranged in a continuum? That only works if you throw dates out the window and throw out the fact that many of the transitional species lived at the same time. We keep finding fossils that are similar within their own species we are not finding fossils that are similar between the two different species.

We do find fossils that are similar between species. I've already provided evidence of this. Please show me an instance where we have to throw the dates out the window. And of course some of the species lived at the same time. There's the narrow crossover where this happens with species. The bulk of the original species will give rise to a small segment of a new species that will eventually replace the original, so there's going to be a period of crossover.

????
So either has to be evolution or random species performing magic appearing and dissapearing tricks?

Well, that's what the evidence suggests. I can't think of another explanation for the fossil record, can you?

More importiantly how does the evolutionary tree work with fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

They did change during their durations, we've observed species changing during their durations. Like peppered moths.

Um...that's not a topic for evolution to cover. That's abiogenesis.

Why wouldn't it? If the theory of evolution were to be true we would eventually have the law or laws of evolution. Living things are not exempt from the laws of motion just because it's biology not physics.

Evolution is the explanation of biodiversity, not an explanation of the origin of life. I can't even count how many times I've had to explain it, but since I'm at over 8500 posts on this forum, it'd be safe to say that I've explained it around a hundred times, but that would be a conservative estimate.

Why must a theory of biodiveristy explain the origin of life?