TOMO 26,122 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Oh ,,,sorry I misunderstood,,, Bloody hell gnash I don't think you could actually see that ,,,because of the length of time involved,, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) To save your time then......dont give me a huge list......just give me 1 piece of OBSERVABLE evidence that evolution is true ?.....Not something ive got to recieve by faith something i can actually observe....being that observe is the word science itself uses to describe itself. A lab experiment first perfromed in 1880 which subjected an isolated strain of E.coli to heat (a change in environment) in an effort to force an adaptation to a new environment has resulted in new strains to develop, one of which has the ability to grow on citric acid. The original strain did not have this ability. Along a similar line, bacteria has evolved antibiotic resistance. This is proof that population gene pools adapt to environmental changes. That is evolution. You can't just expect to throw a dog into the sea and watch it grow fins and gills, that's not evolution. I'll chuck a wild guess out there though and say that your mind hasn't moved an inch? If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, read a credited book on it... It's something I fear I would missrepresent and do more harm than good. Again......bacteria changing to what ?.......bacteria !....................Adaptation again. Is evolution not described as " The process by which different KINDS of living organism are believed to develop " ? Keeping in mind on the bigger scale of things evolutionary faith ( no evidence ) will have us believe fish " kind " turned into human " kind " etc etc...... thats quite a difference.... yet in terms of evidence we can only OBSERVE a bit of bacteria turning into another bit of bacteria ? Im not ridiculing anything by the way......my vocab just aint as wide as some Edited September 10, 2014 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Oh ,,,sorry I misunderstood,,, Bloody hell gnash I don't think you could actually see that ,,,because of the length of time involved,, But the word " observe " is a word science uses to describe itself.....................yet nobody can see millions of years ago ????.....................people who believe in God and the bible are constantly having it rammed down their throats you cant see ( observe ) God so its blind faith.................well you cant see ( observe ) science either so is science blind faith also..................different faith different book.....still faith only though.......no ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 To save your time then......dont give me a huge list......just give me 1 piece of OBSERVABLE evidence that evolution is true ?.....Not something ive got to recieve by faith something i can actually observe....being that observe is the word science itself uses to describe itself. A lab experiment first perfromed in 1880 which subjected an isolated strain of E.coli to heat (a change in environment) in an effort to force an adaptation to a new environment has resulted in new strains to develop, one of which has the ability to grow on citric acid. The original strain did not have this ability. Along a similar line, bacteria has evolved antibiotic resistance. This is proof that population gene pools adapt to environmental changes. That is evolution. You can't just expect to throw a dog into the sea and watch it grow fins and gills, that's not evolution. I'll chuck a wild guess out there though and say that your mind hasn't moved an inch? If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, read a credited book on it... It's something I fear I would missrepresent and do more harm than good. Again......bacteria changing to what ?.......bacteria !....................Adaptation again. Is evolution not described as " The process by which different KINDS of living organism are believed to develop " ? Keeping in mind on the bigger scale of things evolutionary faith ( no evidence ) will have us believe fish " kind " turned into human " kind " etc etc...... thats quite a difference.... yet in terms of evidence we can only OBSERVE a bit of bacteria turning into another bit of bacteria ? I have never told you that we have witnessed fish turn to frogs or anything like that. The greater theory of evolution predicts such a thing to only happen on a timescale much greater than we can currently carry out observations, which is why we rely on geneticist to paint that picture. What I actually told you was that we have witnessed biological populations adapting genetically to a change in environment, which IS evolution. If you want to call evolution something different then we had better establish what definitions each of us are using. Now it's that mechanism, the ability for a biological population/species to genetically change from it's initial form/ability that has lead to the theory of common descent. It's a logical conclusion from extrapolating the time scale. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) To save your time then......dont give me a huge list......just give me 1 piece of OBSERVABLE evidence that evolution is true ?.....Not something ive got to recieve by faith something i can actually observe....being that observe is the word science itself uses to describe itself. A lab experiment first perfromed in 1880 which subjected an isolated strain of E.coli to heat (a change in environment) in an effort to force an adaptation to a new environment has resulted in new strains to develop, one of which has the ability to grow on citric acid. The original strain did not have this ability. Along a similar line, bacteria has evolved antibiotic resistance. This is proof that population gene pools adapt to environmental changes. That is evolution. You can't just expect to throw a dog into the sea and watch it grow fins and gills, that's not evolution. I'll chuck a wild guess out there though and say that your mind hasn't moved an inch? If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, read a credited book on it... It's something I fear I would missrepresent and do more harm than good. Again......bacteria changing to what ?.......bacteria !....................Adaptation again. Is evolution not described as " The process by which different KINDS of living organism are believed to develop " ? Keeping in mind on the bigger scale of things evolutionary faith ( no evidence ) will have us believe fish " kind " turned into human " kind " etc etc...... thats quite a difference.... yet in terms of evidence we can only OBSERVE a bit of bacteria turning into another bit of bacteria ? I have never told you that we have witnessed fish turn to frogs or anything like that. The greater theory of evolution predicts such a thing to only happen on a timescale much greater than we can currently carry out observations, which is why we rely on geneticist to paint that picture. What I actually told you was that we have witnessed biological populations adapting genetically to a change in environment, which IS evolution. If you want to call evolution something different then we had better establish what definitions each of us are using. Now it's that mechanism, the ability for a biological population/species to genetically change from it's initial form/ability that has lead to the theory of common descent. It's a logical conclusion from extrapolating the time scale. Thats not what you are telling me no......thats what evolution is telling me.......we either evolved from apes/fish or whatever..................or we didnt.....no ? Did Darwin not say there would be CHANGE of KIND over many years ?.......well where are they ?.......Again,keeping in mind the reality of what we are talking about ( human beings coming from monkeys/fish ) etc.............im yet to see anything that can be observed ( a word used to describe science ) that proves change of kind.......i say again,any time we are being told we cant see change because its millions of years old we are being told to accept evolutionary FAITH. And what did Richard Dawkins say about faith......."Faith is the great cop - out ,the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence "... and thats the head honcho of evolution ! Edited September 10, 2014 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Thats not what you are telling me no......thats what evolution is telling me.......we either evolved from apes/fish or whatever..................or we didnt.....no ? Did Darwin not say there would be CHANGE of KIND over many years ?.......well where are they ?.......Again,keeping in mind the reality of what we are talking about ( human beings coming from monkeys/fish ) etc.............im yet to see anything that can be observed ( a word used to describe science ) that proves change of kind.......i say again,any time we are being told we cant see change because its millions of years old we are being told to accept evolutionary FAITH. And what did Richard Dawkins say about faith......."Faith is the great cop - out ,the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence "... and thats the head honcho of evolution ! You're twisting things now. The theory of evolution and common descent is not what I was telling you was a fact. I wasn't arguing that it was a fact. So why even raise that? There's reems of evidence to support that theory but I'm not going down that road, I'm not willing to waste my time with that or risk missrepresenting it as I'm not a biologist. Read a well credited book written by an evolutionary biologist because so far I suspect all your thoughts on it have been derived from creationist rubbishing of the subject. I did as you asked and gave you factual observations of evolution which you have twisted to not being an observation of the theory of evolution and common descent. That isn't what I was claiming has been observed! The mechanism that is evolution and the theory of evolution and common descent are different things. This seriously ain't going anywhere.... Edited September 10, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,122 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 These photos are proof enough of evolution Only took one generation 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) What about those lizards that live on those pacific islands,,,,might be near galopgas Islands ,,,the ones that swim and eat sea weed from underwater,,,,yet on the other islands and mainland they don't ,,,they were the same species but evolved because of habitat Did they change kind ? or are they still lizards ?............if they didnt change kind then surely thats adaptation and not evolution ? Have you read The Origin of Species? It'll really give you a good basis in which to view evolution. Also, I think you should have specified "Behavioural adaptation" to make your point clearer. Personally, I agree with this instance, it doesn't really seem like evolution, simply behavioural change. Genetically still identical though. The Galapagos islands have a few 'examples' of evolution. The thing is, if you look at dogs as a species, you could actually argue that man-made 'natural selection' has evolved the species massively from the original wolf and dingo. But then it would depend on your interpretation of evolution. Some say evolution is mutation and natural selection. Others say it is purposeful genetic changes throughout a species. So the question continues... Edited September 10, 2014 by RemyBolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Remmybolt, are the new strains of ecoli not genetically different to the originals then? It's not a behavioural change, it's the ability to grow on citric acid which was not possible in the original strain. Natural selection by the definition of the process leads to a change in genetics. The new strains of ecoli are genetically different from the originals. It can hardly be claimed as evolution otherwise. (Edit; Just realised you were talking about tomos example) If you subject a population of humans to a largely amphibious life and they learn to swim, that's not evolution. If after a X generations that population has developed a greater red blood cell count and larger hands to aid swimming then that's evolution. They've altered their population genetics through natural selection. Edited September 10, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
socks 32,253 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Remmybolt, are the new strains of ecoli not genetically different to the originals then? It's not a behavioural change, it's the ability to grow on citric acid which was not possible in the original strain. Natural selection by the definition of the process leads to a change in genetics. The new strains of ecoli are genetically different from the originals. It can hardly be claimed as evolution otherwise. If you subject a population of humans to a largely amphibious life and they learn to swim, that's not evolution. If after a X generations that population has developed a greater red blood cell count and larger hands to aid swimming then that's evolution. They've altered their population genetics through natural selection. Isn't there a tribe somewhere that live on stilt houses in the sea and rely on the sea for nearly everything and havnt they developed the ability to walk on the ocean floor and hold their breaths for extremely long periods ...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Remmybolt, are the new strains of ecoli not genetically different to the originals then? It's not a behavioural change, it's the ability to grow on citric acid which was not possible in the original strain. Natural selection by the definition of the process leads to a change in genetics. The new strains of ecoli are genetically different from the originals. It can hardly be claimed as evolution otherwise. Sorry mate, I think you misunderstood. The behaviour change I was referring to was my assumption for what gnasher said when he said "That's adaptation not evolution." was about the lizards, not the E.Coli. As for the second part: If you subject a population of humans to a largely amphibious life and they learn to swim, that's not evolution. If after a X generations that population has developed a greater red blood cell count and larger hands to aid swimming then that's evolution. They've altered their population genetics through natural selection. But would it be from a random mutation? But that would then depend on the instances of the mutation within the population as to whether it's evolution. Personally, I've not read the Origin of Species in ages, and I think I'd need to reread that before getting deeper into the debate. There are some parts I can remember and some I cannot. My trick to sounding intelligent is not speaking about something I am uncertain of, so in this case, I'm going to be quiet for a bit (I'll audio book tOoS tomorrow), however, that second section does sound like an evolutionary change. Edited September 10, 2014 by RemyBolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Remmybolt, are the new strains of ecoli not genetically different to the originals then? It's not a behavioural change, it's the ability to grow on citric acid which was not possible in the original strain. Natural selection by the definition of the process leads to a change in genetics. The new strains of ecoli are genetically different from the originals. It can hardly be claimed as evolution otherwise. If you subject a population of humans to a largely amphibious life and they learn to swim, that's not evolution. If after a X generations that population has developed a greater red blood cell count and larger hands to aid swimming then that's evolution. They've altered their population genetics through natural selection. Isn't there a tribe somewhere that live on stilt houses in the sea and rely on the sea for nearly everything and havnt they developed the ability to walk on the ocean floor and hold their breaths for extremely long periods ...... Quite possibly mate. And to me that's a not insignificant piece of evidence. However to claim it as observed evolution we'd have to scientifically compare them to their ancestors, who rather inconveniently died out generations ago. Otherwise someone will tell me that they were created that way. It's certainly a prediction from Darwins theory though mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Remmybolt, are the new strains of ecoli not genetically different to the originals then? It's not a behavioural change, it's the ability to grow on citric acid which was not possible in the original strain. Natural selection by the definition of the process leads to a change in genetics. The new strains of ecoli are genetically different from the originals. It can hardly be claimed as evolution otherwise. Sorry mate, I think you misunderstood. The behaviour change I was referring to was my assumption for what gnasher said when he said "That's adaptation not evolution." was about the lizards, not the E.Coli. As for the second part: If you subject a population of humans to a largely amphibious life and they learn to swim, that's not evolution. If after a X generations that population has developed a greater red blood cell count and larger hands to aid swimming then that's evolution. They've altered their population genetics through natural selection. But would it be from a random mutation? But that would then depend on the instances of the mutation within the population as to whether it's evolution. Personally, I've not read the Origin of Species in ages, and I think I'd need to reread that before getting deeper into the debate. There are some parts I can remember and some I cannot. My trick to sounding intelligent is not speaking about something I am uncertain of, so in this case, I'm going to be quiet for a bit (I'll audio book tOoS tomorrow), however, that second section does sound like an evolutionary change. I realised that you weren't talking about ecoli too late. I did edit my post but also too late. Sorry about that. Regarding my hypohypothetical example, yes such evolutionary changes would be born of mutation or just natural genetic variation in a population, as all evolutionary changes are. Natural selection would select the genetics which best suit that environment. Genetically people differ in all physical/anatomical quantities, so people who had slightly larger hands for instance might find they are more efficient swimmers and so drown less. Likewise if a random mutation was beneficial, then that genetic change would be passed on and in generations become prevalent in the populations genetics. It's an horrendously simple example but suited my point. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Muddy 141 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Do you want me to prove that all life on earth evolved from one common ancester? Actually mate I’m pretty sure you can – or at least come credibly close. This is going to go way over the god-botherer’s heads, but here’s a rough outline: Since its proposal in the 1960s, the molecular clock has become an essential tool in many areas of evolutionary biology, including systematics, molecular ecology, and conservation genetics. The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if the molecular clock hypothesis holds true, this hypothesis serves as an extremely useful method for estimating evolutionary timescales. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 12,917 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) These photos are proof enough of evolution Only took one generation LMAO Tomo mate the mrs is sat saying how beautiful they are etc ad infinitum several times over lol Absolutely beautiful kids and bloody well mannered to boot if I may say.... Ps this is proof evolution is fact..... Shrek to them in one gen hahahahaha Edited September 10, 2014 by mushroom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.