an example please

[Asimov]

THen why are we even debating?

Making base assumptions from arguments of incredulity is not debating.

 

[Sanguine]

we still do not see evolution happening today, do we?

We do, the change in allele frequencies is observable in the lab. Get a large sample of rapidly breeding organisms, catalogue their genomes each generation and you will see evolution. How much though, depends on how quickly the organisms turn over generations and how long you run the experiment.

 

[Asimov]

Also that was whole paragraph was based of the assumption that the rock was kicked. Just like scientists assume evolution to be true and then go out to prove it. Im not defending creationist's and their biases im just pointing outthat scientists ahvethem as well

Uh...no. Evolution has already been shown to be true.

Hence the rock being kicked, and then landing at the bottom of the hill.

Then person B comes along, sees the rock at the bottom of the hill, but WONT believe it until he/she has been shown the entire trajectory of the rocks path.

It's the same thing with evolution. The rock has been kicked, we show you the evidence, and you it is rejected because we can't explain every single molecule.

 

[mjiracek]

OK well then i guess since evolution is true and thousands of scientists have proved it to no end ill let you guys go have your pep rally . See ya

 

[gluadys]

I would like a example of an animal going through the evolutionary process. take a organism(simple ancestor) and explain a process of this. it can be long as you want it. detail all the organs and blood and apendages and reproductive and such. help explain the procedure step by step. like step one this happened step two this happened so on. Or give a site that does this.

This is soooooo dishonest.

There are plenty of good sources that will tell you how evolution works and how we know it works.

You are asking for a utopian situation which you know does not exist.

It does not exist because:
1. Most species are extinct and most of them left no fossil record.
2. Of the fossils formed, only a fraction are not destroyed before they are found.
3. Of the fossils not destroyed, only a fraction are available to be found.
4. Of the fossils available to be found, only a small fraction (I have heard the estimate 1%) have actually been found and studied.
5. Most fossils only preserve hard parts of organisms. Also many fossils are trace fossils such as footprints, leaf impressions, worm trails, etc. which do not give any much idea of what an animal or plant actually looked like.

All other evidence is based on observations of living species in nature and under laboratory conditions.

But this is incomplete as well because:
1. There are many more species catalogued than can be observed.
2. There are many more species yet to be discovered than have been catalogued.
3. We are destroying species faster than we can study them.

So we have, and always will have, only a small fraction of the detailed evidence of a lineage you are asking for. But you knew that before you asked.

What makes the question so dishonest is that it totally neglects how much the evidence we do have tells us.

So there is a lot we don't know. Big surprise? NOT.

But there is still a lot we do know.

It is a red herring to focus on what we don't know and can't know. It is nothing more than an excuse to keep your head in the sand and not look at what we DO know.

Science is built on observations. It builds and tests theories to explain those observations. Show that you know the observations which gave rise to the theory of evolution, and know the ways in which the theory has been tested, and know how it has earned the reputation of being one of the best attested theories in science. Then see if you can suggest another coherent, testable explanation of the observations.

 

[Asimov]

OK well then i guess since evolution is true and thousands of scientists have proved it to no end ill let you guys go have your pep rally . See ya

You do a great job of disproving it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

For examples of continual evolution being witnessed, you'll probably want to look at experimental runs on species like Drosophila melanogaster, Escherichia coli, and Caenorhabditis elegans. For example, Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.

Now, if you're looking for the same details of the of evolution regarding extinct species, you're not going to find it. The evidence is too fragmentary to paint a complete picture. However, what we can do is take extrapolations based on experimentation and apply those to what we observe in nature. And while we may not have a complete picture of evolution in nature, from what we do know, species look like they evolved.

 

[mjiracek]

thanks pete. ill look into that. id like to see what that experiment has to say. and thanks for not just saying

Uh...no. Evolution has already been shown to be true.

 

[Asimov]

Uh...no. Evolution has already been shown to be true.

Well, mjiracek, you seem to misunderstand.

The MECHANISM of evolution is a fact. It has already been shown to be true.
Just as physics are shown to be a fact.

Applying that mechanism of evolution to history cannot be absolutely proven.

Just as the exact trajectory of the rock cannot be absolutely proven.

 

[Randall McNally]

But you assume that everything evolved.

Nope. Evolution is a conclusion, not a premise.

Its not like one animal just appeared while others did not. ALso, we still do not see evolution happening today, do we? It we do please tell me when it was recoded.

What do you mean "today"? Today, or rather yesterday, I did not see any species change into a different species. But, since speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years at least, I'm not all that worried about it.

 

[Jet Black]

OK ... good point. But you assume that everything evolved. Its not like one animal just appeared while others did not. ALso, we still do not see evolution happening today, do we? It we do please tell me when it was recoded. WE do see rock kicking happening today so its a totally differnent argument.

but if you were trying to determine whether a particular rock had been kicked, or whether it had always been at the bottom of the hill, how would you do it? well for one thing you might look at the rock; is it in a natural location i.e. if it is a granite rock on a sandstone ground, or lying on top of fresh grass, then you might well think that the rock has some from somewhere else. you might notice a bit of a track in the soild where the rock might have rolled, and maybe some mud or pollen or something that the rock had picked up. so you go and investigate the nearby hill, and sure enough, you might find a patch of flowers with matching pollen further up, that exist nowhere else on the hill, some of these flowers might be snapped or bent over indicating that something had damaged them, and so you carry up the hill to where you find several other granite rocks and an empty indentation in the ground which fits the shape of the rock. so even though you never saw that particular rock fall down the hill you can deduce that it did.

 

[Tomk80]

I would like a example of an animal going through the evolutionary process. take a organism(simple ancestor) and explain a process of this. it can be long as you want it. detail all the organs and blood and apendages and reproductive and such. help explain the procedure step by step. like step one this happened step two this happened so on. Or give a site that does this.

Ring species. Very simple, and observable nowadays. They illustrate the process in a great way. Darwin already described some of these in his origin of species.

One of these is the herring gull. From this site

There are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.
So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species.

Now, note the following things. Nowhere is there one individual which produces a completely different individual. A britan Herring Gull doesn't somehow give birth to a Lesser Black-Backed Gull. What happens is that each population differs a little bit from the next population, untill they have become so different that they cannot interbreed.

Now, if you look at this example and understand it, you do not have any excuses anymore for a couple of errors I often see from creationists.
The first is "why doesn't a donkey (or substitute any given animal) give birth to a horse (substitute any other animal)". If you look at ring species, you'll note that it is the population which is slowly changing, not individuals giving birth to (and mating with) completely different animals.
Second, transitional animals. For example the Alaskan gulls. They are one form of a transitional between the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black Backed Gull. You'll notice that they are not some 'freak of nature'. You'll notice that they still exist and (if circumstances are right) could give rise to a whole different species. You'll notice that they are representatives of the transition, but that individuals we find now, have not been the transitionals giving rise to the new species.

It completely alludes me how common creationist strawmen can be perpetuated even after people have taken notice of ring species, because they demonstrate the principle so allegantly.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Nope. Evolution is a conclusion, not a premise.
What do you mean "today"? Today, or rather yesterday, I did not see any species change into a different species. But, since speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years at least, I'm not all that worried about it.

so you will believe we evolve at the same rate and time so as no one will actually no its happening. speciation is a variety of the same animal, though it may be rather large in some its not actually proof of evolution just a great range of adaptation.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Ring species. Very simple, and observable nowadays. They illustrate the process in a great way. Darwin already described some of these in his origin of species.

One of these is the herring gull. From this site

Now, note the following things. Nowhere is there one individual which produces a completely different individual. A britan Herring Gull doesn't somehow give birth to a Lesser Black-Backed Gull. What happens is that each population differs a little bit from the next population, untill they have become so different that they cannot interbreed.

Now, if you look at this example and understand it, you do not have any excuses anymore for a couple of errors I often see from creationists.
The first is "why doesn't a donkey (or substitute any given animal) give birth to a horse (substitute any other animal)". If you look at ring species, you'll note that it is the population which is slowly changing, not individuals giving birth to (and mating with) completely different animals.
Second, transitional animals. For example the Alaskan gulls. They are one form of a transitional between the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black Backed Gull. You'll notice that they are not some 'freak of nature'. You'll notice that they still exist and (if circumstances are right) could give rise to a whole different species. You'll notice that they are representatives of the transition, but that individuals we find now, have not been the transitionals giving rise to the new species.

It completely alludes me how common creationist strawmen can be perpetuated even after people have taken notice of ring species, because they demonstrate the principle so allegantly.

your notice its still a gull and your notice your own wording (IF CIRCUMSTANCE ARE RIGHT) COULD GIVE RISE TO A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT SPECIES. They cant mate any more because of genetic lose of information, they have some what de-evovled. look at breeding of dogs or cats or horses. Once you breed them down you cant breed them up, same here. another attempt to use a situation to make an assumption that it if the right conditions were there it could possible do it.

 

[Split Rock]

would like a example of an animal going through the evolutionary process . take a organism(simple ancestor) and explain a process of this. it can be long as you want it. detail all the organs and blood and apendages and reproductive and such. help explain the procedure step by step. like step one this happened step two this happened so on. Or give a site that does this.

so you will believe we evolve at the same rate and time so as no one will actually no its happening. speciation is a variety of the same animal, though it may be rather large in some its not actually proof of evolution just a great range of adaptation.

You asked for the steps required for evolution of a new species (i.e. speciation)... when this is provided for you, you then say that speciation is not evolution. Typical. Please make up your mind as to what you want to see and then stick with it.

By the way, here is a good website showing more Ring Species, i.e. populations undergoing what you called "the evolutionary process." A nice example is the Grennish Warbler in Asia. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

 

[Split Rock]

your notice its still a gull and your notice your own wording (IF CIRCUMSTANCE ARE RIGHT) COULD GIVE RISE TO A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT SPECIES. They cant mate any more because of genetic lose of information, they have some what de-evovled. look at breeding of dogs or cats or horses. Once you breed them down you cant breed them up, same here. another attempt to use a situation to make an assumption that it if the right conditions were there it could possible do it.

The whole point is that you cannot say if there is one species or many, because these populations are in the process of diverging, which is what you asked to see. Show me the "genetic loss of information" causing this. For example, the speciation in progress with the Greenish Warbler involves a change in the songs that the birds sing (and therefore mating behavior).. there is no "loss" of information, just a change in information. Also, there is no such thing as "de-evolution," with the exception of comic books and sci-fi movies.

 

[Randall McNally]

so you will believe we evolve at the same rate and time so as no one will actually no its happening.

Well, we have seen changes that propagated from mutations. The rapid increase in the number of sickle-cell heterozygotes in parts of Africa, for example.

speciation is a variety of the same animal, though it may be rather large in some its not actually proof of evolution just a great range of adaptation.

You can't defeat evolution by redefining it into something you feel no longer resembles evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

your notice its still a gull and your notice your own wording (IF CIRCUMSTANCE ARE RIGHT) COULD GIVE RISE TO A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT SPECIES.

Indeed, when circumstances are right. What's the problem with that. Nothing occurs if the right circumstances are not present, it's a pretty straight forward statement. Futhermore, you asked for examples of the evolution of a new species. Here you got one, so get over it. You got what you asked for. My question is, do you fully understand the implications of ring species with regards to how to look at transitionals and how to look at speciation. If you do, we can continue with larger speciation examples. Okay?

They cant mate any more because of genetic lose of information, they have some what de-evovled. look at breeding of dogs or cats or horses. Once you breed them down you cant breed them up, same here. another attempt to use a situation to make an assumption that it if the right conditions were there it could possible do it.

That is so unsupported, it's quite silly.
First off, show me that they lost information. As far as I can tell, they changed, but you can't say there is a loss, equal amount or gain of information. In all these cases interbreeding would not be possible anymore, so your point is moot. Explain to me why there is specifically a loss of information, preferably with reference to some peer-reviewed papers.
Second, I will stick to my clame that 'de-evolved' is the most word ever. As evolved only means 'changed', and does not define a specific direction, 'de-evovled' should be the opposite of this or the lesser form of this. What is less than 'changed'. Not changed? Well, we have observed changes, so that is obviously false. Or is it the opposite of 'all directions'. Which would that be? 'De-evolved' can only be a comforting statement for those who do not think about what a word means.

 

[Mistermystery]

I would like a example of an animal going through the evolutionary process. take a organism(simple ancestor) and explain a process of this. it can be long as you want it. detail all the organs and blood and apendages and reproductive and such. help explain the procedure step by step. like step one this happened step two this happened so on. Or give a site that does this.

Any animal would do. However my new found love for trilobites are excellent examples Here's a simple diagram of 4 simple intermediate steps to 5 various families:

http://www.trilobites.info/ont_sequence.gif

Go here for more information on trilobites and it's evolution. As an added bonus, here's an explaination on eye evolution on trilobies.

 

[Mistermystery]

that transition is pretty lame. 90% of it is made up.

thanks for sharing!