Is there evidence of recent evolution?

[OldWiseGuy]

Science's presentation of it is not "one creature becoming an entirely different creature."

That's the whole basis of evolution; a single common ancestor morphing into every life form on earth isn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course evolution doesn't lead to jumps from one species to another in a single generation; it is more a matter of accumulating small change over thousands of generations to transform one species into another, similar, species, and over tens or hundreds of thousands of generations to transform one genus into another, similar, genus.

That's what I meant.

 

[AirPo]

That's the whole basis of evolution; a single common ancestor morphing into every life form on earth isn't it?

Not it's not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not it's not.

So this is not correct?

A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing the three life domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota, and linking the three branches of living organisms to the LUCA (the black trunk at the bottom of the tree); cf. next graphic.

A rooted phylogenetic tree, illustrating how Eukaryota and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to Bacteria (based on Cavalier-Smith's theory of bacterial evolution). Neomura is a clade composed of two life domains, Archaea and Eukaryota. LUCA, a variant of LUA, stands for last universal common ancestor.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

 

[AirPo]

So this is not correct?

A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing the three life domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota, and linking the three branches of living organisms to the LUCA (the black trunk at the bottom of the tree); cf. next graphic.

A rooted phylogenetic tree, illustrating how Eukaryota and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to Bacteria (based on Cavalier-Smith's theory of bacterial evolution). Neomura is a clade composed of two life domains, Archaea and Eukaryota. LUCA, a variant of LUA, stands for last universal common ancestor.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Of course it is, but it's not claiming a single ancestor nor morphing.

 

[Job 33:6]

So if evolution is undetectable how is it determined?

What you are referring to is evolution over extended periods of time, such as thousands of years. In this case, there are independent lines of corroborating evidence indicating that the processes that we see occuring today (the person moving a little bit), have actually been in affect for a very long time (the person has been moving little by little as we see today, but hes just been doing it for a long time).

By corroborating evidence, i am referring to things such as...a synchronization between biological qualities, such as protein sequences and of course, the fossil succession. We can actually predict where fossils are present within the earth, based on current day biological qualities of living things, and we can also predict biological qualities of living day organisms, based on the fossil succession as well.

Because biology and paleontology, among other fields, match one another, we know that there is a direct relationship between biological evolution and the fossil succession. Sprinkle in knowledge of the geologic column and you have your theory.

But of course, I am sure you are already aware of this.

 

[Jimmy D]

So this is not correct?

A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing the three life domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota, and linking the three branches of living organisms to the LUCA (the black trunk at the bottom of the tree); cf. next graphic.

A rooted phylogenetic tree, illustrating how Eukaryota and Archaea are more closely related to each other than to Bacteria (based on Cavalier-Smith's theory of bacterial evolution). Neomura is a clade composed of two life domains, Archaea and Eukaryota. LUCA, a variant of LUA, stands for last universal common ancestor.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

LOL, thanks to those stupid adverts all I can see is the Phylogenetic tree of sofas.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... A discarded idea because mutations are non directional, mostly harmful...

I'd say mostly neutral, i.e. not significantly harmful (hence genetic drift). See also Neutral Mutation. But it's complicated, and partly depends on the environment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course it is, but it's not claiming a single ancestor nor morphing.

But the common ancestor lies at the 'root' of the evolutionary tree doesn't it?

What is an evolutionary tree?

On a grand scale, the process of speciation leads to an evolutionary pattern that is something like a forking road. A lineage may persist for many generations and then split, with each resulting lineage taking its own path. Some paths end up leading to dead-ends (i.e., extinction); others diverge many more times, leading to new lineages. The result of this process is a tree-like structure that links together all species that have ever lived on planet Earth.

Imagine if we humans could turn around and walk backwards on the branch of our own evolutionary history. We'd soon meet up with routes leading to our now-extinct hominin relatives, and then greet the ancient ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos as our routes converged. Eventually, we'd be crossing paths with ancient ancestors of birds and dinosaurs, then the ancestors of sharks, starfish, insects, and plants, ultimately, reaching the point where all evolutionary paths converge — the single-celled organisms that are the great-great-great-great-great … great-grandparents of all species that have ever lived on Earth.

Evolutionary trees, also known as phylogenetic trees, are visual representations of this branching pattern of evolution.1 A phylogenetic tree may represent the full diversity of life springing from our universal common ancestor (as does the tree above) or a single branch of the full tree of life, such as the vertebrate, fungus, or beetle lineages. Trees may include both extant and extinct organisms. As shown here, there are many ways to depict an evolutionary tree.


What is an evolutionary tree?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What you are referring to is evolution over extended periods of time, such as thousands of years. In this case, there are independent lines of corroborating evidence indicating that the processes that we see occuring today (the person moving a little bit), have actually been in affect for a very long time (the person has been moving little by little as we see today, but hes just been doing it for a long time).

By corroborating evidence, i am referring to things such as...a synchronization between biological qualities, such as protein sequences and of course, the fossil succession. We can actually predict where fossils are present within the earth, based on current day biological qualities of living things, and we can also predict biological qualities of living day organisms, based on the fossil succession as well.

Because biology and paleontology, among other fields, match one another, we know that there is a direct relationship between biological evolution and the fossil succession. Sprinkle in knowledge of the geologic column and you have your theory.

But of course, I am sure you are already aware of this.

Shouldn't we be able to detect even small changes? If science says we are slowly changing they should be able to prove it shouldn't they? Having a bigger spleen isn't really a change is it? It's still a spleen.

 

[pshun2404]

Super bugs, i.e. antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Only they are the same bacteria...the E-Coli experiments proved this. After 80,000 generations with the required mutations they are still E-Coli (only resistant)...hence an adaptation that produced a variety but still E-Coli (they did not transmutate into anything new). My oldest daughter developed a resistance to cillins (penicillin, ampicillin, etc.) and has never recovered...she is still who she was as are her offspring (all still humans)

 

[pshun2404]

What you are referring to is evolution over extended periods of time, such as thousands of years. In this case, there are independent lines of corroborating evidence indicating that the processes that we see occuring today (the person moving a little bit), have actually been in affect for a very long time (the person has been moving little by little as we see today, but hes just been doing it for a long time).

By corroborating evidence, i am referring to things such as...a synchronization between biological qualities, such as protein sequences and of course, the fossil succession. We can actually predict where fossils are present within the earth, based on current day biological qualities of living things, and we can also predict biological qualities of living day organisms, based on the fossil succession as well.

Because biology and paleontology, among other fields, match one another, we know that there is a direct relationship between biological evolution and the fossil succession. Sprinkle in knowledge of the geologic column and you have your theory.

But of course, I am sure you are already aware of this.

Yes and then settle all discrepancies by the "ancestor of the gaps" pre-supposition and viola'

 

[AirPo]

But the common ancestor lies at the 'root' of the evolutionary tree doesn't it?

What is an evolutionary tree?

On a grand scale, the process of speciation leads to an evolutionary pattern that is something like a forking road. A lineage may persist for many generations and then split, with each resulting lineage taking its own path. Some paths end up leading to dead-ends (i.e., extinction); others diverge many more times, leading to new lineages. The result of this process is a tree-like structure that links together all species that have ever lived on planet Earth.

Imagine if we humans could turn around and walk backwards on the branch of our own evolutionary history. We'd soon meet up with routes leading to our now-extinct hominin relatives, and then greet the ancient ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos as our routes converged. Eventually, we'd be crossing paths with ancient ancestors of birds and dinosaurs, then the ancestors of sharks, starfish, insects, and plants, ultimately, reaching the point where all evolutionary paths converge — the single-celled organisms that are the great-great-great-great-great … great-grandparents of all species that have ever lived on Earth.

Evolutionary trees, also known as phylogenetic trees, are visual representations of this branching pattern of evolution.1 A phylogenetic tree may represent the full diversity of life springing from our universal common ancestor (as does the tree above) or a single branch of the full tree of life, such as the vertebrate, fungus, or beetle lineages. Trees may include both extant and extinct organisms. As shown here, there are many ways to depict an evolutionary tree.


What is an evolutionary tree?

It says nothing of "Single" nor "morphing." Therefore to say "the whole basis of evolution; a single common ancestor morphing into every life form on earth" is incorrect.

 

[AirPo]

Only they are the same bacteria...the E-Coli experiments proved this. After 80,000 generations with the required mutations they are still E-Coli (only resistant)

meaning different from the original bacteria evolved from.

...hence an adaptation that produced a variety but still E-Coli (they did not transmutate into anything new). My oldest daughter developed a resistance to cillins (penicillin, ampicillin, etc.) and has never recovered...she is still who she was as are her offspring (all still humans)

Of course not transmuted, they evolved into something new.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... It would interesting to know how many people have large spleens that don't even know how to swim.

Why?

When I was a teenager I skin dived with mask and fins a lot. I decided to practice holding my breath hoping to stay underwater longer. I made it less than a minute on my first try, but within about an hour of practicing I could hold my breath for almost five minutes. Sadly this didn't translate well to my diving as I only gained a few seconds at most underwater. However I believe if I had made a concerted effort over time I would have increased my time underwater considerably.

Yes, you probably could have. That would be an individual adaptation. In a population, some individuals would be able to adapt to spend longer underwater than average, and some would be less able than average.

If the length of time someone could spend underwater was related to their reproductive success (maybe getting more seafood would make them healthier, or finding more pearls would make them wealthier), and this continued to be the case for many generations, then eventually the population average for length of time spent underwater would increase due to the most capable contributing greater than average numbers of offspring, and the converse effect of the least capable contributing fewer than average offspring (or in the worst case, none at all).

When the population average of some trait shifts like that, it has evolved. Many such small changes, accumulating over extended periods of time, can produce huge differences between start and end populations.

'Mighty oaks from little acorns grow'

 

[Job 33:6]

Shouldn't we be able to detect even small changes? If science says we are slowly changing they should be able to prove it shouldn't they? Having a bigger spleen isn't really a change is it? It's still a spleen.

A spleen changing in size is a small change. A spleen changing into something that is no longer a spleen would be a big change. And of course big changes would take thousands of years to unfold.

 

[Job 33:6]

Most major transitions, such as the dinosaurs to bird, or fish to tetrapod transitions, took some tens of millions of years to unfold. Smaller genus level transitions might take less than 10 million. So if the average person lives 70 years with written records dating back just a few thousand years...we are certainly unlikely to see the human spleen turn into something that is no longer a spleen, in our life time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But the common ancestor lies at the 'root' of the evolutionary tree doesn't it?

Yes, that seems to be the case for life on Earth. But evolution doesn't require that. You could have multiple trees, each with its own independent common ancestor.

It has been debated whether bacteria or archaea might have had separate origins, but the consensus is that sufficient similarities have been found to suggest that they share a common ancestor with other life. It's possible that life got started more than once, and the other form(s) died out early on without leaving a trace. Once one form of life gets going, it's thought likely to eat or out-compete any forms emerging later.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, that seems to be the case for life on Earth. But evolution doesn't require that. You could have multiple trees, each with its own independent common ancestor.

It has been debated whether bacteria or archaea might have had separate origins, but the consensus is that sufficient similarities have been found to suggest that they share a common ancestor with other life. It's possible that life got started more than once, and the other form(s) died out early on without leaving a trace. Once one form of life gets going, it's thought likely to eat or out-compete any forms emerging later.

Are there multiple trees with different common ancestors? I haven't seen those charts.

 

[Speedwell]

Are there multiple trees with different common ancestors? I haven't seen those charts.

Single common ancestor is the simplest inference, is why (although multiple common ancestry is a possibility, as has been pointed out).