Is there evidence of recent evolution?

[Ophiolite]

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)

Changes of sufficient significance and magnitude to justify identification as a new species will, typically, take a substantial number of generations and, in the case of multi-cellular organisms, thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

I have seen this explained to you before. Why, therefore, do you keep posting meaningless statements of the blindingly obvious? Do you not understand the concept of extended time? Did you not properly read the information given to you before? Are you simply using the "fingers in the ear" and the cry of "naj, nah, nah, nah" to avoid hearing what you don't like? Or is there some other explanation. I would really like to understand the pathology of your behaviour.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re forgetting that most eucaryotes have a minimum of 2 dna lineages. Mitochondria have their own dna. Both confirm a common ancestry

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

No; as I said, there was some debate about it, but I think it's now generally accepted that the evidence points to a single common ancestor. The chart would look much the same, except the single root node would be missing.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

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.

Well, thanks!

 

[sfs]

But what you are saying, sudden extreme changes in a single or very few generations, that is mutation theory. A discarded idea because mutations are non directional, mostly harmful.

That's pretty much the case with animals, but plants can do surprising things. Polyploids (organisms with multiple sets of genomes) occur in a single generation and can produce new species, e.g. Erythranthe peregrina.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No; as I said, there was some debate about it, but I think it's now generally accepted that the evidence points to a single common ancestor. The chart would look much the same, except the single root node would be missing.

I would be one of those wingnuts that views all living organisms through history as arising from a single common ancestor as probably wrong. But that's because I think that if life arose via natural processes once, chances are it happened many times. I don't necessarily think that modern living organisms didn't share a common ancestor, but rather I think that there were likely many original protocells generated independently, and perhaps only 1 lineage came out on top in the end. Or the protocells could have all been very similar and the habit of prokaryotes swapping plasmids with each other made the genomes too mixed up to tell that there were multiple original ancestors contributing to them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would be one of those wingnuts that views all living organisms through history as arising from a single common ancestor as probably wrong. But that's because I think that if life arose via natural processes once, chances are it happened many times. I don't necessarily think that modern living organisms didn't share a common ancestor, but rather I think that there were likely many original protocells generated independently, and perhaps only 1 lineage came out on top in the end. Or the protocells could have all been very similar and the habit of prokaryotes swapping plasmids with each other made the genomes too mixed up to tell that there were multiple original ancestors contributing to them.

Yes, those are plausible possibilities. Whatever happened at those earliest times, the evidence suggests that all the life we know of today has a common ancestor. I have seen some speculation that there might be the remains of independently evolved life, or it might even still survive, in isolated ancient environments, such as deep in rock strata. Who knows?

 

[Speedwell]

But regardless, nothing at all for creationists to latch onto as their recently created "kinds."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I mean changes in genetics brought on by behaviors. Would the Bajue divers have larger spleens if they hadn't been deep diving for generations, or would mountain dwellers have greater lung capacity if they hadn't lived at high altitudes for generations? I don't see 'selection' here, just adaptation.

Couple things...
First, "behaviors" (like bodybuilding, hiking, diving,...) doesn't change your dna.
Second, calling "selection" by a different name (like "adaption") doesn't change the facts.

No, the Tibetans wouldn't have evolved unique gene sequences which increases red blood cell production, allowing for more oxygen capacity, if they didn't live at high altitudes.

That's what natural selection does: it favours those genes which match the circumstances better.

This is why Tibetans have unique genes that help them living at high altitudes.
This is why the Bajau have unique genes that help them dive more efficiently.

It has nothing to do with "behaviour" and everything with mutation + selection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But the spleen remains a spleen doesn't it? I don't equate a slightly larger size spleen as evidence of evolution, just a small difference that gives some individuals a certain advantage, if they discover it at all. It would interesting to know how many people have large spleens that don't even know how to swim.

Just a side note. 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.

For crying out loud.... you really are an ostrich with your head burried in the ground, aren't you?

Here we have an example, black on white, of evolution by natural selection and it's amazing to see you squirm to deny it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So if evolution is undetectable how is it determined?

Evolution isn't undetectable at all.

ie: spleen size in the Bajau. or unique gene sequences in tibetans. Or any of the observed instances of speciation.

Off course, it can be hard to see and understand if your head is burried in the ground with an unhealthy dose of denial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's the whole basis of evolution;

No, that is YOUR basis your STRAWMAN version of evolution.

I've been explaining to you i-don't-know-how-many-times that the process of speciation is a vertical one, not a horizontal one.

Cats produce more cats (and eventually subspecies of cats), not dogs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Shouldn't we be able to detect even small changes?

We do.

ie: spleens in bajau, increased red blood cell production in tibetans, etc. All due to the underlying genetics, which are unique for those people.

You and I don't have those genes.

If science says we are slowly changing they should be able to prove it shouldn't they?

And it does. ie, the Bajau, the tibetans, etc etc etc.
Off course, if you are going to stuff your ears, shutt your eyes and scream "LALALALALA", then you might miss it.

Having a bigger spleen isn't really a change is it? It's still a spleen.

A big spleen is different from a small spleen.
And the genetics regulating it, are definatly changed as opposed to other populations.

Did you even read the article? They actually identified the mutated DNA responsible for it.

So, can you still breath, with your head lodged so firmly into the ground?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, that is YOUR basis your STRAWMAN version of evolution.

I've been explaining to you i-don't-know-how-many-times that the process of speciation is a vertical one, not a horizontal one.

Cats produce more cats (and eventually subspecies of cats), not dogs.

But don't cats and dogs, and everything else living, have the same common ancestor?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We do.

ie: spleens in bajau, increased red blood cell production in tibetans, etc. All due to the underlying genetics, which are unique for those people.

You and I don't have those genes.



And it does. ie, the Bajau, the tibetans, etc etc etc.
Off course, if you are going to stuff your ears, shutt your eyes and scream "LALALALALA", then you might miss it.



A big spleen is different from a small spleen.
And the genetics regulating it, are definatly changed as opposed to other populations.

Did you even read the article? They actually identified the mutated DNA responsible for it.

So, can you still breath, with your head lodged so firmly into the ground?

So epigenetics plays no role in physiology?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

That's pretty much the case with animals, but plants can do surprising things. Polyploids (organisms with multiple sets of genomes) occur in a single generation and can produce new species, e.g. Erythranthe peregrina.

A new species that quick? Plants are weird.

 

[sfs]

A new species that quick? Plants are weird.

They probably think the same of us.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it is the expression of random reproductive variation which is the basis of evolution.

Nothing is random, especially in biology.

 

[SkyWriting]

What evolutionary changes are evident in the age of modern man?

We have learned that the environment can change the offspring expression of DNA in one generation. That's new.

 

[SkyWriting]

What evolutionary changes are evident in the age of modern man?

Man can text faster than ever before without crashing into things 100% of the time. That's new.