Is there evidence of recent evolution?

[AirPo]

Yeah, a computer that was clearly designed, but the human body wasn't when it's vastly more complex? Complexity speaks of design more than it just 'happened'.

No it doesn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Support that there is design with evidence and data.

If you don't have 'eyes to see' design I can't prove it to you, just as I don't have 'eyes to see' evolution. In fact I don't know why we continue to have these arguments. (Well, they are fun, sorta.)

 

[AirPo]

If you don't have 'eyes to see' design I can't prove it to you, just as I don't have 'eyes to see' evolution. In fact I don't know why we continue to have these arguments. (Well, they are fun, sorta.)

Very likely because you start them.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you don't have 'eyes to see' design I can't prove it to you, just as I don't have 'eyes to see' evolution. In fact I don't know why we continue to have these arguments. (Well, they are fun, sorta.)

There is plenty of data and supporting evidence for the ToE. None for ID.

 

[pitabread]

Is there evidence of recent human evolution?

Depends what you mean by "recent". But there is various identification of both specific mutations in contemporary human populations, as well as selective effects of said traits.

One such example is identification of HIV resistance: Innate resistance to HIV - Wikipedia

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Depends what you mean by "recent". But there is various identification of both specific mutations in contemporary human populations, as well as selective effects of said traits.

One such example is identification of HIV resistance: Innate resistance to HIV - Wikipedia

Isn't that just a mutation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is plenty of data and supporting evidence for the ToE. None for ID.

The data may be correct but not the conclusion. Just look at crime data/conclusion. Data correct, conclusion wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

The data may be correct but not the conclusion. Just look at crime data/conclusion. Data correct, conclusion wrong.

What on earth are you babbling on about?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What on earth are you babbling on about?

That the data doesn't necessarily lead to the right conclusion. We are awash in data, yet our problems keep growing. Science assures us that we came from pond scum then is surprised by our behavior.

Regarding crime. Crooks killing other crooks is not a problem, it's a solution. The problem is those rare times when an innocent person is killed in their drug wars.

On a related note suicide's (by far the largest gun death 'statistic'), while a problem for family and friends, is a solution for them.

 

[VirOptimus]

That the data doesn't necessarily lead to the right conclusion. We are awash in data, yet our problems keep growing. Science assures us that we came from pond scum then is surprised by our behavior.

Regarding crime. Crooks killing other crooks is not a problem, it's a solution. The problem is those rare times when an innocent person is killed in their drug wars.

On a related note suicide's (by far the largest gun death 'statistic'), while a problem for family and friends, is a solution for them.

What? I dont even...

What a horrible and disgusting moral view.

And it has nothin to do with science!

Are you trolling again?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What? I dont even...

What a horrible and disgusting moral view.

And it has nothin to do with science!

Are you trolling again?

Just citing everyday examples of data leading to wrong conclusions.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just citing everyday examples of data leading to wrong conclusions.

No, you are confusing morals with science for a start. And my opinion stands.

 

[pitabread]

Isn't that just a mutation?

Mutations provide genetic variation on which evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection, genetic drift, and so on) operate.

In this case it's a mutation that can be observed to operate in the specific context of a selective pressure (i.e. a potentially fatal disease).

 

[sfs]

What? I dont even...

What a horrible and disgusting moral view.

And it has nothin to do with science!

Are you trolling again?

He's displaying his Christian moral values.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

He's displaying his Christian moral values.

Me and Paul.

1 Corinthians 5:5

"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you are confusing morals with science for a start. And my opinion stands.

I'm giving examples where the data doesn't support the conclusion.

 

[Gene2memE]

It depends on a couple of things:
1) What do you mean by "recent"? Last 10 years, last 100 years, last 1000 years or last 50,000 years?
2) What do you mean by evidence of evolution? Do you mean large scale morphological changes? Or do just mean changes in inherited traits that have become fixed in a population.

Generally, the answer is yes. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

Evolution of adaptations for high altitude survival in certain populations in South America and Central Asia (probably around the last 14,000 to 10,000 years)
Evolution of blue eye colour (last ~10,000 years)
Evolution of pale skin in populations at high latitudes in Europe (that one may be as recent as 8000 years)
Evolution of one of the genes responsible for the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (maybe as recent as 500 years)
Evolution of improved resistances to communicable diseases (probably no more recent than 1800 years)
Evolution of sickle cell anemia gene in African populations, leading to improved malaria resistance (around 70-100 years ago)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Isn't that just a mutation?

Mutation is a component of evolution. That's how new traits become introduced into a population. Obviously, if we had never developed treatments for HIV, this would be a very beneficial trait to have, and would have become more prominent in human populations over time. That shift in gene frequency over the course of generations would be evolution.

However, I can give an example from my Triops evolution experiment. I made the water at the high end of the temperature range the species I was working with could live and reproduce in, with the purpose of making their life cycle occur faster. However, within 5 generations, they no longer had shortened lifespans from it. As it turns out, the high rate of reproduction and mutation in Triops causes them to change physiology quite rapidly under harsh selection pressures. I never even intended them to adapt to that heat, since it makes the number of generations the experiment can have overall less. Alas, individuals that lived longer laid more eggs, and thus had a strong reproduction advantage.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It depends on a couple of things:
1) What do you mean by "recent"? Last 10 years, last 100 years, last 1000 years or last 50,000 years?
2) What do you mean by evidence of evolution? Do you mean large scale morphological changes? Or do just mean changes in inherited traits that have become fixed in a population.

Generally, the answer is yes. Off the top of my head, I can think of:

Evolution of adaptations for high altitude survival in certain populations in South America and Central Asia (probably around the last 14,000 to 10,000 years)
Evolution of blue eye colour (last ~10,000 years)
Evolution of pale skin in populations at high latitudes in Europe (that one may be as recent as 8000 years)
Evolution of one of the genes responsible for the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (maybe as recent as 500 years)
Evolution of improved resistances to communicable diseases (probably no more recent than 1800 years)
Evolution of sickle cell anemia gene in African populations, leading to improved malaria resistance (around 70-100 years ago)

Aren't most of these changes just mutations or adaptations that have been recorded in the genome?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mutation is a component of evolution. That's how new traits become introduced into a population. Obviously, if we had never developed treatments for HIV, this would be a very beneficial trait to have, and would have become more prominent in human populations over time. That shift in gene frequency over the course of generations would be evolution.

However, I can give an example from my Triops evolution experiment. I made the water at the high end of the temperature range the species I was working with could live and reproduce in, with the purpose of making their life cycle occur faster. However, within 5 generations, they no longer had shortened lifespans from it. As it turns out, the high rate of reproduction and mutation in Triops causes them to change physiology quite rapidly under harsh selection pressures. I never even intended them to adapt to that heat, since it makes the number of generations the experiment can have overall less. Alas, individuals that lived longer laid more eggs, and thus had a strong reproduction advantage.

When I think of evolution I envision one creature becoming an entirely different creature, not mutation or adaptation. Heck, I adapt to the cold each winter and to the heat every summer. That's just a design feature, like becoming fat if you overeat.