Is there evidence of recent evolution?

[OldWiseGuy]

The Bajau: natural selection at work

Curiously, only one creationist responded in that thread and he didn't even address the topic.

Epigenetics at work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Complexity isn't an indicator of design at all.

Case in point: I can "design" a hammer, which is just a chipped rock.
A hurricane, is a lot more complex then that. The chipped rock was "designed", the hurricane wasn't.

So there you go: a simple thing that was designed, and a vastly more complex thing that wasn't.

This proves that "complexity" isn't an indicator of design.
Furthermore, there's no unit of "complexity".

I see design in the hands (and all the other parts) that chipped the rock into a hammer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Epigenetics at work.

If by "epigenetics", you mean "evolution by natural selection", then sure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I see design in the hands (and all the other parts) that chipped the rock into a hammer.

And my kid sees faces in clouds.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Wow...

So in addition to anatomy and physiology, and evolution, we can add "adaptation" to things that you do not understand yet felt compelled to pontificate about.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[tas8831]

Of course there is design, but science can't make the leap from design to designer, therefore there is no 'design'. I understand that.

There is evidence of human design in human activity, sure. But other than people like you (when all you have is a hammer) asserting so, there is no real evidence for design.

In fact, you have failed laughably each time you have asserted design in living things.

But that won't slow you down, will it?

 

[tas8831]

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'.

Post hoc rationalization is so impressive.

 

[tas8831]

I ask questions, which leads to arguments.

You ask the questions that a person claiming a 135 IQ and to have studied this and that should NOT be asking.

 

[tas8831]

Epigenetics at work.

I'm sure that your take on epigenetics will be as interesting as your take on the aorta sending signals to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If by "epigenetics", you mean "evolution by natural selection", then sure.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is there evidence of recent human evolution?

Just to add another example, I saw someone mention indonesian spleens, but also there are...I believe they were either from norway or poland, or one of those northern european countries, a family that has a mutation that produces increased bone density.

 

[Job 33:6]

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'.

People are amazed at the complexity of the human body. It can self generate, heal, grow, its just this amazingly complex system. And yet...for some, its just too complex of a system to mutate. Its such a complex system, that for some reason, its just so complex that it cant accumulate mutations to evolve.

The body is too complex to be here by chance...and yet, its just not complex enough to evolve...Apparently its just too simple, and uncomplex to pull off the ability to accumulate mutations over a long period of time.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

The size of human spleens varies randomly from individual to individual, and that variation can be inherited. That is, humans with larger spleens tend to have children with larger spleens. If having a larger spleen turns out to be a survival advantage, then those individuals with larger spleens will tend to reproduce more successfully than those with smaller spleens and the larger-spleened individuals will gradually account for more and more of the population.

1. Random variation of spleen size, plus
2. Natural selection of larger-spleened individuals equals
3. Evolution by random variation and natural selection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The size of human spleens varies randomly from individual to individual, and that variation can be inherited. That is, humans with larger spleens tend to have children with larger spleens. If having a larger spleen turns out to be a survival advantage, then those individuals with larger spleens will tend to reproduce more successfully than those with smaller spleens and the larger-spleened individuals will gradually account for more and more of the population.

1. Random variation of spleen size, plus
2. Natural selection of larger-spleened individuals equals
3. Evolution by random variation and natural selection.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

I was just pointing out to you how natural selection works in the example that you gave.

 

[Job 33:6]

@OldWiseGuy

If I saw someone walking in the snow, and I only watched them walk for a few seconds, I would see that they only traveled a few feet.

Your question of if there is evidence of recent evolution, is like asking if there is evidence that this person recently moved from point A to point B in the snow.

People are responding by saying, well yes there is evidence, watch his legs move. And you are responding by saying "well this isnt evidence that they walked from point A to point B, its just evidence that theyre moving a little bit".

But of course if you only looked at the person for a few seconds, of course you would only see them move a little bit.

You wouldnt see them move 20 feet in a few seconds because evolution and walking are slow processes. You wouldnt see the man standing still, nor would you see a stasis of mutations or biological change, because evolution is ongoing. It doesn't stop.

So, what we see with spleens changing in size, even if its just a little bit, is exactly what we ought to see, if evolution were true.

 

[Astrophile]

Are you saying that we are descendants of the Romans?

Yes. My most recent common ancestors with all modern Europeans (including Italians) almost certainly lived less than 2000 years ago, so I must have ancient Romans among my ancestors. What point are you trying to make?

 

[klutedavid]

They are almost exact copies but it takes more than fifty years before you see it. The older you get the more similar they become to their parents.

 

[Astrophile]

So we didn't evolve from a totally different creature, or that acclimatization isn't due to evolution?

What do you mean by 'a totally different creature'? Are we totally different from the australopithecines, or from Orrorin tugenensis, or from the Middle Miocene ape Pierolapithecus?

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

@OldWiseGuy

If I saw someone walking in the snow, and I only watched them walk for a few seconds, I would see that they only traveled a few feet.

Your question of if there is evidence of recent evolution, is like asking if there is evidence that this person recently moved from point A to point B in the snow.

People are responding by saying, well yes there is evidence, watch his legs move. And you are responding by saying "well this isnt evidence that they walked from point A to point B, its just evidence that theyre moving a little bit".

But of course if you only looked at the person for a few seconds, of course you would only see them move a little bit.

You wouldnt see them move 20 feet in a few seconds because evolution and walking are slow processes. You wouldnt see the man standing still, nor would you see a stasis of mutations or biological change, because evolution is ongoing. It doesn't stop.

So, what we see with spleens changing in size, even if its just a little bit, is exactly what we ought to see, if evolution were true.

So if evolution is undetectable how is it determined?