Macroevolution:

[Speedwell]

human isnt an ape like a car isnt a truck.

You are making a category error.

A human is a kind of ape but a car isn't a kind of truck.

A human is a kind of ape like a car is a kind of motor vehicle.

"Ape" is not a single kind of creature, it is a name, a category for a group of related creatures.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When did man stop evolving? 50 mutations per generation times 6000-10,000 years should produce some observable change besides hair color. Of course during dry weather we do drink more water. Does that count?

 

[lesliedellow]

human isnt an ape like a car isnt a truck.

Car and truck are both vehicles with internal combustion engines, a transmission, four wheels, two of them steerable, and able to carry passengers, one of which must be the driver.

Similarly, humans, chimps, orangoutangs, gorillas and bonobos all belong to the family of great apes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did he say that? Any chemical change by definition involves atoms.

I want to know the 'trigger' for change at the atomic level. A detailed explanation will suffice.

 

[tevans9129]

Right. Now you've got two different species of chicken, they've got new names and "chicken" has become a genus. And they split some more and pretty soon some of the lines are becoming rather less chicken-like, and after more splitting, some of them don't look much like chickens at all, and now the biologists are thinking about splitting the chickens into two genera and "chicken" has become a "family," and so on...

Fascinating...I see claims of something changing from a chicken into something that is less "chicken-like" so what do they look like and can you provide images, in sequence, of that happening? Or, is it only speculation? Let me guess, no, because it takes billions of years for it to happen and there is no physical evidence or images that validate that claim...am I close?

So what do you think distinguishes "adaptation" from "evolution?"

In real simple everyday common English..."adaptation in biology", adapting to the environment for the purpose of surviving. "Evolution in biology", changing from one species into an entirely different species that neither looks, act like or breeds with the previous species. IOW, it does not matter how one labels the process, semantics has nothing to do with the process, would you agree?

So what do you think distinguishes adaptation from evolution, if anything?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Are they still bacteria?

And this seems important exactly why?

Remember evolution is change over time. It isn't limited solely to within some specific grouping.

This is really a mystery to me. Changing life forms has taken millions of years and special situations where populations are segregated or ecological niches formed. I'm not entirely certain what it is you want to see in your lifetime.

The fact that life forms adapt and change over time even on a short time scale but that they don't change from chickens to horses in your timeframe doesn't seem to really make evolution less likely.

They CHANGE and often in amazing ways! Bacteria develop resistance to that which KILLS THEM by the very same processes that drive the rest of evolution: stressors which amplify adaptive features and weed out mal-adaptive features.

If a single bacteria in a population can survive whatever kills everyone else in their population they are going to move that ability forward. And I don't know about you but that's PRETTY AMAZING!

As I said: Monday I watched the eclipse and I never once saw the moon move with my own eyes or via the pinhole cameras. Not once. But the eclipse happened. To say the eclipse could not have been due to the moon because I didn't see it move is exactly like looking at the history of life in totality and saying evolution couldn't happen because we can't see a chicken hatch a pony.

 

[lesliedellow]

I want to know the 'trigger' for change at the atomic level. A detailed explanation will suffice.

Chemical reactions are a result of the second law of thermodynamics in action. If it doesn't occur spontaneously, heat will usually help a chemical reaction along by breaking any existing bonds between atoms.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-chemic...lecules-What-is-the-property-that-causes-them

Of course, you could have googled that for yourself.

 

[lesliedellow]

Fascinating...I see claims of something changing from a chicken into something that is less "chicken-like" so what do they look like and can you provide images, in sequence, of that happening? Or, is it only speculation? Let me guess, no, because it takes billions of years for it to happen and there is no physical evidence or images that validate that claim...am I close?

No images is not the same thing as no evidence, sunshine, as I am sure must have been pointed out to you multiple times by now. There is nothing like a wilful ignorance, which is determined to remain wilfully ignorant, is there?

 

[Speedwell]

Fascinating...I see claims of something changing from a chicken into something that is less "chicken-like" so what do they look like and can you provide images, in sequence, of that happening? Or, is it only speculation? Let me guess, no, because it takes billions of years for it to happen and there is no physical evidence or images that validate that claim...am I close?

Not even. I expect, however, that you will continue to ignore such things because there is too much at stake for you. Somebody else can post it if they want to waste the time.

In real simple everyday common English..."adaptation in biology", adapting to the environment for the purpose of surviving. "Evolution in biology", changing from one species into an entirely different species that neither looks, act like or breeds with the previous species. IOW, it does not matter how one labels the process, semantics has nothing to do with the process, would you agree?

So what do you think distinguishes adaptation from evolution, if anything?

Nothing. But consider the following:

With each new generation of offspring, a species presents to the environment a range of variant individuals. This is called random variation because the variation is randomly distributed--think 'bell curve.'
If the environment is stable, those variants close to the central tendency of the distribution will tend to survive, those in the tails of the distribution not so much. On the other hand, if the selection criteria begin to change, there will be individuals at one extreme or other to take advantage of it and pass that advantage to their offspring. As this continues, the central tendency of the distribution will begin to shift in that direction and eventually it will have shifted enough that we will observe that a new species has formed.

Is that what you mean by "adaptation?"

 

[tevans9129]

Until they evolve into multicellular organisms along a number of possible routes.

OK, what was the next species they "evolved" into? Do you have some verifiable evidence other than someone's claims? Can you begin with bacteria and follow through with perhaps the next 10 or so steps, in sequence? IOW, what "creature" came immediately after the bacteria, then what "creature evolved" from that, and so on? I am not interested speculations, conjectures, what may have happened, what looks impressive on some chart but what can actually be proven to have happened, are you up to that?

 

[Jimmy D]

OK, if I understand you correctly, when I ask if someone can provide evidence of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind", they know very well what I am adking so are just using, "what is your defintion of kind" as a deflection. Therefore, from what you have given, from now on I will ask, can you provide an unaltered image of one species evolving into a different species and that should get a straight answer, correct?

Does this meet your requirements.

I won't copy and paste it because there's rather a lot there, the sequence is clear though.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

 

[lesliedellow]

OK, what was the next species they "evolved" into? Do you have some verifiable evidence other than someone's claims? Can you begin with bacteria and follow through with perhaps the next 10 or so steps, in sequence? IOW, what "creature" came immediately after the bacteria, then what "creature evolved" from that, and so on? I am not interested speculations, conjectures, what may have happened, what looks impressive on some chart but what can actually be proven to have happened, are you up to that?

I will answer that question if you can give me a day by day account of how Latin evolved into present day French, over a 2,000 year period.

 

[tevans9129]

And this seems important exactly why?

Remember evolution is change over time. It isn't limited solely to within some specific grouping.

How about in context of what the question asked, is that not important? It is to me.

Which is kind of what bacteria do. They develop the ability (through the wonders of biochemistry) to ADAPT and NOT BE KILLED BY ANTIBIOTICS that could kill most of them just two generations earlier.

Are they still bacteria?

In the context of your statement, does my question need anything more than a yes or no answer?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Chemical reactions are a result of the second law of thermodynamics in action. If it doesn't occur spontaneously, heat will usually help a chemical reaction along by breaking any existing bonds between atoms.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-chemic...lecules-What-is-the-property-that-causes-them

Of course, you could have googled that for yourself.

So heat is a trigger for evolution. How high does the temperature have to get? Are there different temperatures for different changes? Does this cause an organic domino effect where major physiological changes take place? Can each change 'domino' be cataloged? How many such 'domino's' must fall to change an organ, a tissue, or a single cell? And what would cause an atom to 'spontaneously' change? If there is an effect there must be a cause.

 

[tevans9129]

No images is not the same thing as no evidence, sunshine, as I am sure must have been pointed out to you multiple times by now. There is nothing like a wilful ignorance, which is determined to remain wilfully ignorant, is there?

Why would you ask a question when you do not answer them, is that not hypocritical?

 

[tevans9129]

Not even. I expect, however, that you will continue to ignore such things because there is too much at stake for you. Somebody else can post it if they want to waste the time.

To be honest, I never expected you to answer the questions that I asked. Many folks can preach, not so many can teach? Grand overviews are certainly easier to explain than the details involved in that overview. Big difference in speculation, conjecture from provable facts.

 

[tevans9129]

Is that what you mean by "adaptation?"

No, that is what I mean about people asking questions but refuse to give clear, straightforward answers to questions as they are asked.

 

[tevans9129]

Does this meet your requirements.

I won't copy and paste it because there's rather a lot there, the sequence is clear though.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

Thanks but no, it does not. For one thing, they will not answer my questions and in addition, I see no verifiable proof of their speculation.

"This image shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse."

Which IMO, is nothing more than an artist's rendention. It has previously been asserted there are no fossil images of "in between" species so there is no verifiable evidence of one species "evolving" into a different species, would you agree with that?

 

[lesliedellow]

So heat is a trigger for evolution.

It takes a special kind of speciousness to get from "heat can trigger chemical reactions" to "heat can trigger evolution".

OldWiseGuy? Never has a name been more inappropriate.

 

[tevans9129]

I will answer that question if you can give me a day by day account of how Latin evolved into present day French, over a 2,000 year period.

And I will do that if you can quote me asserting "that Latin evolved into present day French". How absurd can one get?