What about the DNA evidence?

[Subduction Zone]

i thought the flying squirrel had skin and fur stretched across its limbs and it glided. Wings have structure that allow it to flap and ascend. They have feathers that grow out from the bones. To say that flaps of skin are like wings is not the same. Like i said this is a feature that is within a species. Some of the similar creatures who were in the same situation as the squirrel didn't grow flaps or wings and survived on the ground. There are many mammals around today that are about the same size and structure such as the possum and that is pretty slow. So it didn't grow wings and need to escape anything or get any advantage. This is just variation within a species.

The flying squirrel cannot flap now. What makes you think that later descendants could not evolve that ability?

Here you are given a excellent example of a species possibly on the way to flight and you totally misunderstand the example.

If you insist on misunderstanding you will never comprehend a relatively simple idea.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it has half a wing which is what was asked for. If I pointed to a fully formed wing then it would not have met the challenge. We were asked for an example of something that was not a fully formed wing, but still had function. That is exactly what I referenced.

These are not wings. It has no power to fly. Its a flap of skin just like you would get on breeds of dogs or turkeys. This doesnt show any stage of a species starting to fly. It is complete and the animals glides. The flaps are not going to turn into proper wings and start to flap.

 

[Black Akuma]

These are not wings. It has no power to fly.

They are wings, by definition. Just because something isn't capable of powered flight doesn't mean they don't have wings. Ostriches and penguins can't fly, but they clearly have wings. That they can't use them for flight does not make their wings...not-wings, for lack of a better word.

Also, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, this is the first definition.

a part of an animal's body that is used for flying or gliding

And if you need something a little more...scientific.

A wing is a type of fin with a surface that produces lift for flight or propulsion through the atmosphere, or through another gaseous or liquid fluid. As such, wings have an airfoil shape, a streamlined cross-sectional shape producing a useful lift to drag ratio

Both of these definitions apply to flying squirrels. Flying squirrels have wings. Deal with it.

Did you read the Google Scholar article I suggested?

 

[mzungu]

In Nature; function dictates form. There are innumerable forms a life form can take to better adapt to its environment. Since all life forms are transitional and environmental changes being a driving force then suffice it to say that evolution affects all living things.

As for the flying squirrels; they are gliders. Evolutionary wise, any tree jumping squirrel born with extra skin had an advantage (aerodynamic glide ratio) over their tighter skinned brethren. This advantage meant that the chances of survival were increased and thus more squirrels with floppy skin being born from floppy skinned parents. As the trait became more pronounced so did the ability to survive become more prominent.

The ability to glide greater distances did not require flapping wings. A glider does not need flapping wings. See my point?

 

[stevevw]

They are wings, by definition. Just because something isn't capable of powered flight doesn't mean they don't have wings. Ostriches and penguins can't fly, but they clearly have wings. That they can't use them for flight does not make their wings...not-wings, for lack of a better word.

Also, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, this is the first definition.



And if you need something a little more...scientific.



Both of these definitions apply to flying squirrels. Flying squirrels have wings. Deal with it.

Did you read the Google Scholar article I suggested?

And this is what Wikipedia say about them.
Flying squirrels are not capable of powered flight like birds or bats; instead, they glide between trees.

Besides we have almost the same creature that has survived living on the ground. What advantage did they get or need to survive if there are others that are the same on the ground. This is merely a variation with the species and growing flaps is withing the genetics or variation.

 

[Black Akuma]

And this is what Wikipedia say about them.
Flying squirrels are not capable of powered flight like birds or bats; instead, they glide between trees.

Firstly, this does nothing to refute my overall point that flying squirrels do, in fact, have wings.

Secondly, you should note that the article specifies 'powered flight'. Not just 'flight'. And if that's not enough to see what it gets at, you should read the rest of the paragraph you took this from.

This changes the tautness of the patagium, a furry parachute-like membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle.[4] It has a fluffy tail that stabilizes in flight.

I'll be blunt - gliding is a form of flight. A paper airplane is capable of gliding flight. Humans can do it with wingsuits and hang-gliders. Even birds use gliding flight - when you see an eagle gliding, you wouldn't say it's no longer in flight, would you?

Regardless, the fact remains that they do have wings, by the definition of what a wing is.

As to your other questions, again, if you actually care, you should read the article I've suggested to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

stevevw, do you think that the theory of evolution predicts that the first bird, bat, or pteradon flew or perhaps that they worked their way up to it, perhaps by gliding first?

What is interesting is that right now there are gliding mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Now that does not mean that all of these species will eventually fly, but it shows the multiple paths to flight possible. All of them seem to start with gliding.

 

[mzungu]

stevevw, do you think that the theory of evolution predicts that the first bird, bat, or pteradon flew or perhaps that they worked their way up to it, perhaps by gliding first?

What is interesting is that right now there are gliding mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Now that does not mean that all of these species will eventually fly, but it shows the multiple paths to flight possible. All of them seem to start with gliding.

And to add; flying fish propel themselves rapidly in water in order to take off the water and glide a good distance in the air. This is a trait that gives it a better chance of survival. This is what evolution is all about! Surviving long enough to procreate in order to secure the survival of the species. If this requires an adaptation that will differentiate the life form from its predecessors then this adaptation will function to the benefit of the species.

 

[stevevw]

What is amazing is how quickly creationists forget their own claims. Creationists claim that you have to have a fully formed wing before there is any selectable function. Therefore, the wing had to appear all at once if it were to evolve. We have shown that this is completely false. Now we have creationists using the same argument again, but this time they claim that a quarter of a wing could not evolve on the way to half a wing. Your desperation is becoming quite obvious.

Not only that they had to have a beneficial mutation which is an error in copying the genes happen many times over to produce each little change that made the wing better. Yet a mutation that brings no benefit like the part formed flap which would have caused them to crash or be totally useless somehow stayed and got better with time. Then all the other squirrel mates and other mammals that were about the same size and subject to the same conditions on the ground who didn't develop wings or flaps survived anyway. Honestly it is earlier to believe that this is just a variation within the squirrel type mammals.

 

[stevevw]

stevevw, do you think that the theory of evolution predicts that the first bird, bat, or pteradon flew or perhaps that they worked their way up to it, perhaps by gliding first?

What is interesting is that right now there are gliding mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Now that does not mean that all of these species will eventually fly, but it shows the multiple paths to flight possible. All of them seem to start with gliding.

Then why is Archaeopteryx held up as the great transitional fossil from reptiles to birds. This example has fully formed wings and the body of a reptile. So are you saying it once glided with flaps of skin now. Why are there still gliders around today who are surviving successful. Are you saying they are in the process of developing wings.

If they are why are there none around that have developed a bit more closer to what a wing looks like ie gliders with changing limbs that are transforming the bone structures to that of winged creatures.

If evolution is a random process then how does of mutation grow flaps for survival then as a coincidence comes up with another random mutation that happens to be a flying feature as well the wing which is complete, its different to flaps of skin. Are you saying they somehow knew they needed wings so the genes changed. In other words that creature was lucky enough to get two random mutations that enabled it to fly, first flaps of skin and then proper wings.

If the transition didn't happen all at once but as evolution says, slow gradual change then how does a part flap become advantageous. It would be rejected as useless.

The bat is the same as it was 50 million years ago. It had fully formed wings then as it did now. They have never found any transitions of a creature that may have evolved into a bat.

If the squirrel developed gliding as an advantage through natural selection why are there other creatures who were similar in size and were subjected to the same conditions that didn't develop flaps for gliding. What about the squirrel that doesn't glide how did they survive without taking on the advantageous mutations.

 

[mzungu]

If the squirrel developed gliding as an advantage through natural selection why are there other creatures who were similar in size and were subjected to the same conditions that didn't develop flaps for gliding. What about the squirrel that doesn't glide how did they survive without taking on the advantageous mutations.

Why do the children of the same parents who grew up in the same environment and got the same education end up having different lifestyles and other things? Flying squirrels have a different lifestyle than other squirrels. Each occupies its own niche.

You need to read and understand how evolution works. You may ask questions but if you ask for the sole purpose of not learning but to dismiss out of a whim because you are afraid that science will destroy your faith then there is not much anyone can explain to you that will make any difference.

 

[stevevw]

Why do the children of the same parents who grew up in the same environment and got the same education end up having different lifestyles and other things? Flying squirrels have a different lifestyle than other squirrels. Each occupies its own niche.

Yes but we are talking about an animal taking on a different feature from a group where some didn't. They took that feature supposedly to adapt because otherwise they would not survive. They took on that feature to get an advantage. Thats despite all the other squirrels and little creatures who were the same not and they survived. So in other words they didn't take on that advantage and still survived. This goes against natural selection and survival of the fittest.

You need to read and understand how evolution works. You may ask questions but if you ask for the sole purpose of not learning but to dismiss out of a whim because you are afraid that science will destroy your faith then there is not much anyone can explain to you that will make any difference.

No im asking the question and thats it. These are simple questions that someone would ask as they are obvious.

But weren't all those squirrels originally in the same predicament. Weren't some of the other little creatures in the same situations. They all had to adapt and survive other wise they died out. I thought natural selection was all about a group taking on a feature that will help them adapt and survive and have an advantage on the others. If they were all together in the same environment in which they needed to survive in, why did only one lot develop flaps to fly. What was theirs an advantage on the others as the others also survived without developing flaps. Why do we have both flying and non flying squirrels types around today if the flying squirrels had the advantage.

Everything i've read on evolution has been the same. I have even had other evolutionist say that my description of evolution is pretty close to how it happens. So i think i know basically how it works. This is just a simple obvious question that makes sense to me. sometimes you cant see the forest through the trees and its the simple obvious questions that are the ones that need to be asked and looked at closely.

I am not the least bit worried or scared of anything not even death. You see if my faith is proved wrong and i had to give it up then i would be just like you. I wont have a break down or have to reassess my life, I would simply get on with it as this life would be the only thing i have left. You dont have one advantage over me because of your belief in evolution. If my faith is true then i have the advantage of living in paradise with God. Besides why bring that up, the debate is about The DNA evidence not proving or disproving god though that is related but another topic.

I dont need to hide behind any faith and im not less of a person because of my faith. I have every bit of reality and ability as you. The only difference i believe there is more to this life than just what we see. I have a faith in god which is every bit as real to me as your evidence is to you about evolution. For some reason atheists and evolutionist seem to think Christians are a bit knocked off and must have some emotional or mental block or inadequacy about them.

At the end of the day faith cannot be proved or disproved so it is not based on evidence.

 

[mzungu]

No im asking the question and thats it. These are simple questions that someone would ask as they are obvious.

But weren't all those squirrels originally in the same predicament. Weren't some of the other little creatures in the same situations. They all had to adapt and survive other wise they died out. I thought natural selection was all about a group taking on a feature that will help them adapt and survive and have an advantage on the others. If they were all together in the same environment in which they needed to survive in, why did only one lot develop flaps to fly. What was theirs an advantage on the others as the others also survived without developing flaps. Why do we have both flying and non flying squirrels types around today if the flying squirrels had the advantage.

Everything i've read on evolution has been the same. I have even had other evolutionist say that my description of evolution is pretty close to how it happens. So i think i know basically how it works. This is just a simple obvious question that makes sense to me. sometimes you cant see the forest through the trees and its the simple obvious questions that are the ones that need to be asked and looked at closely.

I am not the least bit worried or scared of anything not even death. You see if my faith is proved wrong and i had to give it up then i would be just like you. I wont have a break down or have to reassess my life, I would simply start to get on with it as this life would be the only thing i have left. If my faith is true then i have the advantage of living in paradise with God.

I dont need to hide behind any faith and im not less of a person because of my faith. I have every bit of reality and ability as you. The only difference i believe there is more to this life than just what we see. I have a faith in god which is every bit as real to me as your evidence is to you about evolution. At the end of the day faith cannot be proved or disproved so it is not based on evidence.

Any trait acquired that gives an individual a benefit will invariably allow that trait to be passed on to future generations. Just because a new type of squirrel evolved to glide does not mean that other types of squirrels have a disadvantage. The advantage the flying squirrel has will allow it to habitate in niches that normal squirrels are at a disadvantage even if it is a minor one. Just because one squirrel has an advantage does not mean the other squirrels will become extinct or all will acquire this advantageous trait as the flying squirrels will prefer to copulate with flying squirrels. All this means is that flying squirrels can do things other squirrels cannot and thus flying squirrels will end up living a different lifestyle.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No im asking the question and thats it. These are simple questions that someone would ask as they are obvious.

But weren't all those squirrels originally in the same predicament. Weren't some of the other little creatures in the same situations. They all had to adapt and survive other wise they died out. I thought natural selection was all about a group taking on a feature that will help them adapt and survive and have an advantage on the others. If they were all together in the same environment in which they needed to survive in, why did only one lot develop flaps to fly. What was theirs an advantage on the others as the others also survived without developing flaps. Why do we have both flying and non flying squirrels types around today if the flying squirrels had the advantage.

Everything i've read on evolution has been the same. I have even had other evolutionist say that my description of evolution is pretty close to how it happens. So i think i know basically how it works. This is just a simple obvious question that makes sense to me. sometimes you cant see the forest through the trees and its the simple obvious questions that are the ones that need to be asked and looked at closely.

I am not the least bit worried or scared of anything not even death. You see if my faith is proved wrong and i had to give it up then i would be just like you. I wont have a break down or have to reassess my life, I would simply get on with it as this life would be the only thing i have left. You dont have one advantage over me because of your belief in evolution. If my faith is true then i have the advantage of living in paradise with God. Besides why bring that up, the debate is about The DNA evidence not proving or disproving god though that is related but another topic.

I dont need to hide behind any faith and im not less of a person because of my faith. I have every bit of reality and ability as you. The only difference i believe there is more to this life than just what we see. I have a faith in god which is every bit as real to me as your evidence is to you about evolution. For some reason atheists and evolutionist seem to think Christians are a bit knocked off and must have some emotional or mental block or inadequacy about them.

At the end of the day faith cannot be proved or disproved so it is not based on evidence.

Because as we know from both the observational Evidence and DNA evidence, species merely vary within their own species niche. Flying squirrels no matter how hard the evolutionists try to say otherwise are still - squirrels. Always have been, always will be. Cats another prime example. Many variations within the species itself, but all of the same species. Proven by the fact that their is a clear interbreeding chain from house cat to Tiger.

Since house cat can breed with Ocelot and produce fertile offspring, then house cat and Ocelot are one species. Since Ocelot can breed with Jaguar, then Ocelot and Jaguar are one species, as well as house cat since Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Jaguar breed with Panther, then Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Panther breeds with Lion, then Lion, Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Lion breeds with Tiger, then Tiger, Lion, Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are all one species, merely different variations of one single species.

The breeding chain is clear and indisputable, showing the futility of evolutionists dreams of one species changing into another. But never have cats crossed the species line and became anything other than cats. It is this line of variation that EVr's have mistaken as evolution from one species to another.

We do not deny that both mutations and environment play a role in this variation. Animals adapt to their ecological niche and food supply, mutations cause genes to become recessive, but those genes that went recessive already existed, and the new breed, is still the same species as it was before, feline. This is well documented in mutation research as we both know, that only what already exists is affected - made recessive or dominate, but nothing new is ever created in the genome.

In plant husbandry the mutated plants have been shown to do no better in the wild than the wild plants, and in most cases do not fare as well being weaker due to the recessive genes. What they call beneficial mutations are beneficial to the human species, not the plant. An Allele not fit for human consumption goes recessive and the plant can now be used for human consumption so is considered a successful mutation, but the plant itself is less verile and only good for cultivation and almost always fails in the wild. Without man to cultivate it, it would die out.

For example, seedless grapes and oranges (caused by recombination, not mutation) are quite beneficial to mankind, but now lack any way to reproduce except through continuous help by man. So do not let the words beneficial fool you, as what is called beneficial is for mans consumption and rarely beneficial to the plant itself.

 

[stevevw]

Because as we know from both the observational Evidence and DNA evidence, species merely vary within their own species niche. Flying squirrels no matter how hard the evolutionists try to say otherwise are still - squirrels. Always have been, always will be. Cats another prime example. Many variations within the species itself, but all of the same species. Proven by the fact that their is a clear interbreeding chain from house cat to Tiger.

Since house cat can breed with Ocelot and produce fertile offspring, then house cat and Ocelot are one species. Since Ocelot can breed with Jaguar, then Ocelot and Jaguar are one species, as well as house cat since Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Jaguar breed with Panther, then Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Panther breeds with Lion, then Lion, Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are one species. Since Lion breeds with Tiger, then Tiger, Lion, Panther, Jaguar, Ocelot and house cat are all one species, merely different variations of one single species.

The breeding chain is clear and indisputable, showing the futility of evolutionists dreams of one species changing into another. But never have cats crossed the species line and became anything other than cats. It is this line of variation that EVr's have mistaken as evolution from one species to another.

We do not deny that both mutations and environment play a role in this variation. Animals adapt to their ecological niche and food supply, mutations cause genes to become recessive, but those genes that went recessive already existed, and the new breed, is still the same species as it was before, feline. This is well documented in mutation research as we both know, that only what already exists is affected - made recessive or dominate, but nothing new is ever created in the genome.

In plant husbandry the mutated plants have been shown to do no better in the wild than the wild plants, and in most cases do not fare as well being weaker due to the recessive genes. What they call beneficial mutations are beneficial to the human species, not the plant. An Allele not fit for human consumption goes recessive and the plant can now be used for human consumption so is considered a successful mutation, but the plant itself is less verile and only good for cultivation and almost always fails in the wild. Without man to cultivate it, it would die out.

For example, seedless grapes and oranges (caused by recombination, not mutation) are quite beneficial to mankind, but now lack any way to reproduce except through continuous help by man. So do not let the words beneficial fool you, as what is called beneficial is for mans consumption and rarely beneficial to the plant itself.

Thanks that makes sense to me.

 

[stevevw]

Any trait acquired that gives an individual a benefit will invariably allow that trait to be passed on to future generations. Just because a new type of squirrel evolved to glide does not mean that other types of squirrels have a disadvantage. The advantage the flying squirrel has will allow it to habitate in niches that normal squirrels are at a disadvantage even if it is a minor one. Just because one squirrel has an advantage does not mean the other squirrels will become extinct or all will acquire this advantageous trait as the flying squirrels will prefer to copulate with flying squirrels. All this means is that flying squirrels can do things other squirrels cannot and thus flying squirrels will end up living a different lifestyle.

Thanks, does the animals environment and the conditions it lives under have an effect on how its genes are processed and passed onto its offspring. Or does this new advantageous feature come through a random process.

 

[ArtB]

Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

What Francis Collins believes is His business. Science is not based on Authority of people, it is based upon facts, well tried and true. The vaste majority of scientists have nothing to do with evolution in their fields of science. The vaste majority of Physicists believe the Theory Evolution is not science at all, they see as a meta-physical pursuit, and quite a few, realize that the Theory of evolution is unviable, because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

For example, it has been proven scientifically that for a short protein, of 100 amino acid chain, only 1 out of 10^65 combinations of amino acids is capable of being folded into a protein.

For larger proteins requiring additional amino acids, the improbability for a folded protein to evolve into existence increases exponentially for each additional amino acid chains required.

It takes intelligence and know how for physical bodies to come into existence, and also to reproduce their bodies.

We are spirits. We inhabit our body. When we live here on earth, we live in our body. When we die, we leave our body, our body decomposes to the dust of the molecules they were made of. And our spirit returns to God, and we will be judged for what we did in our lifetime, good or bad.

John Chapter 3:1- Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these [a]signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born [b]again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”


9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever [d]believes will in Him have eternal life.


16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

 

[sfs]

What Francis Collins believes is His business. Science is not based on Authority of people, it is based upon facts, well tried and true. The vaste majority of scientists have nothing to do with evolution in their fields of science. The vaste majority of Physicists believe Theory Evolution is not science at all,

Your evidence for this absurd falsehood is what, exactly? The official statement of the American Physical Society supporting the teaching of evolution and opposing creationism? Or the official statements from the American Geophysical Union, the Society of Physics Students and the American Institute of Physics saying similar things?

and quite a few, realize that the Theory of evolution is unviable, because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

No competent physicist thinks that evolution violates the 2nd Law.

 

[[serious]]

i thought the flying squirrel had skin and fur stretched across its limbs and it glided.

yes, just as bats have skin and fur stretched across their limbs.

Wings have structure that allow it to flap and ascend.

No, only some wings can be flapped, only some wings can functionally power flight.

They have feathers that grow out from the bones.

No. Feathers are an integumentary (skin) structure made out of keratin just as mammilian hair is.

To say that flaps of skin are like wings is not the same.

bats and pteradactyls both have skin based wings.

Like i said this is a feature that is within a species.

several dozen species. 44 squirrels, 8 opossums, and two primate like animals glide and 1200 or so species of bats.

Some of the similar creatures who were in the same situation as the squirrel didn't grow flaps or wings and survived on the ground.

Irrelevant

There are many mammals around today that are about the same size and structure such as the possum and the ground squirrel that dont fly.

so?

So it didn't grow wings and need to escape anything or get any advantage.

Does not follow. All the creatures you have listed have predators they need to escape from.

This is just variation within a species.

Many species.

 

[mzungu]

Thanks, does the animals environment and the conditions it lives under have an effect on how its genes are processed and passed onto its offspring. Or does this new advantageous feature come through a random process.

I think this excerpt from Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology will answer your question:

Evolution

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction.
Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms.
New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer.
Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift. Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare.
This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation.
Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.
In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population.
Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring.
However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of novel traits cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species.
The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence. The theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed roughly simultaneously by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.
In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made.
This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.



Genetic drift — Genetic drift is the term used in population genetics to refer to the statistical drift over time of gene frequencies in a population due to random ... > read more
Speciation — Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are three main ideas concerning the emergence of new ... > read more
Trait (biology) — In biology, a trait or character is a feature of an organism. The term phenotype is sometimes used as a synonym for trait in common use, but strictly ... > read more



http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/n/natural_selection.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/n/natural_selection.htm

Allele frequency — Allele frequency is a measure of the relative frequency of an allele on a genetic locus in a population. Usually it is expressed as a proportion or a ... > read more

R/K selection theory in ecology — In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of traits (in organisms) that allow success in particular environments. In unstable or ... > read more
Mutation — In biology, mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material ... > read more

Introduction to genetics — Genetics is the study of how living things receive common traits from previous generations. These traits are described by the genetic information ... > read more
Neoteny — Neoteny is the retention, by adults in a species, of traits previously seen only in juveniles (pedomorphosis/paedomorphosis), and is a subject ... > read more

Parallel evolution — Parallel evolution is the independent evolution of similar traits, starting from a similar ancestral condition. Frequently this is the situation in ... > read more