Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Scientist and researchers disagree with each other all the time, which is the nature of science but doesn’t prove a thing. Even creationists disagree with each other does that mean that it is invalid too?
Their denial of macroevolution is not on a whim, it is based on the lack of evidence for it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Their denial of macroevolution is not on a whim, it is based on the lack of evidence for it.
Erm...
Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
JIA could you explain this please:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm
Butterfly shows evolution at work
Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria. Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science. Rapid natural selection Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat, added: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the blue moon butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001. In 2006, they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterflies had either reached or were approaching those of females. The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed. But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.
Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria. Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science. Rapid natural selection Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat, added: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the blue moon butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001. In 2006, they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterflies had either reached or were approaching those of females. The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed. But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.
Most likely the germ killed the majority of the population that was not immune to the germ. This inadvertantly caused the remaining population that were immune to reproduce and become the majority of the population.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, Speciefaction(SP?) never happens? 😕
not when you look at evolution from a perspective that doesn't look at the modern animal kingdom and assume that it is suppose to be this way
technically, a species is formed when the members of its members can no longer mate with members of other species due to the uniqueness of their genes, or do not for behavioural reasons.
Basically, no parent ever gives birth to a child that could no reproduce with a member of its own species, but if you go back far enough, the genes become different enough that you could have a child that was incapable of mating with its great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparent's species, but each generation along the line would still be a member of the species that came before it.
Basically, we are all the same proto-life whatever that started reproducing, just really really changed.
Originally posted by Meredith F. Small
Talk, Talk, Talk: One Thing We Do Better than ApesAnthropologists and others used to have a list of behaviors that separated us from the apes. Humans were the only ones to use tools, utilize culture, have complex feelings and communicate by language.
But over the years, each one of these so-called uniquely human abilities, except language, has fallen by the wayside.
For example, chimps expertly crack nuts using stones of just the right heft, fish for termites with finely fashioned stick rods and soak up rainwater with nicely crumpled leaf sponges.
And over the range of chimpanzees, differing groups take on signature behaviors that can only be considered cultural, even multicultural.
Chimpanzees also exhibit empathy, sympathy and a sense of morality; in some cases, they are better humans than we are.
But chimps can’t tell us about their culture or their feelings; they can’t talk about the past or what they might expect in the future; they can’t verbally explain to their offspring how to crack a nut or crumple a leaf because only humans can talk.
It is true, of course, that some chimps have been taught to communicate in a word-like fashion by making broad gestures with their hands or by using plastic tokens or a keyboard in place of words. They “get” that gestures and pictures represent something else.
But they are hard-pressed to make a decent sentence, even with plastic shapes, and it takes years for them to master any of the ways humans have devised to teach them language.
No wonder.
Chimpanzees never evolved the physical apparatus that allows for speech production, and their brains were never selected to communicate with language.
At this point, we also have no idea if female chimps "outtalk" male chimps (via gestures or otherwise), as has been assumed of female and male humans for some time.
A recent article in the journal Science (July 6) dismissed the closely held belief that women talk more than men. For those of us who chose a male partner because he seemed like the quiet type, only to discover that behind closed doors he never shuts up, this study is very old news.
In any case, for humans, language was an evolutionary watershed.
Some time in our past, communicating with complex sounds that became language was an advantage. Perhaps we were selected to give complex directions about hidden food, or verbally teach things to kids, or plot revenge and bolster friendship with words.
Language is an evolutionary gift, and yet these days we often use this magnificent ability to remark, “Hey lady, you talk too much.”
Meredith F. Small is an anthropologist at Cornell University. She is also the author of "Our Babies, Ourselves; How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent" (link) and "The Culture of Our Discontent; Beyond the Medical Model of Mental Illness" (link).
Originally posted by inimalist
not when you look at evolution from a perspective that doesn't look at the modern animal kingdom and assume that it is suppose to be this waytechnically, a species is formed when the members of its members can no longer mate with members of other species due to the uniqueness of their genes, or do not for behavioural reasons.
Basically, no parent ever gives birth to a child that could no reproduce with a member of its own species, but if you go back far enough, the genes become different enough that you could have a child that was incapable of mating with its great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparent's species, but each generation along the line would still be a member of the species that came before it.
Basically, we are all the same proto-life whatever that started reproducing, just really really changed.
There's your answer JIA.
Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
JIA could you explain this please:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm
Butterfly shows evolution at work
Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria. Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science. Rapid natural selection Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat, added: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the blue moon butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001. In 2006, they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterflies had either reached or were approaching those of females. The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed. But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.
Rapid evolutionary changes = rapid speciation. Post-Flood.
Originally posted by inimalist
not when you look at evolution from a perspective that doesn't look at the modern animal kingdom and assume that it is suppose to be this waytechnically, a species is formed when the members of its members can no longer mate with members of other species due to the uniqueness of their genes, or do not for behavioural reasons.
Basically, no parent ever gives birth to a child that could no reproduce with a member of its own species, but if you go back far enough, the genes become different enough that you could have a child that was incapable of mating with its great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparent's species, but each generation along the line would still be a member of the species that came before it.
Basically, we are all the same proto-life whatever that started reproducing, just really really changed.
Can you substantiate this?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can you substantiate this?
For the most part I am just re-stating the principals of the selfish gene and pretty much plagiarizing Dawkins' work in the Ancestor's Tale.
As far as real substantiation, microbiology isn't my specialty, but in a couple of days I would probably be able to find studies and papers that discuss this.
If I found peer review scientific journals that talk about these processes would that be good evidence for you?