Originally posted by Placidity
Mutation and selective pressure. Though the thing is, we have so far not observed any sort of "evolution" that goes beyond the microbial level.
What about this?
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fast_evolution_observed_in_butterflies
Originally posted by Placidity
Alright then.Evolution is the gradual change of a species over time/generations. They arise due to mutations or recombination in their genetic code.
The example of a moth changing into a butterfly is not due to a mutation because the trigger for predetermined transformation is already stored in their genes since birth, and has been so for many generations.
Moths don't transform into butterflies.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Moths don't change into butterflies do they?I thought a butterfly was a new form of moth which had evolved on the back of normal moths...improving upon the deficiencies in a moths design.
Moths evolved into butterflies, they do not turn into butterflies in their lifetimes in the way a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.
No, moths do not transform into butterflies.
JIA, you have no idea what Evolution is, I do think you think it means a lizard will give birth to a bird; which in turn will give birth to a walrus.
It isn't like that, it's extremely slow and it stands to reason there has to be certain factors (usually in the environment) which provide factors for said mutation(s) to flourish.
The CCR-5 gene mutation in humans is a good example, certain people are born without or with a defective CCR-5 gene receptor, while the human body is able to cope around this defect; it has a positive side effect. These people are immune to the HIV virus and certain other plagues.
Now, imagine if the environment changed and HIV became not only airborne, but killed those infected far quicker, the people without the CCR-5 defeat would continue to live and reproduce without ill effects for the deadly disease and some/all of their children would carry on this immunity, while the part of the population that doesn't have the CCR-5 defeat would be succumbing to the disease and decreasing. Given enough time, the human population would consist of everyone having the CCR-5 defeat.
The CCR-5 is mainly found in Europeons, roughly 10%, it is believed it flourished and spread among the human population during the Bubonic plague epidemic in Europe, the very few that had the defect back then were immune to the plague and had a greater chance of living to reproduce during that environment.
Originally posted by Robtard
JIA, you have no idea what Evolution is, I do think you think it means a lizard will give birth to a bird; which in turn will give birth to a walrus.It isn't like that, it's extremely slow and it stands to reason there has to be certain factors (usually in the environment) which provide said mutation(s) to flourish.
The CCR-5 gene mutation in humans is a good example, certain people are born without or with a defective CCR-5 gene receptor, while the human body is able to cope around this defect; it has a positive side effect. These people are immune to the HIV virus and certain other plagues.
Now, imagine if the environment changed and HIV became not only airborne, but killed those infected far quicker, the people without the CCR-5 defeat would continue to live and reproduce without ill effects for the deadly disease and some/all of their children would carry on this immunity, while the part of the population that doesn't have the CCR-5 defeat would be succumbing to the disease and decreasing. Given enough time, the human population would consist of everyone having the CCR-5 defeat.
Agreed. And sometimes these small changes can have unforeseen, and profound effects in the far future. Like for example, the mutation that weakened the jaw musicals in early humans lead to the ability to speak.
Originally posted by Robtard
JIA, you have no idea what Evolution is, I do think you think it means a lizard will give birth to a bird; which in turn will give birth to a walrus.It isn't like that, it's extremely slow and it stands to reason there has to be certain factors (usually in the environment) which provide said mutation(s) to flourish.
The CCR-5 gene mutation in humans is a good example, certain people are born without or with a defective CCR-5 gene receptor, while the human body is able to cope around this defect; it has a positive side effect. These people are immune to the HIV virus and certain other plagues.
Now, imagine if the environment changed and HIV became not only airborne, but killed those infected far quicker, the people without the CCR-5 defeat would continue to live and reproduce without ill effects for the deadly disease and some/all of their children would carry on this immunity, while the part of the population that doesn't have the CCR-5 defeat would be succumbing to the disease and decreasing. Given enough time, the human population would consist of everyone having the CCR-5 defeat.
The CCR-5 is mainly found in Europeons, roughly 10%, it is believed it flourished and spread among the human population during the Bubonic plague epidemic in Europe, the very few that if back then were immune and had a greater chance of living to reproduce during that environment.
That is still not evolution. Besides, your example is hypothetical and we are supposed to be discussing facts not speculative, extrapolatory scenarios.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
K. I'm going to ask him to substantiate his claims one more time and if he fails I'm going to add him to my ignore list as a troll though.
No, that's not how this works. When I ask you to do knock it off, you do it. It's pretty damn simple. And I see you haven't even put him on Ignore, which also makes you a liar. If you don't knock it off this time, you are going to be temporarily banned. Last warning there.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no evidence that populations evolve.
That is the KARKING definition of evolution.
As demonstrated by:
Originally posted by Robtard
JIA, you have no idea what Evolution is, I do think you think it means a lizard will give birth to a bird; which in turn will give birth to a walrus.It isn't like that, it's extremely slow and it stands to reason there has to be certain factors (usually in the environment) which provide factors for said mutation(s) to flourish.
The CCR-5 gene mutation in humans is a good example, certain people are born without or with a defective CCR-5 gene receptor, while the human body is able to cope around this defect; it has a positive side effect. These people are immune to the HIV virus and certain other plagues.
Now, imagine if the environment changed and HIV became not only airborne, but killed those infected far quicker, the people without the CCR-5 defeat would continue to live and reproduce without ill effects for the deadly disease and some/all of their children would carry on this immunity, while the part of the population that doesn't have the CCR-5 defeat would be succumbing to the disease and decreasing. Given enough time, the human population would consist of everyone having the CCR-5 defeat.
The CCR-5 is mainly found in Europeons, roughly 10%, it is believed it flourished and spread among the human population during the Bubonic plague epidemic in Europe, the very few that had the defect back then were immune to the plague and had a greater chance of living to reproduce during that environment.
A question about that plague tidbit:
Europeans are not the only ethnic group to ever survive plagues. If it is a genetic mutation, it would be expected to appear about as likely in all ethnic groups, and given disease resistance would benefit anyone regardless of geography/ethnicity, why would the Europeans have an abundance in the population?
Also, wouldn't the mutation have been expected to flourish in the colonized world as new forms of viruses were switching through populations? I can't see that disease resistance would be so culturally beneficial that only europeans would pick it up?
(Ya, I know it is off topic, but this is way more interesting)
Originally posted by inimalist
A question about that plague tidbit:Europeans are not the only ethnic group to ever survive plagues. If it is a genetic mutation, it would be expected to appear about as likely in all ethnic groups, and given disease resistance would benefit anyone regardless of geography/ethnicity, why would the Europeans have an abundance in the population?
Also, wouldn't the mutation have been expected to flourish in the colonized world as new forms of viruses were switching through populations? I can't see that disease resistance would be so culturally beneficial that only europeans would pick it up?
(Ya, I know it is off topic, but this is way more interesting)
Not necessarily true, certain mutations happen in some groups while not in others.
There are also numerous small factors even if the CCR-5 was spread through the entire human population that would have to be just right.
eg What if a population in China (or Africa, Americas etc) which went through a plague epidemic and the few people who had the CCR-5 defect died of other causes? What if that plague didn't rely on a functioning CCR-5 receptor as a means of entry and reproduction?
Seems in the case of Europe and the CCR-5 defect, things just happened to fall into place.
The "new world" inhabitants would first have to have the CCR-5 defect present in their population (I'd expect more than just a hand full of people, though not a requisite) in order for the 'natural selection/survival of the fitness aspect to run it's course. Also, the Europeans were slaughtering the natives with steel and powder, besides the onslaught of new diseases they had no immunity to,so it's possible those that were immune, were killed by other means.
Originally posted by Captain REX
I never knew that about the CCR-5 defeat. That's really cool.
Google CCR-5 mutation, CCR-5 HIV resistance or some combo; you'll get many hits.
Now mind you, if you happen to be of European background, this is no cause to go ****ing every whore and prostitute you can without protection, as the odds are you don't have it.
Edit: Just realized I typed "defeat" instead of "defect", was my stupid error for not spell checking and proof reading what I wrote.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is still not evolution. Besides, your example is hypothetical and we are supposed to be discussing facts not speculative, extrapolatory scenarios.
You just have a knack for burying your head in the sand when something just doesn't agree with your rhetoric.
The Bubonic epidemic in Europe happened, as did the Smallpox and a few others, all of which the CCR-5 would make someone immune too.
since i am immune to smallbox from my ascenstors exposure and modern vaccination as a child plus the added extra protection from military grade vaccination from biological warfare... does that mean i may have an immunity to aids?
just curious, i know it sounds asinine but really like an answer. 🙂
wish there was a test to find out.
i also like the aids immunity thing wish i would have come up with it, but i didnt have the full information on it.
Originally posted by Robtard
You just have a knack for burying your head in the sand when something just doesn't agree with your rhetoric.The Bubonic epidemic in Europe happened, as did the Smallpox and a few others, all of which the CCR-5 would make someone immune too.
How is that evidence of macroevolution?