danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?'
VendingMenace Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 in certain observed populations, geneotype frequencies have been observed to change over time. Since the definition of evolution is the change in frequencies in genotypes over time, we can say that evolution has been observed in these species. Now if you want to make the leap (a generally accepted one) that phenotype is greatly dependent on genotype, then in populations in which phenotype frequencies has been observed to fluctuate throughout time, one can assume that the genotype frequecies have as well. If you are willing to accept this, then bassically all forms of "life" have been obseved to evolve.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 evolution in action: http://www.darwinawards.com
matter Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 blike said in post #2 :This sounds like your homework.. lol
fafalone Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 We've seen fish evolve smaller (read through the news forum) and watched a brand new species of bird appear. We've analyzed chromosomes showing a Robertsonian translocation on chromosome number 2 present in humans that is not present in apes, deleting some parts and giving us one less chromosome. A very simple proof of evolution is to take a group of bacteria, confer streptomycin resistance on a few, place them on a medium with streptomycin, and watch them all become true-breeding for streptomycin resistance very quickly.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Or just watch the flu virus change over the years.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Endogenous retroviral sequences, atavisms, polyploidy, nylon digesting bacteria, meat-eating fruitfly, bread-eating-fruitfly, vancomycin resistance, chromosome merging of chimp's 2p and 2q to get human 2... lots more. what do you want?
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 "a Robertsonian translocation on chromosome number 2 present in humans that is not present in apes" First of all, are we assuming that we evolved from apes? I am looking for a example of macroevolution, not a microevolution. i.e. I'm looking for proof that the dog and the fish have a common ancestor.
fafalone Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 The translocation is a very very strong support that we and modern apes (chimps) do in fact have a common ancestor.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 well there is a whole wodge of evidence that we evolved from an early primate (we are apes btw) Human Endogenous Retroviral sequences that are present in both humans and other primates, in a genotypical order that matches with other cladistic patterns. Chromosome merging, and other chromosome mutations that match up with other cladistic patterns. Evidence from transposons. Evidence from dead genes, which have died in the same way (i.e the gene for vitamin C) Large amounts of fossil evidence, showing the progression from early primates to homo sapiens sapiens.
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human. Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared. Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 That neanderthal-- do you believe someone almost 50 years ago without modern technology?
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 so address all the molecular evidence then... and yes we know about all the hoaxes. perhaps you would like to address the proper evidence.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Here is a nice little file showing the comparisons of the human and chimp karotypes, notice how well they match.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 and here is a nice set of skulls. feel free to tell us which are human and which are ape.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 I say, there goes those "But there's no proof of evolution!" people! They do match!
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 Endogenous retroviral sequences sometimes enter the germline of organisms. The virus on infecting the somatic cell mutates occasionally and does not work, and may become embedded in the population. This happens many times and provides excellent evidence of common ancestry. Here is a chart detailing a number of ERVs in the primates:
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 I think you have to go a little farther back than your "we evolved from monkey's story" How about the basis for your entire evolution theory....There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 A,b,c,i=ape by my guess. the rest look human. But I think it's an evolutionary chart. So it's hard to tell.
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Posted January 11, 2004 No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #18 :There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. what do you mean by kind? bear in mind that all organisms form nested hierarchies. What do you mean by physical law? there are a number of types of mutation that can drastically alter animals, or even alter them just a little bit over many generations Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. insects don't evolve into non-insects because that is not how evolution works. Evolution works on a principle of inheritance, in that the offspring inherit the characteristics of the parent, with some minor modification. This forms a set of nested hierarchies.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #22 :No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. see, more fallacies. no-one says that soil turned into grass and trees. far from it, the process of evolution and abiogenesis is far more complex and lengthly than that.
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #20 :I think you have to go a little farther back than your "we evolved from monkey's story" How about the basis for your entire evolution theory....There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. are you going to answert any points or just bombard us with fallacies?
Recommended Posts