evidence of evolution in present day
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
Another good piece of modern evidence is our understanding of endogenous retroviral insertions. While it's possible that it's a fluke that we share so many with chimps, it's unlikely. I've seen creationists argue that certain changes are more likely than others, but the odds of this being a coincidence are still staggeringly against this point of view.


(17-12-2013 11:28 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 09:36 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  Adding to the intrigue, 100% of Native Americans in the study were lactose intolerant--which gives us even more evidence that they descended from humans that crossed the land bridge.
Wow... i never knew that some people can't digest milk at all O_O aww man i can't imagine Life without ice cream and pizza.. Weeping

I have several friends troubled by this. I agree with you: pizza and ice cream FTW!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
18-12-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
Yo, what about those pesky old bacteria which eat nylon, having evolved shortly after we created and began producing the stuff?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
18-12-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
It's not like it's even hard to find good science on the subject. I did a quick search several months ago across a couple bio databases. Speaking of which, I should probably update that, there's no doubt been more since July...

(12-06-2013 09:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Speciation: evidence for, speculation on, and discussion of.
Some
examples
from
the
past
year.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 08:06 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Yo, what about those pesky old bacteria which eat nylon, having evolved shortly after we created and began producing the stuff?

I'm gonna expand on this a little bit.

When reading that bacteria evolved to eat nylon after we began producing it, many people may think that somehow this bacteria 'changed' or 'mutated' to be able to this.

The likely scenario is that some bacteria already had the ability to digest the material, but prior to nylon, this ability was pretty worthless and did nothing to aid in survivorship and reproductive capabilities. .

However, once that new niche was created, those bacteria began to flourish. Thus, evolution has occurred. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Variation=the spice of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like jaguar3030's post
18-12-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
To the section addressing the "why do apes exist then": The theory of evolution does not postulate that we came from apes. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. It actually states that we share a common ancestor with apes. From this common ancestor we branched off into our own niche as did the other species we see today. It is an invalid point that needs correction and not a counter argument when theists say that.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlackMason's post
18-12-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 12:48 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  To the section addressing the "why do apes exist then": The theory of evolution does not postulate that we came from apes. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. It actually states that we share a common ancestor with apes. From this common ancestor we branched off into our own niche as did the other species we see today. It is an invalid point that needs correction and not a counter argument when theists say that.

Almost.

The theory of evolution does state that we come from apes. It states that we are still apes.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 12:48 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  To the section addressing the "why do apes exist then": The theory of evolution does not postulate that we came from apes. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. It actually states that we share a common ancestor with apes. From this common ancestor we branched off into our own niche as did the other species we see today. It is an invalid point that needs correction and not a counter argument when theists say that.

To be somewhat pedantic -
Not only are we still apes, but our most recent common ancestor with the other surviving apes is, necessarily, itself an ape; that's just cladistics.

But yeah, generally speaking modern species don't come from other modern species. And that is something idiots love to deliberately misunderstand.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-12-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 10:05 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 08:06 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Yo, what about those pesky old bacteria which eat nylon, having evolved shortly after we created and began producing the stuff?

I'm gonna expand on this a little bit.

When reading that bacteria evolved to eat nylon after we began producing it, many people may think that somehow this bacteria 'changed' or 'mutated' to be able to this.

The likely scenario is that some bacteria already had the ability to digest the material, but prior to nylon, this ability was pretty worthless and did nothing to aid in survivorship and reproductive capabilities. .

However, once that new niche was created, those bacteria began to flourish. Thus, evolution has occurred. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Variation=the spice of life.

I'd suggest it is more likely that it was a mutation. See the Lenski experiment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 12:48 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  To the section addressing the "why do apes exist then": The theory of evolution does not postulate that we came from apes. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. It actually states that we share a common ancestor with apes. From this common ancestor we branched off into our own niche as did the other species we see today. It is an invalid point that needs correction and not a counter argument when theists say that.
We don't come from apes.. WE ARE APES!

many people fail to realize this basic fact that we are in fact just intelligent animals and we didn't get here by default it took a million years for us to get here,in fact our primate ancestral tree goes as far back to the Mesozoic era when dinosaurs were around.

This image gives you an idea on how big primate family tree really is :-

[Image: Primate-clade-tree.jpg]

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: evidence of evolution in present day
(18-12-2013 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 10:05 AM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  I'm gonna expand on this a little bit.

When reading that bacteria evolved to eat nylon after we began producing it, many people may think that somehow this bacteria 'changed' or 'mutated' to be able to this.

The likely scenario is that some bacteria already had the ability to digest the material, but prior to nylon, this ability was pretty worthless and did nothing to aid in survivorship and reproductive capabilities. .

However, once that new niche was created, those bacteria began to flourish. Thus, evolution has occurred. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Variation=the spice of life.

I'd suggest it is more likely that it was a mutation. See the Lenski experiment.



Do you have a link to a specific page on that site that summarizes their findings? I couldn't find anything and I'd like to read it.

I had time to look some info up on these nylon eating bacteria, and here is an excerpt from wikipedia:

"There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs"

------
What I am wondering is if that mutation had occurred long before nylon was around, but was only useful after the bacteria were introduced to those nylon-contaminated areas.

The explanation I have found online doesn't satisfy my thought-process, and that may because I'm looking too deeply into it. Another strain of bacteria was induced to be able to digest nylon after it was placed in an area devoid of nutrients except for nylon.

To me, this sounds Lamarkian. My thinking would be that if the environmental pressure of the nylon WAS the causal agent for the mutation, then shouldn't this be easily replicated by many other strains of bacteria?

My online digging only showed two strains that had been shown to do this, which pushes my thinking in the direction of proposing that those nylon-digesting capabilities had existed in some primitive form prior to experimentation, and were not caused by the experiment.

I am also thinking epigenetics may have some cause in this, but am not sure enough to speculate on that.

Anyone want to clarify?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: