Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When did evolution stop? The way this answer is framed, evolution must have halted at some point long ago, which leaves us with the un-evolving Billions of species we now have. Got any reference material defining this halting of evolution? Because if evolution didn't stop, and it was a continuous and ongoing process, we should see not only transitional species, but new species appearing all of the time.
2) We don't have billions of species, at most 200 million. All of these species are constantly evolving as well
3) Every species is a "transitional" species because they'll all the future ancestors of somebody. Species don't form from one species morphing into another: they form when one population splits from the main species and changes enough to be distinguishable as a new species (a process called speciation).
4) We have observed speciation in the field. So yes, new species do appear. But the background speciation rate is very slow. Consider that our lifetimes are 80 years and it took billions of years just to get 200 million species.
What about the article I posted?? Or are you getting ready to build a strawman.....???
I think you are...in fact, I know you are. Because you are bent on painting anybody who wants to question findings as creationists...
Because the article you posted postulates that life may have started along underwater thermal vents that provide the energy and building blocks for life.
I don't know if this will help anyone, but I'm going to try something here.
Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time (aka allele frequency). This could mean a small change, like Type A blood becoming more popular in the human population. Or more individuals in a rabbit population having darker fur. What causes these changes?
A) Natural selection. This is what Darwin proposed as THE leading mechanism, and no one's provided evidence that its not the dominant force. This means that the environment is favoring one trait over another. So dark fur becomes more prevalent because it helps the rabbits hide better. The environment is the selecting force, which is why species are always changing.
B) Sexual selection: Sexual selection is often described as a type of natural selection whereby traits that make reproduction more likely increase in the population. So rams with big horns or the peacock with the big sexy tail. In this case the "selecting force" is well, sexiness or at least some trait that makes you more likely to mate.
C) Genetic drift: This is random fixing of usually neutral traits. Brown eye color might be a trait that becomes fixed in a small population of humans. Genetic drift is more likely to cause genetic changes in small populations (e.g. those that migrate to islands). Genetic drift is not the same thing as mutation. It's just the "fixing" of already present traits, usually in small populations.
D) Mutations: Mutations create new traits for evolution to act on. A mutation put red hair into our gene pool. There's also something called "biased mutations" that make one type of mutation fairly likely to pop up.
When did evolution stop? The way this answer is framed, evolution must have halted at some point long ago, which leaves us with the un-evolving Billions of species we now have. Got any reference material defining this halting of evolution? Because if evolution didn't stop, and it was a continuous and ongoing process, we should see not only transitional species, but new species appearing all of the time.
Evolution has not stopped and will never stop...Below are a few examples.
Lately about 8 percent of elephants are lost every year to ivory poachers.... To make themselves less appealing to their greatest enemies (poachers), elephants all over the world have begun selecting against having tusks at all
It used to be that only 2 to 5 percent of Asian male elephants were born without tusks,
By 2005, it was estimated that the tuskless population had risen to between 5 and 10 percent. And it's not just happening in Asia, either. One African national park estimated their number of elephants born without tusks was as high as 38 percent. It's natural selection in action:
Over the past 29 to 50 generations the Hudson River tomcod has evolved an immunity to the pollution in the river.
Some skinks are loosing thier legs becoming snakes.
Believe it or not, on average humans are getting smarter by about three IQ points per decade.
Many new species ARE evolving all the time....
Given the right conditions, mammals can sometimes evolve very quickly,
"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species." Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
I don't know if this will help anyone, but I'm going to try something here.
Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time (aka allele frequency). This could mean a small change, like Type A blood becoming more popular in the human population. Or more individuals in a rabbit population having darker fur. What causes these changes?
A) Natural selection. This is what Darwin proposed as THE leading mechanism, and no one's provided evidence that its not the dominant force. This means that the environment is favoring one trait over another. So dark fur becomes more prevalent because it helps the rabbits hide better. The environment is the selecting force, which is why species are always changing.
B) Sexual selection: Sexual selection is often described as a type of natural selection whereby traits that make reproduction more likely increase in the population. So rams with big horns or the peacock with the big sexy tail. In this case the "selecting force" is well, sexiness or at least some trait that makes you more likely to mate.
C) Genetic drift: This is random fixing of usually neutral traits. Brown eye color might be a trait that becomes fixed in a small population of humans. Genetic drift is more likely to cause genetic changes in small populations (e.g. those that migrate to islands). Genetic drift is not the same thing as mutation. It's just the "fixing" of already present traits, usually in small populations.
D) Mutations: Mutations create new traits for evolution to act on. A mutation put red hair into our gene pool. There's also something called "biased mutations" that make one type of mutation fairly likely to pop up.
Thanks Seattle. I was trying to think of way to explain how the poster used the term 'genetic drift' in a way that just made no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
There was no "ape to man" evolution....there was, supposedly, a common ancestor. And it makes perfectly logical sense...they have found these genetic drifts in tons of other lifeforms.
Large scale mutation, based on chance...over a long period of time.
Okay..that is not what genetic drift means. But now I think I realize why you misused the term the way you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
They have explained this in virtually every living species on the planet...except the bombardier beetle.... (call me a creationist AGAIN)
Who is 'they'?
Have explained what? Genetic drift? Or your confused idea of what genetic drift means? Why are you bringing up the bombadier beetle?
Creationists use the bombadier beetle as an 'argument' against evolution saying it couldn't possibly have evolved. Yet there are other beetles that show variations and intermediate stages of the beetle's curious defence system, so their (or your???) 'argument' is easily disproved.
Because the article you posted postulates that life may have started along underwater thermal vents that provide the energy and building blocks for life.
Sssshhhh. I think he thought he won some lucky strawman prize or something. Not sure what exactly. A can of primordial soup?
I don't know if this will help anyone, but I'm going to try something here.
Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time (aka allele frequency). This could mean a small change, like Type A blood becoming more popular in the human population. Or more individuals in a rabbit population having darker fur. What causes these changes?
A) Natural selection. This is what Darwin proposed as THE leading mechanism, and no one's provided evidence that its not the dominant force. This means that the environment is favoring one trait over another. So dark fur becomes more prevalent because it helps the rabbits hide better. The environment is the selecting force, which is why species are always changing.
B) Sexual selection: Sexual selection is often described as a type of natural selection whereby traits that make reproduction more likely increase in the population. So rams with big horns or the peacock with the big sexy tail. In this case the "selecting force" is well, sexiness or at least some trait that makes you more likely to mate.
C) Genetic drift: This is random fixing of usually neutral traits. Brown eye color might be a trait that becomes fixed in a small population of humans. Genetic drift is more likely to cause genetic changes in small populations (e.g. those that migrate to islands). Genetic drift is not the same thing as mutation. It's just the "fixing" of already present traits, usually in small populations.
D) Mutations: Mutations create new traits for evolution to act on. A mutation put red hair into our gene pool. There's also something called "biased mutations" that make one type of mutation fairly likely to pop up.
The fact is, hairs are being split here.
You can say mutation X happened somewhere around Year 1 evidenced by a genetic drift period of 200 years because species Y were observed to have the uniform trait by 250.
A genetic drift was observed/explained and a mutation is presupposed.
Okay..that is not what genetic drift means. But now I think I realize why you misused the term the way you did.
Who is 'they'?
Have explained what? Genetic drift? Or your confused idea of what genetic drift means? Why are you bringing up the bombadier beetle?
Creationists use the bombadier beetle as an 'argument' against evolution saying it couldn't possibly have evolved. Yet there are other beetles that show variations and intermediate stages of the beetle's curious defence system, so their (or your???) 'argument' is easily disproved.
I've never called you a Creationist, but why would you use a nonsense Creationist argument?
I thought you said you accepted evolution by natural selection as fact? Has that changed again since yesterday?
You really are 'drifting' all over the place.
No, I believe the bombardier beetle evolved..just not in any easily distinguishable way.
I've read several rational explanations in regards to the bombardier beetle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(call me a creationist AGAIN)
