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.
I already pointed out one ongoing example of evolution in this thread, but I'll bring it up again.
Why do you suppose there is a new flu vaccine every year?
1 - Our bodies, after getting the current vaccine are immune to the flu.
2 - Unless of course, there is a mutated individual, who by some random chance is geneticdally different enough to not be affected by the current vaccine.
3 - This individual is fully able to get into your cells and replacate, making many, many more copies of itself, which, being its offspring and having its genetics are also unaffected by the vaccine.
4 - The viruses that are affected by the vaccine are unable to replecate themselves.
5 - Thus, the "evolved" virus is more succesful than the "unevolved" version and becomes more prevalent
StubbleJumper beat me to the example I was going to use.
OneJackson, going on the assumption that you're sincere, I'd like you to clearly explain your understanding of what evolution is and isn't. If you don't correctly understand what it is (e.g., as others have pointed out, it has nothing to do with "man having evolved from monkeys"), then any proper example that people provide is going to seem "wrong" to you. I've read a lot of your posts, and I know what you believe about God and the Bible, but I haven't been able to figure out your understanding of the various scientific viewpoints you challenge. Responding with "WRONG!, "FAIL!," , or isn't helpful from the standpoint of intelligent discussion. Again, I'm assuming you're here for the purpose of intelligent discussion and debate.
Take Humans for instance... Chinese don't have thin eyes because it's cold in China...LOL..and Africans don't have long legs because they chase down Lions and Gazelles in the Sahara Desert...LOL. These features have absolutely nothing to do with their climate or locale.
They have everything to do with it. Most differences in human appearance are almost certainly due to climate. Africans are better adapted to their climate than, say, Inuits, who are better adapted to cold climates. And as a result, their appearances differ considerably. Visitors from another planet might nearly assume they are entirely different species.
No. just No. because how did those desert hares get to the artic? swim?...LOL
IMO, I believe those hares were born there by another breed of hare. it's not like a desert hare that was dropped off there and grew shorter ears because of it...LOL oh boy.
Please remember that the earth's continents were mostly joined together years ago. this could explain the Artic hares.
I swore I wouldn't do this, but then, sometimes yah just gotta sweep up the gathering detritus, now don't you.
First, do a bit of reading: it's Arctic, not artic. or Ardick. How can you propose to defend your point of view when you don't even know how to spell the word? Have you ever even read ANYTHING about The ARCTIC? Perhaps you've been there, as I have, for over 12 years? Doubtful, by your own commentary. Yet still ,you claim some higher knowledge. Odd, wouldn't you say?
Second; hares "borne there by other hares"? What, on their backs, after bleaching their hair white and clipping their ears, and adding to their hind legs, plus big hair-covered feet? Righto!
BTW, in Evolution, things don't grow on the individual current generation. You're showing your vast topical ignorance again. I'd be a bit embarrassed if I were you.....
Unlike you, big guy, I actually studied all those niggling little details. I graduated with several under- and graduate-degrees in the biosciences, biochemistry, toxicology, evolution, genetics and even engineering and would, in an open face-to-face debate, judged by impartial peers, logically decimate your Moderator cut: deleted ideas.
Even if we granted over 60% of the panel being Christians, I'd properly trounce your silliness. Not because of some higher level of knowledge (though I obviously do have that on my side), but because you struggle with logic, you bring totally deflective unrelated non-facts to the argument, gleefully clapping your hands together as you perforate the air with strawman arguments and blatant misrepresentations.
Moderator cut: Post referred to has been orphaned.
But to let you know how it does work, as short as I can:
Prior to the recession of the last of several Ice Ages (or do you argue they didn't happen either?), the Arctic was indeed a much warmer place. We find oil in Prudoe Bay, Alaska, fur Chystz Sake. You know: compressed jungle vegetation collected and compressed underground? A known process. We also find, in the same depth and within the permeable oil layers, fossilized jungle ferns and huge ancient (no longer existing) mollusk shells in the very ancient and countable sedimetary varve layers. Or don't they exist either?
The larger animals there included a sabre-toothed tiger, some sloth bears and a greater plains grizzly. All identified by the fossils and even ice-bound remains. You deny those as well? But as the Ice Age descended southwards, and it didn't happen one afternoon, BTW, those animals who were warm-ecosystem adapted had to relocate south, keeping away from the glacial front. But those who did adapt genetically, over centuries via the painfully slow process of adaptation to mutation, and were better suited to the cold, snowy climate, were thus able to utilize an otherwise unused niche.
So... we have white marine-adapted bears, who share much of their DNA with the more southerly grizzly, to the point of being able to (but preferring not to for behavioral reasons) reproduce. We also have Arctic-adapted hares, white versions of the ubiquitous red fox, ptarmigan who change color to pure white as the winter snows arrive, and snowy owls, goshawks and snow buntings. We also have the musk-ox, superbly adapted but only to an Arctic environment. But DNA linked to several now-extinct southern oxen and bison.
All offshoots of known but more southerly species which, contrary to your over-simplified AiG knowledge, did not have to disappear for the others to emerge. That's be like saying that when Toyota brings in a new model, everyone else's models must ergo vanish. Such vast silliness, I swear.
All of those new Arctic species adapted rather quickly, according to their now measurable DNA sequencing details. We can roughly time such progress now because we have a clock: the known rate of DNA mutation. All quite logical, and as I'm sure you know of Ockham's inimitable Razor, to wit: "The most logical, the simplest, the most probable solution is almost always the most likely". Proven over and over on a daily basis by literally millions of scientists and philosophers on this planet.
Moderator cut: mercifully edited
My ultra-brief description here doesn't begin to cover the vast supportive evidence for Evolution: (Lenski, 2008 being the best and crowning crowning proof of evolution, but you'd just go get AiG's utterly brainless arguments and post them here, so what's the point???) Several others above have more than covered your vast misunderstanding (or purposeful mis-information) on the scientific (rational & logical) versus colloquial (that'd be your's...) understanding of the word "theory".
I already pointed out one ongoing example of evolution in this thread, but I'll bring it up again.
Why do you suppose there is a new flu vaccine every year?
1 - Our bodies, after getting the current vaccine are immune to the flu.
2 - Unless of course, there is a mutated individual, who by some random chance is geneticdally different enough to not be affected by the current vaccine.
3 - This individual is fully able to get into your cells and replacate, making many, many more copies of itself, which, being its offspring and having its genetics are also unaffected by the vaccine.
4 - The viruses that are affected by the vaccine are unable to replecate themselves.
5 - Thus, the "evolved" virus is more succesful than the "unevolved" version and becomes more prevalent
or you can say "adapted" vs "not adapted"
and no, adaptation is not exclusive to the theory of evolution.
just as muay thai fighters, after years of training have high calcium deposits in their shins and also cause their nerve endings to die. this turns their shins into deadly weapons.. should a random person try a muay thai kick, it would probably mean a broken bone or serious injury. this doesnt mean the person has "evolved" it means their body adapts to the changes in its environment. under normal conditions the shin doesnt suffer the kind of trauma experienced during training, so it doesnt change. the same applies to the germ or virus, if there is no vaccine killing it off, it doesnt need to change. and if it does, it didnt evolve into a new species.
or you can say "adapted" vs "not adapted"
and no, adaptation is not exclusive to the theory of evolution.
just as muay thai fighters, after years of training have high calcium deposits in their shins and also cause their nerve endings to die. this turns their shins into deadly weapons.. should a random person try a muay thai kick, it would probably mean a broken bone or serious injury. this doesnt mean the person has "evolved" it means their body adapts to the changes in its environment. under normal conditions the shin doesnt suffer the kind of trauma experienced during training, so it doesnt change. the same applies to the germ or virus, if there is no vaccine killing it off, it doesnt need to change. and if it does, it didnt evolve into a new species.
Deadened nerve endings are not a genetic condition. Would you expect their children to be born with dead nerves?
Steps 1-6 of my post takes generations. We can only observe it because microbes have much shorter life spans than we do.
Yes it is. Hence my Starfish example. If his definition of evolution allowed for the cutting off of a limb, and having it grow back, then the Starfish would be an example of an instance of evolution - as he envisions it, as wrong as that is. You cut off an arm of the starfish, it eventually grows back. According to him, that would the proof of evolution, that he is demanding. That is why I have been asking for a cogent, working definition, or what all is included in what OJ and the OP consider as part of evolution. One of the posts even included an odd portrait of the Big Bang as part of the ToE.
Regarding expect's post above: Here's another clear demonstration of a total lack of understanding of the process, and yet criticism is simultaneously provided. Amazing!
Evolution is the result of the outward expression of a changed and adapted genotype, selected for by exposure of it's phenotype to real world conditions. I'm not going to bother defining it further; look it up if you need to. Which I'd say you do! Phenotype versus genotype versus simple causal adaption within one individual. Your example, simply put, is unrelated to evolution.
Please, theist defenders... Don't just make the mistake of letting others do all your thinking for you. What if they make mistakes, or are lying?
(Which, BTW, they do, regularly. Personally, I'd take offense if those I trusted were purposefully lying to me. Just to sustain the unsustainable. Hardly "Christian", now is it?)
I swore I wouldn't do this, but then, sometimes yah just gotta sweep up the gathering detritus, now don't you.
First, do a bit of reading: it's Arctic, not artic. or Ardick. How can you propose to defend your point of view when you don't even know how to spell the word? Have you ever even read ANYTHING about The ARCTIC? Perhaps you've been there, as I have, for over 12 years? Doubtful, by your own commentary. Yet still ,you claim some higher knowledge. Odd, wouldn't you say?
Second; hares "borne there by other hares"? What, on their backs, after bleaching their hair white and clipping their ears, and adding to their hind legs, plus big hair-covered feet? Righto!
BTW, in Evolution, things don't grow on the individual current generation. You're showing your vast topical ignorance again. I'd be a bit embarrassed if I were you.....
Unlike you, big guy, I actually studied all those niggling little details. I graduated with several under- and graduate-degrees in the biosciences, biochemistry, toxicology, evolution, genetics and even engineering and would, in an open face-to-face debate, judged by impartial peers, logically decimate your Moderator cut: deleted ideas.
Even if we granted over 60% of the panel being Christians, I'd properly trounce your silliness. Not because of some higher level of knowledge (though I obviously do have that on my side), but because you struggle with logic, you bring totally deflective unrelated non-facts to the argument, gleefully clapping your hands together as you perforate the air with strawman arguments and blatant misrepresentations.
Moderator cut: Post referred to has been orphaned.
But to let you know how it does work, as short as I can:
Prior to the recession of the last of several Ice Ages (or do you argue they didn't happen either?), the Arctic was indeed a much warmer place. We find oil in Prudoe Bay, Alaska, fur Chystz Sake. You know: compressed jungle vegetation collected and compressed underground? A known process. We also find, in the same depth and within the permeable oil layers, fossilized jungle ferns and huge ancient (no longer existing) mollusk shells in the very ancient and countable sedimetary varve layers. Or don't they exist either?
The larger animals there included a sabre-toothed tiger, some sloth bears and a greater plains grizzly. All identified by the fossils and even ice-bound remains. You deny those as well? But as the Ice Age descended southwards, and it didn't happen one afternoon, BTW, those animals who were warm-ecosystem adapted had to relocate south, keeping away from the glacial front. But those who did adapt genetically, over centuries via the painfully slow process of adaptation to mutation, and were better suited to the cold, snowy climate, were thus able to utilize an otherwise unused niche.
So... we have white marine-adapted bears, who share much of their DNA with the more southerly grizzly, to the point of being able to (but preferring not to for behavioral reasons) reproduce. We also have Arctic-adapted hares, white versions of the ubiquitous red fox, ptarmigan who change color to pure white as the winter snows arrive, and snowy owls, goshawks and snow buntings. We also have the musk-ox, superbly adapted but only to an Arctic environment. But DNA linked to several now-extinct southern oxen and bison.
All offshoots of known but more southerly species which, contrary to your over-simplified AiG knowledge, did not have to disappear for the others to emerge. That's be like saying that when Toyota brings in a new model, everyone else's models must ergo vanish. Such vast silliness, I swear.
All of those new Arctic species adapted rather quickly, according to their now measurable DNA sequencing details. We can roughly time such progress now because we have a clock: the known rate of DNA mutation. All quite logical, and as I'm sure you know of Ockham's inimitable Razor, to wit: "The most logical, the simplest, the most probable solution is almost always the most likely". Proven over and over on a daily basis by literally millions of scientists and philosophers on this planet.
Moderator cut: mercifully edited
My ultra-brief description here doesn't begin to cover the vast supportive evidence for Evolution: (Lenski, 2008 being the best and crowning crowning proof of evolution, but you'd just go get AiG's utterly brainless arguments and post them here, so what's the point???) Several others above have more than covered your vast misunderstanding (or purposeful mis-information) on the scientific (rational & logical) versus colloquial (that'd be your's...) understanding of the word "theory".
Moderator cut: Orphaned reference
Glad to see you responding, rifleman . . . the lurkers benefit greatly from your input. There is NO conflict between evolution and theism. It is the Creationists (especially the YEC) who erroneously believe there is. Your posts are a constant reminder to them and others and a prod to investigate the truth and rid themselves of their mistaken views. Keep it up, rifleman . . . you would be missed if you left. (Glad the mods were merciful)
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.
, or 
isn't helpful from the standpoint of intelligent discussion. Again, I'm assuming you're here for the purpose of intelligent discussion and debate.
I can't help myself here...
