Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[Shadow Wolf]

either way survival of the fittest is a given, consumers and nature will inevitably favor the best design yes?

Consumers do not typically favor the best design. This is most obvious in the world of technology and IT, where the best designs, the best stability, and the least virus and bug prone take a back seat to those who have better advertisements. If consumers went with the best design, Linux would be the default everywhere you go, rather than Windows and the occasional Mac.
We also see this in food, where very unhealthy and tasteless and flavorless fast food tend to dominate. For example, McDonald's french fries are extremely popular, but lets be honest, they have no taste or flavor, and even unseasoned homemade fries taste better, and their cardboard burgers and no-taste-what-so-ever chicken sells and no-taste bread dominates the food world.
Entertainment is another great example. Music that you can master in a weekend and that sounds all the same is what sells, but music that takes talent to play, that utilizes a wide range of scales and arpeggios, and fully employs music theory takes a back seat to soulless and talentless rubbish. The hot Hollywood Blockbusters have been told a million times and they use interchangeable actors, but movies with things that make them worth watching, with things you haven't seen before, and movies that are creative do not do as well as movies that feature a tons cheap CGI, explosives, and some muscled dude who looks and acts just like the next muscled dude.
And, of course, in America, we don't care about design and quality. We care about what is the cheapest, even if it breaks, malfunctions, and has planned obsoletion built into the design. If it looks flashy and cool, that's ok. But it if it looks flashy, cool, and designed so cheaply that you won't have in a few years because it breaks, that is great.
Hell, we don't even mind that our current system is very expensive and inefficient, especially in regards to shipping, killing jobs here, and supporting inhumane work conditions abroad. Better advertising and being cheap is all we care about.

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution relies on significant design improvements occurring by chance, to get from molecule to man, that's the part most people are skeptical of.

Evolution doesn't make molecules into men. Natural selection doesn't operate by chance any more than a dropped ball falling to the ground happens by chance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which abiogenesis theory do most evolutionists accept now?

They haven't agreed on the basic evolution part yet- how to account for the gaping holes , missing transitions, punctuated equilibrium or lost evidence?

 

[dust1n]

Bicycles were the predecessors of motorbikes also, that says nothing about significant design improvements occurring accidentally, that's the problematic part..

Bikes don't reproduce.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution doesn't make molecules into men. Natural selection doesn't operate by chance any more than a dropped ball falling to the ground happens by chance.

No, natural selection favors the significantly superior design, just like consumers of designed products, nobody debates this- how does the design become significantly superior in the 1st place?

 

[Riverwolf]

...changed to become more evolutionarily advanced species.

NITPICK!

The idea that bio-evolution is about "advancement"; i.e., a species evolving from a "primitive" species into an "advanced" one, is long outdated and largely based on imperialist, colonialist, and homo-centric (specifically Euro-centric) thought. As I understand it, this sort of language hasn't been used in the scientific community in decades, for that reason. A species is neither primitive nor advanced; it's suited to whatever environment it lives in, and goes extinct (whether by evolution or not) when that environment inevitably changes.

In regards to single-celled vs multi-celled life, the terms used are "simple" and "complex", and this is also the same when comparing things like jellyfish to ... fish.

Seems minor, but I feel like this kind of language doesn't help matters, since it's not reflective of how bio-evolution works, and thus perpetuates misconceptions. When peoples' everyday observations don't line up with these misconceptions, I can't really be all that surprised that they're so skeptical.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Bikes don't reproduce.

the most successful blueprints, designs, bikes survive to be copied, literally re-produced absolutely, as are genetic codes and what they describe-
regardless of the particular method of reproduction

 

[Parsimony]

No, natural selection favors the significantly superior design, just like consumers of designed products, nobody debates this- how does the design become significantly superior in the 1st place?

Incremental changes that accumulate over time.

 

[idav]

Evolution relies on significant design improvements occurring by chance, to get from molecule to man, that's the part most people are skeptical of.

Cause it didn't do that. Evolution certainly does baby steps, this isn't x-men.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Consumers do not typically favor the best design. This is most obvious in the world of technology and IT, where the best designs, the best stability, and the least virus and bug prone take a back seat to those who have better advertisements.

like birds of paradise?

If consumers went with the best design, Linux would be the default everywhere you go, rather than Windows and the occasional Mac.
We also see this in food, where very unhealthy and tasteless and flavorless fast food tend to dominate. For example, McDonald's french fries are extremely popular, but lets be honest, they have no taste or flavor, and even unseasoned homemade fries taste better, and their cardboard burgers and no-taste-what-so-ever chicken sells and no-taste bread dominates the food world.
Entertainment is another great example. Music that you can master in a weekend and that sounds all the same is what sells, but music that takes talent to play, that utilizes a wide range of scales and arpeggios, and fully employs music theory takes a back seat to soulless and talentless rubbish. The hot Hollywood Blockbusters have been told a million times and they use interchangeable actors, but movies with things that make them worth watching, with things you haven't seen before, and movies that are creative do not do as well as movies that feature a tons cheap CGI, explosives, and some muscled dude who looks and acts just like the next muscled dude.

I take your point though, with our sentience, we have a lot more complexity of 'perceptions' to deal with in our choices, but we make mistakes- just as evolution has it's dead ends also?

Luckily with technology, we can always revisit the good stuff , I think ACDC still outsells most modern bands!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Incremental changes that accumulate over time.

So these incremental changes, none are significant improvements?

of course that would excuse the staggering improbability of a fluke mutation spontaneously causing a significant design improvement in an already highly evolved species...

But then how on earth can an insignificant change give the individual such a significant advantage- as to achieve significantly greater reproduction and hence ultimately alter an entire gene pool of a species with his lucky but insignificant mutation?
without which, no 'natural selection' no evolution has taken place whatsoever has it?

must turn in, appreciate the thoughtful responses

 

[Riverwolf]

So these incremental changes, none are significant improvements?

Evolution has nothing to do with "improvements", or "advancements", or any of that stuff.

A species is suited to its environment, and then changes when the environment changes. That's why certain regions (such as the Deep) have species which have hardly changed at all in hundreds of millions of years, while life on the Surface has undergone rapid changes over relatively short periods of time.

Actually, an excellent example is the skin of European humans. Our skin wasn't always so light; it used to be as dark in tone as everyone else's; in fact, so recently was it dark that even the original builders of Stonehenge likely had pretty dark skin. The reason our skin tones became so light is because Northern Europe in particular doesn't get a lot of Sunlight, because of its geographic location bringing long nights in Winter, and its climate causing LOTS of cloud-cover. Lighter skin is better for absorbing Vitamin D in such a low-Sunlight environment; but it also comes with the consequence that we burn VERY easily in other climates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They haven't agreed on the basic evolution part yet- how to account for the gaping holes , missing transitions, punctuated equilibrium or lost evidence?

Actually, yes, they have agreed.

Luckily with technology, we can always revisit the good stuff , I think ACDC still outsells most modern bands!

Actually, the Beatles, Elvis, Micheal Jackson, and Madonna have sold more albums than AC/DC. AC/DC is a huge seller, but the several cheap no-talents have still sold more. Even Mariah Carey and Celine Dion have sold more albums than AC/DC, but ABBA is not too far behind. Basically, artists who have a songs using a few simple weekend-learnable chords, talentless, soulless, stolen styles of music sell more than a tend setter.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lighter skin is better for absorbing Vitamin D

so spontaneously developing significantly lighter skin would be an improvement/advancement in this case... how this design improvement is happened upon by chance, again is what most question

 

[dust1n]

the most successful blueprints, designs, bikes survive to be copied, literally re-produced absolutely, as are genetic codes and what they describe-
regardless of the particular method of reproduction

Sorry, but they don't reproduce. Evolution applies to genetic reproduction. Anything else would not apply to anything else. There are only a handful of self-replicating moles, DNA, being one. Evolution doesn't cover someone making copies of a bike, and altering previous blueprints, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, yes, they have agreed.

Actually, the Beatles, Elvis, Micheal Jackson, and Madonna have sold more albums than AC/DC. AC/DC is a huge seller, but the several cheap no-talents have still sold more. Even Mariah Carey and Celine Dion have sold more albums than AC/DC, but ABBA is not too far behind. Basically, artists who have a songs using a few simple weekend-learnable chords, talentless, soulless, stolen styles of music sell more than a tend setter.

which do you agree with?

Yes some huge sellers defy understanding, I can't imagine how some people even sat through recording some stuff!

Give it time though, in a 100 years, Elvis will still live, Mariah Carey will not!!

Gnight all

 

[outhouse]

No, natural selection favors the significantly superior design

False

grade school biology would correct the error here.

many things of poor design are often evolved forward.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Give it time though, in a 100 years, Elvis will still live, Mariah Carey will not!!

Elvis sucks. I don't care what people say. He basically did nothing more than steal "black people" rock 'n roll music and presented it to a white audience. That is literally the only thing Elvis did. No one remembers him for his country or gospel music, but the music that he didn't even come up with himself.

 

[outhouse]

so spontaneously developing significantly lighter skin would be an improvement/advancement in this case... how this design improvement is happened upon by chance, again is what most question

Its not chance

And your lack of knowledge is why you have this question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

False

grade school biology would correct the error here.

many things of poor design are often evolved forward.

And not too mention the "superior" design often dies out and doesn't live on.