Altfish
Veteran Member
More research into the Peppered Moth's evolution...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36424768
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
rapid evolutionary change
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768
And we are taught evolutionary change takes thousands of years.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768
And we are taught evolutionary change takes thousands of years.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It does depending on what sort of transition you refer to. There is a difference between a moth's wings changing color, and birds descending from dinosaurs, for example.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Erm, no. Evolution takes as long as it takes for allele frequencies within any living populations to change. If you're talking about large changes in slowly-reproducing species, that can take a longer time, of course. But small amounts of change within organisms with much higher rates of reproduction take significantly shorter time. Either way, all changes big and small are a result of evolution. What you're saying is akin to "I heard someone used a plane to travel only a couple of miles - and we are taught that planes travel thousands of miles!".
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
It's all lies, God changed the color of the moth's wings because he was feeling creative and bored.
Like the lab experiments with the fruit fly perhaps????
I get that. Thanks.
( Who the hell is erm??????????????)
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Did you understand anything that I wrote?Like the lab experiments with the fruit fly perhaps????
I get that. Thanks.
( Who the hell is erm??????????????)
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Your comment lead me to believe that you didn't fully understand the whole deal, so I was just trying to get you caught up.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I think it is called willful ignorance.
Walter Russell
Member
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Then the question becomes where you draw the barrier between species. As it is defined scientifically, we have already observed populations of organisms separating two distinct species. Ultimately, both adaptation and speciation are caused by the same process. What you're saying is akin to "I define the force that forms large bodies in space to be drawn to each other as 'gravity', but the force that pulls a pencil towards the earth is simply 'falling'". In either case, adaptation or speciation, the process is the same, just as it is the same force acting on the planets and the pencil.
No, because there is no such thing as "further ahead" in the evolutionary process. Evolution isn't a process with a specific end goal, and it is not some form a ladder in which some organisms can be "more" or "less evolved" than others.
No. Why would it?
No.
Walter Russell
Member
1. No...adapting doesn't change a species to another species. Its just a slight change within a species. The article is using adaptation and evolution interchangeably which is wrong. Evolution is from one species to another.
As for gravity, the pencil is searching for a like condition. Being generative, in a mass like state it falls to the earth. As the pencil decays into a gaseous form it rises to space to again find a like condition.
Walter Russell corrected Newtons observation of the apple. You can read about it in his book "The Secret of Light"
2. Are you saying theres nothing left for humanity to evolve too?? Can you prove it??
Your starting to sound more like a preacher than a science based atheist...
If you don't believe the adaptation of pigmentation in humans is a sign of further evolution than you just soloed this article for me. Tks
3. Good answer and it shouldn't but lets not forget that it was scientist who ran the eugenics programs and that was the purpose for the question.
4. Good answer.
No, IF's right. Evolution's any heritable change in the genome. If enough small changes accumulate we call it a new species.
And did you miss the mention of observed speciation?
Question: How would these "slight changes" know when to stop, so their accumulation won't go too far and produce a new species?
Huh?
I don't get your point. Who says humans have stopped evolving?2. Are you saying theres nothing left for humanity to evolve too?? Can you prove it??
Your starting to sound more like a preacher than a science based atheist...
If you don't believe the adaptation of pigmentation in humans is a sign of further evolution than you just soloed this article for me. Tks
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I've already explained this. You're quite simply wrong. What you are talking about is the difference between adaptation and speciation, not adaptation and evolution. Evolution is the mechanism of change. It is the process by which organisms adapt AND speciate. Whether the change is small or large, the process is the same - evolution. In the exact same way that we have one word to describe the force that draws celestial bodies together and causes a pencil to fall to the ground - gravity.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Do you understand what I meant?
No. I didn't even remotely say that.
Only because you're apparently imagining things that I've written rather than actually reading/understanding what I have ACTUALLY written. What I explained is that there is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved, and no means to use evolution as a rational justification for eugenics or racism.
I never said humans aren't continuing to evolve. Please don't put words in my mouth.If you don't believe the adaptation of pigmentation in humans is a sign of further evolution than you just soloed this article for me. Tks
What does that have to do with legitimizing eugenics?
Walter Russell
Member
Science may be trying to spin adaptation as evolution to make up for its inability to prove species to species evolution but its not the same.
You can force change within a species through experiments but theres always a wall you will hit which is the limit in which the genes can be expressed. Thats the "limited" expression of adaptation.
Stating that a long line of small adaptations will at some point culminate in that species being identified as a new species "natural selection" also implies an improvement over previous species.
Let me explain this logic your trying to defend.
Walk outside and place on X on the ground representing a species current condition.
Now walk 100ft and place an O on the ground representing new species per natural selection.
So if I start at X and start walking "minor adaptive changes" your telling me i'm not progressing because I haven't reached O yet? Or that my buddy who is still standing at X is as evolved as I am because I haven't reached O yet even though he hasn't even started the necessary adsptive journey yet? And that there is no advantage to all my adaptations until I reach O?
That makes no sense at all. Science clearly doesn't have this theory worked out yet based on your promotion of it.
If you need further explanation on the pencil, read the book I named in the post.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
It does, and even a lot longer, how long did it take for the moth to even appear as a moth.
Walter Russell
Member
1. You don't even have gravity right, how can I trust you on evolution? :/
As for the rest, sure, I can see your having trouble following so i'll walk you through it.
The article is showcasing the peppered moth evolving per its color change.
This in your mind is an evolutionary step, meaning progressive change.
My statement was that pigmentation differences in humans is no different.
So let me rephrase and ask, Is the newly black colored moth progressing toward an evolutionary change that will at some point cause it to be classified as a new species?
If so than due to Natural Selection, it would be an improvement over its current classification correct?
Also if this is the case than the same would apply to humans based on our race.
That was the reasoning for the eugenics question because there was a time when that very belief was held, so I was inferring that this article when when applied to race is just a rehashing of an old and very bad idea in new packaging and a dangerous one at that.
If you can show me that the peppered moth didn't already have the genetic information imbedded in its DNA and thus engineered the information on its on and made the change, then that would interest me.
No disrespect intended, its just that science as its been given to us is incomplete and not irrefutable like too many too often claim.
Politics in science is a real thing.
What is this wall, this limit on gene expression? How does it work? How does DNA know when to stop changing so as to avoid becoming a new species?
DNA can be mixed and rearranged again endlessly, like letters in a book. Every time an organism reproduces there are mutations and sexual selection. The whole point of sex is to mix genes up and produce variation.
How do you explain the observed examples of speciation? How did that happen?
How do you explain ring species?
What?!
That's absurd. It implies no such thing. You really have no grasp of even the basics of biology, do you? Evolution doesn't improve. It adapts -- to new or changing environmental conditions. London underground mosquitoes aren't an improvement on above ground mosquitoes. Nylon or antibiotic eating bacteria aren't improvements, they're adaptations to new niches.
OK. Tell me at what point the red turns to blue? How can a series of minute changes result in a whole new color, rather than just a variation in shade?
Which post?