evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Quote" Perhaps you could give us an example of something you might consider to serve as evidence of evolution? Since you seem to discount all evidence presented to you, perhaps your belief is such that no amount or detail of evidence will ever stand against it."No., I am looking for the evidence that is supposed to already exist. I reject claims that seem to be a coelacanth, or possibly a tetrapod that is not a tetrapod afer all, but a fish. I was just wondering how mutation of bacteria which replicate at an incredible rate, compared to the mammals, can be applicable?

quote:

---

I was just wondering how mutation of bacteria which replicate at an incredible rate, compared to the mammals, can be applicable?

---

Because mutations in DNA cause the same fundamental changes in bacteria as they do in mammals. When you change the DNA you may change the protein it codes for. If you change the protein, you may change the characteristics of the organism. This is true of bacteria and mammals.The rate of mutation is different in humans and bacteria, as is the generation time. You, yourself, have about 100 mutations that neither of your parents had. Bacteria, because their generation times can be measured in minutes instead of years and their smaller genome, can not withstand 100 mutations/generation. So their mutation rate is usually between 0 and 1 mutation per generation, if that high. The mutation rates and generation times differ, but the source of change is the same, changes in DNA.

Well, if speciation is all you're asking for, how about Byrne K, Nichols RA 1999, "Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations", Heredity 82:7-15?

quote:

---

Genetic variation was quantified between surface-dwelling populations of Culex pipiens and the
so-called molestus form found in the London Underground (the Underground) railway system. The molestus form is a commercially important biting nuisance and in the southern part of its range is also a disease vector. The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct, with no evidence of gene flow between closely adjacent populations of the different forms, whereas there was little differentiation between the different populations of each form. The substantially reduced heterozygosity in the Underground populations and the allelic composition suggest that colonization of the Underground has occurred once or very few times. Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground. There is evidence of greater gene flow and a mixing of molestus and pipiens traits in the south of the species range. This paper considers the processes that may allow establishment of reproductive isolation in the north of the species range but not in the south.

---

A nice article outlining the genetic basis for speciation in two distinct mosquito populations. Recent, observed speciation based on

This is one I haven't heard before. Could you please indicate where I might find reference to this particular "oops"? Thanks.

Good question. Science generally uses "model organisms" for a variety of fields of study, not just evolution. (Yeast is used to study aspects of cancer biology, for example - even though yeast is not capable of getting cancer.)Think about why someone wouldn't want to study monkey evolution in the lab - not only is cost and space prohibitive, more importantly the generation times are unreasonably long.So you've hit the nail on the head - bacteria are studied in part due to their incredibly short generation times. With bacteria you can study mutation rates over a hundred generations in a work day. With monkeys that many generations would span the lifetimes of several generations of human researchers.So bacteria are used as "models". So the important part of your question is: are bacterial models applicable to the study of mammalian evolution? I would argue "yes", since evolution in both bacteria and mammals relies on the same biological foundation: an imperfectly replicating genetic template. Such as the matching of the DNA- and morphology- based "trees of life"? Again, it seems that you are looking for a singular, detailed piece of evidence that proves evolution. You won't find it, and it is a fallicy to claim it exists, and demand its display.

You mean we can't ask for one single piece of evidence that proves absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, the germ theory of disease?

---

Here is something to relieve stress.
Assume that a does not equal b.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

You can ask for anything you want. Did you have a piece of evidence in mind that you think "proves absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, the germ theory of disease?"It is "just a theory", after all...

quote:

---

You mean we can't ask for one single piece of evidence that proves absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, the germ theory of disease?

---

The biggest question is whether or not the disease causes the bacteria. It takes more than a single piece of evidence to refute this counterargument.

Haha. Perhaps I should have inserted [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].

---

Here is something to relieve stress.
Assume that a does not equal b.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

I am so thankful for all the adivce I had recieved from all of you that took the time to do so. Thank you all, your tips are certainly appreciated.

You do when you make a major assertion such as "The TOE is taught as fact". Well, high school kids are still at the very beginning of their education. They are still in the learning how to learn stage. But as I said, you'd think the fact that it's called "the Theory of Evolution" would give even a high school kid a clue.So the question remains, can you show where the TOE is being taught as fact? Well, me too. So far I have never heard of any alternative theories either. Well I hadn't seen any slurs on your intellegence. I think you have a very long way to go before you get a basic understanding of science or the TOE. But then that's fine. It's part of the learning curve.I did see a comment that it's pretty hard to be an ex-evolutionist when it's pretty obvious that you don't understand evolution or the TOE. That's not a slur on your intellegence, just a statement based on what you've posted so far. My post was simply a statement of fact. It's pretty hard to imagine how anyone can think that the Theory of Evolution is a fact when the very name begins with Theory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I see what you are getting at here. How does this example differ from the coelacanth, since it seems to be that it depends on the "interpretation" of the discoverer what bones it actually contains. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that this sounds almost exactly like the coelacanth story. Which is why I'm reluctant to accept Clack's claims that the the tetrapods she discovered are unique.As I said before I just mentioned Nebraska man as an example of little evidence leading to a wrong conclusion.

I don't think that you'll find Clack making such a claim. She seems very cautious to state exactly what there is in the way of bones in each fossil, and then to carefully compare structures between them. I don't remember a single instance in her book where she claims "this is descended from that" - more like "notice how the supracleithrals and operculogulars are absent in the critters that have toes." (she states that a little more formally than I, though.)Clack spends some time on coelacanths, other modern lobefins, and how they fit into the relationships among "fish" and tetrapods, too.

The mosquitos are still mosquitos, as far as I know. Since this transition was so rapid, are you suggesting this is an example of punctuated equilibrium?
Since mosquitos carry parasites were there any studies made as to the presence of parasites in the underground population, and possible effects those particular types of parasites may have on the reproductive habits or abilities of the species?
It does appear that yes, there is a new species of mosquito, using the ability to breed requirement. I don't quite agree that this is evidence of evolution since both species are fundamentally the same as they were before.

Not at all. I am looking for the large body of evidence that is claimed to support ToE. When I look carefully at the specifics of the supposed evidence, specifically, transitional forms that are supposed to exist in great numbers, all I find is fragments and speculation.