Revolutionary new food item! :D

[Stefan-A]

And how are you able to differientate between natual selection, survival of the fittiest and evolution when, as a whole, they are the same?

They're part of the same theory. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and survival of the fittest is another way to describe natural selection. But for natural selection to occur, there needs to be a criteria for selection and that means there needs to be variation.

You're correct. Evolution cannot be proven in a lab while et al can, as it takes thousnads of years for survival of the fittest/natural selection to induce evolution.

Also, I tend to stay away from the term "Evolution." Natural selection and survival of the fittest can be proven in a lab, evolution can't.

It can and has been proven in labs, and elsewhere. Every single part of evolution has been proven. It wouldn't even be adopted if it wasn't testable and if turned out to be false. When all the mechanisms have been tested and proven to work, there's no reason to assume that evolution doesn't.

To be blunt, all you really need to understand, is that random genetic mutations do happen and that those mutations sometimes influence the fitness of an individual. Natural selection can't work without actually causing evolution.

[ssssnakeluvr]

evolution type stuff happens a lot...was reading an article years ago about a moth species that was colored gray like the bark it would hang out on....over years, all the coal powered plants turned the bark black. the gray moths became easy targets for moth eating predators..and an occasional black one would pop up...eventually they all were colored black to match the bark..

[drache]

evolution tends to be more observable in species that have faster life cycles
what you end up seeing short-term in species with longer life cycles, is behavioral adaptation, which can eventually be another evolutionary force

[GartersRock]

Hehe. Thats not evolution Don. Macro evolution is when they evolve into an entirely different species. Which has never been recorded.
I don't believe in evolution in the sense that one species will evolve into another.
But micro evolution. Where changes remain within the species is well recorded and perfectly true!

[Stefan-A]

Hehe. Thats not evolution Don. Macro evolution is when they evolve into an entirely different species. Which has never been recorded.
I don't believe in evolution in the sense that one species will evolve into another.
But micro evolution. Where changes remain within the species is well recorded and perfectly true!

I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, not in the sense you are using it, there's only evolution. Furthermore, there's no reason why "micro evolution" could exist without "macro evolution".

What you call macro evolution, is actually called speciation and it has in fact been recorded on numerous occasions.

[Zephyr]

...
Go intelligent design! XD
Of course that wouldn't explain half of my peers...
"Dumbing down" theory any one? XD

[GartersRock]

Yeah... Your "no reason" that macro evolution couldn't exist is theory. Not fact.

Ok. As for speciation. Yeah, thats the correct term.
Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric and Sympatric evolutionary processes still don't explain how one species would slowly evolve into an entirely different one.

As for those moths Don, the change of color has often been attributed to mutations, and while this may be a kind of change that mutations could make, it now seems to have been established that both colors already existed in the DNA of the moths, just like some people have darker coloration than others. When the trees were white, few of the dark moths lived to reproduce, so many more light colored moths were born. Later, when the trees became dark, the situation was reversed; the dark moths were the ones with protective coloration and the population shifted in their favor with fewer light colored moths able to evade the birds and reproduce. Natural selection had really made significant changes in the coloration of the moth population. The majority were no longer white as before, but dark.
However, natural selection can only choose between traits which are present. The moths remained moths. None had become bats or humming birds, or even a different kind of moth. Later, ecological awareness led to cleaning up the industrial smoke and many of the trees returned to their former white color. So did the moths.

Zephyr. =D

[Stefan-A]

Yeah... Your "no reason" that macro evolution couldn't exist is theory. Not fact.

It's a theory based on a multitude of facts that all seem to point in that very direction. Evolution is both fact and theory, just like the theory of gravity, the theory of electricity and several other scientific theories. And above all, it's a testable theory. It would never have been accepted as a scientific theory, if it wasn't.

Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric and Sympatric evolutionary processes still don't explain how one species would slowly evolve into an entirely different one.

And why not?

However, natural selection can only choose between traits which are present.

True. However, mutations create new traits all the time and they generate new genetic information all the time. It's well recorded.

The moths remained moths. None had become bats or humming birds,

Of course they didn't, because that's not how evolution works. It's a gradual change, not a complete makeover.

or even a different kind of moth.

Actually, that's precisely whay they became.

[Zephyr]

My question for conservationists out there than is:
Why preserve and protect? So what if the giant panda goes extinct? If evolution is the driving force of organisms more suitable to their environment, why do humans struggle to keep these "obsolete" creatures from going extinct? It's a mixed view on a topic that most every one believes in but it's against our nature; if we know something is out dated but we like it, we're going to try to keep it that way. I guess this ties in with the worms; obviously, they're here, right now, and things better get used to them. The organisms that can't adapt, IE native flora and fauna and whatnot, will die off and the organisms performing better will survive. That's why I praise the garters; taking advantage of a new food source that's readily available and obviously influencing their environment; why not adapt? As I've stated before, until some one turns a salamander into a lizard, I will never believe in evolution. Adaptation and natural selection can be observed, but the total change of one organism into an entirely different cannot. (Or, more correctly, has yet to be recorded or observed.)
Seeing as I highly doubt any one's been around on this planet to make observations for the past 3.7 billion years, who's to say life, or even out planet, is that old?
On second thought... maybe James...

[Stefan-A]

My question for conservationists out there than is:
Why preserve and protect? So what if the giant panda goes extinct? If evolution is the driving force of organisms more suitable to their environment, why do humans struggle to keep these "obsolete" creatures from going extinct?

There are several reasons. The most obvious one is that it's psychologically satisfying to do it. Other reasons why it would be in our interest, as opposed to just "fun", is that it keeps the ecosystem better able to withstand disturbances if it has a higher biodiversity and that every species has potentially valuable genetic information that we may one day find a use for. Right now, worms are drastically reducing the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in North America. They are knocking out ecosystems that have developed under conditions without worms.

As I've stated before, until some one turns a salamander into a lizard, I will never believe in evolution.

If that ever happened, I'd have to stop believing that the theory of evolution is a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way. Species diverge, they don't turn into each other.

Adaptation and natural selection can be observed, but the total change of one organism into an entirely different cannot. (Or, more correctly, has yet to be recorded or observed.)

And by entirely different, you mean of course from a cat to a dog, not through gradual changes over a long period of time until the existing species is entirely different from the one it started out as. And you are of course incorrect, it has been observed and recorded several times.

Seeing as I highly doubt any one's been around on this planet to make observations for the past 3.7 billion years, who's to say life, or even out planet, is that old?

The evidence. Who's to say that it isn't?