Is evolution proven science or theory

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PRB

Give me an example of the over time evolution in the abstract...as in an ape becoming a homo sapien....

Maybe Darwin had it backwards and apes 'devolved' from humans.

Richard

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Richard

Maybe Darwin had it backwards and apes 'devolved' from humans.

Richard

Maybe Darwin was backwards and wrong...
maybe animals all devolved separately within their own kinds from the megafauna in the fossil record to the pitiful creatures we have now.

Neanderthal was far more athletic than modern man and had a larger brain.
(But we're more evolved...)

[DinDinA-2]

So, regarding the idea modern man evolving from apes or something else, what is the current state of evolution? Are apes not evolving any more, are they left behind, stuck? Shouldn't new "evolved" species be discovered continuously in all forms of life? Or is evolution so slow modern man will not be around to see new life forms (not those little squiggly things).

Hmm, Richard, I wonder what a T-Rex devolved from?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by DinDinA-2

Hmm, Richard, I wonder what a T-Rex devolved from?

It was sarcasm.

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

This evolution stuff is so slipperly, isn't it?

That always happens when you try to make the evidence fit the notion instead of the other way around.

[PRB]

The fruit fly experiment is interesting on a few levels. It apparently was taken through 600 generations of induced development. I'm not sure about the controls or the method of inducement but am not concerned with that overly for this point.
600 generations of mutation and the fruit fly was a fruit fly, the interesting part is the strong mutation which led to breeding flies. According to the author the original fruit fly would not or could not breed with the result...that's rather vague.
OTOH I've never had any difficulty with inherited characteristics or adaptation within the same GENUS...I accept that, man has developed within the hominid species.
My real DNA based issue is 'transformation'...when did a land mammal or reptile 'decide' to take flight, become a totally different genus....actually how?
How was DNA totally rewritten, not slightly modified by mutation or restacking of present inherited DNA.
This is The Holy Grail of evolution and without some real answers it remains a well supported theory, nothing more.
Scientists of the evolutionary bent have been seeking that Grail for over 150 years to no avail....fossil or DNA type, anything.
Every link 'discovery' has proved to be scientifically wrong or a hoax.
This is the long pole in my cerebral tent....not adaptation within a species or mutation of the same...but the total rewriting of basic and HOX DNA resulting in a new genus.

[PRB]

BSD, I've heard the story before...that would take hundreds of thousands of years or more based upon the fruit fly experiment (36,000 man years) for the minor mutation...... millions of years for the DNA changes you are dealing with.
When you talk about a developed vertebrate completely changing major DNA ....when major changes would happen over such a long time...how did the creature adapt to an environment that science says changed rapidly at times.
That depletion of oxygen in the water would have to take millions of years for the postulated adaptation to take place.
You would also have hundreds of thousands of cross over fossils....at least one.

[ES 96]

This may or may not be of interest for some on this thread:

RNA building blocks synthesized (all links are to the same lab experiments):
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/0905....2009.471.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...bonucleotides/

vid summarizing the above here:
<link>

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

There are thousands of "transitional" fossils showing the evolution of fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and so forth. I put "transitional" in quotes because there really is no such thing. We modern humans ourselves could be considered "transitional" if we evolve into something different further down the line. "Transitional" is just a concept for a fossil showing a creature that is at some point in the evolution between one type of creature (say a reptile) and another (say a mammal or a bird).

Here is a link with lots of info on this: LINK

quickly read thru the link and found Lucy and other examples that have been proven to be quadrupeds but noted as early hominids because they walked upright....iotw, still using 'examples' to fill the gaps that are bogus....wanting it to be so does not make it so...

Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):


“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”2
but not hominids...depends on the ind viewpoint I guess.

[Pete]

While I come down on the evolution side of things a few things did bug me about it.

Fossil records - for the time periods in question - are very limited. "We found this and then that from a million years later. They look similar so the later one must have evolved from the earlier one."

Hey, anyone come up with how long God's first "day" was since he didn't have night and day yet? I'm comfortable with "I ain't got a clue, could be 4 billion years."

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The link itself is from the 1990s, however mistakes found in the fossil record do not make the whole thing incorrect.

No, it doesn't...but I note that those examples are all classified as Apes, but called 'relatives' based upon what?...Not DNA. I get the drift but see no observable, other than kinda, maybe , sorta, supposition.

Anyways, I appreciate the discourse but am checking out of the net for 7-8 days or so...road trip.
Good discussion. Thanks for the restraint.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

No, it doesn't...but I note that those examples are all classified as Apes, but called 'relatives' based upon what?...Not DNA. I get the drift but see no observable, other than kinda, maybe , sorta, supposition.

Anyways, I appreciate the discourse but am checking out of the net for 7-8 days or so...road trip.
Good discussion. Thanks for the restraint.

Before you leave here is some potty reading.

In the scheme of evolution, species can both converge and diverge, depending on genetic and environmental factors. Evolution leaves its mark on living things and shows up in reoccurring patterns, including convergent evolution, parallel evolution, divergent evolution and coevolution, to name a few.
Convergent evolution occurs when one or more unrelated species (meaning they don't share a recent ancestor) evolve similar morphologies or behavior. Often, the species "converging" fill similar ecological niches in a given habitat or in different regions of the world. For instance, a torpedolike body among marine organisms is common in several unrelated animals. Marine mammals like dolphins, certain species of sharks, and even fossils of extinct marine reptiles, for example, share this shape -- but they don't share a recent ancestor. In most cases, similar morphologies evolve in organisms to overcome the same natural hurdles in different environments. Much like convergent evolution, parallel evolution occurs when species evolve similarly but share a recent ancestor.
Divergent evolution, on the other hand, happens when related members of a group possess enough variation to be considered a separate species. The term also applies to two or more related species that become increasingly dissimilar as they evolve [source: BioWeb]. A widely known process of divergent evolution is adaptive radiation. You may have heard the term while learning about Darwin's famous finches on the Galapagos Islands. Darwin hypothesized that an original species of finches arrived at the island and split up to exploit new environmental niches. This gradually resulted in the creation of several species. In addition to exploiting new environments, divergent evolution can be influenced by the physical demands of a given environment, competition for resources and geographic isolation [source: Schluter]. Extinction can be a consequence of divergent evolution as well.
Coevolution is best described as two or more species affecting each other's evolution in a mutual way [source: University of California Museum of Paleontology]. Species that coevolve usually have close relationships with one another -- they might be predator and prey duos or have a symbiotic relationship. In this case, species aren't necessarily converging or diverging, but rather evolving to match the adaptations of other species

And an attachment just for fun Enjoy and see ya when you get back.

Be well and be safe Brother.

[JMART5]

I attended a lecture today given by COL (Ret) Dr Chris Parone in which he discussed what could be considered linguistic evolution. I know it's different than this thread (for the most part) but I found the 10 page article (attached) interesting. On page 59 (of the edition of Military Review Journal), he discusses evolution from a metaphorical perspective. It's not an easy read--rather academic--but worth it the second time through.

As to the question of physical evolution, I spent 5 years getting an undergraduate Microbiology degree and after all the (pain) courses in genetics, chemistry, immunology, biology, microbiology, (etc...) I still don't know the answer to the question this thread is discussing. Over time I have formed an informed opinion (which matters not), I think we do/have physically evolved. I do not believe we come from apes. IMHO, our descendants were CREATED and then they/we EVOLVED into what we are today.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by JMART5

IMHO, our descendants were CREATED and then they/we EVOLVED into what we are today.

Ancestors?

[JMART5]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Ancestors?

Oops, yes thank you--ancestors.