“Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste”
36 years. They have larger bodies, a stronger bite, different behavioral characteristics, and this.
Doesn’t MATTER. You people claimed that we’ve “witnessed evolution in action” and that’s pure, unadulterated BS. We’ve “witnessed” NO SUCH THING, and you know it…if just deep down in your guts. Name for me ONE species that has become a DIFFERENT species within recorded history.
The way that you are asking the question the answer is, there are no examples…Because that’s not how evolution works. One species does not “become” another species, ever. Species change as AS has explained and each change is minute. Thus when looking at individual changes they will never appear to have lead to something new. It is the accumulation of millions of small changes over hundreds of millennia that lead to something that is significantly different but only when compared to distant ancestors hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.
In reality, every creature that has ever existed, including humans is actively in transition.
There is no such thing as “macroevolution”, just evolution. What you are calling “macroevolution” is just an accumulation of millions of small changes over eons… The result is something, when looking back that that appears significantly different than it’s distant ancestor.
There is no micro-aging and macro-aging, there is just aging. No one can see aging day-to-day, we can only see it when we look at a picture and compare it to a significantly over picture. It was the accumulation of small, imperceptible changes each day that lead to significant changes over time.
You and Dave appear to believe that unless a species give birth to an entirely new and significantly different species, that evolution isn’t possible. That’s not how evolution works which is why you are having such a hard time understanding it.
If even Organs can be grown, what stops the possum from becoming the Tasmanian Wolf?
What happens, when the changes accrue? What’s stopping that?
You see Dave, there’s something you’ve missed touching on about DNA.
It’s not just a building block, it’s a recorder. DNA makes mistakes, a pattern of slight deviation in the bases when making copies.
We see these pattern of “mistakes” get passed on into descendants. We use this to track human lineages, find out who your ancestors are.
Yet still, we can use this same technique to look even further back, to find which animals are related. If two or more animals have the same pattern of “mistake” bases in their DNA, we can conclude that they relate, that they’re descended from a common ancestor.
These “mistake bases” aren’t universal, unique patterns exist, and it’s how we trace everything in DNA.
If every living thing on the planet is related in some fashion to the original living cell that evolution claims sprang from the primordial muck, then we’d ALL, and all plants and animals, would have these same “mistake bases”. We don’t.
You seem to be defending evolution, and you cited that it would take long periods of time for the changes to be visible. Fossil records would give you evidence that would fit that long timeframe. Yet the evidence is questionable at best.
You’re quoting the official party line. That’s what true believes want to be true.
There are actually several conflicting definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the one that I mean when I say it is that micro-evolution changes are observed, or could be observed, whereas macro-evolution changes are only believed to have happened.
Circumstantial evidence such as fossils is usually cited to support the belief in macro-evolution. But the other competing model (intelligent design and creation) is usually ignored or summarily dismissed without analysis when citing such circumstantial evidence.
If every bit of biological function can be adapted, what keeps the micro-evolutions from stacking, and getting a different creature?
What prevents this Ken? Why are you not answering?
Epigenetics — it starts as a phenotype, then becomes the genotype. Like a cook book getting notes added to it to “correct” the recipe, only to later have those notes replace the original recipe in a new edition.
Again, this is an observed function. Its purpose as a system is to do this. To create variation, sampling the environment, diet, & stress.
We’re now able to cure cancer for people at this point, simply by altering the (responsible) notes within this system. It’s not theoretical, it’s practical science Ken.
You don’t “develop” a new muscle you didn’t have before; no work out will do that for you. Sorry Ken. Body builders would be all over this if it were true.
Only about 1.1% of Lizards have this feature, and not in this species.
If true, that would mean they got it from a different species. One they evolved from.
Natural selection prevents it. Why would natural selection preserve one component of a ten-component machine while waiting for the other nine to evolve? According to the rules that evolutionists promote, it won’t. It can’t.
For example, if some fish were to “accumulate” changes from fins to legs, it would pass through many versions of uselessness where it’s appendages didn’t work as either fins or legs. Natural selection wouldn’t allow that. And if it did happen, were are the fossils? And it would need to simultaneously accumulate changes from gills to lungs, which would no doubt leave lots of generations gasping for air as they struggled to use gimpy fin-feet.
You seem to have great faith that epigenetics is the hero to solve all evolutionary questions, but that just changes which genes are expressed. So if you’re saying epigenetics is the hero in the case of the lizard, you’re agreeing that the genes for the valve were there all along. They were probably used in the past, but they weren’t being expressed before the lizards were moved. And if they’re moved somewhere else, they might not be expressed again. That’s micro-evolution. Variation, just like Darwin’s finch beaks.
For the author to call the lizard’s changes “evolution” is the same deceit as saying micro- and macro-evolution flow seamlessly together.
That’s done by intelligent doctors. You’re making the case for intelligent design.
Yes it can; like the example of the eyes I showed you, each step can have a function.
Or take, for instance, the case of proto-feathered birds who couldn’t fly. It was a way to press their body weight down against the surface of an inclined object they were climbing, so as to get away from danger.
We literally have a fossil of a fish with arms. Probably didn’t look too different to this guy when it was alive.
And this is a fish species with non-functional fins it uses as legs:
As it says, it doesn’t swim very well. There’s niches under the sea that allow for this.
It only works because the system is there, and we studied what it was doing.
That’s the problem Ken; CRISPR, Epegentics, anti-evolution herbicides, all validates the science.
These things wouldn’t exist, or wouldn’t work, if evolution wasn’t real.
And despite what you’ve said, the system does have ways of adding in new information – genes jumping species, viruses that add in bits of itself, microbes that intentionally manipulate the DNA of a host to make it more suitable for itself, mutations that Epigentics slots in and out.
Evolution is also free to co-opt systems, and turn them into something else.
Our voice-box nerve, grew out of a nerve for mammals intended for controlling gills; that’s why it’s so much longer than it needs to be.
I’m not aware of a “party line”, but I am reasonably aware of how evolution works. What you are calling “macro-evolution” is just looking at the accumulation of very small changes over a very long time. The point is, there is no magic moment in which a change causes a species to become another species. There are examples of creatures that are alive today that are very different, but can still breed because they are still fairly close to the evolutionary tree. So where at the intermediary species between horses and zebra? They died out and exist in the fossil record. Recent finding say that the changes from zebra to horse have taken 4.5 million years and is an example of gradual changes, presumably because the environment didn’t create enough stress for more radical changes over time.
As far as “belief”…There are multiple definitions of that word too. Some belief is based on faith (beleif in something without testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence) and other beliefs are based on knowledge, experience, and understanding if you mean the former, we disagree, if you mean the latter, then we agree.
Anyway…Mules and zebroids are examples. But this is as close as you will get to observing evolution the way you expect. Because at some point, the environment in a particular place might pressure a group of horses or zebra to accumulate enough changes that they are no longer recognizable as horses or zerbra.
The part that makes it hard to visualize is that whatever exists between today’s horse and its distant relatives millions of years in the future may go extinct, just as 99% of every species that has ever lived has gone extinct. This has created visible gaps between horses and zebra and ancestors they came from.
Whichever came first (I assume zebra) did not give birth to the other. There were lots of smaller changes that accumulated in a group of zebra, probably because of environmental changes and the species that existed between them have died out and the horse is what survived.
Accumulate enough of those changes (As AS is trying to get you or Dave to acknowledge) and you get something that is no longer recognizable.
That is what Dave said, catalytic converters were installed in automobiles to create a secondary combustion in exhaust system to burn up what was left over after the combustion chamber in the engine exhausted the remains of its power stroke.
These MANDATORY catalytic converters convert C0 into C02, then the green religion freaks complain about the C02 that they MANDATED into massive existence.