Evolution is a well debated topic. I would like to know more about both sides. Please cite any information you put down. Also, please remain emotionally detached. This is not a shouting match.

I can't see how this is open for debate, evolution happens; it simply does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

That's documented evolution within our lifetime.

Quote from Chimaera

I can't see how this is open for debate, evolution happens; it simply does.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

That's documented evolution within our lifetime.

Does evolution just happen?
As far as the proof that has been presented, please read this page thoroughly. The "proof of evolution: just shows that they don't know their bacteria.
If you can present irrefutable proof of evolution then I will consider the possibility.
please read this page thoroughly. Its a lot to read but it explains things well. (Plus I read your page so this is just fair)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye

Please research your information thoroughly before presenting it. Keep coming with new discoveries and other information. I like to keep up with the scientific community.

Quote from iRakodai

The "proof of evolution: just shows that they don't know their bacteria.

What? You can't take a scientific study which took place over twenty years and just say that they weren't paying enough attention at the start. That's not refuting their proof. That's putting your hands over your ears and singing "I'm not listening". You can say "they must have done it wrong" to any study. What proof will you accept?

The analysis you posted says that what Lenski showed was not evolution because not all the mutations were beneficial. That just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

It goes on to say that the bacteria had the ability to metabolise citrate before but they just chose not to. That doesn't make this less special. A dozen groups did not mutate to metabolise citrates at normal oxygen levels. One did. The fact that they are observing any mutations at all is solid enough proof of evolution.

The article argues that because the mutations involved are rare they show how unlikely it is that dinosaurs could have evolved into birds. There are several things to say to that. Firstly, Lenski's work shows that complex mutations with little benefit are possible every now and then, and little mutations which are highly beneficial in the local environment happen very quickly. Dinosaurs -> birds can happily involve lots of little mutations and a few big but highly beneficial ones. Secondly, the article is massively underestimating the time-scales involved here. A bird is capable of breeding after a year. Small dinosaurs of the sort that are thought to have evolved would probably have bred after two or three years. Conservatively that means there are 30 million generations involved here. With a major evolutionary jump probable after 31,500 that means thousands of evolutionary jumps which are not even particularly beneficial. Factor in the environment and natural selection and it's perfectly possible to get a chicken at the other end.

The article attempts to conclude that what has been demonstrated is "adaptation, not evolution". I would challenge them to produce a meaningful distinction between the two.

Well, for one example,

"A specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes. The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased. This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached."

Genetic biodiversity exists. Genetic mutations exist. We know this is true, it's observable and blatantly clear among animals and humans today. Certain traits are more favorable than others in terms of reproductive success and survival, and over a time scale humans can't even begin to comprehend, those favorable traits become more common in the population.

It's a fairly simple explanation on the surface, I'm not sure what proof there is to the contrary that can be considered equally as credible. Zed did a good job of explaining why that study failed and why its interpretations of the results have little to do with evolution.

I feel like trying to explain why I think it's true amounts to the same thing as describing what it is, since its validity seems blatantly obvious, so maybe you should try explaining what you find so questionable about it.

Dear Zed,
The article was to show that no NEW information was added. The information in DNA for E. Coli bacteria to metabolize citrate was already there, It just lost a regulator. As far as the difference between evolution and adaptation, adaptation is a change, a loss of DNA, or a dormant gene becoming active under certain circumstances that increases the beings fitness. Evolution is a mutation adding new information or structures in the animal that increase fitness.

Dear Exilement,
The example you put is an example of adaptation. No new information was added to increase fitness, rather, a loss in DNA increased fitness. Evolution is all about creatures going from simple beings to complex beings through mutations that add new and useful information. If those mutations don't exist, then reality would be that we were complex from the beginning, and we are slowly losing information through beneficial losses in DNA (Like CCR5) that allow us to survive in new situations.
Its true that mutations do exist, but do any of them create anything useful?

Dear Exilement,
The example you brought up is an example of adaptation not evolution. No new information was added to combat the threat, rather, a loss of information occurred. What you put in bold is just the definition of natural selection which is commonly mislabeled as evolution.

Evolution is random mutations over time slowly adding new information (aided by natural selection) causing very simple beings to become more complex. If those mutations don't exist, then reality would be that we were complex from the beginning.

Yes genetic mutations exist, But so any of them add new information and structures?

Also, If its so blatantly obvious, irrefutable evidence should be plentiful. Prove it.

"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations."

It has nothing to do with the cause, evolution is just the end result.

You're also confusing terms. "Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats." It's a specific benefit of evolution. Adaptation increases an organism's chance to survive and pass its genes more reliably than those without the mutation. That's how evolution works.

I'm aware that my example was one of natural selection, I am not confusing the terms. But evolution can be caused by it, which was demonstrated by the statement "thus its frequency in the population increased." That increase in the frequency was an evolutionary change.

The fact that you believe adaptation and natural selection exist, while denying that evolution does, it makes absolutely no sense. Again, this is pretty obvious, not to be a dick but you're making it clear you don't really understand this topic.


But, I'll play along.

Quote from iRakodai

Also, If its so blatantly obvious, irrefutable evidence should be plentiful. Prove it.

'kay.

"Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome. Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve. This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors. For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene."

There are plenty of examples of gene duplication adding to the genome and allowing for the creation of new favorable traits, like trichromacy in humans and primates.

Quote from iRakodai

Does evolution just happen?
As far as the proof that has been presented, please read this page thoroughly. The "proof of evolution: just shows that they don't know their bacteria.
If you can present irrefutable proof of evolution then I will consider the possibility.
please read this page thoroughly. Its a lot to read but it explains things well. (Plus I read your page so this is just fair)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye

That article has a massive misunderstanding of evolution... It doesn't have to be beneficial (Though it helps!) the famous example of beneficial evolution is the peppered moth, which started off with varied colourings, and due to the dark coloured surroundings the lighter moths were easier to kill; over a few hundred years the lighter moths had died out and the fitter, darker moths had survived and passed on their genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Just looking at our own genetics, or the work done on mapping the human genome; we're primates, we're something crazy like 99% (V95%V), there's no doubt we share a common ancestor

*Primates, and yeah that's the biological order we belong to. It's not quite 99%, but our genome is 95% similar to a chimpanzee's.

Just being picky, your point is still valid.

Gargh Chrome's auto correct; fixed.

I suppose what I don't believe is mutations that don't just copy or delete, but cause the creation of new structures that function.