nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + + + +
Talk:Evidence of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 14:25, January 12, 2009
, 14:25, January 12, 2009no edit summary
One "X" we're all looking for is an modern example of evolution. If by "evolution" we mean the appearance of a new variety or species. If there were no dark varieties of the peppered moth 200 years ago, but soot pollution brought it into being, this might prove something (but see also [[breeding]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:25, 9 January 2009 (EST)
One "X" we're all looking for is an modern example of evolution. If by "evolution" we mean the appearance of a new variety or species. If there were no dark varieties of the peppered moth 200 years ago, but soot pollution brought it into being, this might prove something (but see also [[breeding]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:25, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Sorry about the delay in response, weekend:). "Changes in distribution of existing organisms" is not caused by evolution but is one of evolution's causes. You are correct a population shift is a change in the distribution of existing species. This would be a general principle of ecology that has an impact on evolution.
:Now to answer the glacier question, very well put if I might add. If the returning species are not significantly genetically changed upon their return then they would be either a new variety or species. However, if the organisms do return with significant genetic changes to cause speciation then it could be evidence of evolution. The problem is a matter of time for the genetic changes to cause a shift in the population.
:As for looking for "X". I know that often scientists propose the use of the fossil record for falsification of evolution, which many creationists say is faulty. I prefer another approach that is easier to understand, but requires a basic understanding of biochemistry. All living organisms have biochemical processes. Many lower life forms have the basic biochemical pathways found in every higher-level organism. Each species has different biochemical pathways that contribute to their uniqueness. Now most of these higher level pathways use the primitive pathways to function, like the foundation of a skyscraper. Many of these pathways need to be in a certain order to allow for the end biochemical pathway to function. See what I am getting at, like organisms share more similar biochemical pathways than unlike organisms. So a way to falsify evolution (the theory of common descent) all we would have to find is a similar if not same biochemical pathway found in one organism, but not found in any of its related organisms, and find the same or similar pathway in a totally non-related organism. For example, we find a pathway in Humans and a similar pathway in the raven, but not in any reptiles, birds, and we do not find this biochemical pathway in any other mammals. This would falsify evolution since in theory for Humans and birds to share a biochemical pathway it would have to develop in a common ancestor of both humans and birds or precursors found in the linage of humans and birds. Now there is a difference between a pathway and process, a biochemical pathway is a series of biochemical processes. I point this out since the chance of a new pathway coming into existence in two non-related organisms is pretty low (almost zero I would say) but a biochemical process is more common.
:If what I described was unclear please let me know, I will try to make it clearer.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)