One of my favorite examples of evolution is the relatively recent ability of many humans to digest milk.
Lactose tolerance is a great mutation.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
One of my favorite examples of evolution is the relatively recent ability of many humans to digest milk.
Lactose tolerance is a great mutation.
Right Divider
Body part
Your idea is silly and unscientific.
Yep. Remarkably fast.
Another is the mutation that prevents "shattering" (easy release of mature seeds) in wheat. When that one appeared, humans quickly selected for it, because it made one-time harvesting possible.
Was that about 6,000 years ago?
Well, let's take a look...
Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary
https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution
Sep 30, 2016 - Definition. noun, plural: evolutions. (1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations,
Sure looks like "change in allele frequency in a population over time, doesn't it? You think it's a coincidence that the most accurate definition is found in a dictionary of biology?
Let's look at the other science site:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › History
May 13, 2015 - The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.
This one is Darwin's theory, formulated before genetics. It's accurate, but leaves out the fact that it's due to changes in alleles (different versions of the same gene). But it does say that it's Darwin's theory, not the modern theory which was changed to include genetics.
The others are variously inaccurate, which is why you have to be very careful about getting definitions of scientific terms from sources that don't have much to do with science.
Darwin's term was "descent with modification." He used the word "evolution" once that I know about in his book (the last word in the book in one edition). But he used it in the formal sense of "changed."
Far as I know, the ability of populations to change over time was not called "evolution" until later. The notion that organisms could change is pretty old; St. Augustine mentioned it, and by Darwin's time, most people realized that some kind of change must happen. Lamark, for example had a theory before Darwin, which turned out to be wrong in almost all cases. Don't think he called it "evolution" though. Everything I've read from him called it "acquired characteristics."
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nobody knows.
The better non shattering wheat is mostly thought to have evolved during farming practices not some earth shattering discovery of perfectly evolved wheat.
These types of grain cannot even survive without human intervention.
Yep. One of the first known favorable mutations selected for by humans.
"Perfectly evolved" is sort of an oxymoron.
So it is with maize, which likewise has evolved to depend on humans for existence. Maize evolved from teosinte. You wouldn't recognize it as the ancestor of today's corn, except for the fact that we have a complete set of transitional forms which were preserved in human-occupied sites.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Due to human farming practices not natural evolution.
iouae
Well-known member
By this definition, all creationists are also evolutionists, because creationists DEFINITELY believe in change in allele frequency in a population over time. That is how we get Lady, Tramp, Goofy, Pluto, Odie...
creation
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.
By this definition, all evolutionists are also creationists, because if it exists, it was created.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
:think:
Since it probably occurred during mutations towards death, I'd have to agree.
Shattering plants naturally have more nutritional value.
Humans cross breeding seeds is what made the difference.
Explain to us how the mechanism differs, other than the selective pressure being human.
Greg Jennings
New member
I would use three different radiometric dating methods (you know, like a real scientist, like the ones who spent two decades determining how old the jawbone discovery in Israel today was) but since you reject those then I'll just ask for:
Rock strata. The condition is that mammals (except tiny extinct rodent species) are not found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils
Not true of wheat or maize, which have spread far, far from their beginnings. Highly successful organisms.
Nope. The earliest wheat that shattered had smaller heads and less nutrition, not more.
Humans cross breeding seeds is what made the difference.
Nope. A single mutation, not cross-breeding.
Greg Jennings
New member
Greg Jennings
New member
Agriculture is about 12,000 years old. So I'll gander 10,000 for lactose tolerance
Greg Jennings
New member
And perhaps this is the funniest part about YEC: they reject evolution, but support extremely rapid speciation from a few basic kinds, which is (whether 6days likes it or not) evolution in action
iouae
Well-known member
On earth today there are 5000 different species of mammals, 10000 species of birds, 10000 species of reptiles, and 7000 species of amphibians (did frogs hop onto the ark 2x2?). Double these numbers because they all had mates.
If there was not "extremely rapid speciation from a few basic kinds" the ark might have been a little crowded.
Greg Jennings
New member
Take that up with 6days. He's got an answer for everything :chuckle:
Or you can cut out the middleman and see what the pseudo-scientists at AiG have to say (baby Dinos, God made all animals eat hay bc He's God, and so on.
Even if that happened exactly like that, I wonder how long God had to wait before turning the lions into carnivores again? If you do it right after they get off the ark, and there are only two of each kind, then killing any individual means that a whole species goes extinct