PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
We've seen evolutionary changes in lizards introduced to a new habitat.
There's also the experiment of a Soviet geneticist in the middle of the 20th century who bred foxes with the single trait of tameness in mind, and got the surprising result of them looking and behaving like dogs. Ain't biology cool?
I must say, this article certainly supports your thesis.
But it was hardly an example of human-initiated experimentation that can be regularly replicated.
You could, to an extent. If you introduce a new species to a new island and leave it alone it will evolve separately from the host population you took it from. It's a basic method of speciation, via geographic isolation.
You're not going to get the same lizards to evolve the precise same way, but you'll get them to evolve.
Gratzi.
Still, I don't believe that the example represents any the validation of your premise: "Evolution is and has been replicated many times, in various scientific experiments."
Well that's a pity, because it does. Would you perhaps like some more examples? Maybe you're a fan of bacteria, my personal favorite is one that Richard Lenski did for over twenty years, centered around E. coli.
Let's see, if you like foxes, here's a link about the experiment the Soviet geneticist I described above did.
Do you like fish? John Endler did an experiment concerning guppy color and cameoflauge in the 1970s. Here's a PBS page that describes his experiment quite well.
I have more if you like, although if you still think this doesn't show evolution in organisms, I'm afraid I have to conclude you don't seem to understand the term 'evolution.'
Nor does it deny the aspects that a religious perspective adds to the theory.
But I did find it interesting.
I'm not sure what religious perspective you could add. Evolution makes no quibbles or qualms concerning religion. It really doesn't have much to do with it.
I referred the E. coli earlier...
Prokaryotes (as their name suggests) refer to cells which do not have a true membrane-bound nucleus. This type of cell includes most bacteria. As E. coli belongs to this category [its genetic material which includes genomic DNA (in the form of single-stranded DNA) and plasmid DNA (small circular DNA molecules in the cytoplasm of the cell) for some strains of E. coli e.g. DH5a] is sequestered in the cytoplasm of the cell in a region known as the nucleoid (rather than a true membrane bound nucleus), we may thus classify E. coli to be a prokaryotic cell.
Read more: Why is E. coli a prokaryotic cell
Domesticaton is the selection of traits that are mutation...rewarding adaptations.
It doesn't refer to the series of chages in nature that have produced the panorama we see today.
I would be happy to accept your explanation of 'evolution' as long as you accept that it is largely based on conjecture and faith...not reproducible research.
Not all work should be expected to be reproducible...especially in an area such as 'evolution'...and this is exactly why faith in a theory is such a large component. And why one can make up pretty much whatever one wishes.
The theory of evolution is incomplete with explaining the origins of the universe, and, therefore, the primordial gases.