[Iain]

have you ever herd of a mud skipper? it is a fish that can take short flops across land and survive.

That's a good example. But we must not forget that the mud skipper's evolutionary ancestor could not do that. That means the intermediate forms would have only been able to do what the current mud skipper can, but in a (to put it bluntly) half-assed way. Would this have been advantageous? I'm not sure.

But the question is not whether it does it half-assed but whether it does it better that the others. From the perspective of those living in 10 million years time, the way we see, hear, move etc. might seem very "half-assed" but it works OK for us.

The same is true of the development of the eye. OK, our ancestors couldn't see as well as we can and had more primitive eyes. Is that a problem? No, because primitive as they were, if they were better than those others had they would have conferred an evolutionary advantage.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king (and stuff like that).

[Konrad Lorenz]

Although I'm a latecomer to this argument (and don't have too much time to read all the posts at the moment), I can say I both read the book and watched PBS's "Evolution" series, and I must say it is amazing. The problem is this; Darwin's evolution as we know it is relatively inaccurate. However, scientists have made breakthroughs in various studies of evolution in the past hundred years. We've discovered the gene in Europe that gave a fraction of those crazy Europeans immunity to the Black Plague back in the day. Now AIDS in Europe is extremely low due to that particular mutation. Evolution.

We've seen new species of ciclids in Lake Victoria pop up over the years at interesting rates. Evolution.

Because we are not masters of our own biological history yet, we don't know all the answers. But we have viewed in many cases (I can't quite remember them all, so I'm afraid I'm not really proving my point) that evolution can and does happen. Answers to the endless questions evolution poses are being answered daily. Evolution is our best chance at defining the world in biological terms; intelligent design is, in my opinion, an odd archaic fabrication.

With science (and as well with religion, I suppose): Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.

[Josh]

This brings to memory the documentary I saw on either the National Geographic or Discovery Channel on this very subject of evolution. It highlighted the progression of Galapagos Finches, who, over the course of the last decade or two, have had a definite and recognizable increase in beak size among a particular species on one of the islands, as a berry-like food source is replaced by harder-to-find wood-boring insects. In short, evolution is responsible for the increase.

As for the argument as to whether or not Darwin based his theory on domesticated animals rather than wild ones, it's basically a moot point because of the modern experiments and observations (like the one above) that have essentially proven his theory. (If this has already been stated in one of the plethora of posts above, I apologize. Quoth the Japanese businessman: Miso Solly! )

[fastspawn]

This brings to memory the documentary I saw on either the National Geographic or Discovery Channel on this very subject of evolution. It highlighted the progression of Galapagos Finches, who, over the course of the last decade or two, have had a definite and recognizable increase in beak size among a particular species on one of the islands, as a berry-like food source is replaced by harder-to-find wood-boring insects. In short, evolution is responsible for the increase.

As for the argument as to whether or not Darwin based his theory on domesticated animals rather than wild ones, it's basically a moot point because of the modern experiments and observations (like the one above) that have essentially proven his theory. (If this has already been stated in one of the plethora of posts above, I apologize. Quoth the Japanese businessman: Miso Solly! )

What is the lifespan of a galapogas finch? It shouldn't be genetically possible for that change to occur over 10 generations. There are bound to be some with long beaks and some with short ones, its a mutation that hasn't become so drastic that evolution can be considered to have taken place.

[Josh]

This brings to memory the documentary I saw on either the National Geographic or Discovery Channel on this very subject of evolution. It highlighted the progression of Galapagos Finches, who, over the course of the last decade or two, have had a definite and recognizable increase in beak size among a particular species on one of the islands, as a berry-like food source is replaced by harder-to-find wood-boring insects. In short, evolution is responsible for the increase.

As for the argument as to whether or not Darwin based his theory on domesticated animals rather than wild ones, it's basically a moot point because of the modern experiments and observations (like the one above) that have essentially proven his theory. (If this has already been stated in one of the plethora of posts above, I apologize. Quoth the Japanese businessman: Miso Solly! )

What is the lifespan of a galapogas finch? It shouldn't be genetically possible for that change to occur over 10 generations. There are bound to be some with long beaks and some with short ones, its a mutation that hasn't become so drastic that evolution can be considered to have taken place.

It's possible. The change occured in a species of finch that was characteristically thin-beaked, and the measurements of that species' beak over a few decades (1-3, if memory serves) have become short and thick, instead of thin and needle-like.

[fastspawn]

What is the lifespan of a galapogas finch? It shouldn't be genetically possible for that change to occur over 10 generations. There are bound to be some with long beaks and some with short ones, its a mutation that hasn't become so drastic that evolution can be considered to have taken place.

It's possible. The change occured in a species of finch that was characteristically thin-beaked, and the measurements of that species' beak over a few decades (1-3, if memory serves) have become short and thick, instead of thin and needle-like.

You have to lead me to a source of the article, because i really am unconvinced that evolution can take place over 10 generations.

[SueDeNîmes]

It can take place over 10 days. If some new virus kills off everyone except those with the gene for resistance, you have evolution.

The engine of evolution is selection, not mutation. A beak mutation doesn't occur in response to environmental pressure. Rather, environmental pressure eliminates those who do not already have a previously non-critical variation such as a long beak.

[Iain]

I really don't know; but I thought it was down to the number of generations and the method of breeding rather than time. I have a vague recollection that for animals (i.e. using sexual reproduction rather than asexual) a mutation can spread through an entire population in as little as a hundred generations. Maybe for small populations in particular cases it's even less.

[fastspawn]

It can take place over 10 days. If some new virus kills off everyone except those with the gene for resistance, you have evolution.

The engine of evolution is selection, not mutation. A beak mutation doesn't occur in response to environmental pressure. Rather, environmental pressure eliminates those who do not already have a previously non-critical variation such as a long beak.

Evolution is a process of selection and mutation. Its chancey and yet not chancey in that sense. For example a mutation would allow a human to grow six fingers. If six fingers are more dexterous than five, then the six finger ones will have a higher rate of survival than one with five. Thus over time we
will have a species that has six fingers and one that has five, and we shall find that the six fingers ones are more able to survive than the five and occupy the five fingered sapiens ecological niche. There is a reason virus don't evolve but mutate. It is because they have to rely on other living things to reproduce. But deviating, 10 days for a virus is what, 1000 generations?

[SueDeNîmes]

Evolution is a process of selection and mutation. Its chancey and yet not chancey in that sense. For example a mutation would allow a human to grow six fingers. If six fingers are more dexterous than five, then the six finger ones will have a higher rate of survival than one with five. Thus over time we
will have a species that has six fingers and one that has five, and we shall find that the six fingers ones are more able to survive than the five and occupy the five fingered sapiens ecological niche.

The 6 fingered species will not replace the 5 fingered unless some environmental pressure tends to kill the 5 fingered before they can reproduce. Sponges have nil dexterity but have been doing just fine for a long time.

There is a reason virus don't evolve but mutate. It is because they have to rely on other living things to reproduce. But deviating, 10 days for a virus is what, 1000 generations?

The example I gave refered to evolution of the host organism, not the virus. Say a virus kills all members of a single generation of a host species -except those with a genetic immunity- within 10 days. The genome of the host species has changed, selection has favoured individuals with certain characteristics, the species has evolved.

[saladasalad]

Agriculture simply won out. There are many places where it never took hold, such as Australia, but in the end farming gives the farmer much more calories per calories put out than does hunter-gathering. In many areas game was actually becomming rare because of hunting, so agriculture provided an attractive alternative once it was developed.

Humans have lived in Australia for at least 40,000 years and there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the Aborigines did develop agriculture (farming eels, smoking them and trading with them). Not that you could be expected to know that, as most Aussies don't know it.

[bradley]

trading with EELS? hey man, maybe that's possible after putting eel meat in your joint