Philosoraptor

You are bad! LOL!

Environment changes dna

No it doesn't... Lol.

Yes it does ...lol

So sun bathing could make me a 6 foot asian?! Please, you must share your discovery with the world! Lol..

Please, feel free to elaborate.

Evolution changes much in a living thing. Centuries of living in the ice age limited the production of Melanin which cause the skin to darken so people evolved with lighter skin. It's easy science that anyone can find if you care to look.

No, but it could give you cancer. Which is a genetic alteration/mutation. And that's just the short term genetic effect.

So yeah.

You're an idiot.

Go fry yourself in the sun and do the world a favor. Hopefully you haven't passed your awful genes to an offspring already.

Lol, you know nothing about what you're talking about, so I'm not going to continue arguing with you because you have already shut your mind to outside opinions and convinced yourself that you're right and everyone else is an idiot.

Also, thanks for the compliment! I really do appreciate it when a troll calls me an idiot because it shows I've beaten them at their own game. Thanks bro! ;D

Funny thing is I know exactly what I'm talking about.

LOL! You're a funny dude! You should make a meme about yourself xD

Yeah, and when H2O points out how your line of thinking seems to him, who is the one blowing up? LOL

He goes against your comment and multiple people jump on the bandwagon and freakin' burn him with nasty comments about him and not addressing their line of thinking.

LOL! Best comment I've read all day! H2O is one of the most annoying of the assclown top users. He's one of raydogs little followers he likes to defend anything he does.

A true bozo. He gets schooled and refuses to admit it.

Yup! Such a moron. They do that kind of stuff all the time! LOL! They can't take it when people like us show them they're wrong, they just call us trolls!

Nothing against you, but these comments make it look like DownvoteFairy uses other accounts.

I don't think it's a good idea to make general statements about a group of users based on an experience you've had with one of them.

Yes it does. LOL

I'm and American and My parents came from Switzerland!... You racist scumbag!... (joke) get it? I am being politically correct... Ha, ha, ha!

Wow! thats really cool, robbiehurz!

Hahaha nice!

If Americans came from Europeans why are there still Europeans? That's about how smart a dinosaur is.

Okay, maybe tge better question is; Why haven't we documented anything evolving for the past several hundred years. If you have/know of any such evidence (Or articles documenting such) I would be genuinely glad to see it.

Well for one, an increasing number of humans are being born without wisdom teeth. This results from smaller mouths, which in turn resulted from our modern cooking and eating practices. The trait of a smaller mouth no longer creates a "survival rate penalty" the way it would have for pre-historic people, our hominid ancestors, or other primates.

Want more evidence? You're sitting on it. Your coccyx took the form of a tail when you were just an embryo, in the same way as those of other primates. Like chimpanzees and unlike monkeys, it degenerated during gestation until it fused into a few useless vertebrae at the bottom of your spine. Since they incur no penalty on survival rate, this is one of many useless physical traits that have yet to disappear from the human phenotype.

Try hitting YouTube and look for Richard Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye. Or the sub-laryngeal nerve (present in all mammals). They are both excellent examples.

I'll do that if you go to Answersingenesis.org.

You asked for a reference. I've survived several indoctrination attempts. Including my first 15 years of life. You are commenting a lot with a lot of other users so I understand how hard it is to keep them straight. But in one comment you said you weren't interested in looking for the proof and in another you asked for a citation. Don't bother looking because I know you don't want to, but trust me; my lack of faith in religion does not come from lack of exposure.

OK but Dawkins is a true authority. A professor of evolutionary biology. And very easy to follow.

Google is your friend.

His theory. Let him prove it. I'm not wasting my time and energy to find something that I personally don't even belive exists.

wait... you don't believe evolution exists, but there is more proof of evolution than religious deities.

Then how did your parents bring you to Jeebus?

Lol it's people like you who only re-affirm my faith. Lol, "Jerbus"! Lickily for you, Jesus doesn't hold grudges. I'll add you to my prayer list ;D

And "lickily" is my new favorite word. Sometimes typos are better than the real thing.

* Jeebus.

And my point was; you were told the religious myth that you now believe. After that you decided to stop seeking evidence of things you don't believe are true. Only religion tells you to stop looking elsewhere for answers. The last thing they want is for you to enlighten yourself, because they want to be your enlightenment.

Run away, brave Sir Robin.

LOL, You're a funny guy! ;D

we probably have, but not everything is found in one place, also evolution takes more than a hundred years, thats only like 2-3 generations for most large mammals, and it would take at least 10 generations to actually notice a difference.

We have. http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

That's just an example of natural selection, not one species transforming into another.

Natural selection IS evolution. "Transformation" does not occur in nature. Over millenia natural selection presents itself as evolution.

Natural selection is not evolution; It's just a difference in genetics between offspring of a species; For instance, a black fox would be much less likely to survive in the arctic as opposed to it's albino brother. However, said black fox would do much better in a jungle, whereas it's albino brother would be easy to spot by predators.

That is natural selection. Evolution assumes that said species' DNA mutates allowing it to gain/dispose features that would help/harm itself. Evolution would be the black fox gaining an ability to protect itself from predators spotting it in the white snow; as an example, perhaps the ability to inject venom when they bite another animal (Purely an example there, not saying that its true).

Unfortunately I'll have to disregard that since you haven't researched the subject. Also, mutations are almost always harmful to an animal (This has been observed and thoroughly documented). Even Evolutionists agree with that. Their point is that over so many billions (Or is it trillions now?) all of the species eventually stumbled upon just the right sequences of mutations.

1. You can't argue this topic since you claim you haven't researched it enough to provide evidence backing up your opinion
2. This is shown by your belief of mutations; Mutations are nearly always harmful, as I have stated, and even evolutionary scientists agree. Their theory is that over a very long period of time the mutations eventually started working together.
3. They have to have all worked together; What about the eye? What use would an eye be until fully evolved? Why would natural selection pick the creature with a useless soon-to-be eye over an animal that also had no eye? Why would it continue to do so until the eye was fully evolved?

natural selection is genetic traits. basic biology. Punnet square stuff

Yes. Dawkins explains, as all scientists understand, that all mutations are random. The fact that some mutations allow the species to survive or reproduce at a greater rate causes evolution to improve the species. Evolution is not a force. It is an explanation of long term changes seen in species due to improved rate of survival. Intelligent design does not exist. Change is random in individuals and those individuals survive at a greater rate and thusly the species evolves. If you can't or won't accept the scientific method of evolution, then nothing else I say will help you. I wish you the best and hope you can one day see life through eyes untainted by dogma.

Yes it is obvious neither one of us is going to convince the other of our position. I wish you a nice day and hope you too can one day see this through eyes untainted by atheist view points.

The beauty is that atheism is the lack of a lens so no tinting can occur.

You just described how evolution works.

Through natural selection, a creature more fit for survival is able to pass their traits along to their offspring. As this happens millions upon millions of times, more complicated and varied species come into being.

This can be viewed in nearly any species of animal or plant.

Contrary to some people's belief, not all of a single species will change at the same time. This fact can easily be shown in the varied appearance of human beings around the world. What traits have been advantageous in one part of the world have not be advantageous in other parts.

Yes, that proves natural selection. However, it does not prove evolution exists. The genetic trait of peppered moths are in the peppered moths. Given that the black moths have a shorter life span because they are getting eaten, they may not have the opportunity to spread their genetics, therefore the genetic trait of peppered wings is dominant over black wings. After, when the smoke blackened the environment, it is safe to assume that what I said previous is true. Simply switch the peppered wing trait with the solid black wing trait. There you go. LOL

LOL? Of course you're taking it seriously. But; what you describe is evolution. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept that you understand the concept but refuse the definition of the word. It's like saying "I'm not a prostitute, I just f**k for money". But that's what religion does. Sorry that you don't see it.

In the Galapagos Islands there a few species of finches that have common DNA but slightly different beak structures determined by which food is more abundant on their particular island. Evolution in 3D.

That's not evolving into a new species, and Darwin rescinded those theories.

Personally I think each species was designed. Therefore it is up to YOU to define what a 'new' species is since it is YOUR belief that we came about as a result of an ancient ancestor evolving into multiple 'new' species.

This is a logical fallacy known as Burdon of Proof.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Please understand that when you make a claim, it is not on your opponent to disprove your statement, it is on you to prove your statement.

You are absolutely wrong. But if you don't believe it exists and refuse to look for it you will of course never be anything but wrong.

We have ways of documenting stuff too, i.e. books. Why has nobody documented a species pphysically changing into a different one, at least over the past 400 years?

Uh yeah you can't claim that there is evidence somewhere, then when asked for it say you haven't researched the subject enough.

No, you made a claim (It's in scientific literature), then when I asked you to point me to said scientific literature, you said to ask a biologist because they would know more. That's like me claiming there is evidence of Big foot, then telling you to go ask Cliff Barackman when you asked me for a citation.

Yes but I could easily go to a creationist who would disagree with your POV. I'm asking for hard evidence, not people who will share their slanted opinions. (Creationists or Evolutionists)

The fact is, your viewpoint is wrong, so I won't find these people you speak of.

Directly from the first Google Search result for "human evolution"

Natural selection still affects modern human populations. For example, the population at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. The frequency of this genetic variant is due to the survival of immune persons. Other reported trends appear to include lengthening of the human reproductive period and reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure in some populations .

It has been argued that human evolution has accelerated since the development of agriculture and civilization some 10,000 years ago, resulting, it is claimed, in substantial genetic differences between different current human populations. Lactase persistence is an example of such recent evolution. Recent human evolution seems to have been largely confined to genetic resistance to infectious disease that have appeared in human populations by crossing the species barrier from domesticated animals.

It is a common misconception that humans have stopped evolving and current genetic changes are purely genetic drift. Although selection pressure on some traits has decreased in modern human life (for instance, we are no longer evolving to survive smallpox), humans are still undergoing natural selection for many other traits (for instance, menopause is evolving to occur later).

Again, natural selection, not actual evolution. Bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics because there is always a mutant one out several trillion. Bacteria are single celled organisms and yet they haven't evolved into anything beyond that yet. Natural selection is being confused with evolution here.

Natural selection is the mechanism through which large-scale evolution occurs. Artificial selection does this as well, as we see with our hundreds upon hundreds of domestic animal breeds. If any population of said breeds were isolated for an extended period of time (perhaps a few thousand years), the genetic drift would produce organisms that are genetically incompatible with their very distant relatives from whom they were isolated. Viola! Evolution through natural (or artificial) selection.

P.S. Bacteria being single-celled brings an evolutionary advantage: they are able to reproduce and adapt to new environments (evolve) extremely quickly.

I'm not going to continue discussing this since you clearly don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. Nice speaking with you though, I do appreciate debating with someone who doesn't rely on calling me a "poo poo dunderhead" when we disagree.

Perhaps this will help: Directly from the first Google Search result for "Natural selection"

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It the most important mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection"; he compared it with artificial selection (selective breeding).

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves.

I'll re-write this since you seem to have mis-read it:
---
I'm not going to continue discussing this since you clearly don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. Nice speaking with you though, I do appreciate debating with someone who doesn't rely on calling me a "poo poo dunderhead" when we disagree.

How can I put this in another way...

If evolution is a road that represents 1,000 generations of an animal down a single highway, something needs to determine that the offspring (each generation) survives and develops new traits to pass on to the next generation.

Natural selection is something like the car that is driving down that road. It in itself is not evolution, but as it passes by 1,000 generations (and 1,000 to the 1,000th power of parents combining genes through their own genetic roads), something different from the point of origin is achieved.

The word evolution is used to explain that a wolf doesn't suddenly become a great dane; it takes many generations. Those generations are so varied, and the pool that they come from are so vast, that it is only possible to view the changes over large gaps of time.

Wolf - 1000 generations later - Dog.

The road to get there was very long indeed and natural selection is the vehicle that made it possible.

PBS has done a very good documentary on the subject. You can read the overview on their site at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html