Yes, this has been debated for some time. And it seems like one gets a different answer depending on what article or book is read. There is a fine line between variation within a species and clear indications of evolutionary adaptations.
I’ll look into what works have been done on this and see what the literature has to say about the lack of evolutionary change over long periods by some species. I may be out of the loop on this since “living fossils” was a term still being used to describe this phenomena.
This is what makes evolution so much fun, for me at least. Always something to look into.
Well when you single out just the one scientific fact of species evolution, in order to deny known scientific facts about it, then yes, your posts smacked of the idiocy of creationism.
The mendacious way you have tried to peddle some fairly racist mantras on here, means your posts are likely to be viewed with suspicion, but that aside, the perfidious way you make unevidenced claims, then refuse to address refutations speaks for itself.
Not a very compelling retraction, was it the Beano?
The dishonest shifting of the goal posts here is almost deafening.
Now you’re trying to sneak your previously discredited claim back in, after Grinseed has “prison shamed” it.
Is that why you just denied one its core tenets, by claiming not all living things are evolving?
Then there’s this gem…
You’re all at sea, and are making contradictory claims here. You also failed to address the fossil lineage of the modern horse I included in my post, proving your claim is nonsense.
Yet another sweeping unevidenced assertion, and you wonder your claim to be an atheist is viewed with suspicion.
For anyone who missed this, broadcast just five days ago. We are still evolving and faster than normal…
Seems some of the youngsters around us have been evolving quietly behind their elders’ backs, with shorter faces, extra leg and foot bones and joints. A once temporary arm artery is now becoming more permanent in adulthood and some lucky little buggers are being born without wisdom teeth at all.
An Australian research team from Flinders University, near where Cranky lives, has found that we, as a species, have been evolving at a rate faster than at any time in the past 250 years.
Sadly, other sources reveal this study also shows an increase in cases of spina bifida occulta, a rather nasty childhood affliction with no evolutionary advantage at all, a clear example of one mutation with nil and negative effects, proving mother nature to be a bitch.
Yes, well I originally got the news item from a science feed on my phone that came from Flinders University and featured an interview with Dr Teghan Lucas and his team, complete with photos. I just used the Daily Mail version as it was the first to appear in my laptop browser and as I had already done a fact check on it days earlier. I was too dog lazy to track down the Flinders article .
The DM just ran with the item as did 30 or 40 other news sites did, including several television stations in Australia.
Yes, everything can be a bitch and I am one son of a bitch gnawing on the proverbial bone. I very rarely accept anything I read online without checking sources and as you well know I have been known to challenge all sorts of dubious claims made.
The internet brings us so much new information mixed with bullshit posing as fact because people will write anything to attract views that advertisers will pay for.
The truth is out there. Trust no-one. X.
Studies have revealed that lactase persistence (LP), a phenotype unique to humans, is associated with various dominant autosomal alleles maintaining the expression of lactase beyond infancy. These genetic changes emerged relatively recently in the last 10,000 years within some populations. This coincides with the transition from nomadic to agricultural lifestyles when cattle domestication and milk/dairy food became common. In northern Europe, the GG genotype of the rs4988235 SNP in and the CC genotype of the rs182549 SNPwere identified as causal for lactose intolerance. In North Africa and the Middle East, a different set of alleles are associated with lactose intolerance: CC for rs145946881, AA for rs41380347 and GG for rs41525747.
It seems that even books can’t be trusted completely either. There may have been a time when the sharing of information was done for the benefit of passing on knowledge or to inform, but now everything must be questioned in order to separate truth from falsehood. This is unfortunate because it makes getting much needed reliable information more difficult.
I try to fact check most things I read or are told to me, but I get lazy or selfish about what information is worth the effort of checking, so my knowledge is limited in scope and variety. Maybe that’s not a bad thing because perhaps a built-in bullshit detector is becoming more valuable than knowledge. Believe nothing instead of being fooled into believing garbage seems to be the safe way to go.
That statement speaks volumes to me, as does the fact that in that entire post, and in fact in all your posts as far as I can recall, I have never heard you mention objective evidence.
Hardly an objective way to verify anything is it.
Again that is an odd statement, believe only what is supported by sufficient objective evidence, and be sceptical about claims which are not, seems a far more rational position to me. In your posts you have made multiple sweeping claims, without demonstrating any objective evidence, and either completely ignored responses that point this out, offered angry ad hominem, or simply leaped to new sweeping unevidenced claims.
Note when you made your claim that in the US “only blacks have an issue with race,” II offered the example of the KKK, an all white chrisitian organisation in the US that clearly have an issue with race, and you have yet to even acknowledge that example because it clearly destroys your claim.
Now given it has been some time since the example was offered, and it has been offered multiple times, only for you to repeat the original claim while continuing to ignore the example, how would you describe that behaviour? I have to say I would call it dishonest and dogmatic?
OMFG!!! All information from whatever time period did/could contain speculation, untruths, half truths, exaggeration, opinion…. From history to science to medicine to “news” to criminal trials to “class and moral” judgements - from old to young - educated to uneducated … the idea of “fake news” or tethering information to fit one’s political or monetary or religious goals HAS always been with humans.
Then, once again, you are an idiot. You appear to be stuck on the idea that “Belief” or even “Knowledge” are “all or nothing” propositions. This is a very basic black or white fallacy.
Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided. If you read one claim that sounds reasonable and then one that contradicts it, it is not an attack on belief requiring you to drop all belief or accept one proposition or the other. It is merely and adjustment to the beliefs based on the additional knowledge and circumstances being provided.
Things you want to know about the studies are, who did the funding, why were the studies conducted, are there errors in the design, were the research questions formulated reasonably, was the demographic accurately assessed and more. Asking these sorts of questions is the very thing that eliminates most creationist claims from even approaching anything like science.
The fact that there is conflicting information on the internet is not the problem of science or the scientific method. The fact that there is woo woo out there is not an issue at all. The issue is only the fact that you have no idea at all how to evaluate the information you are reading.
Yeah.
Universal literacy is a modern invention and is still l not actually universal by a long way. Traditionally ‘we the the people’ could neither read nor vote. The illiterate (including the aristocracy and monarchs) were in awe of the written word. Today, people who can read but do not, still seem to believe anything if it’s in a book.
Perhaps some people today are less naive and more likely to question all ** sources of information.— I exclude those on Twitter , those who watch reality TV and of course Trump supporters** (various flavours of believers is a given)
As I tote up the various groups who uncritically accept the written word, the number of those of us who do question gets smaller and smaller.
