Evolution isn't linear.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:25 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Evolution isn't linear.

Damn you summer, why couldn't I be as concise as this.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:24 am)Napoléon Wrote: And how does this have any bearing on whether it is evolution or not? Say it did go back, and their wings did change again, it would still be evolution. Hell it would simply make evolution more obvious.

Oh go away Napoléon, and figure it out first before you write.

No one has demonstrated that the shorter wings are a newly developed feature or a new gene, or anything of the sort. They've simply observed that there are swallows with shorter wings that appear to have increased survivability in urban areas.

You're making a mockery of science if you truly think you can use this as an "example of evolution" - without clear evidence that what you're observing is actually NEW and DEVELOPING.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:27 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(March 23, 2013 at 7:25 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Evolution isn't linear.

Damn you summer, why couldn't I be as concise as this.

Age and practice. He won't accept it though. Remember, I butted heads with Statler.

Not at all. The article linked to is completely laughable as far as scientific credibility goes, I don't know why you're defending it.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:30 am)Aractus Wrote: No one has demonstrated that the shorter wings are a newly developed feature or a new gene, or anything of the sort. They've simply observed that there are swallows with shorter wings that appear to have increased survivability in urban areas.

And the increased survivability will lead to those swallows spreading their genes more than swallows with larger wings which will lead to the next generation having shorter wings and so on and so on.

Over time the swallows will have shorter wings than now.

By my understanding, whilst this is not the greatest evolutionary leap to be sure, it's still an example of evolution.

Quote:You're making a mockery of science if you truly think you can use this as an "example of evolution" - without clear evidence that what you're observing is actually NEW and DEVELOPING.

The evidence is right in front of you. Use your eyes and see what is happening to these birds. I can't help you if you want to shake your head and go "nope".

Again this is the same thing we hear from creationists who are in denial of evolution. Are you expecting to find a swallow give birth to a blue tit? Evolution is gradual, you won't find 'clear evidence' from one generation to the next. But from my understanding of evolution the more generations of change you have the more obvious the evidence for it becomes.

Now there's clear change that is being demonstrated here, and while yes, I can't say it's undeniable proof that evolution is happening, I'd still say it's pretty fucking obvious that it is.

But whatever, continue being a pedantic ass.

---

(March 23, 2013 at 7:38 am)Aractus Wrote: Not at all. The article linked to is completely laughable as far as scientific credibility goes, I don't know why you're defending it.

Since when did anyone claim it was a scientifically published journal piece you twat.

I'm personally defending it because it looks to me like an obvious form of evolution in action. You say that this particular group of birds is not demonstrated to be developing, I think the article at the very least contradicts this.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:39 am)Napoléon Wrote: And the increased survivability will lead to those swallows spreading their genes more than swallows with larger wings which will lead to the next generation having shorter wings and so on and so on.

Over time the swallows will have shorter wings than now.

By my understanding, whilst this is not the greatest evolutionary leap to be sure, it's still an example of evolution.

No it's not. Unless you can show that it is a NEW development. All that's happening is they're using their existing genes for longer or shorter wings, there is no new genes at play here - or if there are, no one has identified them. It's like any selective breeding that we do. You can "change" the appearance of any species quite significantly using only the existing genetics, that's not evolution I'm afraid, that's simply an example of the flexibility inbuilt in species to adapt to changes in the environment, etc.

---

(March 23, 2013 at 7:39 am)Napoléon Wrote: The evidence is right in front of you. Use your eyes and see what is happening to these birds. I can't help you if you want to shake your head and go "nope".

Again this is the same thing we hear from creationists who are in denial of evolution. Are you expecting to find a swallow give birth to a blue tit? Evolution is gradual, you won't find 'clear evidence' from one generation to the next. But from my understanding of evolution the more generations of change you have the more obvious the evidence for it becomes.

I'm not denying evolution you troll, I'm pointing out that this swallow example isn't likely to be evolution.

Quote:Now there's clear change that is being demonstrated here, and while yes, I can't say it's undeniable proof that evolution is happening, I'd still say it's pretty fucking obvious that it is.

What a fucking useless attitude when it comes to science.

(March 23, 2013 at 7:46 am)Aractus Wrote: No it's not. Unless you can show that it is a NEW development.

The team of scientists from Oklahoma seem to think this is a new development for these birds. Not like there's always been cars influencing birds wingspans.

Quote: All that's happening is they're using their existing genes for longer or shorter wings, there is no new genes at play here - or if there are, no one has identified them. It's like any selective breeding that we do.

Ummm, not really.

With selective breeding we are choosing the variables.

Evolution is all about how animals adapt to change. Dog breeding is not the same.

As for this genes argument, I'm not a geneticist, so I can't argue that point, you may well be right on that one. For arguments sake let's say you are, why is this still not evolution?

What is your definition of evolution that requires new genes must be in play? Surely evolution can happen with the same genes? Are you saying that genes remain the same through every generation?

Quote:You can "change" the appearance of any species quite significantly using only the existing genetics, that's not evolution I'm afraid, that's simply an example of the flexibility inbuilt in species to adapt to changes in the environment, etc.

Not disputing this.

I still think the example in this article is different however.

Quote:I'm not denying evolution you troll, I'm pointing out that this swallow example isn't likely to be evolution.

And I'm disagreeing. Problem?

Quote:What a fucking useless attitude when it comes to science.

Why? We don't have an equation, or mathematical proof that can explicitly explain and demonstrate evolution.

But as I've pointed out before, that's not how you go about explaining evolution anyway.

*edited for grammar/spelling*

Anything to keep Aractus god afloat. It is too bad that science seems to be way more reliable than such delusions.

Daniel is from Canberra LP. That place where on Thursday we had a Parliamentary Labor spill that wasn't. Not making any excuses for Daniel but ....... well he might be in "melt down"