I 'believe' in Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Rice WR, Salt GW (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131: 911–917. doi:10.1086/284831.

High School experiments indeed.

Hmn, looks like someone one upp'ed them. Only took this experiment 8 generations.

Dodd, D.M.B. (1989). "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura". Evolution 43 (6): 1308–1311. doi:10.2307/2409365. JSTOR 2409365.

Next?

[Polaris]

Not a factor when you only use a sample of 35 generations (that's the argument you would make if the sample was in the thousands or tens of thousands). You can even use humans as a test subject with that time-frame....the evidence would start in the Medieval era, but pretty sure artistic works would actually work as a rough expression of human attributes over the years.

Over thirty five generations there would be very little difference, and in art there is very little change in the ability of the artist.

That's the whole point. 35 generations is not even close to the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evolutionary study. It is actually just an experiment in Darwin's theory mixed in with some Mendel.

[jonb]

Have you ever heard of a thing called averages, only a small preference has a consequence.

Which is the whole point of microevolution not really being evolution (there is a phase between the two, micro and macro but that's beyond the lifetime of humans...that phase is where you get great differentiation in a species but not to the point where it starts to evolve into a new species). It just takes care of itself....the beauty of Darwinian mechanics.

No that is just a means of categorising the effects, it is not the thing itself. Evolution is about all the tiny accumulative effects.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the whole point. 35 generations is not even close to the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evolutionary study.

And yet is sufficient to accomodate speciation, you know...those changes "at or above the species level".....

It is actually just an experiment in Darwin's theory mixed in with some Mendel.

.....................You mean genetics and NS.....yeah, that's exactly what it is.

[Polaris]

Which is the whole point of microevolution not really being evolution (there is a phase between the two, micro and macro but that's beyond the lifetime of humans...that phase is where you get great differentiation in a species but not to the point where it starts to evolve into a new species). It just takes care of itself....the beauty of Darwinian mechanics.

No that is just a means of categorising the effects, it is not the thing itself. Evolution is about all the tiny accumulative effects.

That is the point. If they don't accumulate (most actually don't), then it is not evolution. The problem with many trying to assert the validity of results from microevolution experiments is they include variables that eventually cancel out due to simple Darwinian mechanisms. It's like saying a mother who has had twenty children added twenty new citizens who will be able to vote one day but later you find out only one survived past childhood.

[The Grand Nudger]

That at least two "children" survived is undeniable. Here we are. Next?
(a fun derivative of the old "how do we know those animals mated" song and dance if ever there was one...Thank you "Dr." Ham)

[Brunitski]

Hang on, are you still trying to support this stupid canard? There is only evolution. This has been comprehensively shown by a number of well respected scientists in a variety of peer reviewed journals. I can find references for you if you insist, but probably the best way forward is for you to stop taking your definitions from dubious Creationist retards. The use of the terms were hijacked by Timothy Wallace and latched onto by dickheads who want to teach their favorite magic mans creation myth in our schools.

Here; maybe this will help:

Now I know that you are probably go to wikipedia and look up Micro-evolution - just make sure there is no cherrypicking when you triumphantly report back.

How about you go study biology and then come back? Until then, you really just come off as a typical American. Also throwing the word creationist where it obviously does not belong just makes you look stupid.

Whateverist. Evolution is gradual, but what many try to pass off as evolution given the variables of microevolution is not evolution. Mainly they just end up at the same point cycle after cycle, which is not evolution but just simple Darwinism like the representation of moths during the Industrial Revolution. It resembles evolution, but it is not evolution. Eventually certain traits in microevolution may lead to actual evolution, but such is currently beyond the realm of human understanding....maybe if were like the Asari, but our lifetime limits keep us from really grasping such a breakthrough in evolutionary theory.

Plus most of what happens in microevolution is actually just cancelled out anyway. It's a combination of Darwinian and Mendelian theory that accounts for that...sure the changes may survive a few generations, but they end up killing off the individuals with those traits so it leaves pretty much no room for evolution...even when some do survive, these traits are not represented and therefore there still is no evolution for the most part. Only a small percentage of changes in the microevolution realm if want to call it that carry through enough to be seen as actual evolution.

Sorry?
What was that? I'm sorry mate, but I can't hear your xtian misappropriation of science over the sound of many scientific papers pounding your useless arse gravy masquerading as knowledge back up the shitty fundament from whence it issued.
Ahem. Evolution. Is. Evolution.
Tell me, did you read the talk origins extract?
If you had, you would have seen these bits, which kind of fry your argument any way, to whit: " Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population."
OK? got that?
Next : " Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth" - Also commonly referred to as "speciation".
Ok? Yes? Following?
A smart person - I.e., one who may have studied biology, or just be good at paying fucking attention, may have twigged already, but lets just carry on reading for those who haven't.
"Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct."
Which refers to any mechanism which can separate members of a species (mountains, islands, biological agents) Please note "usually" in bold. It's not really important, because this next bit is the important bit that you should have paid attention to:
" Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
I have bolded the bits that you missed, Polaris, perhaps you could pay a bit closer attention to what was written rather than making dumbarse assumptions about people's level of education or their country of origin.

For the record, I'm Australian, you mong.

And can I just defend the use of Creationist, while I'm here? The tripe you are trying to pass off as biology, is a well known and well debunked CREATIONIST canard. I apologize if you did not realize that fact, but it does not change the fact.

I can't help it if you don't like reality though, Polaris me old china!

Let me know if you need more, y'know, actual science, mate.

[Darkstar]

Mutations occur all the time, beneficial ones don't as often. I don't see why beneficial mutations wouldn't acumulate, only why harmful ones wouldn't. And because only beneficial (or neutral, in some cases) mutations accumulate, how does it cancel itself out?

[IATIA]

It's like saying a mother who has had twenty children added twenty new citizens who will be able to vote one day but later you find out only one survived past childhood.

NO!

Not the same thing. In evolution, it only takes a small number to propagate.

[jonb]

No that is just a means of categorising the effects, it is not the thing itself. Evolution is about all the tiny accumulative effects.

That is the point. If they don't accumulate (most actually don't), then it is not evolution. The problem with many trying to assert the validity of results from microevolution experiments is they include variables that eventually cancel out due to simple Darwinian mechanisms. It's like saying a mother who has had twenty children added twenty new citizens who will be able to vote one day but later you find out only one survived past childhood.

If they accumulate or not or at differing ratios would of itself have repercussions.