views on evolution

Agreed. The only ones "chosen" were the mutants that were _not_ defective, that were more effective in the newly-available ecological niches.

Because there are literally billions of offspring in even short terms (10,000 years.) Even a .1% mutation rate, with .1% of them being non-defectives, you end up with 1000 new organisms.

Now, in a stable environment none of them make it, because the current organism in the current niche is close to ideal. But in a fluid environment many of them (say 1%) find that they have an advantage in this new environment. Maybe it's colder and they have more fur. Maybe it's warmer and they have less fur. Maybe trees have started to grow and they have looser skin so they get a little bit of a "parachute" effect when they jump from one tree to another.

And so, in that fluid environment, you potentially have 10 new species after 10,000 years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the answer to this is simple.
this is one of those times that evolutionists needs evolution to proceed quickly, and it does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You said: I was referring to the controversy expressed in the science daily article i posted.

I said: Yes, you were.

Are you now claiming that you were NOT referring to the controversy expressed in the science daily article you posted?

 

mia culpa billvon.
post deleted.

 

@leopold --

Every single question you've asked in this thread is addressed by at least one of the videos I posted. You want evidence, there's your evidence.

And as a bonus, if you somehow manage to come up with a question that isn't addressed by one of them, I've got about eighty more diverse videos I can link you to.

 

I actually watched them. They were indeed diverse. And on point.

 

@Aqueous Id --

And the thing is that it would only take about five minutes to find them online. Those youtubers are very well known(they even show up on a google search). Leopold and the others are either deliberately remaining ignorant to protect their beliefs, lack a functioning brain, or don't have the internet. Given the fact that they post here and can type....alright....means that they have functioning brains and the internet, so that leaves only one option.

 

I see that none of the deniers here will even watch the videos I posted, proving that they don't want evidence.

 

okay.
i've been to talkorigins looking for the demonstrated lab results that say small changes accumulate and i can't seem to find any.
lots of words and descriptions but no tests which prove what has been said.
can you point me to what i seek?

 

did you see this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2866138&postcount=490

A very different gene pool was created in the originally small fish which matured sexually very early as needed to get a few eggs laid before being eaten by the bigger fish they lived with below a water fall. But in 20 to 30 generations living above the water fall (The experimenters moved a couple of hundred of them.) became much bigger fish with delayed sexual maturity and laid thousand of eggs in their new 4 or 5 year life spans. Those little fish who kept the old genes became extinct above the water fall as their few eggs could not compete against thousands.

Their extinction took less than 10 years as only small changes took place with each new generation.

 

did you read mine?

 

Yes. you said you were seeking reports of small changes accumulating to bigger differences. That is what I told about - sorry I don't have link. I may have read it in Portuguese as work was by Ph.D. candidates (and their prof) at some Brazilian university at least 10 years ago.

There have been many such studies.

If that is not what you were asking for, please be more clear in your request.

 

billy,
i recently found the evolution/ creationism debate has political connections going beyond "religious freedom".
this implies lobbyists and therefor big bucks.

i truly feel sorry for todays biologists.
some of them anyway.

 

yeah, i get that way too.
relax big boy, you'll live longer.

 

@leopold --

So, you refuse to see evidence even when you're linked right to it, huh.

Glad to know that you're just as dishonest as you seem to be.

 

You couln't find your own arse in a well lit room, with a full set of illustrated instructions.

 

Perhaps why his posts stink?

 

of course you have never been that way eh?

 

Sack your scriptwriter.