Evolution named "Breakthrough" of the year by Scie

[Animal]

Science magazine names Evolution as 2005's breakthrough.

I dig the qoute by the editor in chief on Intelligent Design: "It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea," said Kennedy. "That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is."

I'm curious. Exactly how has Evolution been proven in the lab? Every single experiment to force evolution has failed. For example the classic fruit fly experiments have yet to create a new fruit fly. We've change their color, added/subtracted limbs, etc, but have not actually changed them from one species to another.

The basic problem here is that people get confused with natural selection, which is readily seen every day, with Evolution which is the fundemental changing of one thing to another. We see natural selection. We don't see Evolution.

On the other side, we also don't see a big hand coming down from the sky and making changes.

[Lance]

Good point.

Widely accepted != proved.

Edited to add:

I just found this and haven't had a chance to read it yet but I thought I'd share:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

[I Am He]

If evolution is not testable, why is it that man has evolved into his present state. Laboratory testing of evolution is to me not feasible. To much time would be involved. If you play with the DNA, all you get is a genetically enhanced species.
But there was one discovery lately that points to Human evolution. They discovered that it is a mutated Gene that makes skin white. That in itself points right to evolution and not to Intelligent Design, with their ridiculous time line and Bible Thumping. JMHO

[Мастер]

If evolution is not testable, why is it that man has evolved into his present state. Laboratory testing of evolution is to me not feasible. To much time would be involved. If you play with the DNA, all you get is a genetically enhanced species.

There's been quite a bit of genetic engineering going on for thousands of years; farm animals are not found in nature. But demonstrating that new strains can be bred selectively does not, of course, demonstrate that this process takes place in the wild...

[Animal]

If evolution is not testable, why is it that man has evolved into his present state. Laboratory testing of evolution is to me not feasible. To much time would be involved. If you play with the DNA, all you get is a genetically enhanced species.
But there was one discovery lately that points to Human evolution. They discovered that it is a mutated Gene that makes skin white. That in itself points right to evolution and not to Intelligent Design, with their ridiculous time line and Bible Thumping. JMHO

<bzzzzt> Bad argument in your first point. You're assuming that evolution is fact.

Your second point is like the evidence from the fruit fly experiments. They modified a species (adding a leg for example) but didn't change its fundemental character which is what is needed to go from one genus to another.

[Animal]

If evolution is not testable, why is it that man has evolved into his present state. Laboratory testing of evolution is to me not feasible. To much time would be involved. If you play with the DNA, all you get is a genetically enhanced species.

There's been quite a bit of genetic engineering going on for thousands of years; farm animals are not found in nature. But demonstrating that new strains can be bred selectively does not, of course, demonstrate that this process takes place in the wild...

Actually, I am quite sure that this form of natural selection takes place in the wild just like it does for domesitc animals/plants. But natural selection does not necessarily equate to evolution where something brand new is introduced to a species.

Once again going back to the fruit flies. While they have added heads and gotten antennas to grow out of the fly's asses, they have never been seen gills. Or different types of eyes.

[I Am He]

Well if Evolution is not a Fact, then Creationism must be the norm. Evolution is nothing but a slow process of Gene mutation. Which in it's self brings about a newer species. But as you say, Evolution is not a fact, then Creationism must have been doing it with out any mutation at all. But one is science and the other is faith, and I know which one I'd put my money on. JMHO

[Animal]

Well if Evolution is not a Fact, then Creationism must be the norm. Evolution is nothing but a slow process of Gene mutation. Which in it's self brings about a newer species. But as you say, Evolution is not a fact, then Creationism must have been doing it with out any mutation at all. But one is science and the other is faith, and I know which one I'd put my money on. JMHO

What? Wanna try that explanation again, Nancy?

[azazul]

Animal, I would like to take you seriously, but I thought you were much manlier than your avatar suggests. You have the gayest avatar, therefore you lose.

[Animal]

Animal, I would like to take you seriously, but I thought you were much manlier than your avatar suggests. You have the gayest avatar, therefore you lose.

assbite mother!@#$*^.

I'm suing you and Lance's off-shore holding company, and his and my ISP for defamation of character.

[I Am He]

Now let's not get to excited there, Animal. I'm sure if you would sit down and look up the words I wrote one at a time and formed them into a sentence you might, notice I said Might, understand it. HTH

[Lance]

There, Animal... You now have a much more manly avatar.

Is that better?

[MM_Dandy]

There's been quite a bit of genetic engineering going on for thousands of years; farm animals are not found in nature. But demonstrating that new strains can be bred selectively does not, of course, demonstrate that this process takes place in the wild...

But farm animals are found in nature, or at least their ancestors were.

Isn't the liger a new species?

But I also disagree with the notion that the only choices are either Evolution (mutations) or Creation (no mutations).

[Мастер]

But farm animals are found in nature, or at least their ancestors were.

Well, certainly their ancestors are, unless they have subsequently become extinct. But I don't know any wild animal that resembles a modern dairy cow :D

Isn't the liger a new species?

I don't know. Does it produce viable offspring?

[Lance]

Isn't the liger a new species?

I don't know. Does it produce viable offspring?

Apparently they can. They don't seem to suffer from hybrid sterility. I can't find any evidence that they actually have though. They have successfully bred with lions and tigers, but it doesn't look like they've ever bred liger to liger.

But even so, would that really make them a new species? Or just a manipulated oddity? JMHO, but I would think you'd need a viable breeding population to really be a species.

[Мастер]

but it doesn't look like they've ever bred liger to liger.

Well, that's what I meant.

But even so, would that really make them a new species? Or just a manipulated oddity? JMHO, but I would think you'd need a viable breeding population to really be a species.

The usual rule is something like that, which is why mules aren't a species...

[Lance]

but it doesn't look like they've ever bred liger to liger.

Well, that's what I meant.

Yeah, and I agree. It looks like they can, they just haven't.

But even so, would that really make them a new species? Or just a manipulated oddity? JMHO, but I would think you'd need a viable breeding population to really be a species.

The usual rule is something like that, which is why mules aren't a species...

Makes sense...

But if we ever desired to repopulate some area with large, man-eating carnivores, we have a good start.

[MM_Dandy]

I don't know any wild animal that resembles a modern dairy cow :D

IIRC, as recently as a couple of hundered years ago, wild cattle did roam the forests of Europe. As far as resemblance is concerned, I can think of a couple, most notably the Water Buffalo. Despite any differences, the modern dairy cow is not a new species.

Isn't the liger a new species?

I don't know. Does it produce viable offspring?

This was actually in response to Animal's assertion that no new species have been generated.

According to Wikipedia, at any rate, the Liger is being considered as a distinct species. However, it seems that Liger males are sterile, but females are not.

Speaking of cross-species hybrids, how about the Beefalo? Cattle and Bison aren't even in the same genus, and yet Beefalo are fertile.

[Lance]

This was actually in response to Animal's assertion that no new species have been generated.

Okay, point made.

Hybrids and selective breeding leave out one important part of evolution though. Namely; by natural selection.

As a matter of fact, Ligers have been naturally selected against. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are not wild populations of Asiatic Ligers. Such a species could have easily evolved when there were still populations of Asiatic Lions. There is anecdotal evidence of wild hybrids, but they didn't last.

[Мастер]

when there were still populations of Asiatic Lions.

Still a few left:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... media.html

[Lance]

when there were still populations of Asiatic Lions.

Still a few left:

Yeah, a few, but not enough to make a good stand at the pub and pick up the local tigresses.

[MM_Dandy]

As a matter of fact, Ligers have been naturally selected against. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are not wild populations of Asiatic Ligers.

Right. The males are sterile and Lions and Tigers don't mate under normal circumstances.

I found a couple of interesting reads about the definition of species.

Species.
What is a Species and What is Not?