solid proof of evolution
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Where have I claimed there is life on other planets and refused to prove it?
It would only be ironic if he actually proved his claim. Otherwise, it's called hypocrisy.
Genomics of Parallel Experimental Evolution in Drosophila.
Graves JL Jr1, Hertweck KL2, Phillips MA3, Han MV4, Cabral LG3, Barter TT3, Greer LF3, Burke MK5, Mueller LD3, Rose MR3.
Author information
Abstract
What are the genomic foundations of adaptation in sexual populations? We address this question using fitness-character and whole-genome sequence data from 30 Drosophila laboratory populations. These 30 populations are part of a nearly 40-year laboratory radiation featuring 3 selection regimes, each shared by 10 populations for up to 837 generations, with moderately large effective population sizes. Each of 3 sets of the 10 populations that shared a selection regime consists of 5 populations that have long been maintained under that selection regime, paired with 5 populations that had only recently been subjected to that selection regime. We find a high degree of evolutionary parallelism in fitness phenotypes when most-recent selection regimes are shared, as in previous studies from our laboratory. We also find genomic parallelism with respect to the frequencies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms, transposable elements, insertions, and structural variants, which was expected. Entirely unexpected was a high degree of parallelism for linkage disequilibrium. The evolutionary genetic changes among these sexual populations are rapid and genomically extensive. This pattern may be due to segregating functional genetic variation that is abundantly maintained genome-wide by selection, variation that responds immediately to changes of selection regime
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087779
Hmmm, yet another abstract of science observing evolution, this time with drosofila, and yet no mention of biblical source material,
which as we know is the ultimate reality and explains all life. I find this, as a fucktarded mental reject Christian, quite troubling.
The survey will endure and abide. God is 0-2 here folks. Maybe just late out of the blocks. We will see.
Graves JL Jr1, Hertweck KL2, Phillips MA3, Han MV4, Cabral LG3, Barter TT3, Greer LF3, Burke MK5, Mueller LD3, Rose MR3.
Author information
Abstract
What are the genomic foundations of adaptation in sexual populations? We address this question using fitness-character and whole-genome sequence data from 30 Drosophila laboratory populations. These 30 populations are part of a nearly 40-year laboratory radiation featuring 3 selection regimes, each shared by 10 populations for up to 837 generations, with moderately large effective population sizes. Each of 3 sets of the 10 populations that shared a selection regime consists of 5 populations that have long been maintained under that selection regime, paired with 5 populations that had only recently been subjected to that selection regime. We find a high degree of evolutionary parallelism in fitness phenotypes when most-recent selection regimes are shared, as in previous studies from our laboratory. We also find genomic parallelism with respect to the frequencies of single-nucleotide polymorphisms, transposable elements, insertions, and structural variants, which was expected. Entirely unexpected was a high degree of parallelism for linkage disequilibrium. The evolutionary genetic changes among these sexual populations are rapid and genomically extensive. This pattern may be due to segregating functional genetic variation that is abundantly maintained genome-wide by selection, variation that responds immediately to changes of selection regime
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28087779
Hmmm, yet another abstract of science observing evolution, this time with drosofila, and yet no mention of biblical source material,
which as we know is the ultimate reality and explains all life. I find this, as a fucktarded mental reject Christian, quite troubling.
The survey will endure and abide. God is 0-2 here folks. Maybe just late out of the blocks. We will see.
Fossils were found that prove bats evolved echolocation after flight. The bible is silent on this issue.
The oldest fossilised bats ever discovered have given palaeontologists an unprecedented insight into the flying mammals' evolution. The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation.
"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said Dr Nancy Simmons at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was part of the team. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."
Scientists have wrestled with three alternative theories for the evolution of bats: flight evolved before echolocation; echolocation came before flight; or both happened in parallel. The new pair of fossils - which date from around 52.5m years ago - resolve the issue.
"There has been much debate about how bats evolved, because there were no specimens to address this issue," said Dr Kevin Seymour at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. "Now the combination of features seen in this species finally gives us an answer: that flying evolved first and echolocation must have evolved later."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution
Come on Jebus, these fossils are 53 million years old. You can't say you weren't on notice when you penned that genesis thingy.... You had 52.99999 million years to sort out what happened before you went to publication.
The oldest fossilised bats ever discovered have given palaeontologists an unprecedented insight into the flying mammals' evolution. The find puts to rest a long-standing argument over which came first, flight or echolocation - the bats' exotic navigation system. The new species of bat could fly, but didn't use echolocation.
"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," said Dr Nancy Simmons at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was part of the team. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."
Scientists have wrestled with three alternative theories for the evolution of bats: flight evolved before echolocation; echolocation came before flight; or both happened in parallel. The new pair of fossils - which date from around 52.5m years ago - resolve the issue.
"There has been much debate about how bats evolved, because there were no specimens to address this issue," said Dr Kevin Seymour at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. "Now the combination of features seen in this species finally gives us an answer: that flying evolved first and echolocation must have evolved later."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution
Come on Jebus, these fossils are 53 million years old. You can't say you weren't on notice when you penned that genesis thingy.... You had 52.99999 million years to sort out what happened before you went to publication.
The hypocrisy is you using that I can't provide the type proof you want to justify non-belief yet not providing the proof I want for what you believe and you still expecting me to believe it because you said so.
Gotcha68
Verified User
Do you not understand yet that evidence of evolution has been around for awhile now meanwhile believers have had 2000 years at least to prove your god exists and all you have is FAITH.
Plus you have no idea what hypocrisy means obviously.
And may I repeat myself and say I don't give a shit whether you believe in evolution or not. It doesn't require you to believe in it to exist anyhow. Got it?
However, your god would cease to "exist" if every believer on the planet simply stopped believing in it.
What evidence? I have yet to have one of you provide the actual picture of my grandfather you say I evolved from 20,000 generations ago.
God existing doesn't require your belief or approval. It would mean heaven would no longer gain souls when people died.
Gotcha68
Verified User
Considering there were no cameras 20,000 years ago, what is wrong with you to think someone might have a 20,000 year old picture of your 20,000 year old grandfather?
God existing does require belief because there have been thousands of gods "existing" throughout the history of man and by and large most of them have faded into mythology/history/anthropology etc. Your god will follow eventually like all the others. Belief is required to keep a god alive, to make it exist as more than just a chapter in a book on religious history.
I will state that even if your god did exist I wouldn't worship it because it truly is a horrible creature as described by your book and followers. Imagine, punishing people for not loving you. How hateful and abusive is that?
The type proof those of you that deny God's existence want is along those same lines. Why is it that you consider what I request ridiculous yet what you want as a perfectly justifiable request?
Belief isn't required for God to exist. He exists whether one person believes or one million do.
There you go blaming God for a choice YOU refuse to make. Typical atheist.
Gotcha68
Verified User
What it is other than accepting what you admit you didn't see happen but were told by people claiming what they calls facts today but could be replace tomorrow with other "facts" that assures you evolution is the way? You didn't see it happen so you have to have faith that what those say occurred did.
the discovery published in 2006 and described in Science, Evolution, and Creationism of Tiktaalik, a fish that lived in shallow freshwater streams and swamps approximately 380 million years ago (4, 5). Tiktaalik is a nearly precise intermediate between typical fish and the first known four-legged animals from which would evolve all animals that live on the land from frogs to reptiles, to birds, and to mammals, including humans. No intermediate fossils between humans and apes were known in Darwin's time. Now, thousands of remains are known that belong to the human lineage after it separated from the lineage that goes to the apes."
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/1/3
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/1/3