/sci/ - Science & Math

i dunno, maybe that Galapagos island or something?

The fish in that pond. They change species every 20 or 40 years.

Eyeballs.

Rhinos and horses I believe (unrelated to eachother though, relatively speaking)

Whales. Fucking whales man.

Also, the cold.

cave animals

everything living around you...

There is no real evidence for evolution

>>3428801
>The fish in that pond. They change species every 20 or 40 years.
You talking about Lake Malawi? or

backbones, fucking backbones everywhere.

if we don't have backbones because we're related to other critters that have backbones, then why backbones?

fingers, hair, muscles, blood, cells, hearts, heads, brains, toenails, all of it. if we're distinctly created, or evolved from distinct lineages, why the fuck are we all built almost efuckingxactly the same?

people get so caught up on the differences, they sometimes forget about all the similarities...

the vast diversity among dog races (inb4 racist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
You're welcome OP

>>3428848
Eh I can't find it

I know it's there though

Found this article though, read it OP

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1904

>>3428792

The only thing I can find a good example of are short term things like bacteria and bugs that develop resistance to pesticides.

Obviously. That sort of thing is all we can do in the timescale we have. Speciation can take millions of years.

>>Are there any good examples for the long term evolution of a species that has enough evidence to back it up?

The entire fossil record coupled with radiometric dating.

Ive argued with my friend about evolution. He doesnt think its real. We came to the conclusion, that species can change through genetic mutation, like dogs changing from wolves. But a species cant change from one species to another. We only came to that conclusion because I could show plenty of examples of species changing drastically over time, but I didnt have real proof that proved one species can change so much, it is no longer the same species as its cousin species.

I now have presentable knowledge, in case I ever get in a similar argument.

In human beings we have 46 chromosomes. And chimps have 44 (I believe those are the right numbers). Which comes down to 23 and 22 from either parent. For human beings to have evolved from a 44 chromosomed animal (a common ancestor of chimps and humans) we must have gained an extra chromomsome somewhere. And if you look in the genetic code there is proof of that.

I dont know enough about genetic to list the exact genetic code, but if you look at the sequence in chimps there is a code that goes perhaps like this

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Meanwhile in human beings there are two chromosomes. One that goes

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and another that goes
3, 4, 5, 6, 7

What this should suggest to you, is that at some point, the chromosome broke into two. And much of the genetic code is partially redundant, while on the chimps these two chromosomes are still fused together. This doesnt offer an explanation of how exactly the one species could suddenly become two, but it shows the exact point where the two species broke off. If they cant accept that then they are really off the deep end.

Sorry for my untechnical language. I dont know enough. If you do some googling, you can find pictures of these chromosomes side by side, and you can see they are physically shared in the middle.

>>3428977
Ring species are are when a species branches off far enough that to the two branches can no longer produce fertile offspring with each other. This is known as speciation.
This video explains it quite well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA

>>3428977

Sorry, why can't one species split into two?

You didn't explain that.

And no, it doesn't happen suddenly.

Look up Ring Species. It may be enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

.All modern dogs evolved from wolves

.Farmed plants e.g. wheat

>>3429002
That's artificial selection, However, ring species show one species gradually becoming two and becoming genetically incompatible

>>3428977
Chimps have 48 chromosomes, 2 more then humans.

Wolfs and dogs are the same species, they can breed just fine

>>3429014

It shows selection, whether it's artificial or natural just describes whether people are involved or not.

And I think dogs are a good example of evolution, but obviously they wouldn't prove the thing by themselves.

>>3428995
good video, thanks

>>3429063
Yup, after several millennia dogs are still dogs. If that doesn't prove evolution I don't know what does.

Unless you are realistic and understand the characteristics dogs have are a result of selective breeding through natural selection. Where certain traits are brought forth from existing genetic information. Even though dogs are the first domesticated animal and have been selectively breed for so long, they are still dogs, go figure.

Tiktaalik is a big win for evolution. Its discoverers predicted there'd be a transitional fossil with specific characteristic in a certain rock layer based on evolutionary principles, went and looked in those rocks, and found it. Testable hypotheses ftw.

The arctic tern is also a good one. Terns spread from the south around Mongolia in two directions, diverging into separate species which coexist in the north. You can see the smooth transition from one to another as you go around.