There have been numerous experiments involving bugs to prove evolution on a micro level. This doesn't really prove evolution as we know it though.
What if we took a bunch of fruit flies (or a similar, even faster reproducing bug) and put them in a very resource starved environment but we put plenty of resources in a lake like watersource in that same environment.
When even a single fruit fly develops, somehow through pure chance, the ability to survive underwater and reproduce, evolution would be proved.
"Female fruit flies are capable of laying hundreds of eggs within their brief life spans. Eggs are most commonly laid on moist, fermenting food masses such as overripe fruit and vegetables. Within 24 to 30 hours, fruit fly eggs hatch into larvae known as maggots. These maggots feed on the fruits within which they were laid.
Within one week, maggots burrow through the decaying matter and molt. After five to six days, larvae move to a dry surface and transform into pupae. A few days later, adult fruit flies emerge. Fruit flies become sexually active within two days of emerging as adults. Female fruit flies may mate with several males and store sperm for future use."
Lets just assume you have hundreds of thousands of fruit flies, that should be hundred of thousands of new life cycles every day.
Blake Baker
fruitflys have been used to prove mutations are hereditary but what you are suggesting would take a very long time with extreme dedication just to find out its hazard to force evolution
Hunter Miller
>evolution well there's your problem.
A human can adapt to not getting laid just as a fly can adapt to pesticides. That's not evolution.
If evolution was real trees would not exist since everything has a potential of becoming human.
Jack Wilson
>>numerous experiments involving bugs to prove evolution on a micro level. and what prevents all these small changes from adding up?
Michael Wright
Yes, it might take a long time but it would actually surely prove that evolution exists.
The only proof of evolution we have is microevolution (which is kind of a joke and actually mutation) and comparing skeletons of animals. Which both do not actually proof evolution.
There is a flaw in the theory of just "adding up". Yes, moths can adapt through mutations but these things will never add up into a new species, at least not from lets say a fish to a mammal.
If you actually do see mutations big enough that could possibly be the beginning of an "evolution" into a new species, these mutated animals are 99% killed by their own race and if not that, they are absolutely useless as animals and will die. How do you even imagine a fish translating into a mammal? Why would a fish just develop the ability to breathe on land AND not be killed by their own race AND be fit as an Individual AND be "better" than others to justify the explanation of "Natural selection". It all makes no sense.
Asher Murphy
How do you explain genetic similarity if evolution doesn't exist?
That's the hardest proof for evolution right there
Besides basic logic
Jack Baker
Definition: >specimens are different species when they can't breed with each other and have fertile offspring
Observed facts: >genes are inherited >genes mutate across generations >genes code your genitals and reproductive cells
Premise: >if you have a group of individuals of the same species, and split it into two groups, and separate the groups geographically, their genes will diverge >that includes the genes that code for their genitals and reproductive cells >given enough time, their genitals and reproductive cells will change so much they are no longer compatible
Conclusion: >news species arise over time because of geographical isolation
It's pretty simple.
Christopher Sanders
The last common ancestor between fish and mammals existed 750,000,000 years ago.
Do you really think there's no way that the common ancestor couldn't have split into two branches, one evolving into fish, and another evolving into mice?
Isaiah Cook
>genetic similarity it could mean that the creation is from a single source code from the start.
in order for randomness to occur in a closed system you must have set rules to apply. The argument of typewriters and monkeys eventually making a sentence is flawed because you start with already established variables. Likewise, for DNA and the variance of life to happen you must establish set blueprints. How did those variables get there and why are they astoundingly complex?
I think the mainstream dogma of science is fraudulent from the start. beginning with the disbelief in god and the interpretation and push that newtons law of gravity wasn't.hypothetical but actually real.
Jordan Gomez
>the creation is from a single source code from the start so, a common ancestor
>in order for randomness to occur in a closed system you must have set rules to apply the selection mechanism isn't random, mutations are
so it's like having typewriters and monkeys AND an overseer (natural selection) that hits the monkey every time they make a mistake
>for DNA and the variance of life to happen you must establish set blueprints. How did those variables get there and why are they astoundingly complex? complex systems arising is probably a property of entropy, actually
as you know, systems tend to chaos, however, that's only true if they are energy-neutral
the Earth is not energy-neutral, the Earth has a surplus of energy (received from the sun), and thus it's logical that complex structures could arise (as opposed to chaos)
James Fisher
close enough desu senpai
Chase Hernandez
the earth is a closed system.
>natural selection i don't believe in it other than survival of the fittest or physical strongest in the domain. little jimmy could find the cure for cancer one day but big chad will out fuck jimmy and have many kids that will be nothing better than mediocre. There is no such thing as natural selection being beneficial.
Hunter Wood
>the earth is a closed system. wrong, it receives energy from the sun
>i don't believe in it other than survival of the fittest so you believe in it
Your IQ is in the double digits though. Or you are trolling. I am wasting my time here.
Justin Cooper
>Would surely prove that evolution exists Not really there's already pretty good evidence. If this experiment is done with success then the goalposts will just be moved. Hell look at Richard Lenski's long term E.Coli experiment. It produced mutants capable of living on a substrate that the wild type could not previously use in that way through several independant mutations. And those goalposts got moved extremely hard.
>How do you even imagine a fish translating into a mammal? Why would a fish just develop the ability to breathe on land AND not be killed by their own race AND be fit as an Individual AND be "better" than others to justify the explanation of "Natural selection"
Bonefish have an inflatable air bladder. This is likely where the lung probably comes from (Also since it is homologous with the lung) as simply allowing for gas exchange would enable an organism to survive longer on land. This allows them to survive in territory where the chance of being separated from water is greater and abuse that niche.
Eventually something comes along that can survive on land almost exclusively and abuse how little competition there is for that niche.
Follow that developmental trend and eventually you get the complex kind of lungs present today.
This. Look up what a homologous and orthologous genes are so you don't mix them up. Find homologous genes with this: blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi Make a tree out of the results with this: megasoftware.net/ Easy experiment to confirm genetic distances are a thing with what is mostly a time investment to learn how the programs work.
It doesn't even really need to be geographical isolation. A population can be separated by a lot of things.
Oliver Robinson
I really want to expound on this, thanks for the post op.
David Powell
I have read up on this, and there are similar experiments already going (I see a lot of flaws in them though).
After 3000+ generations of fruit flies, there couldn't be found any evidence of evolution other than microevolution.
John Carter
Source? What are the definitions being used? 3000 generations isn't even that significant of a number.
Connor Thompson
>Implying evolution borns on-demand "Evolution" comes from an azarous proccess. From the azarous proccess of celular reproduction. Sometimes it messes up, you see lots of errors even between humans (Down's and similar illnesses), but sometimes those errors lead to benefitial ways to survive in different conditions. But we still have not discovered how the evolution at the high level took place.
Christian Martinez
checkmate atheists
Logan Butler
>it's an "op ate fundie memes and thinks 'micro evolution' doesn't prove 'macro evolution'" thread
Wew lad. The micro and macro here are science noises tossed in for false legitimacy, just like in Econ. What you want to Google is 'speciation event'.
