Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population

More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

another case of common ordinary micro-evolution, same stuff that happens when bacteria adpats to some deug and becoms resistant
yawn

Normal no?

KAG: Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population

More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

adaptation is different from evolution.the butterflies now have resistance but they are still butterflies

telltoo: another case of common ordinary micro-evolution, same stuff that happens when bacteria adpats to some deug and becoms resistant
yawn

"Micro-Evolution" is evolution. The only difference is the amount of time it takes to become apparent.

In the old days, creationists used to flat out deny that evolution was occurring. They claimed that all the transitional fossils were either fakes or different species and because of the large time-scales involved, it was difficult for scientists to show ordinary people how wrong they were. Then as scientists started to gather more and more undeniable evidence of evolution occurring within periods as short as a few years, things changed.

The most stubborn creationists have continued to deny the evidence and are looking more and more foolish as the evidence mounts.The less stüpid creationists have come up with this concept of "Micro-Evolution" where they basically claim that living things can evolve a little, but not a lot i.e small changes only. They seem to believe that there is some sort of invisible wall preventing living things from evolving too far away from their "original form".

The problem is that Micro-Evolution has a huge problem explaining what stops living things from continuing to change over time until they no longer resemble their ancestors. They say there is a wall, but they can't say where it is or what it is made of.

If you want to accept Darwin's theory, you have to accept all its scary consequences. Life can and has become more complex and diverse without the need for any creator or designer to direct it. That is the truth, and you just have to deal with it.

Delafruita:
adaptation is different from evolution.the butterflies now have resistance but they are still butterflies

How can that be so? Species evolve by a series of small Adaptations over time.

plaetton:

How can that be so? Species evolve by a series of small Adaptations over time.

perhaps you can give me examples of adaptation that led to evolution into a totally different specie or class of living thing

Delafruita:
perhaps you can give me examples of adaptation that led to evolution into a totally different specie or class of living thing

Theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Edit: A better way of putting it is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Of course, most of the theropods are now extinct. But the descendants of those that survived look so different from their ancestors that we didn't even realize they were related until very recently.

Delafruita:
perhaps you can give me examples of adaptation that led to evolution into a totally different specie or class of living thing

What kind of examples are you looking for? I dont know what your definition of adaptation is.
You cannot separate adaptation from evolution.

Here are quotes that succintly echoe my own take on this:

"Both of them mean " the process of changing to fit into a new environment."
Adaptation usually happens temporarily whereas evolution is permanent.
adaptation happens at an individual level whereas evolution happens at a population level.
Nobody evolves. They adapt to new environment whereas the whole population evolves over time."

"adaptation can be described as an organisms ability to adapt quickly to it's immediate envirnoment. (i.e. it's hot outside and your body sweats to cool off) Evolution is adaptation to the imediate environment and is Embedded in an organisms DNA."

"Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. Through adaptive radiation, natural selection of heritable adaptations may lead to the evolution of new species. However, there is also physiological adaptation which has no evolutionary association (for example, putting on extra fat in a colder climate)."

Evil Brain:

Theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

as in,seriously?and you seem to have conveniently forgotten that birds are found earlier in the fossil record than dinosaurs.
the reason it was believed birds descended from theropods was because of their lungs.however theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly offinto the sunset,birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.

plaetton:

What kind of examples are you looking for? I dont know what your definition of adaptation is.
You cannot separate adaptation from evolution.

Here are quotes that succintly echoe my own take on this:

"Both of them mean " the process of changing to fit into a new environment."
Adaptation usually happens temporarily whereas evolution is permanent.
adaptation happens at an individual level whereas evolution happens at a population level.
Nobody evolves. They adapt to new environment whereas the whole population evolves over time."

"adaptation can be described as an organisms ability to adapt quickly to it's immediate envirnoment. (i.e. it's hot outside and your body sweats to cool off) Evolution is adaptation to the imediate environment and is Embedded in an organisms DNA."

"Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. Through adaptive radiation, natural selection of heritable adaptations may lead to the evolution of new species. However, there is also physiological adaptation which has no evolutionary association (for example, putting on extra fat in a colder climate)."

none of these essay is a valid example of evolution.i asked for an example,not for you to tell me what i already know.

Delafruita:
as in,seriously?and you seem to have conveniently forgotten that birds are found earlier in the fossil record than dinosaurs.
the reason it was believed birds descended from theropods was because of their lungs.however theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.p
A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly offinto the sunset,birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.

You sir, are seriously misinformed. I advise you to use Google, do some reading, and find the truth.

Or just look for a picture of an archeopteryx and spot the differences/similarities between dinosaurs and birds.

Tyranosaurus Rex: Big teeth, can't fly, clawed forelimbs, bipedal gait, hollow bones, 3 fingers and toes, wishbone, protofeathers.

Archeopteryx: Small teeth, 3 fingers and toes, clawed wings, bipedal gait, hollow bones, wish bone, large feathers, could fly (or at least glide).

(Super) Eagles: No teeth, 3 fingers and toes, non-clawed wings, bipedal gait, hollow bones, wish bone, large feathers, can fly.

Can you spot the pattern?

Delafruita:
as in,seriously?and you seem to have conveniently forgotten that birds are found earlier in the fossil record than dinosaurs.
the reason it was believed birds descended from theropods was because of their lungs.however theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly offinto the sunset,birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.

This has ever been a fallacy. Evolution remains the greatest enduring lie and deceit that world is yet to throw to the dustbin of history. Genetisc, microbiology and other branches of science has proved evolution to be fallacy many a time. The process is so complex than what you have just explained like a folk-lore. This is so complex a design that materialist scientists could not deny. Have you ever questioned the place of genetics in the scheme of things. Get your facts shaped and argument sharpen. Then we have a ride on intellectual discuss.

Evil Brain:

You sir, are seriously misinformed. I advise you to use Google, do some reading, and find the truth.

Or just look for a picture of an archeopteryx and spot the differences/similarities between dinosaurs and birds.

Tyranosaurus Rex: Big teeth, can't fly, clawed forelimbs, bipedal gait, hollow bones, 3 fingers and toes, wishbone, protofeathers.

Archeopteryx: Small teeth, 3 fingers and toes, clawed wings, bipedal gait, hollow bones, wish bone, large feathers, could fly (or at least glide).

(Super) Eagles: No teeth, 3 fingers and toes, non-clawed wings, bipedal gait, hollow bones, wish bone, large feathers, can fly.

Can you spot the pattern?

so what?patterns exist everywhere but that doesnt signify evolution.birds can fly because of their stationary femur.this allows air into their abdominal sacs which enables flight.theropods on the other hand have a moving femur.and even if they had an abdominal sac,any attempt at flight would have resulted in the abdominal sac bursting(that is if they had one).in essence,for theropods to have evolved into birds,they would have needed to make their femur stationary evidence of which doesnt exist.
besides you completelly skipped the part where evidence shows that birds appeared millions of years before dinosaurs.its impossible for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs which they preceded.
seems to me like you need to ask google a lot of questions about recent trends in the world of evolution

Delafruita:
so what?patterns exist everywhere but that doesnt signify evolution.birds can fly because of their stationary femur.this allows air into their abdominal sacs which enables flight.theropods on the other hand have a moving femur.and even if they had an abdominal sac,any attempt at flight would have resulted in the abdominal sac bursting(that is if they had one).in essence,for theropods to have evolved into birds,they would have needed to make their femur stationary evidence of which doesnt exist.
besides you completelly skipped the part where evidence shows that birds appeared millions of years before dinosaurs.its impossible for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs which they preceded.
seems to me like you need to ask google a lot of questions about recent trends in the world of evolution

What you posted above is a slightly garbled version of a theory referenced in Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. This theory is based on a single paper published in the Journal of Morphology. It's findings have been contradicted by several other studies and it hasn't received any significant support from any other scientists. On addition, the study only questions one of the dozens of features linking birds and dinosaurs and certainly doesn't the rule out. dinosaur-bird evolution as you have claimed. Unfortunately, creationists have latched on to it and are using it to spread disinformation. This is why you shouldn't learn evolution from creationist materials.

Also, please let me know which bird species appeared "millions of years before dinosaurs".

tl;dr Stop reading Answers in Genesis.

KAG: Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population

More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

even mosquito Adapts to insecticide.

Hanging on to straws.

Human immune system adapt to bacteria infestation all the time.

Just imagine!

plaetton:

What kind of examples are you looking for? I dont know what your definition of adaptation is.
You cannot separate adaptation from evolution.

Here are quotes that succintly echoe my own take on this:

"Both of them mean " the process of changing to fit into a new environment."
Adaptation usually happens temporarily whereas evolution is permanent.
adaptation happens at an individual level whereas evolution happens at a population level.
Nobody evolves. They adapt to new environment whereas the whole population evolves over time."

"adaptation can be described as an organisms ability to adapt quickly to it's immediate envirnoment. (i.e. it's hot outside and your body sweats to cool off) Evolution is adaptation to the imediate environment and is Embedded in an organisms DNA."

"Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. Through adaptive radiation, natural selection of heritable adaptations may lead to the evolution of new species. However, there is also physiological adaptation which has no evolutionary association (for example, putting on extra fat in a colder climate)."

i never knew that you guys were so desperate.

Evil Brain:

What you posted above is a slightly garbled version of a theory referenced in Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. This theory is based on a single paper published in the Journal of Morphology. It's findings have been contradicted by several other studies and it hasn't received any significant support from any other scientists. On addition, the study only questions one of the dozens of features linking birds and dinosaurs and certainly doesn't the rule out. dinosaur-bird evolution as you have claimed. Unfortunately, creationists have latched on to it and are using it to spread disinformation. This is why you shouldn't learn evolution from creationist materials.

Also, please let me know which bird species appeared "millions of years before dinosaurs".

tl;dr Stop reading Answers in Genesis.

all this because of a butterfly.

West of time indeed.

truthislight:

even mosquito Adapts to insecticide.

Hanging on to straws.

Human immune system adapt to bacteria infestation all the time.

Just imagine!

Mosquitos adapting to insecticide is natural selection which is what drives evolution.

The immune system response to infection honest drive natural selection because the changes aren't inheritable. Just because your father had already had chicken pox and is bow immune doesn't mean you can't get it.

Evil Brain:

What you posted above is a slightly garbled version of a theory referenced in Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. This theory is based on a single paper published in the Journal of Morphology. It's findings have been contradicted by several other studies and it hasn't received any significant support from any other scientists. On addition, the study only questions one of the dozens of features linking birds and dinosaurs and certainly doesn't the rule out. dinosaur-bird evolution as you have claimed. Unfortunately, creationists have latched on to it and are using it to spread disinformation. This is why you shouldn't learn evolution from creationist materials.

Also, please let me know which bird species appeared "millions of years before dinosaurs".

tl;dr Stop reading Answers in Genesis.

i would be the last person to quote a genesis based text.its true the general belief was that birds descended from dinosaurs.however,that theory has been rendered implausible based on discoveries of scientists over the past 2 decades.one of such research was carried out by the oregon state university in 2009.all the scientists that worked on the research at OSU are evolutionists so the research wasnt out to discredit evolution.

as for birds existing before dinosaurs and during the same age as dinosaurs,you'd have a hard time disproving that seeing as you'd have to contend with national geographic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080208-bird-origins.html

Evil Brain:

Mosquitos adapting to insecticide is natural selection which is what drives evolution.

The immune system response to infection honest drive natural selection because the changes aren't inheritable. Just because your father had already had chicken pox and is bow immune doesn't mean you can't get it.

i understand adaptation.however,i am yet to come across evidence of adaptation leading to new species.foxes have had to adapt their hindlegs to become faster,but after their adaptation,they still remained foxes.birds have had to adapt their beaks during drought but they have still remained as birds.elephants have begun to be born without tusks but they have still remained as elephants.

honestly,i have not discussed evolution on this forum and since you seem to have a good knowledge of it(at least from your point of view)perhaps you can explain how evolution accounts for symbiosis.

Delafruita:
i understand adaptation.however,i am yet to come across evidence of adaptation leading to new species.foxes have had to adapt their hindlegs to become faster,but after their adaptation,they still remained foxes.birds have had to adapt their beaks during drought but they have still remained as birds.elephants have begun to be born without tusks but they have still remained as elephants.

honestly,i have not discussed evolution on this forum and since you seem to have a good knowledge of it(at least from your point of view)perhaps you can explain how evolution accounts for symbiosis.

ok. What were foxes before they adapted their hindlegs to become faster? If they did not have hind legs that made them run fast, they would have moved to a different climatic region, perhaps had a different diet, even a different skin or fur coating to blend and camouflage themselves from bigger and faster predators..... and ofcourse, we would not have called them foxes, no, they would have been creatures slightly different from the one we call foxes.

Whats the difference between a bird and an Emu? The emu did not develop wings. Can we call it a bird or something else?

The kind of evolutionary leap you are suggesting may not be possible to observe in any given lifetime or generation. A leap from one species to another take take millions of years.

plaetton:

ok. What were foxes before they adapted their hindlegs to become faster? If they did not have hind legs that made them run fast, they would have moved to a different climatic region, perhaps had a different diet, even a different skin or fur coating to blend and camouflage themselves from bigger and faster predators..... and ofcourse, we would not have called them foxes, no, they would have been creatures slightly different from the one we call foxes.

Whats the difference between a bird and an Emu? The emu did not develop wings. Can we call it a bird or something else?

The kind of evolutionary leap you are suggesting may not be possible to observe in any given lifetime or generation. A leap from one species to another take take millions of years.

before developing the spring-like feature in their hindlegs,foxes were foxes.
i agree that such leap,if it were possible,would take generations to happen.however,such haps ought to be breached by fossil records.fossils should be able to show us a progression in evolution over the generations however,such evidence has been absent hence it rightly been dubbed "the missing link".
i have read darwin's origin of species a couple of times and i still refer to it once in a while.even darwin noted that his theory might be wrong.for example,he mentioned moths which over time became black.however,he didnt account for the fact that a factory emitted fumes which darkened the moths.he also stated that the white moths didnt fade away hence the black and white moths existed side by side,where is the evolution in that?

darwin noted that one thing that could crumble his entire theory is the eye.the eye is so complex that if one single nerve or component is absent,the eye doesnt function.this confused darwin because it made him wonder how the species continued to experiment with different components before finally finding the ones that will work together for vision to occur.

symbiosis is another tough point for evolutionists.they simply cant explain how a washer fish and a shark developed their special bond.or how a cow and a certain specie of bird developed a mutually benefial friendship.how long would it take for such a relationship to evolve?how many washer fishes would sharks have consumed before such a relationship would have come about?

Evil Brain:

Theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Edit: A better way of putting it is that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Of course, most of the theropods are now extinct. But the descendants of those that survived look so different from their ancestors that we didn't even realize they were related until very recently.

just saw the edited version.fact remains birds didnt descend from theropods.birds existed before dinosaurs and during the same period as dinosaurs

Delafruita:
before developing the spring-like feature in their hindlegs,foxes were foxes.
i agree that such leap,if it were possible,would take generations to happen.however,such haps ought to be breached by fossil records.fossils should be able to show us a progression in evolution over the generations however,such evidence has been absent hence it rightly been dubbed "the missing link".
i have read darwin's origin of species a couple of times and i still refer to it once in a while.even darwin noted that his theory might be wrong.for example,he mentioned moths which over time became black.however,he didnt account for the fact that a factory emitted fumes which darkened the moths.he also stated that the white moths didnt fade away hence the black and white moths existed side by side,where is the evolution in that?

darwin noted that one thing that could crumble his entire theory is the eye.the eye is so complex that if one single nerve or component is absent,the eye doesnt function.this confused darwin because it made him wonder how the species continued to experiment with different components before finally finding the ones that will work together for vision to occur.

symbiosis is another tough point for evolutionists.they simply cant explain how a washer fish and a shark developed their special bond.or how a cow and a certain specie of bird developed a mutually benefial friendship.how long would it take for such a relationship to evolve?how many washer fishes would sharks have consumed before such a relationship would have come about?

Some days I enjoy reading Delafruita....

Mr_Anony:
Some days I enjoy reading Delafruita....

and other days..?i have always stated that disbelief in organized in religion shouldnt automatically translate into a belief in scientific theories that negate religion.genesis creations is bollocks but evolutionists havent been able to prove their theory.i find a lot of loopholes in it just as exists in creationism

Delafruita:
and other days..?i have always stated that disbelief in organized in religion shouldnt automatically translate into a belief in scientific theories that negate religion.genesis creations is bollocks but evolutionists havent been able to prove their theory.i find a lot of loopholes in it just as exists in creationism

Lol. On some days, I enjoy reading Delafruita......

Delafruita:
perhaps you can give me examples of adaptation that led to evolution into a totally different specie or class of living thing

subscribing.... keep it going Delafruita

Delafruita:
and other days..?i have always stated that disbelief in organized in religion shouldnt automatically translate into a belief in scientific theories that negate religion.genesis creations is bollocks but evolutionists havent been able to prove their theory.i find a lot of loopholes in it just as exists in creationism

What are these loopholes that you found?

Delafruita:
. . . .

darwin noted that one thing that could crumble his entire theory is the eye.the eye is so complex that if one single nerve or component is absent,the eye doesnt function.this confused darwin because it made him wonder how the species continued to experiment with different components before finally finding the ones that will work together for vision to occur.

Actually, you need to consider that Darwin quote in full because he then went on to actually explain how something as complex as the eye could evolve.

Delafruita:
symbiosis is another tough point for evolutionists.they simply cant explain how a washer fish and a shark developed their special bond.or how a cow and a certain specie of bird developed a mutually benefial friendship.how long would it take for such a relationship to evolve?how many washer fishes would sharks have consumed before such a relationship would have come about?

They don't have a "special bond", they have a symbiotic relationship. With respect to the sharks, is this what you had in mind? I really don't see why it is problematic. Cows don't eat birds and birds don't bother the cows so what is the problem there?

KAG: Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population

More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

It is amazing that modern-day creationists and religionists are still asking silly questions here on Nairaland about issues that have been settled long ago. There is nothing wrong with the post. It says a'' gene has been evolved''. A gene that wasn't there before had been evolved. If this is not evolution, what is? the only problem with the theory of evolution when it was first propounded was the lack of explanations for sudden jumps in variations. This has since been settled by the theory of mutations (Mendel and De Vries). The gene in the said butterfly was not developed to keep the bacteria in check. The gene simply came in handy. The gene is a mutation that happened just in time. Another population of those butterflies in a different geographical population that have not developed that gene would still be susceptible to the bacteria

thehomer:

Actually, you need to consider that Darwin quote in full because he then went on to actually explain how something as complex as the eye could evolve.

darwin suggested that the evolution of the eye could have begun with pigmentation of the optic nerve to a later stage of perfection.he had no evidence for this but like every other part of his theory,he believed that such evidence will be found.to digress a bit,archeologists always berated christian archeologists for digging with the shovel in one hand and the bible in the other.christian archeologists already had the answers they sought in the bible.they simply wanted evidence to back it up and the first resemblance of an evidence they see,they scream hallaluyah and later they get proven wrong.thats why there are 2 supposed tombs of yeshwa.thats why the ark of noah has been found in numerous locations.
in a similar vein,evolutionists base their research oj their "bible" which is darwin's origin of species.they already have the answers they seek and are desperately seeking evidence.it wasnt until 2009 that it was established that birds couldnt have descended from theropods and this ia a believe that has been held for almost 70years.
if evolution truly happens,and is too slow for us to observe in our lifetime,at least there should be transitional forms found in the fossil record.almost all the fossils found have been fully formed species which existed at one time or the other.we havent seen a fossil record showing transition from one specie to the other.you see distinct type of animals but you dont see a dog with cat features or a lion with bird features.the animals are distinct.if eevolution is to make sense,there shouldnt be unbridgeable gaps between different species of plants and animals.there should be evidence of transition from non-life to living things.there should be evidence of transition from invertebrate to vertebrate but all these are absent from the fossil record

true there are different types of dogs,cats,insects etc.but they are still members of a particular class of animal.if there is a famine and gazelles have to adapt to run faster to avoid lions,it doesnt mean gazelles will evolve to become zebras or another kind of animal.they are just gazelles albeit faster ones.

e: They don't have a "special bond", they have a symbiotic relationship. With respect to the sharks, is this what you had in mind? I really don't see why it is problematic. Cows don't eat birds and birds don't bother the cows so what is the problem there?

the remora shark eats fishes.however,it decides to allow a single type of fish access to its jaws.this fish goes through its big jaws and eats the remains of other fishes the shark ate.the shark leaves its jaws wide open and isnt tempted to just eat these fish.the most remarkable aspect is these fishes have something similar to a carwash and these sharks just stroll there after eating and queue like its an assembly line for these fishes to wash their jaws.lets try to explain it with evolution.how did this relationship come to be?did it happen by accident?how many of these fishes would the sharks have eaten before finally realising they just wanted to help?on the other hand,seeing the sharks eating their ancestors,it almost implausible to assume the fishes would have continued trying to get into the jaws of the shark.

if you have an explanation,i'd like to hear it