Evolution in action: Sooty moths evolve color.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.

Right.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.

Originally posted by divegeester
Right.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.

its the best they can do.

Originally posted by divegeester
Right.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.

What do you mean by evolution of one species into another? Do you think, for example, that evolution says that at some point an ape gave birth to a human as we humans are now!???

If we start off with some creature C and suppose for each generation the offspring undergo at least one mutation, it is not an intrinsic property of creature C that prevents us from calling one of its descendants a creature of type D after some number of mutations; instead It is humans who make the designation for among many reasons, ease of classification.

Do you think that say, a fruit fly could (hypothetically) undergo infinitely many mutations and yet it would still always be most similar to a fruitfly than any other creature!??? 😕

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.

They should have said this is “a compelling example of adaptaion in action.”
This is how God created it to work.

Originally posted by divegeester
Right.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.

Evolution of one species into another? What would that be?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its the best they can do.

And the self confessed closed-minded ignoramus would of course know all about these things.🙄

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its the best they can do.

new species are evolving all the time.

this one has been observed in the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
new species are evolving all the time.

this one has been observed in the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏

Evolution = adaptation. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Agerg
What do you mean by evolution of one species into another? Do you think, for example, that evolution says that at some point an ape gave birth to a human as we humans are now!???

If we start off with some creature C and suppose for each generation the offspring undergo at least one mutation, it is not an intrinsic property of creature C that prevents us fro ...[text shortened]... tions and yet it would still always be most similar to a fruitfly than any other creature!??? 😕

I understand the theory of evolution, and you explaining it again does not validate the clumsy OP which uses an example of scientific fakery to try give evidence of "evolution in action".

Whether of not the theory of evolution of species is factual, I do not accept that natural selection within a species is evidence of that fact. In the OP for example the moths were still moths it was mearly a matter of one characteristic (colour) being naturally selected.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Evolution of one species into another? What would that be?

Are you saying you do not understand 'classification of species' and you don't accept that the theory of evolution provides a long-term genetic platform for one species, through natural selection over millions of years to become so changed, that it would be re-classified as a different species?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
And the self confessed closed-minded ignoramus would of course know all about these things.🙄

my my the insults are flying today, and actually i brought this very species to the
attention of Andrew Hamilton when he used to frequent the site !

Originally posted by RJHinds
Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏

no doofus, that's not a mere "adaptation." it's evolution of new species.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no doofus, that's not a mere "adaptation." it's evolution of new species.

no its not you doofling, its still bacteria, clutchety clutch at strawety straw.