15 Feb '12 20:21>
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt was a hoax.
At no point does your link suggest that the example lacks scientific credibility. Would you care to provide any actual references to that effect?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI understand enough to know that natural selection of a moth's colour is not sufficient evidence to make the claim in the OP "evolution in action".
You quite clearly neither understand evolution nor basic science. A moth is not a 'species', and 'species' is a man made rather loosely defined classification word.
You are also quite clearly confusing "The Theory of Evolution", evolution theory, and evolution, or at least being rather unclear about which you are referring to.
I would agree that evidenc ...[text shortened]... d it is evidence in support of common ancestry (though clearly not sufficient on its own).
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt was dishonest and even if true does not have anything to do with evolution.
At no point does your link suggest that the example lacks scientific credibility. Would you care to provide any actual references to that effect?
Originally posted by RJHindsSince you are an expert in evolution, I would like your advice as to how things evolve.
It was dishonest and even if true does not have anything to do with evolution.
Nothing is reported to have evolved.
P.S. It could also have been used as an example of a possible cause of
natural extinction, which is not evolution. Things do not evolve by
becoming extinct.
Originally posted by RJHindsno. you're just ignorant. since you didn't bother to read the linked article before making your asinine comments, allow me to elucidate for you.
You are confusing evolution, which does not occur, with adaptation, which does.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo what? It is still just adaptation and it is still just bacteria. Zero evolution.
no. you're just ignorant. since you didn't bother to read the linked article before making your asinine comments, allow me to elucidate for you.
when an completely new function evolves, it is not a simple adaptation. it is exactly the kind of thing predicted by evolution theory. the ability the bacteria evolved was completely new to the e. coli strand. none of the other populations in the experiment evolved this ability.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou clearly do not understand enough. Natural selection, decidedly is evolution in action.
I understand enough to know that natural selection of a moth's colour is not sufficient evidence to make the claim in the OP "evolution in action".
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth
You call that a reference? If it was a hoax, why cant you provide a reference to that effect? How do you know it was a hoax? You must have some source for your information.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNatural selection is not evolution you idiot. 😏
You clearly do not understand enough. Natural selection, decidedly [b]is evolution in action.
Also your supercilious explanation that a "moth is not a species" is completely irrelevant to my post in which did not make such a claim.
You implied it. You said "within a species" in one sentence than backed it up by saying "the moths were still wrong or not, you are still clearly quite confused about the very basics of evolution.[/b]
Originally posted by VoidSpiritnatural selection - noun
that's the main mechanism of evolution.