The bottom line - what do we really know?

[The Barbarian]

You're trusting the wrong people. If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.

I include the definition to show the nature of Darwinism As defined by him.

That's disappointing. The editing clearly changed the meaning it conveyed.

He has myopia. He can only see recent generations And speculated from that.

He looked at the evidence and from it, inferred that there would not be any organs which could not have evolved in steps. His inference has so far, been validated. No one can find such an organ. Can you think of one?

As a piece of speculation, its fine. It’s neither hypothesis nor theory

The key to a hypothesis is that it makes testable predictions. Darwin's prediction that there is no organ that could not have formed from gradual changes has been validated by repeated investigation and new evidence. So it is now a theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. As you learned, Darwin merely assumed that God created the first living things. He wasn't even sure if it was one kind or several that were created. Genetics solved that issue much later.

That is 99.999% of the problem of life, not 0.001% of it.

Yes, and research into abiogenesis continues to indicate that God was correct. The Earth did bring forth life. Not part of Darwin's theory, though.

He couldn’t find a case , but I can - find at least 5 cases in the SCIENCE of so called Eucharistic miracles where bread became human cardiac tissue - a complex organ- , with No progressive intermediates- as vouched for by multiple independent teams of pathologists, dna scientists, blood labs and the rest , so it is evidence DISPROVING Darwins claim/ conjecture by his OWN test :
at tixtla, sokolka, Buenos airies, lanciano , legnica and more..

Problem is verifiying the testimony. But that's not the whole problem. You assume that a natural world cannot have miracles. Science does not deny miracles. By it's very methodology, it can't. I happen to believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist do indeed become the body and blood of our Savior. But is by the miracle He gave us at the Last Supper when He told His followers that it was His body and blood, and to do it in memory of Him.

Nothing to do with nature.

On the other hand Darwin never had a “ theory” since it is not succinct enough as a proposition ( other than by the falsification test)

A theory is a hypothesis which makes testable predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed. His theory is precisely that.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.

YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

I like scientific rigour and definition.

Rigor would include knowing what hypotheses and theories are in science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Much of the blob of Ill defined “ evolution” ...

Is from people who don't know what it is. You had a completely erroneous idea of what evolution is.

is atheist “wish believe” Based on speculation.

See Dr. Wood's comments. Even a knowledgeable YE creationist knows better.

The issue of the OP is that the writer conflates abiogenesis with biological evolution. So he goes off the rails immediately.

 

[QvQ]

If you read his book for yourself, you wouldn't have been that easy to fool. Please consider it.

I read All of Darwin's books.
I read Einstein's The Special and General Theory Of Relativity

Neither of these books are Gospel.

I agreed with Einstein.
I disagreed with Darwin.

A large part of Darwin's theory is based on his observations of humans. That was his "eureka" moment. He basically alleged that there were inferior and superior humans based on "evolution." It was a "scientific" way to say ape man and an attempt to prove it.

A Darwinist will never, ever admit neandertals are human, no matter what overwhelming evidence.
Neandertal ape/man fits the narrative.
Neandertal man fits the facts.

Now, would you like to discuss why Einstein has credibility and Darwin does not? Or haven't you read the books?

 

[Mountainmike]

@The Barbarian

Listen to me very carefully
” evolution “ is not a single concept, it is certainly not a theory.
That would take a succinct hypothesis whose entire scope is proven by experiment.

It is clear you have no concept of scientific rigour or status or the variety of definitions
Im a mathematical physicist. You cannot make progress without precise axioms or definition.

Take this useless piece of high sounding nonsense from Various sources, including this forum:

“ Formally, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time”

Here is a logical analysis.
That is not the same as successive small change ( it failed to mention either small or successive , any change will meet it)
It has no mention of nature, scope or extent. Start point , end point.
It is neither common descent, nor survival of fittest.


But I can prove it is true - here’s my proof,
I can meet it by take two samples in flasks of a small organism and mixing them.
The “allele frequency “ of the combination step changed from either ingredient over time.
So my stirring together is what you call “evolution”? I doubt it!
that definition does not survive any scrutiny,

Like most of the complete tosh of the fuzzy blob that lives under the name “ evolution” , neither the defintion , the question nor the answer are useful to anyone. No doubt it gives evolution wish believers a warm glow to believe it!

Come back when you have studied definitions,
and bring an actual definition, what is yours?
you use a word you have not defined.

then we can discuss whether it is conjecture, a hypothesis, if so what experiments are only plausibility, which are actual proof . It seems you confuse those too.

The fact restricted. evidence ( eg late stage of a long pricess) confirms a hypothesis, is not enough to validate a theory. It is plausibility not proof ( as Darwin did with recent life) .the entire scope needs validation to prove a hypotgesis.


It’s called scientific process.

 

[The Barbarian]

Listen to me very carefully
” evolution “ is not a single concept,

You forgot already?

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. We see changes in population genomes constantly. Remember what biological evolution is?

A change in allele frequencies in a population.

Let's put in into something in your area of understanding. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. Evolution is an observed phenomenon.
There is a theory of gravitation that explains gravity. There is a theory of evolution that explains evolution. Remember the difference between the phenomenon and the theory.

it is certainly not a theory.

Remember why evolutionary theory is a theory? It is a hypothesis that has predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Just as Newton's theory of gravitation is a hypothesis with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

This is why your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood, admits that evolutionary theory is a highly successful theory. But he's familiar with the evidence, which gives him an advantage.

Formally, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time

That is not the same as successive small change ( it failed to mention either small or successive , any change will meet it)

Yeah, it is. Successive small changes in a population genome is a change in allele frequencies over time. I don't see how you could not understand that.

It has no mention of nature, scope or extent. Start point , end point.

Yeah, the theory doesn't state that. Merely notes change in allele frequencies over time, but it certainly would include those things, of course.

It is neither common descent, nor survival of fittest.

With common descent, you've again confused a consequence of evolution with evolution. Not the same things. But of course that's survival of the fittest. Explicitly so. Do you remember when I showed you the points of Darwin's theory?

More are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.
Every organism is slightly different than its parents
Some of these differences affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.
Natural selection tends to preserve the useful ones and to remove the harmful ones.

Like most of the complete tosh of the fuzzy blob that lives under the name “ evolution”

As you learned, the "blob" is in the minds of people who don't know what biological evolution is. It's very easy to understand for most people, but some folks have gotten all sorts of misconceptions in their heads about it.

But I can prove it is true - here’s my proof,
I can meet it by take two samples in flasks of a small organism and mixing them.
The “allele frequency “ step changed over time.
So my stirring together is what you call “evolution”? I doubt it!
that definition does not survive any scrutiny,

It's called "immigration" and we see it happening in Northern Canada now. With warmer climate and less sea ice, polar bears are coming ashore to forage for food. They are entering the territory of grizzly bears. They get along pretty well with grizzly bears, it seems, and the population genome of the grizzly bear population now includes that of a significant number of pizzly bears.

Assuming the populations can interbreed. If they can't, then it's just two populations. If they can, then genome of the interbreeding population changes. Not that hard to figure out? BTW, in real science, there is no "proof." Science is inductive. We don't have the rules to apply to particulars. We have to observe the particulars and infer the rules. If you check with your professors, they'll tell you the same thing applies to physics.

A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments, meaning theories are unlikely to change. While the word “theory” is commonly used outside the scientific world to describe a simple hunch, scientists use the term to describe a broadly accepted explanation for an occurrence.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-hypothesis-basics-of-the-scientific-method

As YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise notes, Darwin's predictions about the fossil record have been repeatedly confirmed by the many transistional fossils and series of transitional fossils. What Dr. Wise doesn't say is something even more convincing. We don't see any transitionals were there shouldn't be any, according to Darwin's theory. No feathered mammals. No whales with gills on structures formed from branchial arches. No cephalopods with notochords... and so on.

The reason that biology uses precise definitions and creationists use those "blobs" is no accident. It is those precise definitions of evolution, genome, etc. that make the theory testable.

Have you taken any reading in the philosophy of science?

 

[The Barbarian]

I read All of Darwin's books.
I read Einstein's The Special and General Theory Of Relativity

Neither of these books are Gospel.

I agreed with Einstein.
I disagreed with Darwin.

Both of them made errors. Einstein about quantum entanglement,and Darwin about the heritability of acquired characteristics (that last can rarely happen via epigenetic mechanisms).

A large part of Darwin's theory is based on his observations of humans. That was his "eureka" moment. He basically alleged that there were inferior and superior humans based on "evolution."

Let's take look at that...

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

Guess not...

A Darwinist will never, ever admit neandertals are human, no matter what overwhelming evidence.

I pointed out earlier that they are not only human, but almost certainly (like us) a subspecies of H. sapiens. Some creationists have classified them as apes, but since DNA sequencing shows them to differ from anatomically modern humans by very little, that has pretty much been abandoned.

Neandertal ape/man fits the narrative.

Once fit the creationist narrative. But I think all creationists have accepted the evolutionist idea that they are humans.

Now, would you like to discuss why Einstein has credibility and Darwin does not?

As you know, Darwin's theory has become much more accepted in recent years after genetics and DNA analysis cleared up a number of problems with his theory. Would you like to learn about those?

And while Einstein did make some errors this doesn't invalidate his theories of photoelectric effect or general relativity.

Or haven't you read the books?

Quantum mechanics makes my head hurt. But I see why quantum entanglement is a fact. And yes, most biologists are quite familiar with things Darwin got wrong. The point is that Einstein's two major theories are essentially correct, and Darwin's theory of evolution remains the same.

 

[QvQ]

More are born than can survive long enough to reproduce.
Every organism is slightly different than its parents
Some of these differences affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.
Natural selection tends to preserve the useful ones and to remove the harmful ones.

Evolution: The Blob:
1) More are born than can survive long enough to produce.
Refute:
A) Sunflower produce more seeds than will produce sunflower plants
B) I eat some, the birds eat some
C) The seeds that remain are composted into the soil as food for the next reproductive cycle of sunflowers.


2) Every Organism is slightly different than it's parents.
Refute
A) However, those slight differences are identical to the parents, whether expressed in the parents or not.
Inherited is recombination of existing material.
The genome is closed box. New genetic material can be introduced by retroviral insertion. Whether that introduced material can be recombined to affect long term survival is hotly disputed (viability of genetically manipulated hybrids)
Mutations, changes in existing DNA are almost always negative, indicating damage.

3) Some of the differences affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.
Refute:
A) Providence determines which survive to reproduce. The only proven genetic changes to organisms that affect the ability to survive is inherited immunity and damage to the DNA (mutation). Damage to DNA is almost always Negative. However, even genetically damaged organisms can survive and reproduce.

4) Natural Selection tends to preserve the useful ones and remove the harmful one.
Refute
Providence:
A) There are too many variable in "survive and produce" to reduce it to a simplistic formula.
In the food chain (#1) those who survive and produce would be according to the Will of God, not according to any special "superior survival" qualities or genetics

 

[The Barbarian]

1) More are born than can survive long enough to produce.
Refute:
A) Sunflower produce more seeds than will produce sunflower plants
B) I eat some, the birds eat some
C) The seeds that remain are composted into the soil as food for the next reproductive cycle of sunflowers.

Even without birds, there wouldn't be enough space, water, and/or nutrients for every seed to grow and produce seed. You're merely denying something that is manifestly true.

2) Every Organism is slightly different than it's parents.
Refute
A) However, those slight differences are identical to the parents,

Nope. For example, you have dozens of mutations that weren't present in either parent.

How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have?

We each possess 60 new mutations, any of which could make major changes in our appearance or behavior. The genetic mistakes are the driving force of evolution.

www.livescience.com

whether expressed in the parents or not. Inherited is recombination of existing material. The genome is closed box.

Nope. See link.

Mutations, changes in existing DNA are almost always negative, indicating damage.

Nope. Most of them do almost nothing at all:

Neutral mutation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In fact, since most of us have a load of harmful recessives usually including a few that are lethal for homozygotes, a mutation could remove a harmful allele.

Hidden burden: Most people carry recessive disease mutations

Humans carry an average of one to two mutations per person that can cause severe genetic disorders or prenatal death when two copies of the same mutation are inherited, according to new estimates. The new numbers were made possible by a long-term collaboration between medical researchers and a...

www.sciencedaily.com

Providence determines which survive to reproduce.

God disagrees:
Mark 3:27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

The only proven genetic changes to organisms that affect the ability to survive is inherited immunity and damage to the DNA (mutation).

Well, let's see...
The Milano mutation provides very good resistance to hardening of the arteries. That seems to be useful for survival.

ApoA-I Milano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lactose tolerance means one can resort to dairy products as food. That mutation reduces likelihood of starvation and spread rapidly through many human populations.

A mutation for light skin made survival more likely for Northern Europeans, which helped them produce vitamin D in colder climates.

A EPAS1 mutation allows Tibetans to live safely at very high altitudes.

There are too many variable in "survive and produce" to reduce it to a simplistic formula.

One way to measure it is the Hardy-Weinberg formula, which measures the selective value of a given allele. Would you like to know how that works?

For example: predators eat the best, so in the food chain (#1) the survivors who would produce would be according to the will of God, not according to any special "superior survival" qualities.

Predators tend to take down the least fit of prey, the slower, the less able to protect themselves, etc. You have it backwards. The race is not always to the swift, but that's your best bet.

 

[QvQ]

Lactose tolerance means one can resort to dairy products as food. That mutation reduces likelihood of starvation and spread rapidly through many human populations.

Your selection of facts is too small in scope and the conclusions are too simplistic.

For Instance:
Zulu's are lactose intolerant yet Zulu have used dairy products since time immemorial.

"Until recently, geneticists thought that dairying and the ability to drink milk must have evolved together, but that didn’t prove out when investigators went looking for evidence. Ancient DNA samples from all across Europe suggest that even in places where lactase persistence is common today, it didn’t appear until 3000 BCE—long after people domesticated cattle and sheep and started consuming dairy products. For 4,000 years prior to the mutation, Europeans were making cheese and eating dairy despite their lactose intolerance."

Lactose tolerance doesn't explain or prove anything. It isn't necessary for consumption of dairy.

 

[The Barbarian]

The only proven genetic changes to organisms that affect the ability to survive is inherited immunity and damage to the DNA (mutation).

(Barbarian tosses out a few counter-examples)
(Sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

Your selection of facts is too small in scope and the conclusions are too simplistic.

Point is, they are exactly what you claimed couldn't be. Want some more?

Zulu's are lactose intolerant yet Zulu have used dairy products since time immemorial.

So are mongols. They also learned to process milk to remove lactose. But people who have the mutation that continues lactase production into adulthood have an advantage; they can consume all milk products, including fresh milk.

Lactose tolerance doesn't explain or prove anything.

It's just a useful mutation that allows people to consume milk. Which means they have an additional source of nutrition, and a very good one.
I just tossed out a few would you like to learn about some more?

 

[QvQ]

Like most of the complete tosh of the fuzzy blob that lives under the name “ evolution” , neither the defintion , the question nor the answer are useful to anyone. No doubt it gives evolution wish believers a warm glow to believe it!

Exactly!
This is worth repeating:
@Mountainmike 'Like most of the complete tosh of the fuzzy blob that lives under the name "evolution," neither the definition, the question nor the answer are useful to anyone. No doubt it gives evolution wish believers a warm glow to believe it.

I just tossed out a few would you like to learn about some more

Toss out blue eyes and how that "evolved" to give an advantage in northern latitudes.
Then explain why lemurs have blue eyes.

As for sunflower producing more seed than can survive and reproduce:
1) 1 sunflower plant produces 1000 seeds.
2) 100 sunflower seeds survive to reproduce (next years crop)
3) 800 sunflower seed are eaten by birds who survive to reproduce (necessary food source)
4) 100 sunflower seeds are composted into the soil to provide food for the 100 seeds that become sunflowers. (necessary crop fertility)
That is ALL Survive and Reproduce.

Natural Selection
1) Ability (quail can eat sunflower seeds)
2) Proximity (quail have access to sunflower seeds)
3) Opportunity (which seeds the quail can find or reach)

 

[The Barbarian]

Lactose tolerance means one can resort to dairy products as food. That mutation reduces likelihood of starvation and spread rapidly through many human populations.

Your selection of facts is too small in scope and the conclusions are too simplistic.

For Instance:
Zulu's are lactose intolerant yet Zulu have used dairy products since time immemorial.

They don't drink milk; they have to process it, losing the lactose in the process, making it less nutritious. But lactose-tolerant people can drink milk directly, getting the full benefit of milk. That's why lactose tolerance spread so rapidly through Europe, from the Middle East.

Toss out blue eyes and how that "evolved" to give an advantage in northern latitudes.

What makes you think they "give an advantage in northern latitudes?" I think you fell for more creationist bluster there.

Then explain why lemurs have blue eyes.

Guess why lemurs don't have light skins. Yep. Light skins are an advantage where there isn't as much sunlight. Inuit don't have particularly light skins, but their diet is rich in vitamin D, so it doesn't matter as much.

As for sunflower producing more seed than can survive and reproduce:
1) 1 sunflower plant produces 1000 seeds.
2) 100 sunflower seeds survive to reproduce (next years crop)
3) 800 sunflower seed are eaten by birds who survive to reproduce (necessary food source)
4) 100 sunflower seeds are composted into the soil to provide food for the 100 seeds that become sunflowers. (necessary crop fertility)
That is ALL Survive and Reproduce.

You've merely assumed this, not considering parasites, growing conditions, and so on. Not even in a well-tended garden will every seed planted produce a plant that produces more seed. And the more fit the particular seed is, the more likely is it that it will produce new seed. And I said "likely." Natural selection only tends to increase fitness. It won't in every single case.

 

[QvQ]

@The Barbarian
Hello my old friend, it is good to see you again but I am still constrained by time.
I will say once again:
Natural Selection is
1) Ability
2) Proximity
3) Opportunity
What survives or thrives is by the Grace of God. Survival and reproduction does not favor the lucky or the fit or the strong.
It is Providence, an Act of God. Providence is not "luck" as it is God's plan.
BTW, as regards those Chins: It is a fact that chins in humans are a direct result of inbreeding in extreme cases (namely Hapsburgs). Mankind did go through some severe bottlenecks, less than 10,000 souls, in the not too distant past.

 

[The Barbarian]

I will say once again:
Natural Selection is
1) Ability
2) Proximity
3) Opportunity

To be accurate, it is the tendency of individuals with favorable mutation to survive long enough to reproduce, and the tendency of those with unfavorable mutations to die before they can reproduce.

What survives or thrives is by the Grace of God.

Evidence indicates that the Grace of God is upon those with favorable mutations.

BTW, as regards those Chins: It is a fact that chins in humans are a direct result of inbreeding in extreme cases (namely Hapsburgs).

No, that's wrong. Chins existed for hundreds of thousands of years before Habsburgs. They had a peculiar mutation that caused a longer jaw, and having inbred as they did, it became a family feature.

Mankind did go through some severe bottlenecks, less than 10,000 souls, in the not too distant past.

If you think 70,000 years ago is "not too distant past."

 

[QvQ]

@The Barbarian

There is an interesting proposition here.
We don't find apes "adapted" through any "natural selection" or "mutation" to any region in which apes are not found throughout all of the history of the world.
Where we find apes, we find ape fossils, basically apes, recognizable as such in areas where there are still apes.
Man has extended his range through artificial means. Man is not an ape so that is not natural selection or mutation.
Ape has always been ape, swinging from the same trees, forever.
If an animal could adapt or mutate to changing environment then we should see that occurring and we don't. We don't see animals adapting to lack of water, extreme heat or cold when that isn't their historical range.
What is seen in changing conditions is extinction, not adaptation.

I know we can't predict the future. Conversely, we can't predict the past. We assume we can. History, as we know it, contains a good deal of fiction and that is just the recorded events, never mind the thin and tenuous "fossil record."

Any good historian will admit that we cannot know the conditions on the ground at any particular period in recorded history much less for the entire creation since the beginning of the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

We don't find apes "adapted" through any "natural selection" or "mutation" to any region in which apes are not found throughout all of the history of the world.

Several species of ape and other primates I know about. Us for one. Japanese macaques. Nepal grey langur and Kashmir grey langur.

Savannah chimpanzees are adapted to open grasslands with scattered trees. Interestingly, they follow the human model of adaptation to new environments by modified behavior such as digging for water in dry areas, group tactics to deal with predators where trees are lacking, and so on.

Man has extended his range through artificial means.

And now chimpanzees are following this strategy:

Savannah chimpanzees, a model for the understanding of human evolution​

Among the different characteristics of savannah chimpanzees described in the study, their strategies to deal with high temperatures stand out. "Understanding how they deal with heat can help us better understand what strategies human ancestors may have used to cope with high temperatures. Some strategies are probably the same for chimpanzees and hominins, such as the use of caves or going into water pools to cool down," notes the researcher. Another example the researcher highlights is the ways in which these chimpanzees try to hydrate themselves during the advanced dry season, such as digging for water when this resource is reduced to just a few spots in the landscape. "Early hominins also had to deal with low water availability during part of the year," Hernández adds.

Savannah chimpanzees, a model for the understanding of human evolution

To prosper, most great apes need lush forests in Africa (bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas) or Southeast Asia (orangutans), except for some groups of chimpanzees that live in Savannahs, habitats characterized by high temperatures and very low seasonal rainfall.

www.sciencedaily.com

It seems that once brains reach a certain level, modifying behavior is more efficient than other changes.

 

[The Barbarian]

If an animal could adapt or mutate to changing environment then we should see that occurring and we don't.

We see it constantly. Here's an example of a new digestive organ evolving in response to environmental changes:

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”
Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.
Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.
“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”
Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

PNAS Vol. 105 | No. 12

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource​

Abstract​

Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (≈36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.

What is seen in changing conditions is extinction, not adaptation.

See above. There's more like that. Would you like to see more?

Any good historian will admit that we cannot know the conditions on the ground at any particular period in recorded history much less for the entire creation since the beginning of the world.

Fortunately, nature leaves lots of information about this in various ways. For example, we know that major changes happened to horses about the time the world got cooler and drier, and forests gave way to grasslands. Would you like to hear about that?

 

[QvQ]

The fact is that lizards are still lizards and horses are still horses.
I thought you might mention the fact that ape species occur in Africa and in Asia. Yes, things change, yet the more they change the more they remain the same.
There is a large diversity amongst people. Some people are small, some large, many different shades of skin and eye. Even "lactose" tolerant is a genetic expression. All are human people.
IF the environment is beyond the range of that specie's genetic expression, the organisms do not adapt. The organism dies.
Those genetic expressions may be inherent in the Species Gene Box, available to all under favorable conditions but not mutable, malleable and adaptable to the extent that Darwin claims Nor are those "adaptations" introduced as changes in the DNA/RNA. Those adaptations or mutations are inherent and are simply rearrangements of existing DNA.

Small pox, since at least 2,000 BC, adapted to one host, man without any other reservoir. Able to live on fiber cloth for 18 months.
That means that someone always had smallpox, somewhere.
The morbidity is 30%. That was modified in Europeans due to discovery of quarantine, burning infected items and exposure to cow pox so morbidity was, in some cases, artificially lowered in European but still, mostly 30% morbidity.
70% of the people infected survived and reproduced. Small pox survivors were subsequently immune to the disease.
However, man Never mutated or adapted to smallpox. Man certainly did not confer a mutated immune system to his progeny.
Small pox was eradicated artificially with vaccine.
Small pox did not mutate or adapt to the changed environment caused by vaccines within the host. Small pox to the last particle simply died.
Small pox is extinct. Neither Small Pox nor man mutated or evolved or adapted.

Ken Kesey, in "Sometimes a Great Notion" states there was a squirrel who lived under the blanket on a porch swing. Someone flipped the blanket over. The squirrel could not adapt to the new blanket pattern. The squirrel moved to a rain barrel where he drowned in the next rain.
So much for adapting and mutating, aye?

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact is that lizards are still lizards and horses are still horses.

And humans are still primates. Like lizards and horses, they just did a lot of evolving over time.

I thought you might mention the fact that ape species occur in Africa and in Asia. Yes, things change, yet the more they change the more they remain the same.

Except for humans, chimpanzees, and Japanese macaques, among others.

There is a large diversity amongst people. Some people are small, some large, many different shades of skin and eye. Even "lactose" tolerant is a genetic expression. All are human people.

Yeah, humans are remarkably similar genetically. We're very fond of sharing alleles. There haven't been biological human races since Neanderthals.

IF the environment is beyond the range of that specie's genetic expression, the organisms do not adapt. The organism dies.

So Darwin wrote. Turns out, he's right. The vast majority of living species that have lived on Earth are extinct.

Those adaptations or mutations are inherent and are simply rearrangements of existing DNA.

That's what new genes are. Thought you knew. For example, non-coding DNA like scraps of old viruses, often mutate to form new genes, But virus infections are not "inherent."

Small pox, since at least 2,000 BC, adapted to one host, man without any other reservoir.

Yes. It's not unusual for viruses to evolve to infect a new host. Smallpox is one such. It is quite similar to a number of rodent pox viruses. However, smallpox is unusual in that it was wiped out in nature by vaccination, Most viruses won't go so easy.

Ken Kesey, in "Sometimes a Great Notion" states there was a squirrel who lived under the blanket on a porch swing. Someone flipped the blanket over. The squirrel could not adapt to the new blanket pattern. The squirrel moved to a rain barrel where he drowned in the next rain.
So much for adapting and mutating, aye?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. You've confused adaptation and evolution.

 

[QvQ]

Recombination is existing genetic material. Are we now arguing that every person born, being a recombination, is an adapted mutation?
Viral insertion is rare in nature.
DNA repairs itself.
Viral insertion is artificially done in GMO, That is where "viral insertion" was discovered and is being studied. However, the GMO either die out in a few generations or reverts (repairs itself) to the original phenotype .

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. You've confused adaptation and evolution.

So if I toss one squirrel in the rain barrel, he will drown but if I toss all squirrels in the rain barrel, they will evolve, mutate and adapt?