natural selection

[jeafl]

If this is not the right forum for this topic, let me know and I’ll move it to another forum or abandon it altogether.

Can anyone here document any experimental or other scientific evidence that supports the idea that natural selection leads to innovations in morphology or physiology in a way that leads to macroevolution?

[Pooeypants]

What exactly does innovation in morphology and physiology mean?

[jeafl]

Quote by: Pooeypants What exactly does innovation in morphology and physiology mean?

Morphology is body structure shape. Physiology is the sum of all living processes- eating, breathing, reproduction et cetera.

[moustache]

humming birds? they didnt use to have long beaks.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl Morphology is body structure shape. Physiology is the sum of all living processes- eating, breathing, reproduction et cetera.

Actually, I was curious at asking about "innovation". Isn't that an artificial construct?

[jeafl]

Quote by: Pooeypants Actually, I was curious at asking about "innovation". Isn't that an artificial construct?

Not really. In Darwinian terms an innovation is simply a variation from what already exists.

[jeafl]

Quote by: moustache humming birds? they didnt use to have long beaks.

Who conducted the experiment or systematic scientific procedure on hummingbirds?

[jeafl]

Let me ask my question another way:

What laboratory confirmation of natural selection’s ability to produce innovative morphological or physiological changes has there ever been?

[tman_ndsu08]

These changes take a long time. Much longer than science has ever been around.

[SNPete]

Quote by: jeafl Let me ask my question another way: What laboratory confirmation of natural selection’s ability to produce innovative morphological or physiological changes has there ever been?

See Private message.

[RickSp]

Virtually all of modern biology is based on the principle of natural selection. Evidence for it is legion. Here is one of many sites that discuss the topic. Evolution and Natural Selection Or you may wish to consult any good biology textbook.

Yes, I know there are theist pseudo-scientists who waste all our time creating phony arguments that prove effectively nothing, but then so what else is new?

[fedfem]

Quote by: jeafl If this is not the right forum for this topic, let me know and I’ll move it to another forum or abandon it altogether. Can anyone here document any experimental or other scientific evidence that supports the idea that natural selection leads to innovations in morphology or physiology in a way that leads to macroevolution?

Just look at a platypus.

[jeafl]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 These changes take a long time. Much longer than science has ever been around.

Not really. I ask this question with 2 clear answers in mind.

[jeafl]

Quote by: RickSp Virtually all of modern biology is based on the principle of natural selection. Evidence for it is legion. Here is one of many sites that discuss the topic. Evolution and Natural Selection Or you may wish to consult any good biology textbook. Yes, I know there are theist pseudo-scientists who waste all our time creating phony arguments that prove effectively nothing, but then so what else is new?

I have a B.A. in biology from Emory University. I am well versed in the whys and wherefores of Darwinian science. I do not doubt that there is such a force as natural selection. However, I am not convinced that natural selection has any power to effect wholesale changes in morphology or physiology- especially on the magnitude necessary to achieve macro-evolution.

[jeafl]

Quote by: fedfem Just look at a platypus.

What laboratory work has been done with the platypus?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl I have a B.A. in biology from Emory University. I am well versed in the whys and wherefores of Darwinian science. I do not doubt that there is such a force as natural selection. However, I am not convinced that natural selection has any power to effect wholesale changes in morphology or physiology- especially on the magnitude necessary to achieve macro-evolution.

Why not? Can you suggest a mechanism to stop evolution?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: jeafl Not really. I ask this question with 2 clear answers in mind.

Science has only been around a few thousand years.

Evolution takes millions.


Yes. Really.

[Dadoo]

Bellis spp. are quite common here in my region. They are small white, pink and red daisies. The 3 kinds are always, always found together. There was originally, one color- white, brought from england by western-bound settlers long ago.
Accordingly, a red variety, previously unrecorded was spotted.
These hybrid pinks now arise in every population, but only in the presence of reds and whites.
Here is my perspective in reference to the query:

Evolution only takes one generation at a time.
One, small, seemingly insignificant change in physio-morphological construct and related behavioiur adaptation is indeed, Evolution.
One mutation, whether inherent or environmental, is in this way evolution.
When the mutation succeeds, generalization occurs much more rapidly than when the mutation is a liability.
However, many mutations are neither successful nor detrimental. The amalgamation of these seemingly insignificant changes are relativized in the moment yet telescopically compounded through time, amount to a complete morphological transition.

So, my short answer or belief is "yes" , these changes occur immediately and within the ground-zero generation,and, obviously, are either accepted or rejected through "natural selection", or "unnatural"; as it were. This occurs constantly all around us in the lab and out.
How many micro-adaptations add up to a full-fledged adaptation?
A silly question, indeed.
To parametize, however, is to lineate.

As far as speciation is concerned, that is dependent upon the scope of the observer, as the taxonomy and nomenclature proves; the parameters of sciences own definitions are in constant flux; ever-refining.

[Sonart]

These changes take a long time. Much longer than science has ever been around.

That's what I was thinking. I don't think entire human recorded history has been long enough to record macro-evolution.

.

[jeafl]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 These changes take a long time. Much longer than science has ever been around.

Actually changes can take place in a very short period of time and a single event can lead to drastic changes in a population's displayed range of morphology.