Proving Evolution
When it comes to biology, one of the biggest misconceptions is the Theory of Evolution.
Common Misconceptions
It seems that many are under the impression that the ‘theory of evolution’ is still up for debate, and not accepted as true in modern science. I’m here to tell and prove for some, that this is wrong. There are many observable and recorded examples of evolution in modern history, and I wish to share them with you today and explain their significance.
I think first though, it is important to describe what exactly “the theory of evolution” is, and why we address it as such. This is where the huge misconception lies for most people, which is that they believe the term “theory” in scientific fields is somehow synonymous to an opinion or hypothesis. This is not in fact the case. The term “theory” is more synonymous to a complete scientific model such as in “The Theory” of gravitation, special relativity or heliocentrism. This term is not meant to denote unaccepted ideologies, it is much the opposite. A “Theory” is a term given to explanations of natural laws that have undergone repeat and rigorous observation and empirical testing and have become a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge comprised of many parts they can also then be used to make predictions, and thus be tested further. Evolution being made up majorly of the fields of Speciation, Genetics, and Population Development.
Examples In Modern History
Peppered Moths:
| And so, we get to our first example of the phenomenon that is speciation through the peppered moth. One of my personal favourite examples of evolution in modern history, it is often employed as an instance of directional colour change (phenotypic) due to environmental change or stress. Determined to be in direct correlation to air pollution during the industrial revolution, it is classified as an example of Industrial Melanism. An evolutionary effect prominent in arthropods that induce change in the expressed melanin phenotype due to environmental changes, each case is a prominent example of evolution in modern history.
| White Color Express | Dark Color Expressed |
|---|---|
 |  |
In the case of the peppered moths, their industrial melanism caused a change from the expressed phenotype of white color, to black color. This occurred when the tress in their ecosystem began to turn black from pollution from the industrial revolution, leading white peppered moths to experience a selective disadvantage on their color. Being white made them easier prey to the predators, while peppered moths with a black melanin mutation could thrive and reproduce, changing the majorly expressed color for the population. Although met with some confrontation on reproducibility of results, the Majerus experiment, performed in 2001-2007 has been said to have vindicated the initial study. The significance of this instance of evolution is that it serves as an observable case of color change, which can be considered a quite influential change as it can lead to other speciation events such as behavioural or sexual selection, causing further speciation on a population. |
Moon Butterfly:
| A perfect example of a sexual speciation event is in Hypolimnas Bolina, the Moon Butterfly. Also referred to as the great or common eggfly, it is a species of nymphalid butterfly, the largest family of butterflies in the world. Found in New Zealand, the male population was under harassment by a parasite (which was determined to be quite likely Wolbachia) that preyed on the male butterflies resulting in a rapid reduction down to a 1% male population by 2001. The surprise came when in 2007 on the Samoan Island of Upolu and Savai’I, the male population began to bounce back an develop a resistance against to the parasite. It was reported that by 2007, the short span of 10 generations for the eggfly, the males had developed an immunity to the parasite, increasing the male population to 40%. What this example of evolution shows is a selective sexual pressure acting on the male butterflies which resulted in a large decrease in the male population
| Male | Female |
|---|---|
 |  |
. Likely a small population of males with immunity to the parasite initially existed in 2001. However, by 2007, this small population had experience a selective advantage for their immunity, allowing them to reproduce without worry and pass their genes on to further generations. This proves that populations can develop immunity or resistances overtime, which increases the future generations viability. This is a clear-cut example of natural selection in action. |
Find out more about Wolbachia here
Bacteria Evolves in Megaplate
| Following from natural selection, this last example I wanted to share with you guys was a project done by Harvard Medical School. Another case of Evolution through resistance and immunity, this video is not meant to address the mechanism of Evolution, but the direction. Another common misconception I often see or hear is the notion that evolution lead to humans, or that humans are some kind of evolutionary endpoint. Although on a metaphysical, conscious level this is true, we are quiet advanced. We surpass other creatures mentally and are able to build complex culture and technology. But we are definitely no more valuable evolutionarily than any other species. All the thriving species that exist on the planet are just as “evolved” as humans, in that their physiology fits their particular niche and through interaction with their ecosystem they are able to reproduce in numerous, stable populations. If these species weren’t as advanced as us, they simply wouldn’t exist (they would have died off as millions of other species have). We are not a more advanced outcome of evolution, we are simply one result of many, many, many paths that it could’ve taken. |
The video is quiet self explanatory, so turn your volume up, sit back and enjoy this incredible piece of research.
VIDEO:
Thanks for sticking through, upvote and discuss down below so I can continue to bring you guys interesting and informative content like this :). Don't forget to 
!
Citations and Image Credits:
Peppered Moths
Industrial Melanism
Moon Buttefly
Bacteria Evolution
Image Credits: Moth & Butterfly
What do you think, does evolution favors veridical perception or not?
Evolution doesn't favor any particular trait. I often like to say that angiosperms and gymnosperms (plants) are as impressively evolved as humans. They have existed for millions of years, live for centuries, are some of the only if not the only large body producers in any ecosystem and have through years of reproduction changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the planet for good.
I would say no, but it really depends on what you consider veridical perception. If you consider it's fundamentals and really just call it spacial perception of some form, then evolution does not favor it, but it IS often observed as an attribute that allows organisms to continue their lineage, beating out similar organisms performing without any veridical perception.
Great post and great examples.
I would like to add that theories can also be used to make predictions, and thus be tested. That is an important point to add to the definition, IMO.
Ooo good point! I'll add this in right now :) Thanks for reading!!
evolution is a facet of consciousness and can be initiated through will, it is not just a random chance of survival in a heartless world.
unfortunately, i'll have to disagree, that being one of the misconceptions about evolution. It is 100% a random chance of survival in a heartless world with only some who survive, please I urge you to watch the last video in the post, it really addresses exactly this misconception. Thanks for reading though :) appreciate it
the last video shows successful adaptation to environmental toxicity, it does nothing to demonstrate the causation of that adaptation and certainly does nothing to rebutt my comment. i am not clear why you think it does.
Well I guess if your consideration is that it "CAN" be initiated through will, but the video I referenced definitely proves that these bacteria do not and are not consciously aware or in control of their evolution over multiple generations. The relevance here is that this follows with any other species or population, individuals don't evolves, populations do. The causation of the adaptation is explained in the video, it is the toxicitiy which causes unfit lineages to die off, not concious thought or free will, were this mega plate not set up as a barrier, the bacteria would have no need to evolve. I think it does completely write off your comment because it is a clear example of evolution taking place without a need for a consciousness or free will, which Is why I cannot see how you think it doesn't address your comment.
the video does not prove any presence or lack of presence of consciousness - it simply shows bacteria replicating, dying and adapting. why do you think it proves an absence of consciousness when consciousness is never even mentioned in the video?
my only explanation is that you are assuming that bacteria are not conscious and assuming that i must also already think that, when i don't.
individuals DO evolve - i assure you. a 'population' is nothing but a collection of individuals - so your logic is flawed in numerous ways.
Example: If everyone around me is dying due to food poisoning and i figure out a way to meditate and access my cellular function internally, then consciously adapt my body to meet the problem - then I have personally evolved - while the population has not and indeed they WILL not until I teach them how to evolve.
the fact that individuals are so out of touch with their own capacity to evolve does not mean that individual evolution and individual will are not relevant.
Because bacteria don't have consciousness, I honestly didn't think this needed explaining. If you are trying to get me to believe bacteria are conscious on any level than we've already come to an bridge I will not cross. It doesn't need to be addressed in the video because there is no conceivably REASONABLE way to intepret bacteria as having a conciousness. You are right I AM assuming you believe that, but I am not assuming they do not have conciousness I KNOW they do not and will never have the capacity to display what is considered conscious thought.
My logic is not flawed in any way, this is a common mantra in fields of phylogenetic classification and population genetics. Individuals do not undergo evolution, populations do. It is clear cut and simple as that. I obviously must dive a little deeper into this topic because I thought these examples would be a more straightforward way to cut through these misconceptions, but there are obviously still many misconceptions in the theory.
The biggest issue with that last example, is that's not evolution. Your as missinformed in whatever notion of what it may be but if you have personally grown immunity to thisfood poisoning you speak of, you have done exactly what you referred to at a point, adapted. This adapatation is not genetic, and therefore the adaptation itself is sexually limited, as it will not be passed down to children. You may educate them in future generations, and continue to teach every single child the ways of meditation, but they will never physically evolve to retain this trait on birth. If you believe a child could ever be born with a this trait, because their parents meditated enough, is down right wrong. That is not the way traits are inherited and just fundamentally flawed compared to the way evolution has been observed to occur.
what evidence do you have to prove your assertion that internal conscious decisions can never effect inherited DNA programming?
Because if you ever took biology classes, you would understand that isn't the way heritable traits function. If you were born fat, work out your whole life till your buff.... your kids are still gonna be born fat. I don't really need to look up evidence because I know it exists......... but I don't believe there are any proven ideologies or research studies that prove that parents are able to consciously inflict change on their genetics that is expressed in the offsprings genes.
I'm suggesting there has also never been any reputable evidence of this effect either, not just that it can never happen. When I say that I mean multiple reproducible results with large groups.
wim hof is a recent example of someone who you could say has demonstrated an evolution through his own will:
ooo 20 minutes so long but im watching for you :P
there are many videos with wim hof in them, but i just picked the TED one since people are conditioned to think that TED = intelligence. there are better videos of him available where the experiments are shown in more detail regarding his conscious ability to alter his immune systems.
lmaoooooooo, TED does not equal intelligence hahaha. Maybe we're on the same page there, because as soon as I saw this I was like; oh god don't tell me all this guy has is a ted talk...
I generally find TED talks to involve people addressing intelligent topics but in a low detail way - or worse, they are just repeating what they heard somewhere else and don't really add anything (while attempting to 'take credit').
That said though, they do sometimes have decent speakers.
I do generally avoid them, but since I didn't know much about you - I took the 'lowest common denominator' approach ;)
Finally, I finished the video I can make the comment.... what does this have to do with evolution? His children will not be born with any of the ability he exhibits, UNLESS they are trained to do so. So even if we all attempted to follow his teachings and learn these abilities... our species hasn't evolved in the traditional sense.
This in a way is a whole other argument because there is some debate over whether this constitutes evolution for our species going forward, such as transhumanism and the likes. However, even if every single person on the planet in knew his teachings, everyone could control their immune systems and such, every child born would still be born with the immune system we have right now. Evolution doesn't work in that if enough generations meditate, children will be born with pre-meditated enlightenment, that just doesn't follow in the evolutionary model. What Hof pretty much describes is talents individuals can learn to adapt themselves, but nothing that will ever pass on to children or become heritable widespread through the global population... therefore not evolution.
he is demonstrating the reality that we have been disconnected from significant aspects of self. VERY significant aspects are mostly unconscious in most people - sitting latent and waiting to be felt and used again.
to make such blanket claims as 'evolution doesn't work like that' - is quite short sighted. as short sighted perhaps as saying "we cannot modulate our immune systems through consciousness" ;)
so i am asking again, what proof is there that children do not receive inherited patterns that have been initiated through consciousness of an ancestor?
Congratulations @trismegistuz! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
Interesting. Actually a different point of view. Evolution is nothing but Survival of fittest then. :)
Yep!! These examples show natural selection at it's finest, thanks for giving it a read :)
That was a fat with facts post! Really interesting. Thanks for sharing this with us!!
Thanks and no problem!! thank you for reading :)
Thanks for the read!
No, no thank you!
What are your thoughts on the idea that humans are slowing down their evolution due to the increase of medical knowledge and our ability to now withstand disease that would have killed many of us off several generations ago?
Now this is a really interesting topic!! I often find myself hearing people say "we're gonna evolve to lose the pinky toe" or "we will evolve so no one will have appendixes" but exactlyyyyyy what you're talking about is stopping just that.
Simply put, our medicine is too good and our populations too great to ever see evolution occur again in the human race... or atleast evolution that isn't caused by some insanely drastic change in the global environment or population.
Your definitely right, with modern medicine it allows us to in a form, defy natural selection and allow unfit genetics and lineages to continue to thrive. I think the only evolutionary hope for humans is transhumanism, or "bionic men"... but this isn't a traditional form of evolution as you would probably understand. We could start making ourselves more vital through robotic upgrades, but we would still be the same genetically crappy meat sacks under it all.
Where did you show a change of kind? Butterflies... no matter their color... are still ... butterflies. Didn't you just show modern mutation and selection? How did that get conflated with evolution? I am underwhelmed. I am more intrigued by how man has bred dogs to be all sorts of shapes and pedigrees than what you show and conflate with evolution.
The bacteria didn't evolve... they are still... bacteria.
Hahahaha, the funny part to me is that somehow dogs are more significant evolutionarily. Dogs are just another subspecies like modern wolves, they aren't even that unique. If you think about our common fruits and vegetables, we've probably done about as much, if not more manipulation and intervention on their genetic makeups. I was going to mention them but opted for more concrete examples of speciation and advantage instead.
I'm really not sure what you mean "conflated with evolution".... These ARE examples of evolution as the phenomenon IS majorily part mutation, and part selection. Other than pre and post zygotic barriers or environmental factors, there isn't much else to evolution.
I'm confused at how you don't see the bacteria as evolving, do you believe that dogs have evolved more than the bacteria, simply because you do not observe different "sorts of shapes" as in dogs? The bacteria that lives in the center of the plate by the end of the video is very genetically different than the bacteria that started on each end, they are better adapted to the environment and over the course of the experiment adapted stronger and stronger genetic resilience to the antibiotics. They bacteria population in the center is more vital than that at the edges, which it is evolving from.
These are all clear cut examples of evolution I didn't detail by the way. These are all examples I have either discussed in class or explored in text, so It's not as if I exclusively have deemed these examples of evolution... these are taught as examples of evolution. The bacteria have no evolved, but they are undergoing evolutionary processes, and in doing so are evolving.
They are not changing what "kind" of thing they are. You've conflated generational mutations and selection with a step-change in which a descendant can be differentiated form the immediate ancestor by changing to a new creature.
Just for example, dogs descended from wolves, but their offspring are viable. They are the same kind. So the dog has not evolved, but specialized. Such an observation is not unique; the moths and bacteria are even less specialized.
You are doing a bait-and-switch. There are no modern evolutionary changes. You are showing a few of the documented (and exciting) ways that communities of creatures adapt to environmental forces.
When you claim that these are exemplary evolutionary changes, you err.
Evolution theory revolves around the belief (a strong, unscientific word) that creatures of one kind evolved changes to become new, more complicated creatures with novel organs, appendages, skeletal structures, and body parts which were entirely unknown beforehand. You conflate things like chromosomal changes (melanin amounts) with evolution (novel creatures).
This is why any biologist can claim "evolution" discoveries under every tree. The belief is such that the random chromosomal changes are de facto evidence of evolutionary processes... when they are instead responsible for random deaths due to genetics (deer born with 3 legs, club foot) and specialization that is not beneficial (6 fingers, supernumerary nipples).
So when you get lungs, exoskeletons, and stomachs from 100,000 generations of amebas, give me a call.
You lose me where your statement insinuates that generational mutation and selection AREN'T evolutionary processes. Yeah I would say the moths are only experiences a small "step-change" but thats because thats what evolution is... small step changes that accumulate eventually to cause SPECIATION which is an event within the theory of evolution that causes new species to arise.
Just because a new species isn't being born, doesn't mean there isn't evolution in each step. In the example of the back moths; let's say now the next several generations are born black. -JUST AN EXAMPLE- but let's say their black color made them unable to mate back with the white population, and their pigment also lead to an increased expression of dwarfism which comes with the black pigment but isn't being killed off because the black pigment is also advantagous now.
If the dwarf, black colored moth and a regular white moth were in the same tank, they would no longer mate and this would be a case of SPECIATION by the phylogenetic or morphological classification of species. This is undeniably a viable example of evolution.
Changing the "kind" of thing it is, isn't evolution, that's barely even an accurate definition of speciation, as many very different species still look very similar on the outside, as is with MANY birds.
"So when you get lungs, exoskeletons, and stomachs from... bla bla bla" U ever been taught evolutionary biology in a classroom? Cause is sure sounds like ur spewing a lot of "scientific" knowledge about evolutionary definitions which aren't accurate to anything spoken by any traditional evolutionary advocate since before Darwin.Mutation and selection is a step.
Evolution is a series of a million steps or more.
If you believe one is possible, why is the other difficult to grasp?
The concept of a 'kind' is not a scientific one, so I have a feeling evidence will probably not work to change your mind.
Kind is just an English word I chose to indicate something you can see with your own eyes and look at biologically. The gist of my point is that bacteria mutating in a Petri dish doesn't logically mean that bacteria mutations led to new creatures which are definitely not bacteria.
Bacteria "evolution" in the lab is restricted to new kinds of bacteria which have a few differences. There is no evidence of algae becoming cockroaches, or ameba sprouting wings.
When you observe those especially with sexual reproduction and which cannot reproduce otherwise... the higher organisms ... you must conclude that sufficiently complex mutations will no longer be viable. They die out. Such a new creature must either be unable to reproduce (due to no sexually compatible peers) or they must line-breed to keep the novel mutations. That won't work too well, as the beneficial mutation may be recessive, so it may take a lot more breeding to express that.
Genetically, this type of thing is done by breeders who improve cattle and domestic animals and vegetable crops. But that's funny... the last I checked into breeding programs, they were (1) done with lots of oversight and purpose, and (2) they were done with the same species to deal with minor gene expressions.
So if modern breeding programs cannot purposely produce a new creature of a different kind, how could natural selection succeed blindly?
Time. The difference here, and it both my points, has been time.
St. Peter's Basilica took 144 years to build. According to your example, if you were a Roman citizen watching it be constructed, you would have to conclude that it is impossible to build such a complex structure, because you, personally, have never seen one completely built. You have only seen stages - perhaps the foundation, perhaps the columns going up. And of course, the individual steps can all be completed: foundations can be built; columns can be erected; murals can be painted, but obviously over a massive cathedral cannot be built over 144 years because you have no direct observation of such.
As it is with mutation, selection, and ultimately evolution between species, it requires time well beyond a human, or even modern humanity's, time on this planet.
Those breeders of dogs and bacteria could keep going and at some point would create a different species - but you would dismiss it since it is not a different 'kind'. It is still dog-like and therefore a dog''kind'.
But again, 'kind' is not a scientific term. It is an arbitrary one you created to denote a that dog-like species is not different than a dog despite their genetic differences, or a human is different than a primate despite having a lot of the same genetic material and evolutionary history.
I'd recommend checking out Ring Species and then consider adding time to the sudden fact that one species has become two.
And although natural selection may be blind, it is still a steady and constant force on a species' development.
Natural selection + Random Mutation + TIME
Regardless, I'm not going to change your mind, and facts will not change your mind. I would encourage you to really try and see reality for what it is though instead of putting up straw-man roadblocks such as 'kinds'.
The roadblock is having a step change being passed on to descendants. Your belief system has to include points of time in which, for example, one day a creature was born having a spine, or an exoskeleton, or a spleen, or a mammary gland. And then the miracle of scientific dogma states this: the creature survived, mated, and passed it on to its descendants, his ancestors died off immediately, and the newly evolved creatures lived happily ever after as a novel creature that is a different kind than the one which it evolved from.
Why should I believe in that miracle? What evidence would lead me to such a belief?
Why is there evidence for the mutations and genetics and not for passing on step changes?
To believe what you believe, I would have to have faith in the fossil record. This record is riddled with flaws and interpretive error. But even if I believed the fossil record in its entirety, I would begin to wonder whether simultaneous antecedents and descendants can be shown to have co-existed, and if not, why?
No, my fact system does not require a fully formed anything to just be created. Your straw man is invalid.
Spine - evolved from notochords
Exoskeleton - The beginnings of arthropods
Now, I don't have time to google everything for you, but suffice it to say, spleens and mammary glands evolved like the rest of the major organs from filtering organs and other secretion glands.
So, I'm not asking you to believe a miracle. As stated above, that is a crappy strawman argument. I'm asking you to believe facts.
Maybe you misunderstand evolution in its entirety - individual organisms do not evolve. Populations of organisms evolve. A beneficial trait is passed along a population. If natural selection promotes that trait, it will continue to appear in organisms with greater frequency and eventually become dominate in the entire population. So, a notochord was extremely advantageous. Then, in some species, that cartilage shifted to bone, and became advantageous in the environment for those creatures.
And the fossil record is just one entire line of evidence among many - genetics, geology, geography, developmental biology, fundamental physics of cellular membranes. There are so many smoking guns that you could honestly remove the 'fossil record' and still reach the proper conclusions if you actually looked.
Yet another strawman - to believe what I know is fact, you simply have to properly understand what evolution is and does. How it impacts populations, how it is impacted by natural selection, and ultimately how time comes into play.
Here is a very simple diagram that highlights my points:
Source
That's nice with the red-purple text. I like that.
Here's where the evidence for your belief system is, quite simply, missing.
Take a common, modern creature. Say the bottle-nose dolphin and greater apes ... the emperor penguin, the ostrich, and the osprey.... the alpaca and white-tailed deer ... the octopus and the starfish.
Now, if this creature descended from some other creature, identify it in the chain of evolution. First A, then B. In the example above, "red text" can be isolated either in the fossil record or in modern times to be distinct from the "blue text."
I would think that hundreds and thousands of such pairs can be discovered. I believe over 10,000 species are "discovered" every year. But the obvious problem is that at the top of the food chain, there is an antecedent problem. The old imaginary "common ancestor" that has been hypothesized for over 100 years in evolutionary pseudo-science.
Red-blue pairs. A handful of stable purple ones.
Fiction makes a lot of sense. It's entertaining to go see "natural history" museums with the bald faced fake history lessons, supported by artist renditions and reconstructions. Believing in fiction ... doesn't make it any more real.
A flow-chart (or hundreds of them) with hypothetical "chains" of the evolutionary fiction, like the ones appearing in biology textbooks: This is the purported evidence. The hypotheses are circular. The flowchart points to a proposition, and the proposition is said to be examples of evolution, while the evidence is missing and theoretical and assumed.
So when you conflate a "micro" version of evolution with the billion-year macro version of it causing the so-called fossil record, you have to do so based on assumption, belief, and ignoring alternative theories. Wouldn't you say that beliefs and ignorance are the hallmarks of religion and pseudoscience? If the shoe fits, wear it.
Don't you see? Evolution is a continuum. A spectrum.
The notion of a red/blue pair is an completely arbitrary one. Classifications are us simply drawing a line in the text and declaring something 'purple' or 'bluish', but ultimately that demarcation is made up.
Consider the evolution of language - you may have a ancestor language like Latin. Latin then branches to beget Franch, Spanish, English, Italian, etc.
Those demarcations are very easily seen as we've zoomed out, included time, and drawn those arbitrary lines. However, when Latin was first traveling around the globe, the Western speakers and Eastern speakers could probably still communicate, could probably interact just fine. But, with additional time, group isolation, and essentially random changes, they eventually became distinct.
As it is with biology. We are all still evolving and the demarcations we create are arbitrary. All the creatures are the planet are still red-ish or blue-ish on their way to something even more red-ish or blue-ish that may or may not help them survive against selection pressures within their environment.
And yes, I would agree that beliefs and ignorance are hallmarks of religious belief and psuedo-science. Traits you seem to be exercising in spades.
Have a great Monday!