Evolution... What types of experiments have been done?
96132
There have been hundreds of thousands of such experiments done. Moreover you can easily do them yourself using some nutriemt agar and an incubator with a few hundred dollars to pay someone to do the genetic workup.\n\ntalk.origins is your one stop shop for these types of quetsions. The site is highly reputable, well refernces, cites peer reveiewed science journals and most importantly lists literally hundreds of experimenst that show exactly what you describe.\n\nI've attached a couple link to pages that list a dozenor so such mutation studies, but the site has many hundreds of others.
317337
Yes. Any mutations (new ideas) that occur with data that is being viewed in an evolutionary sense and that survives or persist (such as Islam and Christianity), are examples of evolution.\n\nThis is not biological evolution per se, it just follows the same algorithm.  Some Christians will have a hard time buying this, partly because their religion has in many ways, demonized the word, 'evolution'.  Some just see monkeys when they hear that word, they have a hard time getting beyond that because it would break down big chunks of their belief stucture and who they feel they are inside.
745178
What is known comes from experiment.
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
416340
I would have to answer that you're asking the wrong question!  \n\nThe explanation of how a plant or animal can develop asexual reproduction isn't going to help you better understand incremental changes via evolution; what you really need to understand is how a plant or animal can develop sexual reproduction. \n\nLooking at the first, microbiological life, asexual reproduction - i.e. cell division or 'budding' -  was the first and most essential form of reproduction. It took century upon century for more complex life to develop and specialize; and, for the mechanisms of sexual reproduction to develop and become established. \n\nThe change from asexual to sexual reproduction would indeed have been  massive, but it doesn't follow that it had to be sudden. When scientists look at species and evolution, they will generally say that one species was more successful at adapting to their environment than another. \n\nIt seems that the ancestors of many plants and animals developed sexual reproduction mechanisms, and they were more successful in competing with other animals for food/territory, over an extended period of time. The less successful ones died out long ago.\n\nSo - it may not be totally accurate to say, "reproduction either works or it doesn't." A better statement would be, "evolutionarily speaking, changes in species over time may cause one method of reproduction to become less successful than another."  \n\nHaving said that: there are other scientists who agree that evolution isn't always slow and gradual; they argue that sometimes evolution happens occasionally in a sudden and dramatic way, when one species splits to become new species - generally the new species are created when one population becomes separated by geographic boundaries. \n\nI'd strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia article (linked below) on Stephen Jay Gould for an evolutionary point of view which counters the slow evolution methodologies advocated by Dawkins; as well as the articple on evolution itself - which looks at the development of the understanding of evolutionary principles and their historical context.
856777
Nope.  Only evolution.
90666
Here are some experiments.
348831
The idea of evolution of ideas fits well in the framework of memetics, the evolutionary model for describing the units of information in the brain (called "memes", as analogous to "genes"): how they spread from one brain to others, how they mutate, and of course, how they evolve in time.\n\nThe answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of evolved ideas, one of the most noticeable, already reported in the original article (see reference) from Richard Dawkins, the biologist who first introduced the concept, is the idea of God.\n\nMemetics provides a convincing explanation for some aspects of cultural evolution, based on a testable mechanism (replication errors and natural selection).\nOn the other hand, as far as I can understand it, invariantology is a fascinating but untestable theory, since every human can build a different, and ultimately arbitrary, classification of invariants.
312318
NatBoCheck: Well for starters even creationists believe in microevolution, but then you probably don't know what that is.\n\nGive me a few mins...\n\n"The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."\n\n"The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow."\n\nMutation\n\nThe cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation. \n\nNatural Selection\n\nSome types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.\n\nThe most common action of natural selection is to remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] In other words, natural selection usually prevents new alleles from increasing in frequency. This led a famous evolutionist, George Williams, to say "Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection."\n\nNatural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation depending on how it acts.\n\nGenetic Drift\n\nAllele frequencies can change due to chance alone. This is called genetic drift. Drift is a binomial sampling error of the gene pool. What this means is, the alleles that form the next generation's gene pool are a sample of the alleles from the current generation. When sampled from a population, the frequency of alleles differs slightly due to chance alone.\n\nAlleles can increase or decrease in frequency due to drift. The average expected change in allele frequency is zero, since increasing or decreasing in frequency is equally probable. A small percentage of alleles may continually change frequency in a single direction for several generations just as flipping a fair coin may, on occasion, result in a string of heads or tails. A very few new mutant alleles can drift to fixation in this manner.\n\nRecombination\n\nEach chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.\n\nIn meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.\n\nRecombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can fo
63723
unfortunatly there is none for the emergance of species that can be observed. natural selection can be observed and has been but there is no conclusive evidence that evolution took place.
656214
I would like to see a computer program that simulates evolution. It can mutate anything it wants a million times a second. Bring it on baby, or shut up until you do. (not speaking to you Tom but to evolutionists who can't reproduce evolution even in a computer without cheating).
1138218
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
576461
Simple question, simple answer - Evolution, do some reading.
305803
Several modes of speciation have been suggested/observed, but they break down into two types: sympatric, in which the new species is in the same geographic location as the original species, and allopatric, in which the new species is formed in a geographically separated location. Allopatric is generally considered to be more common, but sympatric is common in some groups, for example, plants.\n\nThe rest of my answer: A sympatric example that has been observed occurred in apple maggot flies (Rhagoletes). These are host specific insects that lay their eggs on one species, which become adults, which then mate on the host tree. A mutation causes one or more flies to choose a different species of host tree (which might be right next door) and the adults mate near that tree, not encountering the non-mutant forms. Thus you have the conditions of an isolated population which will allow divergence through selection or drift, leading ultimately to a new species (this latter part has not been observed, but all the preconditions are there). There are several other modes of sympatric speciation possible.\n\nIn allopatric, the classic case would be an isolated founding population that diverges due to selection and/or drift to a point where - were the two populations brought back together - there are no viable offspring produced from intermating (=reproductive isolation). \n\nThere are many more details to both these modes which any text on evolution will outline and provide examples for.
1043983
The theory is still the same- altho every thing has been prooven wrong along time ago! There has never been any scientific proof for evolution!  Dr. Kent Hovind is offering a quarter of a million dollars to whoever can proove the evolution theory! Nobody has yet! As it staes the evolution theory is still a THEORY!
1011831
A good place to start is the talk origins site (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) which puts together a lot of the stuff that originally appeared in the talk origins usenet group.  Most of it is focused on exploring the creationist/evolution controversy, and sometimes takes up a defensive stance when none is required, but generally gives a good overview and explanation of many central questions in evolution.\n\nThe site for the PBS television series 'Evolution' (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ ) is also a very good site.  The related web activities for each episode's page give incredibly good basic information, and the Teacher's Guide section could easily form the backbone of an entire High School level course on evolution (not that any High School actually offers such a course).\n\nIf you can get a hold of the Evolution series itself, it also provides some excellent explanations of many of the concepts.  It may be available through your local library.\n\nAnd the University of Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website is also an excellent resource (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ ).  \n\nThose three sites should keep you busy for the next few months.\n\nGood luck!
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.