Black and white people points very well to evolution. Those born in hot countries have evolved dark skin for protection while those in colder areas evolved white skin due to the lack of sun. I can't remember the specifics but the levels of vitamin D white people can obtain from the sun is greater so they need less time in the sun which happens naturally due to the climate.

Looking forward to what evidence there is for creation seeing as that never mentions dinosaurs and other pre historic animals we now have in depth knowledge of.

Fair hair helps absorb more vitamin D in less sunny areas such as Europe.

It's not black and white. Evolution occurs, but we're not from apes.

One characteristic of drosdophilia that has increased its evolutionary fitness is that it's useful in human science experiments.

drosdophilia

Drosophilia FTFY

BTW - saying Fruit Flies doesn't make you sound any less intelligent. Misspelling the Latin, however...

They get used in labs because they are easy to produce in large quantities - that would be true even if humans weren't using them in labs. Their evolutionary fitness, as you put, it has nothing to do with us.

They get used in labs because they are easy to produce in large quantities.

That's still a characteristic that the universe selects for its existence.

This conversation is evolution occurring.

That's still a characteristic that the universe selects for its existence.

Yeah.. that's what I said. We have nothing to do with their evolutionary state, therefore citing our use of them in labs is irrelevant.

This conversation is evolution occurring.

No... I don't think so. That just sounds like a cringe worthy cliché

haha, whatever mate.

keep posturing.

I'm not your mate.

Posturing infers I'm trying to make you believe something that isn't true, or to dazzle you with my intellect. I'm not trying to do either of those.

Go back to your thesaurus and try again.

No, posturing means you came in here just to shit on a comment and think your superior.

In Australia we call our mates cunts and cunts mate.

Good for you - If I think you're a cunt, I'll tell you.

I'm not sure how you think your definition of posturing is any different to mine, the fact of the matter is that you were wrong in your original statement and haven't handled being told so well.

If you take criticism or debate as people shitting on your opinion and asserting superiority, you really have a lot of growing up to do. It's not personal, I just disagree with you.

I wasn't wrong. I had a d in there.

You didn't come in trying to be constructive or trying to achieve understanding, you came in telling me I'm wrong and wanting to sound smart and put me in my place.

My original point was that even if we're the product of alien intervention and they're performing an experiment on us, we're still part of evolution. It's the natural order of things.

The point that I was focusing on more, was your assertion that humans using fruit flies in experimentation aided their evolution.

I suppose it could be an example of evolution by artificial selection.

I don't really think this is one of those subjects where a debate will actually benefit anyone.

In my opinion, you either believe evolution exists - as evidenced through the heaps of empirical data available. OR You believe in intelligent design / creationism - not supported by any strong evidence at all.

You do?

Me too! Let's be friends.

I want in on this too.

I don't think this is quite true.

Broadly speaking, evolution isn't something to believe in or not believe in. It's more like a fact. We see it in the fossil record. Over vast expanses of time, fewer species become more species. Less specialization becomes more specialization. And it's clear that later organisms do derive somehow from earlier ones.

When a natural process leaves tracks that are plainly visible, I stop thinking about it in terms of belief or non-belief. :)

The next question is, how do we explain this phenomenon we see? And of course, our main way is that big and complex body of interrelated propositions called Darwinian theory (including neo-Darwinian).

Here, too, I don't think it's usefully approached as something to believe or not believe. The vast majority of us don't even know what it says. So how are we supposed to accept or reject it?

I'd say, let's all learn some Darwinian theory first, and then we can make some decisions about it.

Even then, it's unlikely to be a believe/not believe, accept/reject kind of deal. The model is likely to be a useful approach to some questions but not all.

Edited to add (sorry, I got cut off): So the Darwinian model is much like any scientific model. Even though it holds up rather well within its domain, it could stand certain improvements, and of course it doesn't answer all the questions about life. The rational thing to do is to use it where it's useful.

Furthermore, I don't see Darwinian theory and some kind of concept like Intelligent Design as mutually exclusive. What I mean is, some principle or process that is more "teleological" than random mutation may be responsible for new variations that natural selection can act on. I strongly suspect that this is the case, even though science hasn't discovered or described any such process yet.

For a long time, Darwinian and Lamarckian theories were held to be mutually exclusive, with Darwin winning out and Lamarck being tossed out the window early on. About 20 years ago, I saw something that amazed me. A book came through our approval plan (at a university library) titled something like "epigenetic mechanisms of inheritance: Lamarckian dimensions of" blah blah something something. The book discussed a growing body of research that pointed to the validity of Lamarck's discredited idea, namely the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

All fields are chock full of this kind of stuff. Anyway, that's how I look at it, for what it's worth.

Dont see how you can dispute evolution; the examples in the Galapagos isles are valid. But evolution doesnt account for the origin of life or dramatic changes; we cant prove that man came from monkeys unless we find a missing link in the fossil record.

You've got to be precise and accurate in your use of terminology, or else we won't know what we're supposed to be debating about.

I don't think you mean that evolution is a conspiracy. Evolution is a very broad term that means development-- and specifically, you probably mean development of one or more living species over very long timespans. Evolution is abundantly evident in the fossil record. The only way this observation could result from a conspiracy is if some supernatural being arranged the fossils this way in order to fool people.

What you probably mean is something more like: Darwinian evolutionary theory is a conspiracy. I do know some Darwinian theory, but I'll need you to explain what you mean by saying it's a conspiracy.

And of course, participants in this thread would have to know their Darwinian theory in order to discuss it meaningfully. I find that very, very few people have this knowledge. That's no knock on them. It's like any other highly technical discipline. Most people have no reason to study it.

It'd be OK if it stopped right there, but a lot of people seem to think they have to render an opinion on it, and that's where we run into trouble.

Great question, I'll try and make this brief.

• No transitional species have been found. There is not a single fossil in existence for example of a half human half ape. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are proven frauds.

• No proof that living cells, or even functional proteins can be produced from inorganic molecules in nature.

• All mutations are bad, all mutations observed by scientists have been shown to decrease biological fitness.

• Water to land evolution is impossible. Fish die when brought out of water, the result is the same regardless of how many times you try.

• Proteins cannot form by chance. According to the laws of probability, the chances of a 500 sequence protein with the correct amino acids of the right optical isomer with the right peptide bonds, being formed by chance, is practically ZERO.

No transitional species have been found. There is not a single fossil in existence for example of a half human half ape. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are proven frauds.

The first primates walking an two legs with a slightly bigger brain can very well be regarded as such a transitional species.

No proof that living cells, or even functional proteins can be produced from inorganic molecules in nature.

see below, you list proteins twice

All mutations are bad, all mutations observed by scientists have been shown to decrease biological fitness.

Most Europeans have tiny mutation allowing them to digest milk.

Water to land evolution is impossible. Fish die when brought out of water, the result is the same regardless of how many times you try.

This fish lives most of the time out of the water.

Proteins cannot form by chance. According to the laws of probability, the chances of a 500 sequence protein with the correct amino acids of the right optical isomer with the right peptide bonds, being formed by chance, is practically ZERO.

Proven since 1952.

I looked up Orrorin on wikipedia thought to be one of the first bipedal hominoids.

This is a quote from the article.

In the femur, the head is spherical and rotated anteriorly; the neck is elongated and oval in section and the lesser trochanter protrudes medially. While this suggest that Orrorin was bipedal, the rest of the postcranium indicates it climbed trees.

I wonder how they could use a small part of the cranium to determine that this animal climbed trees, this is probably just my ignorance of science.

I'm skeptical of Europeans gaining lactose tolerance through a mutation. Mutations in general are harmful because they damage DNA, no new information is added to the genetic sequence during a mutation.

Is being able to digest lactose an evolutionary advantage? Galactose is found in sugar beet and you can get starch by eating potatoes.

Besides, it is impossible to prove that Europeans didn't always have lactose tolerance to some degree.

The mudskipper fish is around today, because it is able to live in both water and on land. My point is that a fish cannot go out of water and suddenly start mutating and survive.

Miller-Urey used a condenser with circulating water, they also removed products as soon as they were formed, this would not have been possible on a primitive earth.

this is probably just my ignorance of science.

At least you are willing to admit your ignorance.

Mutations in general are harmful because they damage DNA, no new information is added to the genetic sequence during a mutation.

They don't always damage DNA, but they can change DNA. In regards to mutations generally being harmful, this link lists just a few beneficial mutations that have been observed by scientists.

The mudskipper fish is around today, because it is able to live in both water and on land.

How do you think it got to the point of being able to live in both water and on land? Do you think it was just "created" like that?

I will use this example from the link

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source.

Graham Bell took Chlamydomonas and kept them in the dark. By doing so, he killed the Chlamydomonas that were not able to properly take in carbon from the acetate they were placed on.

The key thing is that Chlamydomonas are already able to survive in the dark.

All Bell did was simply get rid of those who can't fix carbon properly from organic matter.

If you got rid of all tall people, would you then say that humans have 'evolved' to be shorter? Of course not. Evolution is about animals gaining new proteins, enzymes and organs.

Evolution is not culling organisms with certain traits.

You still haven't defined how organisms gained certain traits.

Again - How do you think the mudskipper gained the ability to survive in both land and water? Has it always had that ability, or is it something new?

The mudskipper has always had that ability.

So creatures have never changed in history? Every creature we currently see has always existed exactly like we see it today?

yes

So now are you going to claim that fossils are all hoaxes as well? All the evidence of creatures changing and all the associated scientific fields are all in on this giant hoax?

All fossils are full species. There are no fossils of half fish half reptiles etc.

Science in general is bought and paid for, so yes they are all in on it.

Science in general is bought and paid for, so yes they are all in on it.

LOL! If you really think all scientists around the world are in on giant hoaxes, there's no help for you.

Would you care to provide proof of this claim, are you going to prove your username wrong?

From Eisenhower's farewell speech.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

So in other words, besides from a politicians speech from 50 years ago, you have no actual facts that all scientists are "bought and paid for". You really are doing your best to prove your username a complete and total lie, aren't you?

Well scientists have to acquire grant funding and they have to publish in journals, contrary opinions are not allowed.

Well scientists have to acquire grant funding and they have to publish in journals, contrary opinions are not allowed.

You really are enclosed in your little bubble with no understanding of how the world actually works, aren't you? Just last year there was a study funded by anti-vaccine advocates that showed no link between vaccines and autism. I'd say that is a "contrary opinion"...

Ok I confess, I am wrong in saying that all science is bought and paid for.

Congratulations! Now will you actually think about the implications of this fact, or will you continue to ignore any evidence that goes against your feelings?

In a way, science, and scholarship more generally, is nothing but contradictory opinions.

Every field of human inquiry is made of controversy.

That said, it's true that most (maybe all?) academic disciplines have certain prevailing views and assumptions. Some fields are worse than others in this respect. Some really do observe a kind of orthodoxy, and they really do punish anyone who questions it or investigates a contrarian view. So yes, that does exist, but even in the most hidebound fields, there is raging controversy. It's not useful to just wave a hand at all journals and say contrary opinions aren't allowed. You have to be specific.

No transitional species have been found. There is not a single fossil in existence for example of a half human half ape. Nebraska man and Piltdown man are proven frauds.

Wrong. Here's a nice list of a whole bunch of transitional fossils.

No proof that living cells, or even functional proteins can be produced from inorganic molecules in nature.

That's what's called "abiogenesis" and has nothing to do with evolution.

All mutations are bad, all mutations observed by scientists have been shown to decrease biological fitness.

Wrong again. Have you ever eaten corn? Today it looks nothing what it looked like thousands of years ago when it was 13 seeds on a stalk. Anyway, read more about mutations here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Water to land evolution is impossible. Fish die when brought out of water, the result is the same regardless of how many times you try.

Yet it happened anyway. You also can't take a sea fish and put it into fresh water, yet there is salmon which can live in fresh and salt water. Evolution happens over millions of years, it doesn't happen by making an animal do something contrary to its nature. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

Proteins cannot form by chance. According to the laws of probability, the chances of a 500 sequence protein with the correct amino acids of the right optical isomer with the right peptide bonds, being formed by chance, is practically ZERO.

Again, abiogenesis, not evolution. Besides, applying probability retrospectively is just wrong. If something exists the chances are 1:1.

Wrong. Here's a nice list of a whole bunch of transitional fossils.

I'll use the first example on the list.Sahelanthropus

That fossil has a brain capacity of 300cm³ that is a chimpanzee.

All mutations in humans are harmful. It results in conditions like Down Syndrome, albinism or cancer.

Living on land is completely different from living in the water. On land, you need lungs, instead of gills and you also need an efficient temperature regulating system. Land organisms need strong bones and muscles to support their weight also.

I don't believe all of these changes could have occured by chance.

On land, you need lungs, instead of gills

Dolphins live in the water and breathe air.

Yes there are animals which have the ability to go between water and land.

But there is no proof or even evidence to suggest that random mutations could cause an animal to develop a thermoregulatory system, a weight bearing skeletal system, kidneys etc.

We see evolution in action all the time, fruit flies being the most studied due to their short cycle.

Fruit flies would be the ideal animal for the study of evolution.

Scientists have been breeding these fruit flies for decades and inducing mutations by exposing them to heat, radiation, chemicals and so on.

They have never observed a useful mutation in any of these fruit flies.

The only decent example I could find was of fruit flies being more likely to reproduce due to having a certain gene.

But this is not evidence of a useful mutation. It is the equivalent of taking the fact that black women are more likely to have twins/triplet and saying 'that's a mutation'!

They have never observed a useful mutation in any of these fruit flies.

fruit flies being more likely to reproduce due to having a certain gene.

More successful reproduction is basically the definition of "evolutionary success."

Just like with transitional species, you simply define away any inconvenient examples.

My point is that no new organ, enzyme, or even protein was produced.

There is a difference between an organism evolving new biological mechanism, and simply killing organisms that aren't able to survive in a certain environment.

I'll use the first example on the list.Sahelanthropus That fossil has a brain capacity of 300cm3 that is a chimpanzee.

You were stating there are no transitional fossils. Well, there are as you have seen and since humans evolved from apes then it would make sense that an early hominid would have a similar brain volume to an ape. You probably haven't even read the first line of the Wikipedia entry that dates origin of the Sahelantropus to "very close to the time of the chimpanzee–human divergence."

All mutations in humans are harmful. It results in conditions like Down Syndrome, albinism or cancer.

Wrong again, please read the article linked in my previous reply or provide sources to your claims.

Living on land is completely different from living in the water. On land, you need lungs, instead of gills and you also need an efficient temperature regulating system. Land organisms need strong bones and muscles to support their weight also.

Have you heard of Lungfish? Please read this article: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_09

I don't believe all of these changes could have occured by chance.

Evolution does not occur by chance. Maybe try reading something about how it works; Wikipedia is a good start.

All the arguments you've made sound like they came straight from creationists like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. The difference between science and religious beliefs is that science first looks at the data and draws conclusions later, religion looks at the conclusions and then tries to make the data fit.

Water to land evolution is impossible. Fish die when brought out of water

The Mudskipper wants you to know you're talking rubbish.

I don't know man. Mud has water in it. I'm not fully convinced yet. Technicalities and all that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953PkxFNiko

No transitional species have been found

That is only because of how you define "transitional." What do you think a Neanderthal is?

Neandethals are a human race, they are not a transitional species. In fact the skull of Neanderthals is larger than that of humans today.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

Neanderthals were simply more robust versions of ourselves, but they weren't primitive.

Homo neanderthalensis, having separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago ...

You are simply defining "transitionals" away.

By transitional I mean half human half ape, neanderthals are just an extinct race of modern humans.

When we find a transitional fossil, you just define it as "not transitional." What do you think the playpus is? Marsupials? Birds, ffs?

Proteins cannot form by chance. According to the laws of probability, the chances of a 500 sequence protein with the correct amino acids of the right optical isomer with the right peptide bonds, being formed by chance, is practically ZERO.

Credible citation?

Say you have 500 amino acids in a protein.

Each amino acids in the sequence can be selected from a total of 20 known amino acids which are capbale of forming proteins.

The chance of the first amino acids being correct is 1/20.

The chance of both the first and the second being correct is (1/20)²

The chance of all 500 being correct is (1/20)^500. This is not quite zero, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

That's not quite a credible citation.

You're going to be told these are bad points. They're really not. Maybe overstated slightly. The wording could be tweaked. But you are pointing at real problems, genuine puzzles. I've studied Darwinian theory extensively and appreciate its explanatory and predictive power, but unlike a lot of people who devote a lot of time and effort to it, I gladly acknowledge that it's got some gaps in it, and there are questions it doesn't even address. If I say this, I get downvotes from both the Darwinians and the creationists. XD

Anyway, have an upvote.

I'm sorry but evolution triggers me.

Evolution needs needs genetics.

If we start talking about genetics,then the flaws of the genetics of the non-whites becomes an elephant in the room. All of that triggers me to the point that I want to take a cat o 9 tails & flog myself while I chant "I'm not a racist."!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ec8lcLn_jo

All humans are all the same!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

Humans don't have genetic behavior!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

Dog breeds have genetic behavior!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

It's a social construct,not genetic behavior that drives Arabs into a frenzy to rape little girls the moment they show some form of skin, as if they're sharks who sense blood in the water.

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

IQ is not relevant any more,yet it is when my child has an higher IQ than Einstein!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

Koko the Gorilla has an higher IQ than the average sub Saharan African,therefor IQ is irrelevant!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

White southerners have a low IQ!!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

All races are the same but Asians are the smartest people in the world!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

All races are the same but Blacks are the best runners in the world!!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

We need to spend billions of dollars to save endangered species such as the Panda,the Elephant,and the Rhino. Yet it's alright for whites to become a minority because they're not a species but a race!!!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

Race does not exist but it's a social construct!!!!!!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

We must abolish the white race!!!

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

wack I'M NOT A RACIST wack

"Liberal creationists" like to make fun of religious creationists, but they all deny that evolution had any effect from the neck up.

You're such a wacker

This is complete bullshit. Not because it's morally repugnant, but because you mobilize the language of human population genetics without understanding or caring about that field in the slightest. If you ever did formally study it, if you grasped even its most basic principles and findings, these opinions of yours would immediately strike you as fundamentally absurd. I mean right on the face of the matter.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you've done coursework in human population genetics, or hell, any population genetics. Off the top of your head, name, oh, let's say three of your favorite theorists in that field, or even in evolutionary theory in general. I'm betting you don't have three favorite theorists in that field, and the reason is that you don't actually give a fuck about that field. You just misuse its terms in service to your pet theory, which is, yes, racist. I mean textbook racism. And strictly not supportable by science.

But hey, I could be wrong. So tell me.

Or if you don't give a flying fuck what science says, and you're going to keep believing what you believe, no matter how many current papers and books are cited to the contrary, then that's fair. I can respect that. Just say so. It's the pretense to scientific currency that's galling.

In case anyone is wondering why it's extremely hard to find any working research scientists in human population genetics who are also white nationalists, or black supremacists, or any kind of racist like that, then wonder no longer. There isn't any elephant in that room. The science simply negates any such concept of race.

There is an elephant in the room.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/10/18/dna-discoverer-blacks-less-intelligent-than-whites.html

For Asian Americans, a changing landscape on college admissions

In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.

Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.

Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.

“Let's talk about Asians,” she says.

Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html#page=1

http://imgur.com/a/4E3Pu

Thank you for being nicer than me in your response. :-)

I am too personally harsh in my responses a lot of times. It's not constructive. I apologize for that part.

On to matters of substance. I'm aware of old Watson! It's kind of hard not to be. He himself is kind of an elephant in the room.

I agree completely with Professor Steven Rose, who is also quoted in your Fox News article:

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University in Britain, was quick to dismiss Watson's comments.

"This is Watson at his most scandalous, " Rose told the Times of London. "If he knew the literature in the subject, he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

There's a reason we can say things like that with such confidence. It has to do with the actual characteristics of the entities under discussion: IQ tests, heritable/biological determinants of intelligence vs. environmental/developmental/cultural influences, the actual genetic characteristics of these different populations, and the operational definition of the term "race" itself (hint: as used here, it is a popular or folk concept that cannot be operationally defined in biological terms-- i.e., it is not a biological concept at all).

In terms of every one of these areas, these statements about genetics and race are strictly incoherent. They are not scientific propositions at all. It's not that they're "not right." From a scientific standpoint, they're not even wrong. Anyone who studies psychometrics (like IQ tests) or human development or human population genetics understands these things immediately.

In addition, Watson does avoid a crucial error that I think is very common among people who believe that race stuff: he knows that aggregate statistics are not deterministic at the individual level. That's extremely important.

Anyway, on to the next part, and now I see what your complaint is. I will agree with you here. The situation you're describing is just absolutely fucked, no doubt about it. I'm a lefty who is left of Liberal, but I generally sympathize with liberal causes, and I do think that ethnic minorities (in the sociological sense of the term) have historically got the shit end of the stick in American society. So you'd probably expect me to yell at you for rejecting this Affirmative Action crap, or at least "yes-but" it to death. Like "yes it's unfair BUT..." I know we do that.

So lemme quit that right now. No buts, it's just unfair. A travesty and a mockery. I oppose it. If that's your elephant in the room, then I see it too.

If I'm against race-based discrimination, how can I fail to oppose this garbage?

I think affirmative action programs are an unfortunate result of thinking that race is an objective biological reality that determines anything. It not only fails to make amends for institutional racism. It is institutional racism. You cannot build policies that make sense on a foundation of false beliefs. Instead, you get crap like what you're describing here.

I see another thing that may bother you. I think you call it white genocide. I don't know if I'd put it that way, but I do see this trendy backlash against white people and European culture that is every bit as evil as any other kind of racism. I thought diversity meant we celebrate all cultures and all peoples. This is just shifting hatred around. So now it's cool to bust on white males of European descent just because of who they are? It's appalling, and I've seen it. It's real.

After I sent you my nastygram up there, I was driving around, and I thought, I wish I'd said that if you're proud of European traditions and culture, and you don't want it negated and denigrated and erased just because of the bad parts, or because it's now the fashionable thing to hate, then I say more power to you. You don't even have to justify that scientifically, with any statistics. You're proud to be of European descent. I wonder if that's ok to say in public these days? Anyway, thumbs up from me.

Thanks for a chance to see it your way.

That's still a characteristic that the universe selects for its existence.

Yeah.. that's what I said. We have nothing to do with their evolutionary state, therefore citing our use of them in labs is irrelevant.

This conversation is evolution occurring.

No... I don't think so. That just sounds like a cringe worthy cliché

Good for you - If I think you're a cunt, I'll tell you.

I'm not sure how you think your definition of posturing is any different to mine, the fact of the matter is that you were wrong in your original statement and haven't handled being told so well.

If you take criticism or debate as people shitting on your opinion and asserting superiority, you really have a lot of growing up to do. It's not personal, I just disagree with you.

We see evolution in action all the time, fruit flies being the most studied due to their short cycle.

My point is that no new organ, enzyme, or even protein was produced.

There is a difference between an organism evolving new biological mechanism, and simply killing organisms that aren't able to survive in a certain environment.

So creatures have never changed in history? Every creature we currently see has always existed exactly like we see it today?

Fair hair helps absorb more vitamin D in less sunny areas such as Europe.