http://news.yahoo.com/world-first-hybrid-shark-found-off-australia-070347608.html This is providing an excellent example of animals adapting due to environmental changes that will result in a change in the species. It is natural selection at work and explains a lot about why sharks have been able to survive for roughly 420 million years while the planet has gone through major ecological changes. They survive because they adapt. This also blows the "creationists" and "intelligent design" arguments that science has never witnessed evolution as it is certainly taking place today. Scientists have often cited the evolution of microbes but now we have a large animal that is also reflecting the evolutionary process of natural selection. The broader range of ocean temperatures that these sharks can survive in will provide them a natural survival advantage as the ocean temperatures change.
This is an example of cross population. To say you have found evidence of evolution you would need (for example) a shark that could live out of water for a while.
It is changing the conditions under which the shark can live and survive which could be equated to a shark being able to live out of water. Without this adaptation which allows these hybrid sharks to live in both colder and warmer water, neither of which the original species can do, we would likely see one of the two species dying out over time due to climate changes. If the climate changes go from one extreme to another (i.e. cold to hot and then back to cold) then both parent species will eventually die out leaving only this hybrid species in the future. That is evolution of a species where natural selection will eventually determine the eventual species that will survive and it will not be either of the predecessor species.
There actually isn't a scientific term "cross population" as it refers to hybrid species which are a combination of two different species. One would really need to understand "phylogenetics" and "taxa" to understand how cross species breeding results in an evolutionary change. Of course never expect a "creationist" or "intelligent design" advocates to understand either as these beliefs are not based upon science or even an attempt to understand science.
I don't see how they could miss that....cross species breeding, and the subsequent survival of resulting species best suited to the prevailing environment is a basic observable fact.
Evolution is not a theory, its a readilly observable fact. Natural Selection is the theory offered to explain evolution.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is nothing more than simple crossbreeding. The same kind man has been domestically guiding for years with animals like the zonkey, the beefalo, and the liger. The only difference here is that it is occurring in nature rather than in capitivity. Also worth noting is that the act of mating itself, while driven by instinct, was an act committed by two intelligent creatures. It was not two trees mating. It was two sharks. So any potential new traits appearing in this new hybrid offspring did not arise on their own through independent genetic mutation in response to the environment. They are still the result of intelligent action. In a sense, you are now unwittingly making a case for intelligent environmental adaptation. In order to defend this as an example of evolution, you must discard the evolutionary belief in random mutation. Because this incident was the direct result of intelligently guided action from the animals, themselves. There was nothing at all random about it. You speak with a lot of arrogance and condescension for someone who is so sure that he is right.
Huh? All evolution occurs because organisms reproduce, otherwise It couldn't happen. What does "intelligent environmental adaption" (I'm not quite sure what that means) have to do with whether evolution is true or not?
It's not his fault that creationism and ID are so foundationless that those who subscribe to it have an inferiority complex.
Scientists disagree with the initial posters claim. THEY say......Global Warming. http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/03/...its-the-result-of-wait-for-it-global-warming/
which scientist disagrees with the OP? Once upon a time, whites with silver helmit walked on north america and were a 'new man'. If they procreated with them, guess what? How about blacks enabling whites to have sickle cell, A bread white family can have a chance with the evolutionary blood type that is immune to malaria, simply by breeding whites with their evolved gene pool. how about to Doma Tribe? That's an evolution and assist with foot gathering (within their environment). not much about debating 'evolution'. heck, you can give a child crayons and watch an evolution in action. What is causing it, that's where the debate should be. iee..... what are the molecular mechanisms?
No. That's wrong. That the same as the arguments that you need a cat to give birth to a dog. Evolution is genetic change.
I don't think so. Otherwise, Mr. Darwin would have never noticed it. He said it showed up in adaptations which in my opinion is evolution in only the broadest most general sense of the word. Actually, now that i think about that it is the most fantastical theory except for the WTC attack of 2001.
Excuse me but where is there any evidence of a supernatural being somehow manipulating the genetic traits of these sharks? Intelligent design dictates that a supernatural entity intervenes in the evolution of the species but no evidence has been presented that any supernatural entity exists or that there was any supernatural interventionism related to this evolution in sharks. This is a natural occurance which is now documented where a new species has recently been created based upon natural selection due to environmental changes. That provides emperical evidence for the theory of "natural selection" as initially proposed by Darwin. We're seeing it in action with advanced animals and that is undeniable.
Sorry, but evolution is defined as the change in the genetic information of a gene pool over time. Your, "I don't think so," is nothing but a statement of ignorance of this fact.
From the actual link: There is no disagreement whatsoever. Evolution is often assumed to be caused by changes in the environment so that new species will survive as older species die out due to those changes. In case it's misunderstood global warming is an environmental change.
That is a bad misconception of how evolution works. Richard Dawkins and many other scientists have to keep explaining that gene variation have different degrees of randomness, but natural selection is NOT random. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32 Variation IS occurring with these shark populations, it just so happens that natural selection is giving an advantage to the hybrid shark. Not all offspring inherit equal amounts from their parents. If that was the case we'd all look alike. And we wouldn't want that.
This is a false dichotomy that demostrates a lack of knowledge related to the theory of Natural Selection. By analogy it would be like saying that if I drive to work that I can't walk to work or take a bus. In each case I can still get to work. I would suggest a reading of the following: http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-natural-selection-faq.htm
Which is, of course, why we have a fossil record comprised of tens of millions of specimens and DNA evidence that firmly establishes evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth.
