Fastest evolution of any animal

[McQ]

Good one for some fundies to read, as so many hve yet to grasp the difference between molecular evolution and changes in morphology.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0803 ... atara.html

[tacoma_kyle]

It doesnt really explain a whole lot, but pretty sweet.

FUnny comment debate as well.

[SteveS]

Sweet article, McQ.  As a pure aside, that lizards looks really cool to me!

This topic reminds me - I saw a show were researches were able to determine that even very minute changes in genealogy could result in relatively large changes in morphology --- in some cases morphology appears to just be a subtle balancing act between commonly existing genes (why chickens grow feathers instead of scales, for instance --- subtle difference, big visible effect).

For what its worth, I think that molecular evidence is some of the very strongest evidence that corroborates the theory of evolution.

Note to theists and others who do not believe evolution: its more than just dinosaur bones people!

[McQ]

Sweet article, McQ.  

Note to theists and others who do not believe evolution: its more than just dinosaur bones people!

I like that last line, Steve. A great reminder quote to throw at creationists.

And that lizard does look very cool!

[SteveS]

Honestly, McQ, I don't have a strong biochemical education, so when the Witnesses came knocking on my door with books arguing against evolution, I did take a hard look at it.  How many assumptions were being made, were the conclusions valid, etc. etc.

The genetic and molecular evidence is astoundingly strong.  Consider just this one section of Dr. Theobald's excellent essay over at talk origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

I don't just like this part --- I find it moving.  This is a very very strong argument.  Each step contains predictions and falsifications.  The part about cytochrome c, for example, is just plain astonishing.  And how about tracking the expected levels of neutral mutations between humans and chimps?  If this theory is wrong, then why does it work so bloody well?  The only answer that seems to make sense is that the theory is right.  Its not an assumption --- it is demonstrable.  Painstakingly so.  And in great detail!

Really accepting this information changes the way a person views the entire world.  When the cicadas overran my yard this past spring, I couldn't help but hold one and be astonished that somewhere, in the distant past, me and that bug both shared a father (or mother), even if not in the sexual-reproductive sense.

What could be more thrilling and interesting and engaging then that?