Check out the BrainFood podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-brainfood-show/id1350586459?mt=2
(Or search your favorite podcast app for “BrainFood”)
→Subscribe for new videos every day! https://www.youtube.com/user/toptenznet?sub_confirmation=1
Find more lists at: http://www.toptenz.net
Entertaining and educational top 10 lists from TopTenzNet!
Subscribe to our Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TopTenz/
Business inquiries to [email protected]
Other TopTenz Videos:
Top 10 Shocking Medical Stories
Top 10 Strangest Mental Disorders
Text version: http://www.toptenz.net/10-ways-living-creatures-have-evolved-in-modern-times.php
10. Weeds Change
9. Differently-colored Owls
8. Tuskless Elephants
7. New York’s Bedbugs are Tough SOBs
6. Predators and Superpredators
5. ‘Plenty’ of Smaller Fish in the Sea
4. Moscow’s Strays
3. Religion vs. Evolution
2. For When the Family Moves In
1. Plastic-eating Bacteria
As a creationist, none of these are remotely surprising. Creationists don't say that species are frozen in time. Rather, we say that there is a lot of adaptive flexibility within an animal kind, but no transition from one kind to another. In other words, different sizes, fur coats, reproductive habits, etc., are to be expected, but they will never change a dog into a cat.
The microbes that eat the plastic that's amazing and it's great I know we probably won't see any significant advancement in that particular research area in my lifetime but gosh I hope that they really put everything they have into that because plastic is destroying our planet and if they are going to be future generations of us they're going to need some place to live.
EloquentTroll - I think the scare there is if they ‘get out’ of those areas. With everything to do with electronics having major plastic components......
It would force companies to actually come up with something stronger and resistant to bacteria.
There are no examples of increased morphological complexity.
Many celled eucaryotes have a minimum of four cell types.
Man has lots more.
Obviously, there can be no such thing as a celltype "gradually" diverging from another one. Either the changing cell type is still same as unchanging one, or it isn't.
Considering the number of animals and plants under human observation not even a failed tentative of new cell type observed ....?
The evidence for how evolution has changed in modern times would be more appealing if there were observations that could be seen from a macro scale rather than a micro scale. The host does point out that it does take a lot of time to see how things change from a macro scale but I don’t think he’s providing anything too impressive if he’s only talking about evolution on a micro scale.
To give an example of micro evolution, let’s look at it from a human perspective. Micro evolution would look be someone who does physical labor and as a result becomes bigger and stronger because of it. Where a human who doesn’t do physical labor lack the muscle and size to complete such tasks.
Macro evolution, on the contrary, would be a human growing wings to fly or gills to swim. At the end of the day that is the question at hand, did a plant turn into a fish, did a fish turn into a land animal? These videos do show how organism change, but not how they’d eventually turn into new species.
Sure a plant can become hardier, a fish can become smaller, and a bacteria can become more resistant but I’m more interested in an example of a plant becoming a fish, a fish becoming a mammal, and a bacteria becoming a plant. Show evidence of that and I will be impressed.
The one about the anoles is really cool, because I live in central Florida, and have had this exact conversation at least half a dozen times just in the last few years. Also, I don’t know when exactly they came to the area, curly-tail lizards were brought in at some point, they eat the anoles, both green and brown, so they’re not only coming to visit and overstaying their welcome, but they’re eating our residents!
Please stop using Lemarkian logic. Evolution is random. It does not respond to environmental pressure. Mutations which have a survival advantage survive and may become dominant. Most of your examples are natural(or unnatural)selection by existing variants.
I thought "evolution" described what the "tree of life" represents, one species branching out into another. What is being described here stretches the term evolution to include the phenomenon where one species changes over time to better live in its environment. The animal does not turn into a different species. I just don't see this as evolution, only in the broadest, most imprecise application. Semantics...
Sorry folks, but evolution is a fact, your feelings towards it will never change that fact.
Get an education and learn about how evolution works, then you will understand why it is extremely unlikely that your average youtuber will be able to poke any hole into the theory of evolution.
The one that I have personally witnessed is birds regularly using public transport instead of flying id est pigeons and seagulls on the London tube who seem to know which stations they want to use and birds using ferries to get to their favourite fishing area
Who told the "daisy like" plants that its lighter seed were not propagating? Perhaps they read the French paper in some cast off scientific journals and changed to favor the heavier seed. Creationist probably will now try to cancel the plants subscription to all scientific publications.
It's kind of scary listening to him talking about scientists messing with bacteria when antibiotics are becoming less effective. Sound like a recipe for problems down the line. It was sad having to look at the dead elephant about to be eaten.
Getting older (in one generation) is 'change over time' but is not evolution. Species changing to adapt to environmental changes or selection (over multiple generations) is adaptation but is called evolution. Just calling adaptation (which no one disagrees with!) "evolution" does not prove evolution in the many contexts it is used.
'All ravens are black, therefore everything non-black is not a raven' The issue is not science/religion but how certain people/mindsets can accept related but irrelevant evidence as absolute proof of an idealism.
Evolution seems to have a very quantum like trait to it. maybe that's the wrong word. But it seems that somehow life knew to shrink the fish and mature earlier because of our standards. This shouldn't have happened at all.
This is just junk science, the scientific version of fake news. There is no evolution in any of these examples. This is just the common variation found in genetics. Example: A dachshund is not the evolution of the wolf. It is a wolf with a huge number of genetic defects. If placed in the wild, without human caretakers, its survival would plummet. Just like making various dog breeds is not evolution but, instead, breeding only dogs with a specific set of harmful, but survivable mutations. Evolution involves the creation of brand new genes. All these examples are simply cases where the amount of proteins made from a gene is increased or decreased.
10. Weeds change - Not evolution. This is no different than how we modify dogs to create different breeds. They are still dogs. If you take the city ones and plant them in the country, they will reverse the change. In both the city and country varieties, the exact same genes are present. It is just a matter of how much of each gene is expressed. No evolution in this example.
9. Owls - Same as #10. If you transfer a bunch of brown owls to a mostly snowy land area, they will revert to grey. The same chromosomes are present in both colors. No evolution in this example.
8. Tuskless elephants - Tuskless is a genetic defect as one of the genes needed to make tusks has mutated. This is like blacks which have sickle cells which allow them to survive better where mosquitoes are. Blacks are not evolving ahead of the rest of the population and neither are elephants. No evolution in this example.
7. Bedbugs - No evolution in this example.
6. Mountain Lions - This one is just silly. No evolution in this example.
5. Little fish - Same as #10. No evolution in this example.
4. Moscow dogs - Dogs are domesticated and smart. No evolution in this example.
3. Fish in a cave - Same as #10.
2. Lizards - Same as #10. No evolution in this example.
1. Plastic eating bacteria - This is a funny one. When a rare bacteria becomes more prevalent because its food source becomes more plentiful, this is not evolution. This is like saying half the people in a town became fat because half the contestants at the pie eating contest at the state fair were fat. No evolution in this example.
"Evolution" simply means change, and any rational person knows animals change over time. But... The elephant is still an elephant, the bedbug is still a bedbug, and you're still making false equivocations if you think these prove Darwin's theory of a common ancestor of all creatures.
This blokes head evolved into a baboon's butt. Wow what a load of poo evolutionist are getting stupider each dayyj. Get a new theory dont be a brain dead meerkat or teachers pet and believe something so retardedly unprovable just because the government thinks it's right.
Terncote problem with that is there are zero examples of separated groups in a species becoming so genetically distinct they can't reproduce that has been observed in nature or reproduced.
Another problem with that theory is the lack of "missing links" between species or widely diverse variations of believed linked species.
The common rebuttal is that these evolutions take hundreds of thousands or millions of years so are not observable given humanity's short stint of scientific observation compared to the current common belief of the Earth's billions year old existence (which also oddly enough still can't be definitively proven exactly) so there naturally wouldn't be any notable changes.
A rebuttal to that is the fact there are species being discovered that were once thought extinct hundreds of millions of years ago being found alive today.
If evolution were real explaining those or physical developments so exact that would make vestigial appendages growing from nothing that weren't immediately useful to an organism while it were adapting for x number of generations makes things like tails, squirting (water or venom), or specialized organs little more than massive drawbacks during their development with zero gain.
Unless there were some way of knowing potential usefulness of an adaptation in a constantly evolving ecosystem promoting the development of these adaptations there would be zero logical explanation as to why they would be genetically viable without an outside or future perspective, and you'd be hard-pressed to explain otherwise.
Mind you, I'm not anti-science nor close minded to accept new data as the fields continue to advance but I draw the line at accepting a continually unproven theory as fact. That's called blind faith, and if cults taught us anything it's how dangerous that is and how much damage it does to the scientific understanding of our universe.
Species arise when separated populations of ONE species become so genetically distinct (from genetic drift) that they can no longer produce viable offspring.
New species are NEVER made by cross breeding different species. That is impossible.
Simon, in the first thirty seconds you use the term *_THEORY_* of evolution, and then went on to treat it as a "fact" by giving us many examples of *_ADAPTATION_* , not evolution. The plant did not become a cow. The owl did not become a newt. The bug did not become a fish. The mountain lion did not become an ostrich, and so on and so on. This is the very premise of evolution: That a certain species turns into a completely different species, and nothing you've shown in this video indicates evolution of any kind. Only adaptation, which happens quickly and often.
While this is a great video that shows off some great adaptations, it is grossly mislabeled and misleading.
10 examples of adaptation within species, never have there been an example of a species developing into a clearly distinct species. Dogs "Evilution" has been pushed for thousands of years yet we still only have extremely different looking dogs, many experiments have been done on fruit flies, they live short live and reproduce quickly, translate their live as human and it would equal millions of years of human evolution. Yet all we yet are some freeky looking fruit flies. Even mainstream science is admitting that evolution beyond adaptation within the species is a failed idea, with no backing by true science. Its a product of the atheist religion only.
Evolution and by its enfluance science doesn't use the word "species" scientificly, its all on a whim it would seem. Why is a wolf and domestic dog a different species, or a grizzly bear and a polar bear? A polar bear is a grizzly that has adapted to live in colder climates, so its a different species? A European human is an African human that has has adapted to colder climates but we are the same species ? What is "evolution" when I hear it I think of the idea that once single celled life formed adapted over millions of years I to all life on earth. At the very least evolution is seen as a progression to a higher form. But actually study will show that's not the case. Perhaps you enjoyed a glass of milk today, but your ancestors would not have been able to, Becouse a part of their DNA told them to stop using the extra resources to digest lactose once they were old enough to not need their mothers milk, then someone was born with a mutation or a flaw that failed to stop that. But you don't poses a new trick, or new genetic information, only a differant way of using the genetic information that was already there. Inside a grizzly bear is the potential to adapt to a pollar bear when needed. But probably the reverse isn't so. Sometimes adaptation is caused by using genes in different ways, sometimes its cause by damage that happens to be binificial. But never, never, never has their been an example of entirely new DNA information or new genes. The closest we come is called downs syndrome , and while those are some special and sweet people , they are not the next step in evolution .
This whole video can be disproven with mice. With breeding mice of the same color, once in a while you get a different color mouse. Then you breed those different colored mice with each other and they produce the same color. Mankind have been breeding lots of different animal species to get desired traits to be the norm. This video didn't show evolution. It showed adoptions. All the species didn't magically change into something different, which would be evolution! We didn't see one example of a cat turning into a dog. Or a fish turning into a bird! We have not found one intermediate specimens in the fossil record! They evolutionists are always looking for the "missing link". When there should be millions of links in the fossil record! There is also a species block that makes it impossible for one specie to mate with another. We can take a horse and mate it with a donkey, to get a mule. However all mules are sterile why? We also can't mate two totally different species like a horse and a cow! Or a bird with a fish. This video is for people without cognitive reasonings. 👊😈👎
Weed; we also develop different dog breeds by breeding for desired traits but no one argues that that is evolution. Owls; sames arguement. Evolution implies genetic changes, this is a population inversion. Elephants; once again no new genetic information is being added. Bedbugs; these mutations actually resulted in a loss of genetic material. That is not evolution that is de-evolution. Bacteria; same scenario. In fact not once has such a natural mutation ever added new genetic material to an organism. Not once. Puma; you admit that you don't know but you do speculate quite a bit. Fish; nothing I haven't already addressed. Selective breeding is NOT evolution. Dogs; behaviors can be learned. Evolution is a change of genetics not behavior. Genetically these are still just dogs. Mollys; once again, mutation that result in a loss of genetic material are not evolutionary. Anole; see above facts. Evolution still not shown. Plastic eaters; discoving new species happens all the time. Proves nothing. Scientist probably with create a new plastic eating bacteria because humans are stupid that way. Likely wouldn't take long before they spread and start eating things we don't want them munching.
No. Evolution as opposed to de-evolution implies the addition of new genetic materiel such new proteins, new RNA sequences, etc. That is why the simplistic drawings showing the progression of apes becoming man. Simpler life forms becoming more complex lifeforms. What you need to focus on, focus on & do not forget is that evolution is a microscopic event. Either the genetic code is becoming more complex [evolution] or less [de-evolution]. Even after the great mass extinctions the species that rebuilt were always more advanced. From fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to saurians the on to birds & mammals but alway more not less. What you are talking about is survival of the fittest which while usually equated with evolution is not always synonymous with it.
The Theory of Evolution gives credence to racism. If you believe in evolution you have to come to the same conclusion Charles Darwin did in his book. And that is if there's a human race out there more evolved than all others and this proves racism is a scientific necessity for the human species. I find it funny how everyone who believes in evolution turns away from this logical fact.
Religious people don’t question adaptation or feature changes over time. The problem comes when evolution teaches a change in kind such as a whale to a horse. None of these examples show evolution as it’s taught in schools. Darwin saw finches with different beaks ... ok but when does the finch give birth to a mouse?
Nobody argues with natural selection, which is what these examples showed. The most exciting part of the theory of evolution is about one species reproducing until its descendants are a completely different species. I was hoping to see an example of that here, but unfortunately no cigar. All the owls, lizards, bacteria etc in this video were still just owls, lizards and bacteria at the end of the observed process.
Brokerage fee amount by transaction value 1.
Trade online and settle your trade to a CDIA or CommSec Margin Loan 2.
Trade online and settle into a bank account of your choice.
Share Trades over the Phone 3.
CommSec Share Packs online 4.
CommSec Share Packs over the phone 4.
Trades requiring settlement through a third party 6.
1 For GST rounding reasons, the final brokerage fee may vary from the stated or expected brokerage fee by a couple of cents.
4 Normal brokerage will apply when a stock acquired through CommSec Share Packs is subsequently sold.
5 Amount per share will be noted as brokerage on each confirmation issued. There will be no substitution should a stock have a trading halt placed on it.
6 Includes third party Margin Lending, and where the Commonwealth Bank exercises its rights under the loan Terms and Conditions.
Other fees may apply. Please see the CommSec Financial Services Guide.
Open a CommSec Share Trading Account.
Buy and sell shares using a CommSec Share Trading Account with our cash account - with it you can seamlessly settle trades, transact and earn interest.
Buy and sell shares using a CommSec Share Trading Account with your existing bank account.
Frequently asked questions.
Shares held with another broker.
For the transfer to be successful the name and address registered on your issuer holdings must match your CommSec account.
Your request will be completed within 72 hours.
Shares held with the share registry To transfer shares held with the share registry into your CommSec Trading Account you need to complete an Issuer Sponsored Holdings to CHESS Sponsorship Transfer Form.
Your request will be completed within approximately 48 to 72 hours of receipt.
When you have bought and sold shares on the same day and the next trading day, your payment may be partially or wholly offset. For more information refer to the New Client Guide.