[Tyson]

These types of discussions always remind me of this quote:

"Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit:

The act of blanking out, the willfull suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think--not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance but the refusal to know. "

[Tyson]

Sometimes the enormity of people's ability for self deception and ignoring of facts just staggers me.  The very fact that people can even question if evolution occurs or not is one of those things.  It's like people questioning the existence of gravity, or the existence of China.

To draw some more parallels between China and evolution. . . Lets say that someone actually does not believe that China exists, that there is a great conspiracy among the mainstream culture to convince the world that this place called China really does exist.

Why would anyone try to perpetrate this type of fraud, and on a global scale at that?  Well, they have an "agenda".

So, what could be done to convince this non-China believer that there really was a place called China?

Well, we could point it out on all the maps and globes there is this big country called China.

No good, maps can be faked and doctored.

Hmm, well, we could show him some chinese people.

No good, they could have simply had surgery to make them look like that.

Hmm, well, we could take him to China and let him see for himself.

No good, since there is no "evidence" that he actually is in China, and no evidence that these are not just a bunch of surgically altered people created in an attempt to perpetrate the "China fraud".

Well, really, what COULD be said or shown to convince them?  The answer is:

Nothing.  They won't believe you no matter what you say or what evidence you present.

That is exactly parallel to evolution.  The evidence is so strong, so compelling, and so overwhelmingly, that those that don't accept it simply cannot be convinced by anything, ever.  

I "know" this, yet I continue to engage in dialog on this subject, I'm still not sure why.  Maybe I just can't "really" accept that people can be so completely irrational.  But there it is, everytime.

[Aether Audio]

OK Folks,

I've been standing by the sidelines merely observing and so far, everyone has been fairly gracious.  I think we're starting to cross the line (i.e. - MY line) though.  Debating beliefs and philosophies, etc. is great but we all need to refrain from using labels like "morons," "idiots," etc.  I take personal offense at such derogatory remarks.

I believe in God AND creation and I'm no idiot!  I may even be a little more intellectually gifted than some of you.  That and  $.50 may get me a cup of coffee - but you get my point.

For all you anti-God/anti-creation believers, I've got some postings coming up that will maybe give you reason to stop and THINK!  I'll give you a hint: If you think science is YOUR ally that backs up your postion, be prepared for betrayal.  

No.. science cannot "prove" the existance of God directly.  What it is proving is that the continuum of reality is based on properties that, by their very nature, will NEVER disprove the existance of God.  In fact, the concepts espoused by religion (spiritual realm/alternate dimensions, etc) are directly in line with our most recent understanding and theories concerning physical reality.  If nothing else, science is PROVING that the conditions required for the existance of God/gods (i.e., the metaphysical) appear to be the only recourse it has for explaining observable phenomena at its most fundamental levels.  SO...stay tuned.

Do I expect to prove anything to anybody?  I'm no fool - I've raised three sons.  You can't prove water is wet to someone that has their mind made up.  My postings will be intended for those that have a glimmer of open mindedness left in their hearts (not brains).  The brain is just the channel we are forced to work through.

In the mean time - be nice... say what you will but exercise civility OR I'm libel to cast your opinions into the bottomless pit of binary zero's.  See... there is a god.

-Bob

[Rob Babcock]

One thing really bugs me about this argument:  so what if evolution isn't the truth?  Why would that automatically mean that Creationism is correct?  Even if you aren't convinced by the reams of evidence for Evolution/Punctuated Equalibriam, aren't there many other possible explanations for the universe that don't require divine creation?

.

The opposite is also truye. Just because creationism is deemd false, does not prove evolutionary theory

Hmmm...you don't need to try to create an argument where there isn't one, Eric.  I think you can easily infer that the reverse it true.  But it is rediculous to think that assaulting the Theory of Evolution in any way bolsters the Creation Theory.

As for calling the Saucer Nuts morons, perhaps Nathan's right and they're merely idiots.  But my point was the analogy- to attribute anything we can't easily explain to supernatural forces isn't particularly intelligent.  Nor very imaginative.

BTW:  Note that I don't lump religious people in with kooks.  I personally know lots of reasonable intelligent people that are religious.  Don't paint me with that brush- I respect your opinion even if you don't reciprocate that respect.

_______________________________________ ____________________

Bob, you've been very gracious to allow this thread in your forum, and it has proven to be one of the most active threads in this sites history.  I apologize if my comments have offended.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that Christians were morons, and that's definately not what I said.  Sorry for any confusion.

[nathanm]

For all you anti-God/anti-creation believers, I've got some postings coming up that will maybe give you reason to stop and THINK! I'll give you a hint: If you think science is YOUR ally that backs up your postion, be prepared for betrayal.

 We're the ones not thinking!?  Oh that's rich.  We are the ones who ate from the tree of knowledge, or did you forget that part?  Remember, knowledge is a sin, anything that dare challenges the wisdom of god is a terrible thing, right?  Science is not my 'ally' - I don't need allies because atheists don't have fanatical beliefs which they cling for dear life to and need to defend against other fanatics.  It's a very easy position to be in, to choose not to follow some supernatural being which cannot be proven or disproven.  We are not on anybody's team cause we're not even playing the silly game in the first place!

Debating beliefs and philosophies, etc. is great but we all need to refrain from using labels like "morons," "idiots," etc. I take personal offense at such derogatory remarks.

Nobody was using those words against anyone involved in the discussion.  Rob made a comment on UFOs and the pyramids and nobody here is talking about that.  Then I made a joke about it.  Case closed.  There has been no "name calling".  

You can't prove water is wet to someone that has their mind made up. My postings will be intended for those that have a glimmer of open mindedness left in their hearts (not brains). The brain is just the channel we are forced to work through.

There you have it folks, don't use your brains!  Great advice.  But let me get this straight...you want my HEART to be more open MINDED?  Shouldn't it be more open hearted?  And besides, if I open my heart all the blood will squirt out and I'll die...and...say, wait a just a minute...and be with Jesus!!!  YAY!   Oh, NOW I see what you're getting at!  I was confused for a sec there! *whew*  

This is all extremely comical - Christians telling atheists to be more open minded!  The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife!  Oh this is fun!

In the mean time - be nice... say what you will but exercise civility OR I'm libel to cast your opinions into the bottomless pit of binary zero's. See... there is a god.

Great!  That would be consistent with the Christian church and their love for supressing anything that runs counter to their dogmas.  It's too bad you can't burn someone at the stake over the internet, but hey maybe science will come up with a way to do that someday.

[Sa-dono]

OK Folks,

I've been standing by the sidelines merely observing and so far, everyone has been fairly gracious.  I think we're starting to cross the line (i.e. - MY line) though.  Debating beliefs and philosophies, etc. is great but we all need to refrain from using labels like "morons," "idiots," etc.  I take personal offense at such derogatory remarks.

So how do you feel about your religion that destines a whole group to eternity in hell? Do you take any offense to that?

Do I expect to prove anything to anybody? I'm no fool - I've raised three sons.

What if one (or more) of your sons was gay? Would you still be happy with your faith in God, knowing your offspring was fated to eternal damnation?

[Anton K.]

Well, maybe someone could explain why the further you go back in time, the simpler organisms get.  Only as you get closer and closer to the present do more complex life forms emerge.  

Oh, I can explain. Your textbooks are probably too old. Check this out:

A recent New Scientist article1 ponders a baffling enigma to evolutionists — ‘living fossils’. These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilised forms, believed to have lived ‘millions of years ago.’ Examples include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old2), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years).

This poses a conundrum for evolution: ‘Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?’ New Scientist quotes several evolutionists who say ‘chance’ and ‘luck’ are the answer. Unsatisfied with this, other evolutionists look for alternative explanations. They believe the cockroach (reputed to have survived for 250 million years) demonstrates that the key to success is to ‘be abundant and live everywhere’,1 i.e. to be an opportunistic generalist, not fussy about food and habitat. However, many ‘living fossils’ are in fact highly specialised, such as the coelacanth, superbly suited to living in deep-sea caves. New Scientist suggests that the coelacanth remains unchanged because its habitat has not changed. But this applies also to many other species, living and extinct.

Some evolutionists think the ‘evolutionary straitjacket’ of long generation times (e.g. at least 15 years for the tuatara) ‘slows evolution’ of living fossils, but this cannot apply to the rapidly reproducing (but unchanging) cockroaches and archebacteria (the latter multiplying in minutes, yet believed by evolutionists to have been on Earth for 3.5 billion years).

There are thousands of animals and plants alive today that are no different from the way they appear in the fossil record! Why haven't they evolved?

Struggling to make sense of it all, the article’s zoologist author says, ‘Some biologists marvel that there is any evolution at all, considering the possible pitfalls of change.’ She quotes a Yale palaeontologist as saying that ‘… organisms are so complex that it is very hard to change one aspect without wrecking everything else’.1

The New Scientist article leaves the conundrum unresolved: ‘All this leaves a rather complicated picture …. Be general, or specialised. Live fast, or slow. Keep it simple, or don’t. Be in the right place at the right time. If all else fails, try becoming a “superspecies”, blessed with a physiology that can withstand anything.’3

To Christians, however, there should be no mystery about these so-called ‘living fossils’. We have an eyewitness account (God’s Word) of how these creatures were created to be fruitful and multiply after their kind. So the fact that modern creatures have ‘stayed the same’ as their fossilised ancestors is no surprise at all.

Why, then, do evolutionists cling to their beloved old-age theories despite paradoxical inconsistencies and other glaring evidence to the contrary? As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4
References and notes

   1. Dicks, L., The creatures time forgot, New Scientist, 164(2209):36–39, 1999.
   2.They were once thought to have become extinct 70 million years ago.
   3.Note also that a theory which is compatible with such diametrically opposite states of affairs can make no predictions, and is immune to falsification. So it doesn’t fit the criterion evolutionists usually invoke when it suits them.
   4.Lewontin, R., ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31; see fuller quote.

[Anton K.]

Sometimes the enormity of people's ability for self deception and ignoring of facts just staggers me.  The very fact that people can even question if evolution occurs or not is one of those things.  It's like people questioning the existence of gravity, or the existence of China.

To draw some more parallels between China and evolution. . . Lets say that someone actually does not believe that China exists, that there is a great conspiracy among the mainstream culture to convince the world that this place  ...

Tyson, with all respect, but this China stuff is just BIG bla-bla-bla

[Anton K.]

t's one thing to challenge and debate evolutionary theories, it is quite another to suggest that they are flawed solely because there exists a divine creator responsible for creating it all in six days.

Just for the record, Hebrew word for day may mean any period of time, not necessarily literal day (24 h).
So I do agree earth is billions/millions years old.

And about evolutionary theories - in fact they are flawed any way you look at them!

P.S. I am I glad you liked "fossil record" stuff. I can also see you are starting using "IMHO" in your statements. Now we are getting somewhere!

[JohnR]

Hi Anton

I apologize if I missed something critical, but I'm confused as to what exactly your argument is. The quotes you have a couple of pages back appear to be arguing against what is apparently known as "gradualism." OK, but I thought (perhaps wrongly) that it was well established by now that evolution occurs in fits and starts, not in a gradual process as Darwin thought. But it's still evolution... isn't it?

In your recent post, you cite the examples of species that are still the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago. This proves... what? That scientific understanding is imperfect? Perhaps, but then again I didn't know that evolutionary theory said that organisms *have* to evolve. Also, what about all the species that are *not* the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago? Were they created later?

JohnR

[jkarhan1]

We literally have thousands of pieces of evidence of transitional figures.  First off, mutation is a form of transition.  That some people are now born without appendixes, and that that numbner is growing as a precentage is proof that species evolve.  That we don't have proof of transitions from one species to another is, in effect, its own proof because as soon as one thing becomes another it is in fact the other not the former.  Whoever said that evolution has to be gradual, no, it happens in fits and sta ...

hmmmmm.......
I chose this one because it was the best example of the ignorance that is trying to pass for science on this thread.  Sorry Tbadder1.  I am not saying your stupid.  Nor am I trying to attack you.  However there is a lot of posturing and conjecture flying about. If you are going to use the word evolution and imply science in the same sentence. Please define your terms. Explain what you mean by evolution.  Some definitions and intents of evolution have scientific agreement, researched, documented and proven.  Many of the intents of evolution have not.
Either you guys are brilliant scientist and you will correct/explain yourself and set me straight.  Or, I could be irrational and insane (my wife might vote for that one). Or there really is a lack of understanding of science and misinformed attempts to justify ones viewpoints. (quite possible).
AND that is where the problem lies!  
I only have a Bachelors of science. So I don’t know everything.
My area of focus (in part) in my profession is forensic DNA.
And I have been professionally trained to critically evaluate research.
I have only been tracking creation/evolution science for the past 4-5 years so I must admit my understanding could be a bit limited.  And I will also admit there is a lot to learn on both sides.
Someone put forth proving the existence of evolution was like proving the existence of china.  The problem is China has been measured, researched and all bodies of knowledge (and tests thereof) point towards the existence of China.  That is not true within the various disciplines of "evolution".
The problem I mentioned...attempts to justify ones viewpoints.  As we come see often bypasses solid scientific judgment. (And Ill say up front I am specifically talking bout' macro evolution.) While reading Tyson abundant cut and pasting it was easy to catch and find holes in the information and arguments.  I even agreed with the authors finding a flaw in (one of) a creationist (Behe) piece of "evidence".  I think it’s smart to limit critical evaluation of information you have actually read. Anyway.  Although I agree with the flaw. His argument was myopic.  Good point.  But, showed he (the evolutionist) didn’t have a deeper understanding of what he was talking about and why.(Tyson-Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:17 am :: section 4.2 ).  Those postings also reveal most of these scientists(both sides) trying to "prove" evolution.  Which is why scientific research starts with "theories".  (I am always willing to learn. So, Tyson. As time permits I will continue to explore the links you proved)
  Along those lines evolutionary scientist are sharp odds with each other.  And with the advent of DNA/genetic and bimolecular research. The bee hives of contention are once again stirred up.  And even more division and speculation is beginning to appear. Yes, most all agree with evolution.  But, there are some glaring holes and  they never seem to agree on the how’s, whys, where’s. The endpoints do not match up. Each scientist sees through his own viewpoint.  And the newest theories disprove the old at best.  And often go in a different direction.  IMHO They are all presenting best guesses based on their own viewpoints and specialties.  If it was such a fact and science had it all sorted out.  It would all agree.  Airtight and proven. All roads would point to one.  But sadly it doesn’t.
If you say I am a fool for believing in a divine creator.  Then I am a fool because I lack the proof.  And I would argue we are both fools. To write an argument that you have no body of knowledge about.  That you have not critically evaluated yourself.  Based on science that is at odds with itself.  That provides conjecture and at best theory for an explanation for the creation of life.  Whose specialties disprove the the latter with the latest and greatest new discoveries.  That is your choice.
I am seeking and I will keep reading But until major branches of science agree and can give me some conclusive endpoints for the creation of life.  There still is no China for me.

[nathanm]

Why, then, do evolutionists cling to their beloved old-age theories despite paradoxical inconsistencies and other glaring evidence to the contrary? As one leading evolutionist has said, they are committed to materialist explanations (i.e. excluding God) ‘… no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’4 References and notes

OR...

Why, then do creationists cling to their beloved even older-than-evolution-aged Bible verses despite paradoxical inconsistencies and other glaring evidence to the contrary?  As one leading creationist said, They are commited to Biblical explanation (i.e. God) no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying...for there must be a Divine Foot in the door.

Summary: sos yer mother!  (oops, American slang use - sorry Anton )

I thought this was all supposed to be about religion! Although it seems to have turned towards audiophiles cum armchair palentologists debating the inner conflicts of evolutionary theory!  I don't even see why there is any conflict between evolution and religion.  I don't see why they are at odds.  

If a person believes in Christianity and the Bible it is very easy for him to adapt the scripture to suit his present views on scientific matters.  But instead the religion enthusiasts seem to feel threatened that there's people out there researching things which might possibly undermine a few chapters in their holy writ.  Why?  Why do you even care?  Obviously God's word is all that matters, so what do you care if a bunch of scientists with their silly facts and research try to challenge it?  After all, they're just sinners who aren't going to Heaven anyway.  

Really, you should just leave them alone to enjoy their baseless scientific pursuits while they are alive on earth because soon enough they will be poked with pitchforks and gnashing their teeth.  It's too bad...if only they had dropped out of high school and joined the priesthood they might be saved.

[Eric]

Sometimes the enormity of people's ability for self deception and ignoring of facts just staggers me.  The very fact that people can even question if evolution occurs or not is one of those things.  It's like people questioning the existence of gravity, or the existence of China.

To draw some more parallels between China and evolution. . . Lets say that someone actually does not believe that China exists, that there is a great conspiracy among the mainstream culture to convince the world that this place  ...

Again, you are not presenting any facts. You are arguing by analogy which is intself logically fallacious. All analogies break down. Self deception is a trait all humans have.

Tyson, you say that evolution can be proved scientifically to be fact. Could you describe the scientific method for me and then show me how it can be used to prove evolution

[nathanm]

Could you describe the scientific method for me and then show me how it can be used to prove evolution

Will you do the same for the proving of God?

[Eric]

I never claimed that God could be proved scientifically. Tyson on the other hand has claimed that for evolution.

[Tyson]

Once again, I will say it for the cheap seats:

EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT, IT IS A THEORY.  IT WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING BUT A THEORY.

I get the feeling that the people here do not really understand the difference between a theory and a fact, and what their relationship is.

Eric, since you seem unwilling or unable to do it, I simply google'd "fossil record" and here are a couple of the links that came back:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/

This last link is especially interesting because it has a link that charts (in basic form) the level of complexity in organisms over time.

There are other links of course, many of them interesting and informative, but I still have this nagging feeling that you will discount anything I post and anything I link.

Here is a link to some poll results showing the vast disparity between the general public's view of evolution (split almost in half between creationism and evolution), and general scientists views of evolution (5% creationsim, 95% evolution).  And that's just the general scientists.  For scientists that deal with areas that would touch on evolutionary theory, it is much lower than that:

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

[Eric]

EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT, IT IS A THEORY.  IT WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING BUT A THEORY.

...

Tyson, Thanks for the clarification. My contention all along is that both creation and evolution are theories of origins. They both require faith at some point to be believed.

1. Evolutionists must be willing to accept that chaos some how resulted in order with no intelligent design. They must be willing to accept that species to species mutation occured when there are zero examples of such mutation. They must believe that the required protiens developed in a primordial soup regardless of the odds against such an occurence and the inability to prove it scientifically, even though the theorist that hold the position claim it is based on science. In short they have faith in things they have never seen or personally experienced and cannot be verified scientifically.

The faith evolutionists have is based on:

1. Testimony of scientists
2. What they have observed in nature and their interpretation of those observations

2. Creationists on the other hand must accept by faith that the order we see is a reflection of a creative intelligence even though we have never seen that intelligence with our physical eyes. The existence of this creator cannot be demonstrated empirically. The order we see reflects the personality of the creator.

The faith creationists hold is based on:

1.The testimony of witnesses as recorded in the Bible
2. What they have observed in nature and their interpretation of those events.

Many times Tyson, you have appealed to the large number of people who accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. Your argument seems to be that if large numbers of people believe it to be true, it must be true. You have also questioned creationists because they have an agenda. Your assumption there is that evolutionists have no agenda.

I question the validity of those assumptions. Most people in the middle ages believed he world was flat. If evolution were to be proved false as a theory, many of the scientists who hold the position would lose out in terms of prestige, book royalties, teaching positions etc.

Lastly, I don't think I have ever attacked your intelligence in any way. If I have let me apologize.

At a couple of points I sensed you were engaging in Abusive Ad Hominem (attacking the opponent in hopes of discrediting the position). When you make statements like "You don't seem to be capable" they don't prove your point or add to the discussion. It is really an unfair way of trying to get an advantage

[nathanm]

[Eric]

Sometimes the enormity of people's ability for self deception and ignoring of facts just staggers me.  The very fact that people can even question if evolution occurs or not is one of those things.  It's like people questioning the existence of gravity, or the existence of China.

  ...

Here was why I was confused. You equated belief in evolution to belief in China or gravity (neither of which is a theory, they are facts)

[Tyson]

Tyson, Thanks for the clarification. My contention all along is that both creation and evolution are theories of origins. They both require faith at some point to be believed.

You are correct, and incorrect.  Truly, both are theories attempting to explain the diversity of life on our planet.  But you are incorrect to bring faith in to a discussion of science.  Science does not need or require faith.

A quick overview of theory, fact, and hypothesis seems to be in order.  A fact is more or less observed data (simplifying here for the sake of clarity).  A hypothesis is a "guess" at the meaning of said facts are.  A theory is a hypothesis supported by facts.

A theory can always be revised or discarded if another theory comes along that has better explanatory power.

To discard the theory of evolution, a better theory would have to be proposed, and that theory would have to have better explanatory power.  Currently there is no such other theory.  If someone WERE to come up with such a theory, and it was able to hold up to scientific scrutiny, that person would pretty much be a shoe-in for a nobel prize.

So, really all science cares about is whether a given theory has the greatest explanatory power for all the known facts.  Faith does not enter in to it anywhere.

You bring up the origin of life (primordial ooze, etc), that's another topic entirely

At the heart of evolutionary theory is this - mutations occur in species, and can be detrimental or helpful for their survival in a given environment.  Those that are helpful find their way in to later generations of that species, which results in a slightly different version of the original species.  Do this enough times and you end up with something very different than what you started with.

Are you saying that this does not happen?  That it has never happened?  That it does not have a lot of explanatory power for species variation?

As for why the "God theory" of life diversity does not get taken seriously is that one would first have to show that 1) there is in fact a god and 2) that he was the agent of change (or creation) for species.  Once you do that, then the creationist theory will have some weight.  Until then it will not (except to the "faithful", of course).

On a more general note, I am NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence here, this is completely NOT about intelligence at all.  My earlier posts were specifically addressing peoples (even very intellegent peoples) ability to be blinded to facts and theories due to some pre-existing belief systems in their mind (or heart, or whatever).

Since god cannot be proven to exist, let alone effect changes in the world, he is OUT as a scientific explanation for anything.  Once god is removed, all you have left is the natural world, and everything in the natural world points to the fact that evolution occured, and continues to occur.  

And by the way, gravity is NOT a fact, it is a theory.  That's why you hear it refered to at the "Theory of Gravity", not the "Fact of Gravity".

But I'm glad you bring it up because it does have bearing on our discussion of the scientific method.  The "fact" is we observe that things fall to the earth.  Objects (and people) don't simply float around, the are more or less "stuck" to the earth.  These are all facts.  A scientist comes along and asks, "what can explain all these observed facts"?  Well, he says, there must be some force that compels objects to fall down (be attracted to the earth).  I'll call this theoretical force gravity.  Hmm, lets see, does this theory of gravity explain any other observations we have?  Well, yes, if we say that the bigger an object, the more gravity it has, it explains the rotation of the moon around the earth, and the earth around the sun.  It also explains the tides in relation to the moon".  

But you see, this is all just theory.  And no theory is ever proven, ever.  It can ALWAYS be replaced with a better theory with more explanatory power.

And as for being able to "test" evolution, if you see my explanation above about what the core of evolutionary theory is (descent with modification), then you can see it anyday and everyday - look at breeding, either animal or plant.  Look at peoples skin color (darker for sunnier regions, lighter for darker regions).  Bacterial mutating and building resistance to anti-biotics.  Fewer humans being born with an appendix.  And these are just some common examples.