A very common argument against the fact of evolution is the claim that since we cannot observe evolution in practice it is no different than the concept of God, that one must have 'faith' in science in order to accept it. Now I am going to ignore the bit about faith in science as it refutes itself so no need to go on about that.
What I want to address is the claim that evolution cannot be observed, while this ia true when concerning one species evolving into another, I argue that we can absolutely observe evolution in practice if we look specifically and the underlying principle of evolution, that of changes occurring through genetic inheritance.
Note that this is not concerning the guiding factor of Natural Selection, but strictly changes from one generation to another by genetic inheritance. My example is overly simplistic for the pourpose of easy dissemination, so if I misrepresent evolution as a whole I ask for forgiveness, I will try my best to tie this into what evolution actually is but understand that my argument is only to demonstrate what I argue is the process of evolution in practice.
It is undisputed that when two parents reproduce, the child inherits genes from both parents, this creates very small changes in appearance between generations, while the child resembles their parents for the most part, difference in appearance do exist. Now add another generation to this, from grandparent to grandchild and the difference in appearance is a little more apparent. From this process of changes in appearance by genetic inheritance, from generation to generation, we see the underlying principle of evolution in practice and thus, on a very small scale, we can observe evolution in practice. If we continue to spread this out over millions of years, with subtle changes occurring through genetic inheritance compounded with time, and we get to a point where one species can be said to have evolved into another.
Thank you for your time.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I agree! Astonishing, right? That is simplistic, but it is a good illustration. It also shows that DNA will replicate itself and be altered in the process. This is randomness, rather than an error.
Lol we have consensus between us! maybe miracles do exist.
We have had several discussions about this subject in this forum. The argument proffered by those who do not accept evolution as a whole (both theist and atheist) is that while small changes do happen, they claim there is no proof for large ones. They refer to it as micro vs. macro evolution.
Yeah I had some Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house and tried to prop up the Micro vs Macro argument and I kept trying to explain that from micro changes over time we can have Macro changes. I once heard someone put it in a way that you walk a mile one step at a time. They responded that since we have two eyes, two hands and two feet, that Adam and Eve is a better explanation than evolution. I damn near fell to the floor laughing and they promptly left.
(edited to add)
But i actually had the micro vs macro argument in mind when i wrote my OP. I wanted to start from a place where even creationists agree and build a bridge connecting this agreement of parents passing down genes to their children to the process that leads to evolution. It has been mildly successful for the most part when having face to face discussions, I only have ever convinced one person with this argument though. My op is the first time I have tried to present this as a means of observing evolution in practice.
"They responded that since we have two eyes, two hands and two feet, that Adam and Eve is a better explanation than evolution. I damn near fell to the floor laughing and they promptly left."
I have ten toes. Does that mean my patents only had 2 1/2 Toes on each foot? I think not!
I'm afraid I've never understood genetics enough to make a valuable comment here. But I will add another perspective, just for everybody's reference.
There are two main models for evolution, a "gradualist" view in which changes can occur cumulatively over many generations, and a "punctuated equilibrium" view in which the dynamics of an ecosystem may vary widely early in its epoch, and resolve to finer and finer degrees of change as constituents of the system gradually adapt to each other's adaptations. [I'm leaving out the old "saltation" model, here.]
I have read scientists that take sides, and dismiss the model they don't like. But I have also read that there is good evidence for both models, and that they needn't be mutually exclusive.
My own belief is that punctuated equilibrium was a major force in driving human evolution.
To be honest I only have at best an elementary understanding of genetics, and judging by the responses provided in this thread it is apparent that there is a a great deal I do not know. I thought that the Darwinian model of evolution made the most sense, but after reading the explanation of punctuated equilibrium now I am not so sure, as it seems to me to take more factors into consideration which from my understanding, limited as it may be, is nessacary to properly explain the process of evolution. Thank you for the breakdown of both approaches, it was greatly informative. Now I have more to learn =)
AlphaLogica,
That was Darwin's idea, the slow, ongoing evolution that eventually produces dramatic results. Stephen J. Gould and his partner Eldridge improved upon that with punctuated equilibrium, but Darwin's idea still holds for some species. It's not a case of winner takes all the marbles.
You will be delighted to know that we HAVE witnessed evolution within historical times, even within a human lifetime! Some plants, due to a mutation, have doubled their genes--instant species! (They can't interbreed with their parent generation because of the mismatch in gene numbers.) Those extra genes often leave the plant (the new species) more robust. Yes, we can see evolution happening but don't expect to see the kind of evolution that takes 40 million years! Caution: Observed results will be modest. However, the species boundary has been crossed! WE HAVE SEEN THE EVOLUTION OF NEW SPECIES!
Thanks for that bit of information, I was totally unaware of this. Wasn't there a debate between Dawkins and Gould on the topic of punctuated equilibrium? Do you know what came of that? I have always wanted to read Gould's book, I think it's called Rock Of Ages, or am I thinking of a Def Leopard song?
Stephen J. Gould has written a lot of good books: The Panda's Thumb, The Flamingo's Smile, Bully for Brontosaurus and Eight Little Piggies being four of his books on my shelf. They are truly fun to read, tremendously insightful in exploring some aspect of evolution, and cheap--most are paperbacks. If you haven't dived into them you will be in for real a treat!
I guess you will have go Google "Rock of Ages" or maybe check Amazon.com. Try Googling "evolution observed." That should get some interesting results. If not, I can give you some examples.
Google also "ring species." In part, they are two good species connected by a series of living intermediates!
They aren't commonplace, but they are a spectacular example of small changes crossing the species boundary. You don't have to do informed speculation anymore. It's all there on a silver plate! And, the species boundary is the only real boundary in nature. Higher taxa tend to have fuzzy boundaries, and the decision as to where some fossil falls often hangs on arbitrary details.
Most evolution is not a ladder operation headed in one direction but, rather, a branching bush that gets pruned from time to time. Geographical or other types of isolation for segments of the main population often get progressively out of touch and eventually become new species. This is especially true on the perimeter of a widespread population where expansion has been checked somewhat by a change in the environment (weather, terrain, predators). Small frontier populations are ideal for establishing a favorable mutation, and lots of frontier populations increase the odds of a breakthrough somewhere. Frontier populations, perhaps having been established by chance in a neighboring valley or across a river, might experience a restricted gene flow with the main population--eventually leading to a new species.
So upon googling it I found this:
Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life is a 1999 book about the relationship between science and religion by the Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
I now have more books to buy =) It's like Christmas came early!
Flu shots?
The virus changes quite fast.
Yes that is true, but that only plays into their micro vs macro argument.