Species do evolve with outside interference. The environment is an important factor in evolution. Asteroids, ice ages, etc all impact the course of evolution. To argue, at least scientifically, that evolution never happened is kinda tough. The Galapogos finches are only one example of evolution. There have been numerous other studies with creatures that reproduce much much quicker (usually some sort of bug) and there have been natural cases (with the moths in England at the onset of the Industrial Revolution being the most recognizable example). Not to mention fossilized evidence for both humans and other species. Not that I believe in human cloning, but I think it would be very interesting to clone a homo erectus, or homo habilis or australopithicus or neanderthal to see evolution in front of us.
Genetic mutation seems to be the fundamental mechanism which produces the raw material necessary for all other mechanisms of genetic variation. It is ambient radiation that causes these "errors" in DNA replication, and these errors lead to imperfect copies of the original DNA, as any college-level biology textbook will tell you. Repeat this process over billions of years, and what started as simple microbial lifeforms has proliferated, through evolution, to the current diversity of life on earth. Is anyone else fascinated and awe-inspired at the vastness of this? This along with cosmology, astronomy, among other subjects of study, shows how small our place in the universe seems. Yet, here we are, we exist, and we have the ability to comprehend, or at least attempt to comprehend, this vastness of existence. Life has "progressed" through evolution, and how awesome it would be to be able to travel through time and get at least a glimpse of the future to see the further evolution of life.
The commonly accepted theory is that the environment chooses which random mutations survive to be passed on. Not that the environment chooses which random mutations occur. As for the example of evolution you provided, that isn't even a change of species, just a change of color. I will agree that evolution has been proven when the white moth evolves into a bird, not just a different colored moth. The fact of the matter is that none of the "missing links" are availabe. We see no intermediate species between the really big changes. Where is the half-man/half-whale? Think of how many possible genetic combinations are available. What are the odds that the few that could produce a viable life form occurred? Now what are the odds of that happening for every organism on earth. This is getting into the statistically impossible range where the probability approaches zero. That is my scientific argument that maybe evolution didn't happen afterall, at least not through the model of random mutation and natural selection. If you don't want to think God did it, maybe it was aliens, or super-intelligent bacteria, or whatever, but the odds seem stacked against having no intelligent hand guiding evolution. I direct you to the allegory of finding a watch in the desert. Sure it is possible that all of the molecule randomly came together, but isnt it more likely that someone put them together.
sorry. I just wanted to say that I know lots of non-Christians who don't read the Bible that still believe in, both, God and evolution. Cells mutate rapidly- people with light skin develop moles, freckles and eventually skin cancer if exposed to a lot of sun. This happens in one lifetime. This is obvious to everyone- your human characteristics are a result of changes that occured in the gene pool of your ancestors to adapt to the climate in which they lived. Same reason why artic foxes, rabbits and polar bears have white fur. How can anyone deny evolution? I don't see any problem whatsoever with a belief that God created the Big Bang, designed life on Earth and has a master plan. Dr. Robert seems to be in wonder why God didn't start with more than a single-celled organism or algae or a very simple begining if there is a God of creation. Because within the laws of Biology and Physics, well, that's impossible!!! You must have a begining....even if you're the creator. You can't have a man without a baby
i don't think anyone is denying this sort of intra-species evolution...what people are denying is interspecies evolution (animal A turning into animal B)...see Hydra's argument above. No one has a problem recognizing that a fox in the arctic benefits from white fur and thus adapts...but we do have a problem with saying that fox becomes a chimp.
Who said otherwise? The point is that without some force for evolution, it wouldn't occur. The change in color, morphological change that it is, shows how evolution can work in the natural world. Web searches will bring you to other, more direct, evolutionary examples, such as this discussing evolution of plant and insect species on Hawaii. You have a poor understanding of evolution if you're seriously looking for a half-man/half-whale. It is more liekly that there is no "missing link" but instead a series of gradual changes as a species evolved. This is well documented for the human species, as a very bushlike evolutionary picture is starting to take form. I don't doubt some intelligent hand guiding the universe, or beyond, somewhere out there. But we myswell pretend that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe if were just going to ignore scientific evidence cause it doesn't coincide with our previous beleifs.
How did lions become tigers? When did penguins learn to swim? When did ostriches stop flying? When did skinks get their little legs? You don't just go from A to B without going through a change or transformation that can take quite a while. You can't just go from a fox to a chimp without many, many points in between. You don't go from a chimp to a gorilla without many points in between. I don't see how you can have intra-species evoution without, eventually, having interspecies evolution. If cells can mutate enough to change within a species, over time these changes will keep occuring as the separated groups each develop their own characteristics to adapt to their environment. As long as the groups are separated and in different environments they will have separate gene pools. They will, likely, never again become more similar, but, instead, will continue to develop different characteristics. You don't have a problem with the arctic fox changing its genetic makeup enough to grow white fur because it lives in the snow, but you have a problem with astralopithicus, eventually, becoming homo erectus and home erectus, eventually, becoming homo sapien? Sometimes I still have a problem with caterpillars becoming butterflies and maggots becoming flies. Dogs and wolves are two different species...are they not related?
JayZ, In the link you provided, the birds stayed birds, the plants remained plants, etc. I acknowledged that there is evidence of evolution of different species, but where is the evidence for evolution of different kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, and families? I want to see the evidence of some intermediate stage between a fox and a chimp. right1 claims there are many, but I have seen none. Where are the gradual changes from man to whale? How long do we have to wait for a single new family to evolve?
Hydra why do you think evolution would necessarily be gradual? Evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate. If the rate of evolution were faster than the rate of sedimentation you could have one animal evolved from another laying near each other and not know one is an evolution of another.
Hydra, I am by no means an expert on this. But first you asked for evidence of evolution changing species. With the plants in the link, it worked. Now you've seen that, but want some kind of intermediary between whale and man. Certainly all of the questions you're asking have been asked before and aswered much more accurately than I ever can. Certainly you understand the timeframes involved here are astronomical. We're talking 5 billion years. Think about this: From what we know of human evolution, it has taken at least 6 million years to evolve from chimp/ape to modern recongizable man. The evolutionary process between whale and man, or fox and chimp, is a very very very complex one and you would undoubtedly have to go back hundreds of millions if not billions of years to find some sort of discernable, distinct fork in their evolutionary paths. Certainly a few hundred years ago, if one was to see that a week old human fetus looks identicle to a week old pig fetus, or chick in the egg, etc, it would seem ridiculous and impossible. But they do. And there is plenty of scientific evidence to help prove evolution as well.
There seems to be a misconception here about evolution. No one is saying that a whale turned into a man or a fox turned into a chimp. What is believed is that, in the case of man and ape, we share a common ancestor. Somewhere around 5 to 8 million years ago, this ancestral species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. Because of this, we will never find hybrid species, because none ever existed.
