Everyone has heard the feeble creationist argument that they have no problem with micro evolution, which allows for humans to collectively change heights over the years, or for new generations of frogs to have longer legs than their predecessors in Australia, and even to allow for a pair Ark dogs to be the common ancestor for all dogs on the planet today. But this is where they conveniently stop allowing for evolution to happen, because they say "how can man and "stinking apes" share a common ancestor? Besides, a literal translation of the bible doesn't allow for it, so it can't be true."
Ok, so here is my question (assuming you agree with the examples of micro evolution I cited above):
If microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, then what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?
If this is your answer.....
.......maybe you need to educate yourself some more on the topic.
Evolution is evolution. Micro evolution is just a classification for small changes, while macro evolution describes lots and lots of micro evolution that happened over usually a very large time period.
For a more scientific response, please watch this video. It explains how evolution happens. And you'll notice that there is no scientific reason for fins to not be able to change into limbs, for example:
H/T to Austin Cline from About.com Agnosticism/Atheism, for coming up with the question.
The "stinking ape" argument - the misconception that evolutionary biology somehow tells us that man descended from chimpanzees (or similar primates) - can be traced back to the earliest, caricatural criticisms of Darwin's book. Some of the morons that still bring this up, still today haven't yet cottoned on to the fact that these caricatures (Darwin's head on an unspecified primate's body e.g.) were nothing more than ill-advised lampooning.
ReplyDeleteSo, occasionally I still get that most ridiculous of questions:
Q: "If we evolved from chimpanzees, how come there are still chimpanzees around today, huh?"
A: "Because unlike baboons like you, man didn't evolve from currently living primates (chimps or other) but does share a common ancestor with other, currently living primate species. That common ancestor was in all likelihood a long extinct primate."
(No baboons were hurt in the making of this comment and of course they didn't evolve from chimpanzees [or other currently living primates] either but almost certainly from the same common ancestor.)
It wouldn't matter if the common ancestor to chimps and humans was still living.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, this answer is real good:
If Americans trace back to Europeans for the most part, how come there are still Europeans?
Except for a few as the GOP candidate for VP, I rarely come into contact with a creationist.
ReplyDeleteAt my blog I have an interesting geopolitical analysis of the Middle East. You might want to comment.
Well, this argument might be valid if creationists point out to the impossibility of accumulating mutations. Since accumulating mutations is visible in day-to-day life, this argument falls apart. Ther's no logical constraint that says that changes visible now could not have accumulated in the past - and there's plenty of evidence that this had actually happened.
ReplyDelete