A question about evolution?

Question

'Micro-evolution' is to me merely adaptation.

People in Mexico can stand the heat better then say someone in Alaska. Adaptation is a very flexible quality which has created many types of species. NOT different kinds of animals.

e.g. A fish did not become a reptile.

Why do evolutionists say that adaptation is a form of evolution? And is there proof that a certain kind of animal can become another?

Answer 1

of course. Adaption is a form of evolution. Maybe it's cannot be prove yet but i'm sure of my answer. Hm.. there is a certain animal. The one which I know is Finch bird. Their ancestor is seed eater but it's evolve into so many kind of bird. What I mean is, now, Finch bird isn't just eating seed but there is also a Finch bird which eat fish,insect,fruit, and the other.

That what's I think. Tell me if I am wrong ok?

Answer 2

Be careful though.  There is a difference between adaptation and acclimatization.  Adaptation is a change in a species over generations and the process is part of evolution.  Acclimitization is the ability of a single individual to deal with its current changing environment (time = within an individual's lifetime).  What you describe for people's ability to deal with heat in different parts of the world really is acclimatization.  I lived in Vermont for 6 years, and now I'm back southward again.  I was initially crazy cold in Vermont but acclimated, then when I moved, I was too hot in PA, but now I can handle it.

Acclimatization is reversible within the individual while adaptation is not.  A dog that gets fluffy in winter then sheds is acclimating.  The innate ability to change the thickness of your fur because you are in an environment with cycling temperatures is adaptation.

One more thing...animals don't adapt to the environment in the sense that they "realize" the need for a certain trait and then produce it.  It's the other way around, the environment selects those organisms that are best able to survive and reproduce at that moment in time.  An adaptation does not have to be the BEST solution for dealing with a biological problem in an environment.  It is the best one available based on what characteristics the organisms already possess.

Answer 3

Repeated microevolution over a long period of time = macroevolution.

> is there proof that a certain kind of animal can become another?

Have a look at a mini-dachshund.  It is not a gray wolf.

Answer 4

Fail.

Evolution is a change in the alelle frequencies in populations over time.  That means that a trait that is genetic and capable of being passed on through heredity is the product of evolution by simple definition.

What you have just claimed is that the adaption of a population to heat is not genetic.  Do you have any grounds to base this on?  Are you really suggesting that if a Mexican couple had a kid outside of Mexico, say, in a cooler climate, that this child would not have the same traits as his parents?

Answer 5

Evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies over time.

Adaptation or even the fixation of a negative allele both count as evolution.  Speciation and the diversity of life are merely a consequence of evolution of long periods of time.

Where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?  What barrier is there?  There isn't one.

And reptiles did evolve from fish.  We have substantial evidence

Answer 6

Using the terms microevolution and adaptation to deny evolution is fundamentally dishonest.  In science, microevolution refers to the study of the small scale changes in evolution.  There is no clear-cut distinction of when enough small changes have become macroevolution.  There is no barrier.  This argument is like saying you believe in stairs, but not staircases.

There is ample evidence of the transition from fish to terrestrial vertebrates.  The discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, by searching through areas that were wetlands just before amphibians arose made that clear.

Answer 7

my brain cant comprehend if an animal can become another but adaptation is a form of evolution!

Answer 8

Agreed.  That is what Darwin really brought out.  Adaptation.

People make him the bad guy saying that it was his idea that monkeys became men.  It was a perversion of his idea that turned into that.

Answer 9

'Adaptation' is Evolution (the change in an population over time) - you just have no concept of what evolution (as a biological science term) means.... but I'm sure you know more than the thousands of scientists who use that word every day!

Wow so there are different 'kinds' of animals (what are these 'kinds' by the way?), but they can only change so far and then stop changing - why is this? And what is the magical process that stops these animals changing so they don't look too different to the rest of there kind (I suppose God must do that -geez he must be a busy guy!).  You do realize that anyone with a slight amount of knowledge in biology will look at your argument and see that it is ridiculous.

There is overwhelming evidence that a 'kind' of animal can become another from numerous different scientific fields - equivalent to the amount of evidence that the earth is a sphere and revolves around the sun... if people don't understand this evidence they are just incredibly willfully ignorant!

Answer 10

I do not appreciate when people talk about evolution and say it is simply a change in species over time. The theory of evolution is wide spread and far reaching.  Using just one word "evolution" and thinking this describes all that you are implying in one swoop is not accurate.

The Evolution you imply must include many things all at once to describe the theory you are describing.

This includes abiogenesis (you cannot exclude this from the context of what you are dealing with, I realize that you can and have built a separation between the two but you are expecting us to swallow natural abiogenesis when talking about evolution so you cannot exclude it from the discussion when dealing with evolution.)

It also includes macro-evolution (This is when one basic kind of animal turns into another. Like a dinosaur becoming a humming bird or a land dweller becoming a whale, or a little piece of pond scum becoming a human)

It also includes but IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO micro-evoution.

Micro evolution should just be called variation. When you guys talk about evolution you say - "of course evolution is a PROVEN FACT, you can see a different varieties of dogs being bred. Then with this you imply the rest but only show proof for a minor limited variation. Show me wings, sonar, bioluminescence, or feathers bred into a dog and I will then say that this minor limited variation can be extrapolated into macro-evolution.

It also includes but is NOT EXCLUSIVE to population shifting.

People always bring up the peppered moth. You started with black and white moths. The white ones were all killed off so then you had more black ones. Then the black ones were all killed off so you had more white ones. You started with black and white moths, you ended with black and white moths. This is not evolution and it is a huge bait and switch technique to show children this and then expect them to swallow macro-evolution. You do this all with a straight face and a clear concience.

There is NO non-subjective, non-fraudulent, or non-grossly  oversimplified evidence for abiogenesis or macro evolution. There is plenty for minor variations, this is the only part that is science. The rest is your religion. It's called Humanistic Naturalism.

Answer 11

jim761076 is right when he says that evolution is "wide spread and far reaching." I also think everything else he says is wrong. The theory of evolution encompasses species adaptation, anagenesis, cladogenesis, speciation, common descent, population genetics, evo-devo, genetic regulatory networks and much, much more. Each aspect is just a part of evolution which is a broad over-arching theory that offers scientific explanations for many aspects of the development of the diversity of life on earth. Evolution IS a scientific theory, and it IS proper to say that evolution is a change in species over time - it’s even more proper to say that evolution EXPLAINS a change in species over time.

This asker’s particular question does relate to evolution but it certainly is not all there is to it. Wise Duck, vballannie, novangelis and secretsauce are exactly right – there is a genetic component that answers this question and it IS a part of evolution that HAS been proven. There are many other pieces to the big picture of evolution that we know beyond doubt, and there are many yet to be explained.

Concerning macro-evolution, jim761076’s big hang-up and Leon K’s confusion, I would recommend getting a better background in genetics, a study of biological diversity with an objective view, free from literalist, religious preconception. At least consider the bulleted points from the following link (maybe even read the article):

-   Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecting their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.

-  Mutations in DNA “switches” that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.

-  If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regu...

Concerning abiogenesis:

“Historically, the origin of life is a not part of Darwinism, simply because Darwin did not discuss the origin of life. Evolution according to Darwin is the origin of species from the first forms of life.”

The fact is we don’t know how life began and it’s obvious that most arguments refuting evolution by attacking this void are based on religious convictions. Here’s some light reading material covering some of what we do know and speculations about the rest:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof....

Answer 12

You are not making an argument ... you are just trying to re-define words.

In biology, the word "evolution" simply means "change over generations."  That's it.

[Aside: More technically, it is defined as the "change in allele frequencies of a population over generations" ... but that is just putting a precise, measurable, definition to the phrase "change over generations."]

[Another aside:  Darwin himself didn't like the word "evolution" ... it implied "progression", which was NOT his point.  He preferred "descent with modification", but he lost that battle because it just didn't roll off the tongue as well.]

But what matters is the *CONCEPT*, not what you call it.   Trying to redefine the words as used by the world's biological community, just doesn't get you anywhere.

The *CONCEPT* is that this "change over generations" ... no matter what you call it, is *INCREDIBLY* powerful if given enough TIME.  In the same say that water lapping at a bunch of hard rocks can reduce it to powdered sand, given enough TIME.

>"Adaptation is a very flexible quality which has created many types of species. NOT different kinds of animals."

??? In those two sentences you first *accept* the central tenet of evolution ... and then immediately deny it!

How can you accept that change over generations (regardless of what we call it) can produce "types of species" but not "kinds of animals".  What is the difference?

E.g., if this "change over generations" can produce dogs, coyotes and foxes from the same ancestor ... then why can't it produce dogs, cats, and racoons from the same ancestor?  It's just a difference of *degree* ... a difference in TIME.

>"Why do evolutionists say that adaptation is a form of evolution?"

Because since 'evolutionists' (which includes 98% of the entire scientific community) define "evolution" as simply "change over generations", adaptation *IS* a form of evolution.   Adaptation means "change in response to environment" ... which is the driving force of evolution if it is change *over generations* (rather than in an individual's lifetime) in response to environment.

>"And is there proof that a certain kind of animal can become another?"

"Proof" no.  We don't refer to "proof" in science.  We refer to "evidence."

"Evidence"?  YES.  Of course.  Absolutely.  Scientists don't accept things without evidence.  (If you think they do, then I would ask why you have such a low opionion of scientists?)

Because Creationists like to call this "macroevolution" (again, trying to redefine words in a way that no biologists use), the famous talkorigins site, which is precisely about laying out the scientific position on evidence in favor of evolution has an extremely thorough section called ...

"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's detailed and very thorough (including a full discussion of this "microevolution vs. macroevolution" terminology).

But until you have read it, please don't think that scientists have no evidence at all!  They are not stupid.