Is evolution really that far fetched?

Question

really, think about it.

females pick the best of best to mate with. they pick the ones that adapt to the environment and are most likely to survive.

if u keep breeding generation after generation of top quality animals, is it far fetched that they evolve over time to a species that better suits the environment?

Answer 1

I believe that no human can force something to evolve.

And an animal only evolves when the environment around it starts to change

Answer 2

No, it's not farfetched at all.  The idea that biological evolution occurs is every bit as certain as the idea that gravity causes two objects with mass to be attracted to each other.

Your example about reproduction is a good one.  Here's another, simple example that illustrates the idea.  Let's imagine the average speed of deer is 15 MPH but once in a while, some fortunate deer can run 20 MPH and some unfortunate deer can only run 10 MPH.  Now, let's imagine the average speed of a tiger (that eats deer) is 10 MPH but once in a while, some fortunate tigers can run 15 MPH and some unfortunate tigers can only run 5 MPH.  The 5 MPH tigers are going to have a hard time catching food and probably won't live long enough to reproduce (and pass along their "slow" genes).  Likewise, the slow deer are probably likely to get caught and eaten before they have a chance to reproduce.  The fastest deer have it made because it's very unlikely that they'll get caught.  They stand a good chance of reproducing and passing along their "fast" genes.  The fast tigers will probably be well-fed and they, too, have a good change of reproducing.  The tendency will be for faster and faster (better-adapted) tiger and deer.

This is a simplified example, of course, but how can it be argued?  This is the essence of evolution.  And it absolutely DOES happen.  A misconception is that evolution takes a very long time to happen.  In reality, it just takes a large number of *generations*.  We see evolution happen all the time in things that have short generations (like bacteria).  This is why there's the worry about bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics.  They are evolving to be immune because the ones that are killed die before they can reproduce and the ones that survive (because they are slightly more resistant) have a better chance of reproducing.

I'm guessing here, but the tone of your question implies you are having a debate (either with yourself or with someone else) and the debate is probably with regards to evolution vs. religion.  I've never seen a reason why the two concepts can't co-exist.  I think there's a problem when irresponsible scientists (like Richard Dawkins, for instance) make statements like "evolution proves God doesn't exist".  That puts people that believe in God on the defensive.  They think: "Well, if evolution means God doesn't exist, evolution must be wrong."  The result is people who believe in God don't bother learning what evolution really says.  Why can't evolution be the way God created man?

Science needs to stop commenting on religion and people of religion need to not be so closed minded to the facts discovered by science.  Personally, I believe having a greater understanding of how our universe works gives us a greater understanding of (and greater respect for) God.  Intentionally choosing to be ignorant about the facts discovered by science is the same thing as intentionally choosing to be ignorant about the nature of God.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.  ;-)

[Edit]

William W: There are actually lots of examples out there.  A few things that spring to mind right of the bat are: whales have a pelvis, humans have tailbones, many creatures can't fly, yet have wings, etc.  The list is actually very large.

[/Edit]

Answer 3

I've seen talk here about variations bred into different species, but where is the demonstration that a new species was ever created? The closest is the mule (a cross between a horse & a donkey) but it's infertile and can't reproduce. Refinements occur and traits add & subtract, but where is the evidence of any new species that evolved from something else?

Answer 4

No. It's not far-fetched at all. In fact, it's the accepted norm by most scientists.

Evolution favors those who survive and/or breed more than others.

Answer 5

No, you raise a good point and here is another one.

All breeds of dogs and horses started from one single breed of animal yet mankind has changed them through breeding looking for custom features.  Greyhounds have thinner heads, to be more streamlined, and so slightly smaller brains because mankind made them that way.

The Shetland pony and the Clydesdale all came from the same original breed of horse; but look at the huge difference in body build and size.  Man did that by breeding the various horses for characteristics that he wanted.

If man's intervention could create an entirely new sub-species of animal then why couldn't natural conditions.  Darwin noticed that some seeds got caught in cracks on the Galapagos Islands.  He also noticed that some finches had thinner and longer beaks so they could get to those seeds inside of those cracks.  Those birds that naturally had longer beaks got more food (more seeds) so they tended to survive in greater numbers and breed more fellow longer beaked birds.

The problem here is that you are trying to convince someone who has faith and that faith blinds them to science, common sense or any reasonable argument.  You have to have an open mind to make a decision or to change your mind.  People of faith don't have open minds.

Answer 6

Not at all. Evolution is a very real thing.

Answer 7

As far as the dogs and pony's go, that is artificial selection, a means in which man produces evolution.  Of course, natural selection is natures way of carrying out evolution.  The whole basis for evolution involves species that reproduce more efficiently.  If this means colorful birds are more likely to attract mates, over time the species of birds will become more colorful.

Answer 8

It is a scientific fact. The theory involves specific mechanisms involved.