8 ms·
The case of the American cliff swallows, described in The Fine Article, offers an excellent response to the anti-evolutionist, "We've never observed it happenin
by rosser 8y ago
The case of the American cliff swallows, described in The Fine Article, offers an excellent response to the anti-evolutionist, "We've never observed it happening" position. That's it happening over decades.
- jibal 8y agoIf anti-evolutionists were to abandon their position due to evidence, they would have long ago.
- gonvaled 8y agoThe problem is more that the evidence they would accept is pretty much impossible to happen in the real world: something like a jiraffe giving birth to an eagle. Black-and-white worldviews are, by definition, not nuanced, but evolution, but its slow (by human standards) nature, is extremely nuanced, to the point of beeing unnoticeable.
- agumonkey 8y agoFuturama had an episode with endless dichotomic debates where anti-evolution would require proofs of smaller and smaller genetic gaps.
- jibal 8y agoUm, no, the problem is that they are dishonest to the core and refuse to accept valid evidence presented to them because they don't want to believe that evolution occurs. Demanding impossible evidence is just a corollary. "to the point of beeing unnoticeable" It's not unnoticeable; read the fricking article.
- gonvaled 8y agoIt is noticeable for a scientist or for anybody interested, but for a creationist a slightly different mote or bird will never be a proof of speciation: it is anyway very similar to the original species, and it will be explained away by saying that is was already there or something similar. As mentioned, a more radical event should happen to convince these people (so radical as to be impossible).
- olavk 8y agoNo, a "more radical event" will not convince creationists. There is already evidence enough to convince any reasonable person - more evidence of any kind will not change anything.
- grasshopperpurp 8y agoI agree, and it brings to mind Luke 16:31: >“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
- jibal 8y ago> for a creationist a slightly different mote or bird will never be a proof of speciation As I noted, for a Creationist nothing will ever be proof of speciation. But apparently telling such simple truths gets downvoted. > As mentioned, a more radical event should happen to convince these people (so radical as to be impossible). No, no event, not matter how radical, would convince them because they are ideologically committed to rejecting evolution, which they see as contrary to their entire belief system.
- explainplease 8y agoYou must not have spoken with very many creationists.
- jibal 8y agoYou're wrong, and that silly ad hominem is content-free. What I said about Creationists is supported by large amounts of evidence in addition to my own personal experience engaging with them.
- explainplease 8y agoYour comment was nothing more than ignorant, content-free bigotry and gross generalization against Christians. How many Christian scientists would laugh at your characterization of their beliefs.
- throwawy3589 8y agoWhat I find even stranger is pro-science progressives essentially denying evolution to support their blank slate social policies. We can see that environment can have significant effects on animals in just a few decades, why would humans be immune? Progressives have ironically taken on a near religious ideology that humans are somehow different from other animals and immune to natural selection.
- maxxxxx 8y agoHumans generally have given up on pure natural selection. Otherwise we would have abolished all laws and law enforcement and let the stronger win. You may be surprised by who will thrive in such a world.
- empath75 8y agoRandom drive by racist comments by throwaway accounts are one of the least appealing aspects of hacker news.
- throwawy3589 8y agoPeople throwing up emotional drivel while doing nothing to refute a point is one the least appealing aspects of hacker news Please explain to me how humans are immune to natural selection and then go claim your nobel prize for revolutionizing human understanding of genetics.
- jibal 8y ago"Please explain to me how humans are immune to natural selection" Why should he do that? He never claimed that -- it's a strawman of your own making.
- jibal 8y ago"pro-science progressives essentially denying evolution to support their blank slate social policies" That has never happened. You seem to be committing a naturalist fallacy.
- aaron695 8y ago> offers an excellent response to the anti-evolutionist, "We've never observed it happening" position. I can't see this at all? Why are the swallows not just changing their wing spans to fit the environment? Or why aren't the swallows that do well just flying in from out of town and hanging around? The only evidence you have it's evolution is that you believe in evolution AFAICS. Anti-evolutionist's are an insignificant minority, I'd be more concerned that most people know little actually about evolution other than the catch phrase.
- selestify 8y agoDo we have any examples of beneficial mutations happening, as opposed to natural selection of existing genes? That's one of the biggest sticking points creationists have.
- tonmoy 8y agoEvolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It may or may not be due to mutation. Why would someone discredit evolution for creationism just because they can’t see a tiny aspect of evolution.
- selestify 8y agoRight, I'm just saying, back when I was a creationist myself, a large part of the argument was that it's well-nigh impossible for mutations to be beneficial. And it appears this is not direct evidence of that still.