Posted: Jul 05, 2010 12:14 pm
by Calilasseia
CharlieM wrote:A few evolutionary facts have been given which I presume are supposed to argue against my position. The ones I can recall are:
A monkeyflower turning into a monkeyflower, a peppered moth turning into a peppered moth and hydrogen producing bacteria turning into hydrogen producing bacteria. I have no problem with these examples of evolution.


This is merely the wholly absurd regurgitation of the "I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog" piece of creationist scientific illiteracy. Which, apart from being scientifically illiterate, is a duplicitous strawman caricature of evolutionary theory erected for mendacious apologetic purposes.

First of all, evolution is based upon inheritance. Therefore, evolutionary theory postulates that organisms inherit characteristics from their ancestors. A postulate for which we have a large body of evidence. It also postulates that when new features arise amongst some of those ancestors, and those new features are positively selectable, they too will be inherited by descendants thereof. However, it also postulates that when isolating mechanisms come into play that split populations into reproductively distinct groups, those groups will diverge. Evolutionary theory postulates that if a population A is split into two populations B and C, with an isolating mechanism erected between them, then individuals belonging to population B will eventually fail to be reproductively compatible with individuals from population C, and vice versa, at which point we have a speciation event. But, those two species share a common ancestor in the form of the individuals of the original population A, and therefore will be nested within the clade that contained population A originally. They won't "transmute" into something totally different. Plus, since these changes take place at the population level, this invalidates at a stroke the fatuous "x turns into y" nonsense of creationists. Oh, and if you think speciation hasn't happened, Dobzhansky produced a speciation event in his laboratory in 1971, and documented it in a paper submitted to Nature.

Trying to use the fact that modern, derived organisms inherit a large collection of derived characteristics from their ancestors, as purported "evidence" against cladogenesis occurring in earlier, simpler, less derived organisms, is mere apologetic duplicity.