Natural selection is observable, yes, but the current scientific consensus is not entirely accurate: the timeline, and speciation. Just because animals can *adapt* and different *breeds* can form, does not mean a dog can evolve into a cat.
No one says dogs evolve into cats. Species have common ancestors. Once they start branching apart they never become turn into each other. No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claims, say, a bonobi becomes a chimp. The two branches separated in the past and never re-converge. Species adapt (change through mutation over time) or die out. That is it. The cumulative effect of mutations can change surviving species significantly over time. They do not become other existing species, but they may change significantly from what we observe today.
What she argues in the post is that “microevolution” is real — evolutionary change within certain genetic limits. However, she pushes back against “macroevolution,” the idea that simple organisms evolved into the complex life forms that we are today.
No one says dogs evolve into cats. Species have common ancestors. Once they start branching apart they never become turn into each other. No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claim, say, a bonobi becomes a chimp. The two branches separated in the past and never re-converge. Species adapt (change through mutation over time) or die out. That is it. The cumulative effect of mutations can change surviving species significantly over time. They do not become other existing species, but they may change significantly from what we observe today.
I personally still believe in the theory of evolution, but I should say your post got me thinking. As Karl Popper pointed out, “No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.” Scientific theories are never beyond questioning; they survive by continually defending against new evidence.
It would also be an interesting topic to look into if and when someone has free time.
Wow! This one is really grasping at straws. Evolution is a fact. It can even be measured. Pick another fight.
Natural selection is observable, yes, but the current scientific consensus is not entirely accurate: the timeline, and speciation. Just because animals can *adapt* and different *breeds* can form, does not mean a dog can evolve into a cat.
No one says dogs evolve into cats. Species have common ancestors. Once they start branching apart they never become turn into each other. No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claims, say, a bonobi becomes a chimp. The two branches separated in the past and never re-converge. Species adapt (change through mutation over time) or die out. That is it. The cumulative effect of mutations can change surviving species significantly over time. They do not become other existing species, but they may change significantly from what we observe today.
What she argues in the post is that “microevolution” is real — evolutionary change within certain genetic limits. However, she pushes back against “macroevolution,” the idea that simple organisms evolved into the complex life forms that we are today.
No one says dogs evolve into cats. Species have common ancestors. Once they start branching apart they never become turn into each other. No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claim, say, a bonobi becomes a chimp. The two branches separated in the past and never re-converge. Species adapt (change through mutation over time) or die out. That is it. The cumulative effect of mutations can change surviving species significantly over time. They do not become other existing species, but they may change significantly from what we observe today.
Precisely!
I personally still believe in the theory of evolution, but I should say your post got me thinking. As Karl Popper pointed out, “No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.” Scientific theories are never beyond questioning; they survive by continually defending against new evidence.
It would also be an interesting topic to look into if and when someone has free time.
Thanks for the post