No, it’s really not like that. The reality: we have overwhelming evidence that all species are changing genetically all the time. We have overwhelming evidence that all species are related to one another genetically, which is to say, that macroevolution occurs through common descent from common ancestors. We have very good reason to think that all of the genetic differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations since they shared a common ancestor, and overwhelming reason to think that all of the macroevolutionary differences can be explained by those genetic differences. In light of everything we do know, and in the absence of anything resembling an alternative explanation for differences between species, we conclude that large-scale changes have occurred through evolutionary processes.
Those links attempt to describe what happened, but I couldn’t find any attempt to explain how and why it happened … as in, how and why did natural selection and environment pressures produce the changes described, exactly. This omission is hardly surprising, since no one has a clue about the actual causations. Someone with a vivid imagination could no doubt come up with a story, but they’d only be guessing (even I could do that).
So, nice try but no cigar - the two links you provided don’t in any way demonstrate that authors involved know how evolution works.
So you don’t even understand the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection? What about artificial selection? Do you at least know about that?
That’s correct. There will be evolutionary steps in the history of life that will probably never be known.
Actually, we have intermediate fossils for all of those evolutionary transitions, so we do know.
All of the evidence we do have points to random mutations, natural selection, speciation, neutral drift, and the rest of the known evolutionary mechanisms. For example, the evidence for random mutations producing the genetic differences between species can be found here:
https://biologos.org/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
When we compare the same gene across many species we observe that introns differ more than exons. This is evidence for natural selection.
When we compare the genomes, physical characteristics, and fossils of many species we observe a nested hierarchy which is evidence for speciation and vertical inheritance.
There is mountains of evidence demonstrating how evolution has shaped life over Earth’s history.
Random mutations filtered through natural selection. We have tons of evidence for these mechanisms in nature.
Similarly, meteorologists cannot explain exactly why hurricanes form precisely where and when they do. They know the basic forces that go into creating hurricanes and can simulate the formation of hurricanes, but they can’t explain the origin of any one hurricane in detail. You should be equally dismissive of meteorology. Are you? Ditto for astronomy, geology, epidemiology, zoology, and a bunch of other scientific fields. Are you consistent?
Well if they can’t recreate a hurricane in a lab it’s hardly science.[/sarcasm]
What about a storm in a teacup?
Good catch!
I prefer tempests in teapots.
I like single-event upsets
There’s less to declutter.
A tempest in a teapot refers to an event that is exaggerated out of proportion, whereas a SEU is an insignificant event that may have far reaching consequences.
And who doesn’t appreciate a good Shakespeare play especially with tea.
If you know how evolution works, please describe the steps involved in the evolution of the breathing-hole on top of a whale’s head from its land-animal ancestor, replete with a description of how and what natural selections and environmental pressures produced each of those steps.
Then please describe the steps involved in the evolution of a whale’s tail from the two hind-legs its land-animal ancestor, replete with a description of how and what natural selections and environmental pressures produced each of those steps.
Finally, please demonstrate that your description is factual, and not just a figment of your imagination.
Considering that whale evolution is somewhat of a poster-child for Darwinism and that scientists claim to know so much about it, surely the abovementioned requests shouldn’t be too difficult to fulfill.
You don’t appear to have read Dr. Schaffner’s post above, or if you did, you failed to comprehend it.
What you’ve described is evidence that evolution has occurred, which I don’t dispute, but which has nothing to do with the point I made. My contention is that science doesn’t know how the macro-evolutionary changes evident in the fossil record occurred … in fact, science seems quite clueless.
For example, let’s start at the beginning with a very basic and primitive macroevolution …
If you know how evolution works, please explain the steps involved in the evolution of a eurkayote from a prokaryote, replete with a description of how and what natural selections and environmental pressures produced each of those steps.
Finally, please demonstrate that your description is factual, and not just a figment of your imagination.
You mean the "blowhole” (the exterior opening to the bony nostrils). Can you not see how the blowhole on the top of the head would be a HUGE advantage for an aquatic creature? We can even see it move from the snout to the top of the head in successive species of whales!!!
see this link
If you are going to poo-poo everything I’d like to hear your alternative explanation.
Hm, you can actually see multiple mechanisms in nature currently–not just natural selection, but founder effect, all kinds of things.
Does this make sense? We can demonstrate that all my ancestors (from the Netherlands, Ireland, and German) got together by marriage records and even 23 and Me–but how they exactly met each other, while a known mechanism, isn’t recorded for each individual relationship. It’s not how, that is a question; nor whether.
Thanks.
If you have any clue what minimal criteria are sufficient to demonstrate an adequate understanding of evolution please explain exactly why those are indeed the best choice. Otherwise why should anyone be the least bit interested in what you think it means to “know how evolution works”?