For Theists, Here's a Lesson on Evolution For You?

So damn sick of people trying to deny evolution, so I'm going to thoroughly explain as much as I can.

Okay, before I begin, Evolution is ACCEPTED FACT. It is the basis of all modern biology. It isn't this wild theory or belief system, it is some of the basic groundwork of science.

Anyway, here's a story I frequently tell people to help them explain evolution:

Before the industrial revolution, there was a breed of moth in the area that was all white and speckled. They could blend in with trees very well, and survived for generations.

However, once the Industrial Revolution started, all of the smoke from the factories made the bark on the trees turn dark. Now, the white speckled moths were being eaten by predators easier! Their white coloring showed up against the dark tree.

Then, a completely random genetic mutation occurred. It wasn't PLANNED to adapt, it was just a random little variation in genes. This moth was born all black. He could blend in with the trees well, and he survived long enough to reproduce. Soon, there were more black moths.

The moths that were white didn't usually live long enough to reproduce, because they didn't blend in with the trees. The black moths, however, DID, and eventually, the species became all black, because the white ones died out, and the black made up the majority.

So you see, THAT is evolution. It is a completely random change that occurs, and if it happens to help the creature to survive, it can become a dominant gene that changes the entire species over a long period of time.

Hope that helped... If you have any responses to this I'll add replies.



That's exactly what evolution is, you idiot. It isn't a magic button in your brain that makes you grow a new body part every few hundred years. It's when variations in a species grow to dominate more of the population.

It's funny how you even admit that you deny even such basic science that has been proven...

Update 2:

You guys were right... These people will lie through their asses.

Update 3:

I should have named this to be against creationists, I guess.

12 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Best Answer

    Allow me to deconstruct your rant.

    Evolution, in the strictest sense of the word, refers to change over time. Anything, living or non, natural or man made, has the capacity to evolve in this sense. Basically what you're saying is that it is an accepted fact that in our world change happens. I do not disagree with you. I do not understand why you think I would.

    Biologically, evolution refers to various changes that occur within living organisms. Animal husbandry is an ancient form of human-controlled evolution, and it is responsible for producing just about every subspecies of domestic animal we know today. This type of evolution can occur naturally, as is the case with your moth example (more on that in a moment). It is known as microevolution, or changes within a given species. One form of microevolution is called adaptation. Adaptation is responsible for producing the polar bear, or for increasing the solid black population of Vipera berus in northern Scandinavia. We know microevolution is a fact because we study and experiment with it on a regular basis, and have done so for literally thousands of years.

    The form of biological evolution that creationists do NOT accept is macroevolution, or changes above the family level (or even above the genus level). There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, macroevolution does NOT fit the scientific method. It has never been observed or tested, and thus does not deserve to be called fact. Second, macroevolution requires the addition of genetic information from completely unknown sources that code for the change in question. Again, this has never been observed to happen, and in theory appears to be quite impossible. It has been our observation that no genetic information is added in the process of microevolution (particularly adaptation and husbandry), and in fact information is much more often lost to microevolution. So macroevolution clearly is not possible. Any time genetic information IS added, it has a verifiable source, meaning something else lost genetic information in order to give it to the organism in question. Retroviruses are one such example. But retroviruses are not capable of turning a reptile into a bird. They either suppress or enhance the physiology of an organism, in some cases acting as the keys to allow that system to function (such as the reproductive system in females, especially placental females). But they do not add organism-changing information.

    As to your moth example. You've given an excellent illustration of adaptation. This change happened within the subspecies of peppered moth commonly found in Europe. But what you've failed to mention is that no new genetic information was added. Peppered moths routinely come in their namesake light, mottled color, as well as darker morphs. To say that the existence of black peppered moths is proof of macroevolution is to say that the fact that I have blue eyes and my friend has brown eyes is proof that we are both descended from pond scum. Clearly the melanistic trait has been a part of the peppered moth's genome since long before the Industrial Revolution of Europe. Also, the Industrial Revolution temporarily increased the number of black moths, but it did not make them anything other than moths. It didn't even change their subspecies, let alone their genus, family or order. Nor did it change the fact that black is apparently a recessive trait in peppered moths.

    Finally, evolution as you've illustrated it here is not a "random change." To be truly random something has to occur without ANY outside influences. Natural selection is far from random. Is it mere coincidence that the common adder, a snake normally found in gray and black or brown and beige, is almost always solid black north of the arctic circle? Or is it an adaptation to take full advantage of the long days of an all too short summer?

    So you see, I do understand evolution. I dare say I understand it far better than you do.

  • 7 years ago

    Okay, let me explain something to you ....

    Evoloution is a THEORY that is still being tested. It may be accepted as fact by many, but by definition it is still a theory.

    Further, most folks don't have a problem with evolution. Most have a problem with evolution without God (or some intelligence).

    Lastly I have a problem with your assumption in the following paragraph ...

    "Then, a completely random genetic mutation occurred. It wasn't PLANNED to adapt, it was just a random little variation in genes. This moth was born all black. He could blend in with the trees well, and he survived long enough to reproduce. Soon, there were more black moths."

    It is your assumption that it was random and unplanned. You don't know that it wasn't planned by a higher being. If you want to be intellicually honest, you have to admit in the possibility of intervention by God (or something). Otherwise you are suggesting that you already know EVERYTHING. Is this the case?

  • punch
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Ray, just to explain so YOU know. Evolution and how life began are two different things. They are separate for a reason. Different reasons and different answers. Evolution will NEVER try to answer the question of how life started, because it's a different science then evolution.

    Louis Pasteur, demonstrated beyond a doubt that spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter does not occur. Beyond a doubt? Every single way that is possible? I find that hard to believe. Besides, we have the ingredients of life, we just don't know the recipe yet. And I doubt if Louis did a test of every single possible recipe. That would be impossible.

    And Guys! Learn what a "Scientific" theory is.

    A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

  • Ray
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    I learned about this moth story in the 6th grade, at a Christian school, yet. The problem is not with mutations or genetic manipulation, which is easily seen to be real, but the origin of life, itself. This is something that evolution does not even try to answer, because there is no science for it. Science tells us that systems tend towards chaos, which would make the unplanned evolution of life impossible. A devout Catholic, Louis Pasteur, demonstrated beyond a doubt that spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter does not occur. This leads us back to the burning question, whence cometh life?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Topheh
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    And your question is.... ? This is Yahoo ANSWERS, not Yahoo LISTENTOMYOPINIONS (although the two sometimes are far too similar to one another).

    Just a few caveats. The black moths weren't a sudden mutation. Black moths already existed in the population of moths, they just grew to be more dominant as a result of the change in environment. It is not accurate to say that Evolution is reactive... that mutations arise as a result of changes in environment. Rather, these mutations happen at various points, but are tolerated in the current environment. Then, as a change in environment occurs, the mutant phenotype becomes preferred where before it was neutral.

    An example in humans is the lactase persistance mutation that allows (many) of us to drink milk after childhood. Its a mutation that has arisen at least three times in history... once in Europe and twice in Africa. However, this mutation was ignored for a very, very, very long time as humans did not drink milk after infancy. Once we domesticated animals and began to drink their milk, the ability to process that nutrient-rich substance led to the lactase persistance mutation becoming HIGHLY beneficial and being strongly selected for, so that now we have entire continents of people who can drink milk, all of whom are, in the mists of history, descendents of the person who had that original mutation.

    Regardless. Please do not lump all 'Theists' together into one category. Evolution deniers make up a very small segment of our population. They're loud, but they don't represent all (or even most, or even many) of us. The word you are looking for is 'Creationists'

  • A
    Lv 4
    7 years ago

    Evolution? Oh yeah! Hilarious movie with David what's his name.

    Last I checked, nope. Still "Theory of Evolution"

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time.

  • David
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    What your describing in your letter we in science understand as natural selection. Now whats really going to bake your noodle is the first ever recording teaching evolution through natural selection is in THE TORAH and then in the 1611 KJV. Yes don't be destroyed by the false doctrines and commandments of men and fables. Lies like those of an talking snake and higher education from eating an fruit. Only in THE WORD OF GOD can we understand our common ancestor or that which many call the missing link. That is the serpent/caveman spoken of in Genesis. That thing is cain's father. You now can understand the original sin. JESUS BLESS YOU david stotler

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    " so I'm going to thoroughly explain as much as I can."

    Whereas I appreciate your attempt to educate these idiots, your attempt is in vain. You see, when someone has been brainwashed with the "religious virus" to the point that they accept a fairy tale like creationism, over Science, they're pretty much a lost cause.

    Trying to educate them is like trying to teach a dog to sprout wings and fly. All it does is frustrate the dog and is a massive waste of time for you.

    They simply aren't intellectually capable of understanding even the basics of Evolutionary biology. It's sad and we should pity them, but it's a fact of life.

  • 7 years ago

    I'd like to remind you that many Theists do actually agree with Evolution, it's creationists, particularly "young Earth" creationists who disbelieve in the FACT of Evolution. But then if you believe God made the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago, you are not going to listen to any evidence about anything scientific if it goes against your beliefs... they are DUMB BRAINWASHED IDIOTS and you are wasting your time.

  • 7 years ago

    I don't see your question here but it looks like you're inducting a generalization of what you believe that all theists believe.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.