Macroevolution, by its very nature, can't be observed except over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. This is a major talking point of people who attempt to dismiss evolution as being untrue; no species has been observed to turn into another. My biology of organisms class over the past two semesters has dealt extensively with evolution and phylogenies. Phylogenies are basically a family tree, but with species over time. For example, Humans and chimpanzees are next to each other in a humanoid phylogeny, with the other 3 old-world apes just nearby. Wolves and dogs would be right next to each other, as would zebra and horses, etc.
Throughout the lectures, macroevolutionary theory has been referred to as fact, but for the doubters evidence has been cited in many many lectures as to why this is the case. I am from Massachusetts, however, so there aren't too many people who would openly say, "I don't believe in (macro)evolution." However, I understand that the opposite may be more true in places where some of you are from. Those of you for whom this is true are the people that I'd most like to discuss with. My instructor is, to be blunt, preaching to the choir. I would be very very interested to see how such a lecture would go in more religious parts of the country.
The reason that science gives for the occurrence of speciation is the opening of a niche: an environment that presents a new food source, a new predator, new weather, etc. After mass extinctions, for example, there were huge amounts of speciation observed in the fossil record. The dinosaurs occupied virtually every niche, but when they became extinct mammals began to populate the earth, eventually leading to humankind. By the most common definition, a species is a group of organisms that reproduce with each other. If they do not reproduce on their own, they are considered separate species.
In recent times, only one such speciation event among animals has occurred that I am aware of: the London Underground Mosquito. Basically, with the opening of subways in London, a species of mosquito was able to sustain itself entirely from human and rat prey. The ancestral species which they descend from feeds on birds, and the species will no longer willingly mate with each other.
I accept all this as fact, and in honesty did so long before I knew the details of it. Through reading various topics in this forum, I have found that some people here do not accept macroevolution as truth, and I'd be curious as to what evidence I could show to convince those people. If I were to type up all of the relevant evidence that I know of I'd still be here a day from now, so I'm more concerned with addressing specific topics on which people have doubts or misinformation. I guess that makes me an "evangelical evolutionist," if you will, which slightly bothers me. So specifically, if you don't believe that macroevolution has occured (that humans descend from monkeys), why is that the case?
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 18 2009, 10:50 am by FaZ-.
None.