If evolution is true, why have we stopped evolving?

Its me again, retaliating to creationists stupid arguments. This is one that comes up momentarily in debates and discussions. "why have we stopped evolving?" I will now arm you on how to respond.

 

First of all, we must understand evolution. Evolution is the change within a specie, due to adaptation of its environment. Precisely why it is documented that people that live in high altitudes literally have bigger hearts.

 

Now there's a simple answer, we did not STOP evolving. Our life spans are way too short to observe the development of species over millions of years. Micro-evolution has been been proven, and is very much observed due to the short time it takes. Now magnifying micro-evolution over millions of years, then evolution has become real. The essence is, if our life span was millions and millions of years, we would indeed see the evolutionary process at work. As long as a specie needs to adapt to its environment, it will continue to evolve.

Views: 1103

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Ashleigh Carter on June 5, 2011 at 2:34pm

When I was a child and heard about evolution for the first time, I think I misunderstood "slight differences" for "slightly less human". I thought that if a woman was human and a man was human and they had a child that was somewhere between mom and dad in makeup, they should be "completely human" and that if evolution were true, that would mean that each successive generation would be "slightly less human", which I suppose is one way to look at it, albeit oversimplified, in that as differences multiply you draw closer to having one species split into two or more. But I grew up with the idea of "kinds" also, so I was stuck in the rut of thinking that a homo sapien is exactly what we have now, no more, no less. Which is really quite silly when you think about it considering the wide range of variation we can have from one person to another. But I also was unaware that the definition of "species" was a group of whatever (technical term) that can produce viable offspring and as a child I had always thought of a species as being animals/plants/things that looked alike. I guess I thought there was a special allowance for males and females of a species that didn't look alike. I don't really remember having discussions about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's still the colloquial definition of species which could definitely put a monkey wrench in someone's ability to wrap their brain around evolution. So I guess when it comes up, it might be a good idea to start the conversation off with 'what is your understanding of a "species"?'

Also, about peppered moths, did they split into two separate species or did they just develop more color pattern variation?

Comment by John Camilli on June 4, 2011 at 11:19pm

Johnsky, I'm not arguing against the grain (for once), but one's children having a different appearance is not due to evolution. It is due to genetic recombination during reproduction. It's one of the (now) built in mechanisms of sexual reproduction that has the effect of aiding diversification. However, if someone is lacking enough familliarity with evolution to claim that it has stopped, then they probably wont know that either.

 

Molars are a good example, Thomas. Vestigial finger webbing and tailbones are some other examples. The ability to wiggle one's ears is another, and goosebumps. They are all traits that are useless to survival now, and are slowly disappearing in humans, but clearly served a purpose to our ancestors.

Comment by Jared Lardo on June 4, 2011 at 11:16pm

Most succinct answer:  We haven't; we are still evolving, and as long as our species exists, it will be evolving.

 

NOTE: There is a particular misdefinition that some creationists have in mind for "evolution" which, though I am not familiar with it in explicit detail, indicates that "evolution" means that some dramatic difference (e.g. between those "kinds" that creationists believe in and which creationists mistakenly believe non-creationists to believe in as well) be found between some parents and their offspring such that they are different species--the kind of miraculous event which, curiously, would only indicate divine intervention.

 

If a creationist is (and you must ask them about this to find out) operating under this definition (some do and some do not), then you must make them aware of "evolution" not referring to such a thing.  Of course if they think that that is what evolution is, it is plain to see for them that their "evolution" isn't occuring--trees beget trees, mice mice, humans humans, cats cats, and so on, "after their own kind".  You must make them aware of the fact of their definition for "evolution" being in error in order to get them to understand real stuff.

Comment by thomas smith on June 4, 2011 at 10:50pm
actually we have not stopped evolving, take the case of the rear molars, more people are being born without them because our diet no longer requires massive grinding of tough plant fiber
Comment by Johnsky on June 4, 2011 at 10:36pm

Just tell them we haven't.

Ask if they have children.

Ask if they look identical to them in every way shape and form.

 

If they aren't identical twins to their parents... boom... evolution.

It's not a hard bloody concept to grasp.

 

You'd either have to be retarded or a Christian not to comprehend this.

(I still have trouble finding the line between the two.)

Comment by Jim DePaulo on June 4, 2011 at 6:20pm
The simplest definition of evolution is the change in the gene frequency within a population over time.
Comment by John Camilli on June 4, 2011 at 5:21pm

There was another one that I saw on sciencedaily.com about lizards who were actively and observably evolving. Fire ants had recently invaded their natural habitat, and it was the usual defense mechanism of the lizards to stay still and blend in when threatened, but when they did that with the fire ants they just died anyway. A few of the lizards who had the alternative habit of twitching the ants off their bodies and running away were managing to survive, and now almost all of the lizards in the area have this habit.

 

There was an additional physiological effect that was observed, which was that lizards with longer legs were better able to keep their bodies up off the ground, and to flee faster, and now the average length of the lizards legs has increased dramatically in a relatively short number of years.

Comment by Lorryslorrys on June 4, 2011 at 4:59pm

Why not back that up with another recent evolution example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution    I suppose that's not in humans though. Still, it's a crazy ignorant question.

 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service