Hopefully the above infographic clears up this woefully common question.
If we evolved from monkeys…{Infographic}
14 Thursday Jun 2012
Posted in Evolution, Infographics
%d bloggers like this:
A mutation is a sign of genetic damage and is not advantageous in any way. Adaptation is what we are all capable of and it is what enables us to survive changing–even detrimental–environments within limits.
This is objectively untrue. Mutations can indeed be beneficial to an organism, and is the foundation of modern evolutionary theory. Your conception of adaptation happening during the lifetime is a pre-Darwinian idea that has been discounted numerous times.
What to you is an example of a “beneficial mutation?”
The mutation that enabled a layer of light-sensitive cells to slightly curve, dramatically increasing the cell’s ability to detect the directionality of light. This mutation is one in the long chain of beneficial mutations that led to the evolution of the eye (something that occurred convergently in many organisms and in a short amount of geologic time).
So you’re saying that your proof of a beneficial mutation lies in accepting that the eye slowly evolved in the first place. The supposed “proof” entails a predisposed belief in evolution. That is not scientific, nor is it logical.
Again, you are incorrect. The evidence for the evolution of the eye comes from genetics and the fossil record which clearly lays out the eye changing in moderate stages. To explain this change we test this evidence against evolutionary theory, and we find that it fits perfectly. No belief required, we have proof.
Excellent simplification of a very complex process. So simple, even a creationist should be able to understand. :)
still doesn’t answer question, why does the higher species in the tree die out faster than it’s parent?
I’m not sure that evolutionary theory has ever posited that this happens. There are no “higher” or “lower” species.
Not sure I understand the question. You mean more recent species die out faster? – You might get that idea because the likelihood of a fossil being preserved and discovered decreases with age. The branches on the evolutionary tree are more sparse as we go further back because we know less about older animals. Current species are having a particularly short run because we humans are trashing the planet, so that will bias things in the future.
Also, your question is making a false assumption. Later species do not necessarily die out faster. I’m sure there are examples of organisms speciating from dinosaurs and then dying out before the dinos did, for example (it’s hard to last tens of millions of years).
Your previous response on proof of a beneficial mutation is a false assumption. I didn’t ask before, but where in the fossil record do we see evidence of our eye being shaped any differently than it is today?
See an overview of the evidence here.
Again, to accept this as being a “beneficial mutation,” we have to have a predisposed notion that this extinct creature is our evolutionary ancestor and not simply a creature with unusual eyes that is now extinct. You are using a presumption of evolution to try to prove evolution–a logical fallacy.
No, all we have to accept is that the eye of said creature is “better” (Light sensitivity, directionality of light, focusing capabilities, etc.) than another. We then link the two through multiple lines of evidence (geologic, genetic, fossil, etc.) and this points to an evolutionary process.