How Quickly Can Evolution Take Place

Work with finches, one of the categories of birds Darwin studied, has shown that evolution does not always take many generations but can happen more quickly.

We have no evidence whatsoever for creationism. It is merely one of many religious beliefs that has come and gone over the course of human history. Those who wrote the Bible needed a story of where the world came from so they wrote the creation story. Actually, they probably heard it from previous stories and changed the god.

Religious people come up with many reasons why creatures of the world came to be through creation and not through evolution. It is popular to say the human hand to too complex for evolution and had to have a designer. The phony concept called “intelligent design” was put into play until a judge laughed to out of court.

One reason creationism cannot compete with evolution is that we can see evolution taking place before our eyes. Insects and the link allow us to see how creatures change in order to survive. Being able to find and eat food and to reproduce as conditions change is essential and creatures do it all the time.

Some creationist have come up with the argument there was not enough time for creatures to evolve from the simple ones at the beginning to the complex ones of today. They have a theory they cling to that includes time line.

The link shows a long time line is not always necessary for creatures to change.

35 Responses

  1. entech

    Depends on the length of of a generation. Over a few generations of mutation making changes until the original and the latest could not breed is a pretty good “rough” guide. Short for microbes, long for the Blue Whale.
    A rough definition, those that know the theory well can expand from there, those that have a distinct aversion for any belief at all won’t understand any more or less because every thing is as it was at creation and I personally am the main part of the original creation.

  2. Chuck Z

    We have no evidence of “evolution”. We’ve went over this numerous times. The finches are still finches. Humans are still humans. Bacteria is still bacteria. Apes are still apes. Nothing has evolved. Adapted? Sure. Evolved? Nope.

    1. Matt S

      ChuckZ, when you say “humans are still humans,” what are your comparison groups? In other words, how far back in time are you looking to make this observation? The same question could apply to all the animals you listed, but the human example is tbe mosr relatable for most of us.

    2. Chuck Z 2:33 Nothing has evolved. Adapted? Sure. Evolved? Nope.

      Yes, we’ve been through this before. Last time I provided chapter and verse from science sources confirming that evolution as we currently experience it has creatures evolving into different species. It is such common knowledge in science that this happens there is no argument about it. I not going to show you these links again because it is like talking to a stone.

  3. entech

    It does sound as if Chuck thinks it was all created more or less as is about 6000 years ago, his God did it and nothing can change or contradict that. This in spite of the fact that genesis has problems of its own.
    I could be wrong about Chuck, there is of course the possibility of old world creationism, which has a more reasonable time span of millions of years while retaining the animals and especially humans (those created to lord it over and dominate the rest).
    We could say that:
    Young earthers – Interpret the world through the bible.
    Old earthers – Interpret the bible through the world.

    The description in parentheses above seems to me to be the dominant reason for the rejection of evolution, if humans are just the most advanced form of life that we know and was created that way lord it over all they couldn’t possibly have just evolved – not only superior but naturally and eternally so as an act of creation. I am not related to any animals is the protestation, only you atheists in your arrogance would lower yourselves like that 😆 .

    “We have no evidence of evolution”. And no evidence of creation!
    “We’ve went over this numerous times.” We have indeed been over it many times it doesn’t mean a case is proved.

    “The finches are still finches. Humans are still humans. Bacteria is still bacteria. Apes are still apes. Nothing has evolved. Adapted? Sure.” Just adapted and developed to the point that they could, to a jaundiced, eye be thought of as so different that they were a different species. Some have adapted to non existence quite happily, surely none of those created in the times of genesis and remain unchanged couldn’t have evolved negatively to the point extinction.
    “Evolved? Nope.” Evolved? Yes

  4. Chuck Z

    “I not going to show you these links again”

    Of course you aren’t. Because you don’t have any. A birds beak changing shape, or a bacteria becoming resistant to a vaccine, aren’t proof of evolution. Sorry. They just aren’t. Now, keep pretending that you’ve provided all of these irrefutable links. We know being truthful isn’t one of your strong suits.

    Piltdown Man?
    Java Man?
    Earnst Haeckles?
    The Peppered Moth

    ^ Look! It’s evolution!

    (this spot reserved for Jon’s non-existent link)

    1. Chuck Z — Since you will not read links from science I put up here I will no longer bother to do so. What they explain is that there are examples in real time of creatures who evolve from one species to another. These are small creatures which reproduce quickly and it is possible to see it happen. For larger creatures, it takes longer, sometimes centuries. What you are demanding are pictures going back before cameras or even the written word. Scientists can see in the physiology of animals patterns of development going back to very ancient times.

      But, never mind. You are locked into a religious mind set from which there is no escape.

  5. Adam Heckathorn

    I think this subject is all about the second paragraph. It comes down to how do we determine facts about the world or even the universe we live in? The more complex the animal the more it must rely on a longer time with it’s parents to learn the ropes of survival so naturally we are programmed to trust the adults in our lives as are other animals when they are taught where the various food sources are and when different types will be ripe. This has served our ancestors well who through ninety percent of our evolution were hunter gatherers. We have seen great changes in how human beings live which have allowed a population explosion so that we now are taxing our finite planets resources and too many of us have not got up to speed to meet this new complexity as demonstrated by science denying. But for my moment of bright as the sun insight where I suddenly realized that everything that I and all of my ancestors had built our lives around, The various and contradictory beliefs about a supreme deity, were superstitious nonsense. I may very well have been one of those denying evident facts that we see here today in some of these comments. The sudden realization that what I had believed could not possibly be true lead me to the obvious conclusion that my way, and every other religious person’s way of determining fact from superstition was flawed. It is that simple. Enlightenment with it’s many benefits lies waiting for any bold enough to question their superstitions. The religious are stuck in a mental prison of circular logic much like the funny saying you see at work, Rule number 1.The boss is always right. Rule number 2. When the boss is wrong see rule number 1. I have been there, I have always loved Science, Archaeology, Reading about the latest discoveries including Bible Manuscripts etc. For years I would find a way to fit this information into my existing beliefs which meant that I was piling a mountain of unanswered questions
    about evidence that clearly showed what I believed was not true. it went on the shelf. If you are religious you have your own shelf, Oh you may not call it that, you may not even acknowledge it’s existence in your conscious mind but it is there. Mine started with the answer I got when I told a well meaning Jehovah’s Witness Lady that I had read all their information on not taking blood transfusions, Including every cited scripture and I just didn’t see it. She said “Just put that on the shelf and Jehovah will explain it to you later.”. She was and is as honest as the day is long and she was absolutely wrong in Her judgement to trust and to suggest that I should trust that an answer would be forth coming. I never did get an answer and I continued to load that shelf up with evidence against faith until the day it collapsed and I was buried under and immense and irrefutable pile of evidence I had been consciously ignoring for the better part of thirty years. If your religious you too have a shelf.

  6. Adam Heckathorn

    OK so I took some time carefully as I could crafting this last comment because it was on a subject that always leaves me awestruck, The realization that everything I had ever believed about the universe and my place in it was changed in a moment of quiet reflection. There have been big memorable moments in my life with earth shaking importance to me but for me my life will always be defined by that moment and this blog hits triggers for me on that Happy triggers but triggers none the less. so I had my Daughter read the comment She gave me a look and insisted that I watch this short video on “Adam Ruins Everything – Why Proving Someone Wrong Often Backfires” It is less than two minutes and no matter your beliefs I think you’ll chuckle.

    1. Rob

      Your obsession with me is flattering. However, thanks but no thanks.
      As I told Entech, I find it humorous he/she, and you/it, keep obsessing about my username all the while both of you don’t even have human names listed. Making tranny jokes about me as you sit on your throne spitting on priests. Religious folks would find that behavior abhorrent.
      But as I’ve learned reading Jon, the atheist condition results in evolving to such a higher plain intellectually that the ability to see fault in oneself is lost/ unnecessary as you are truly one with the universe with your level of understanding. The Alpha and the Omega, aka Jon and Entech.

      1. entech

        Rob. Interesting, in the past you have told us that it is just a bit of fun. Can’t you take a joke?
        Can’t you see the humour in one person with many names berating those with none.

        Jinx, I think your post would have been better directed at Chuck, he really does seem more likely to be a creationist. Rob just seems to be anti-atheist.

        1. Rob

          You need to find one side of your circular logic and stick with it. Otherwise you just sound silly with all your hypocritical statements.

  7. Henry

    Jon: “How Quickly Can Evolution Take Place”

    The 1970’s bird beak experiment is just a retread of Mendel’s pea experiment. It is great confirmation of what animal husbandry can accomplish at the Iowa State Fair. However, from year to year, the beef cattle are still beef cattle, only changing proportions with respect to market demand. A grand champion 1910 beef all fatted looks substantially different from today’s large frame meaty grand champion beef. The 1910 beef provided large quantities of trim fat and tallow that was consumed at the time.

    I want to see an atheist create a new species with evolution, or grow a new type organ for a new purpose. They have no evidence, and I am skeptical of their beliefs.

    1. entech

      and I am skeptical of their beliefs.

      Henry you are skeptical about everyone’s beliefs except your own, interesting because I find the cretinist to attract the most skepticism to himself.

  8. Chuck Z

    Congratulations! The numerous instances of proven evolution have me convinced! How could anybody be skeptical of “belief without proof”, which is exactly what evolution is. Nice work, hypocrites!

    1. Chuck Z 3:09 How could anybody be skeptical of “belief without proof”, which is exactly what evolution is.

      Scientists around the world find three sources of evidence for evolution. One is they observe evolution of new species in real time among creatures who reproduce quickly. Another is from examining ancient artifacts. The third is from examining physical features of existing creatures and seeing evidence to different characteristics of the past. These are tangible, touchable and observable forms of evidence.

      Creationism has no such evidence. It is merely that a group believes there are invisible gods and that unknown writers in ancient times wrote about their imaginary god friends.

      These sources of evidence convince scientists evolution has occurred and that is the source of humans and other creatures. For religious people like yourself there will never be enough evidence. According to polls, the population of people not believing in evolution is getting smaller. We can thank the growing appreciation of science for this improvement.

      1. Henry

        Jon: “One is they observe evolution of new species in real time among creatures who reproduce quickly.”

        Jon, I’d be interested in this “new creatures” find. Is this documented to be a new species transforming from a previous, or is it simply just a slight variation as documented by Mendel? Or perhaps a previously unobserved species located in a remote location?

  9. entech

    An early, now extinct, branch of the split from Chimpanzees. Note well that this is a split from the branch NOT an evolvement from. Search for “the missing link” is a mistaken and futile quest, there is no missing link just a gradual divergence from the original.

    Piltdown Man?
    A complete and total hoax.

    Java Man?
    Interesting, Dubois was keen on the idea of a “missing link”. Most generally Java Man is taken as a side branch that became extinct. There is no missing link.

    Earnst Haeckles? Simply wrong, his idea that the development of the embryo followed the development of the species wish pretty well discredited early on.
    Haeckel embraced evolution not only as a scientific theory, but as a worldview. He outlined a new religion or philosophy called monism, which cast evolution as a cosmic force, a manifestation of the creative energy of nature. A proponent of social Darwinism, Haeckel became increasingly involved in elaborating the social, political, and religious implications of Darwinism in the late nineteenth century; his writings and lectures on monism were later used to provide quasi-scientific justifications for the racist and imperialist programs of National Socialism in 1930s Germany.
    Evolution as a religion ???

    Another complete and total hoax

    The Peppered Moth
    This has been in and out of favour since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In Derbyshire and surrounds (interestingly referred to as “the black country”) where the trees where stained with soot it was observed that the dark moths began to predominate wher as in Devon with the clean white trees the lighter moths were the most prolific. Possibly a good article to read is:
    Coyne, Jerry (12 February 2012). “The peppered moth story is solid”. Why Evolution Is True. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
    Of course Gerry Coyne, author of many standard texts and proponent of teaching evolution as true is decidedly unpopular among the anti crowd being that he is a practising Catholic and takes his faith and evolution as compatible.
    The moth story does not claim to be evolution just shows that with the mutation of a single gene making the creature more suitable to its environment natural selection can be inferred and even demonstrated.

    The above shows many cases of people either exaggerating the evidence and/or totally fabricating it, an excess of zeal for your ideas and beliefs leads down many strange pathways. Of course as we observe this it is also observed that many religious stories are equally spurious and phony.
    How many times has Noah’s ark been found? What actual proof is there that it ever existed? Some people believe in a literal six (24 hour) day of creation of the universe and everything in it and claim a real science in it – a good example of “real science” in relation to the moth; the claim is that the only reason it works because they glued the moths to the trees – no evidence, just it can’t be true so another answer is … .
    The entire resources of Israel have been searching for proof of the red sea crossing and forty years in the desert to no avail, yet there have been several documentaries on television?

    Congratulations! The numerous instances of proven creation have me convinced!

  10. entech

    I got so carried along by my extreme verbosity that I forgot the important question.
    Given the way American Politics looks from the outside the important question must surely be:
    Did blacks, whites, Jews and others descend from different apes. As the descendants of the white ape seem to think this gave them a head start at superiority can we claim that God prefers whites.

    I am interested in this because from my point of view and based on my own experience I have yet to notice any real difference. Black, white, straight, gay all variations on a common humanity.

  11. Chuck Z

    Links, people! Surely you have them?

    Uh, yeah, entech….,I posted those “examples” of evolution sarcastically. Obvious hoaxes by people that want evolution to be true. You can be guaranteed that, through time, Jon was behind every one of them. Every “link” he claims he posted before? Yep, no different. Even science disagreed with him. Why do you think he won’t post them again? “Belief without proof”. Funny how that’s acceptable when you hypocrites want it to be.

    1. entech

      Chuck – August 26, 2017 at 2:33 am
      Humans are still humans. Apes are still apes.
      Can we read from this that while they are “still” whatever that there was a time when they were not? I am assuming that you believe that they have always been humans or apes and they still are, the question then becomes how long is always, presumably always is actually to be read as “from the beginning” apes have been apes with some small adaptation to changing conditions.
      How long ago was this beginning?

      1. Henry

        Jon: “I am assuming that you believe that they have always been humans or apes and they still are, the question then becomes how long is always, presumably always is actually to be read as “from the beginning” apes have been apes with some small adaptation to changing conditions.
        How long ago was this beginning?”

        If the atheist’s beliefs on their origin model is to be taken at face value, longer than we have time. It is statistically a mess.

        1. entech

          I find it difficult you can get a single cell evolved in that amount of time

          Henry my love, you did it yourself and it only took you nine months. 😆

  12. Freedom

    A species adapting to changes in their environment is micro evolution. A species changing into another species is macro evolution. Freethinkers changing into Muslims under Sharia is called survival.

  13. Kevin Flanagan

    “Freethinkers changing into Muslims under Sharia is called survival.” That’s only until they are called on to become suicide bombers.

    1. entech

      You can find a downside to everything if you are too picky. Even all those virgins come with all those mothers in law.

  14. Jon, with the finch beaks, you are confusing evolution with adaptation. Several years ago I read “The Beak of the Finch,” by Jonathan Weiner, in which the author observes finches with big beaks thriving when their favored nut thrives, and finches with smaller beaks thriving during opposite times. This is simple adaptation, like water dogs’ coats being better at staying dry than say an Afghan hound’s. It is NOT evolution though, specially the evolutionary sense you are presuming it to be, that of the creation of a new species. Adaptations are what have created thousands of different birds, but they’re all birds.

    I recommend all free thinkers to read “Hallmarks of Design,” by British design engineer professor, Stuart Burgess.
    A challenging film on this subject: “Is Genesis History?”

    In fairness, Jon, what books/films do you recommend defending evolution?

    1. murlimews 8:06 It is NOT evolution though, specially the evolutionary sense you are presuming it to be, that of the creation of a new species.

      That finches with short beaks die out and those with long beaks thrive and reproduce is an example of what takes place in evolution. I agree they are still members of the same species so a completed cycle of evolution has not occurred.

      But, as I understand what I read, it is not adaptation. Adaptation would be when the creature does not change physically but changes what it does to survive. If I recall correctly, bears in the Rockies have less habitat and food at the elevation where they have lived for centuries. So, they have moved higher. There they had to learn to hunt and eat a different diet. That is adaptation.

      1. Juan Ruiz

        ” There they had to learn to hunt and eat a different diet.”

        As I recall, this was in reference to the declining population of elk. Grizzlies were killing the newborns. It was traced back to the decline in population of their traditional food: speckled trout, which were being killed off due to the introduction of lake trout.

  15. The birds that thrive at any given time , do so because of their adaptations: big or smaller beaks. A creature can change physically, that’s why all birds do not look alike.

    1. I have posted about evolution and the development of new species so many times I’m hesitant to waste my time explaining it to people who are wrapped up in their religious beliefs. What they want is a series of pictures or skulls that follow a step by step evolution. If these are not available then, in their religious thinking, evolution did not happen.
      The answers to dramatic changes in creatures over millions of years is available to religious people in a matter of seconds if they care to search for it. But, of course, they do not want to learn this because is creates doubt. All they have to do is enter something in a search engine.
      For example, it took me a few seconds to write in “water to land evolution”. I just looked at one article but there are many. The one I looked at explained a fossil which scientists have concluded was one that came out of the period just before that when fish who got oxygen through their gills became land animals who did not use gills. Maybe there is controversy among legitimate scientists about this fossil but it no doubt represents the kind of evolution that we came from.

  16. entech

    Darwin’s finches are good example of speciation but also it is far too easy to simply say Yeh but a finch is still a finch, even thought the “adaptation” sometimes led to extinction. Finches that are the same species don’t have any degree of sameness if one is no longer extant.

    It is probably better to show that through divergent evolution, organisms may develop homologous structures. These are anatomically similar structures, which are present in the common ancestor and persist within the diverged organisms, although have evolved dissimilar functions.

    The human hand, the dogs paw, the birds claw and the whales fin.

    Of course following the creationist idea that it is all as God created it we have to say that a human is still a whale and a dog is still a bird 😆

Comments are closed.