Evolution and religion, it's an interesting mix. Recently I heard the phrase 'theistic evolution', which caused some wonder with me. It seems theists are adapting their beliefs to accommodate scientific discoveries. American Christian Apologist Frank Turek is one of those theists. About the 'Big Bang theory', which also goes against the teachings of the bible, he once said "Yes, the big bang happend, but I know who banged it". It's not surprising that he also has a similar stance on evolution.
Whenever Frank wants to go a specific argument he leads it in with the question "What do you mean?". This is a logical step to take. Regarding evolution he claims that he asks this, because 'it can mean so many different things'. This however is not true. Evolution is, in general, only used for one thing.
Frank makes a distinct difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", which he refers to as "molecules to man without intelligence".
Apparently Frank is fully on board with, 'adaptation within a type', 'change over time' or 'micro-evolution', because according to Frank, we see this happening. Macro-evolution is what he doesn't believes exists. Even goes so far, as to say that "we see evidence against that like the fossil record, irreducible complexity, epigenetic information, genetic limits to change and some 'other things'", of which he doesn't explain what those things are.
Besides this, when you speak with people who have actually studied the subject, they will mostlikely say that, the fossil record is evidence for macro-evolution, or that 'irreducible complexity' isn't as irriducible as Frank makes it seem. None of the arguments Frank gives against macro-evolution, seem to be evidence against it.
There are no intermediate species!
When speaking of 'macro-evolution' there is always the request for intermediate species, but people never say what they actually mean with 'intermediate species'. Do they expect half crocodile half duck? Half mouse, half lion? The Elephant and the Manatee are said to have a common ancestor, but what do they expect? An animal of which the front is a modern day elephant and the rear is a modern day Manatee? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
The claim that there are no intermediate species is a claim made on personal incredulity or ignorance. All living animals are intermediate species. Evolution never stops. There is always a slight adaptation to natural circumstances. Over time these small adaptations will lead to big changes. And there are some wonderful examples of interesting and weird creatures. Some are quite common.
When I started to ask myself "what 'kind' of bird is a Penguin?" I realised this is a wonderful example of an intermediate species. The Penguin is a bird, a flightless bird. But unlike the Ostrich, which does have wings, the Penguin has wings that are more like fins. The are adapted to function in the water, to be able to maneuver under water.
This wonderful creature doesnt function as a bird. But it also doesnt function as a fish. This seems to be a clear sign of an intermediate stage between a avian animal and an aquatic animal. And it isn't the only animal that is in an intermediate stage between realms. Two other species of animal between the Aquatic and Terrestrial realm are the Mudskipper and the Axolotl. Both of which have distinct features leaning towards one realm, when they also are capable to spend a considerate amount of time in the other.
The Mudskipper is a fish. It has plenty of features you would find on a fish, but it also has features you would find on terrestrial animals.
The Mudskipper can obtain oxigen from water and air. It can also use its fins as leggs, to be able to walk on land or even over roots and branches of trees in Mangrove areas.
Even when the Mudskipper has the ability to survive both on land and in the water, I would say it is more of an aquatic animal. There are 32 known species of Mudskipper. All with tiny differences. There are some who even have an reenforced pectoral fin, which they can use to stand on, so it's easier for them to 'walk'.
The Axolotl is a bit different all together. It is even known as "the walking fish". That should be a clear indicator of an intermediate species.
The Axolotl has several interesting features, like the ability to regrow lost limbs. Not just its tail, but also it's legs and even parts of organs like its brain.
Besides that, it ofcourse has distinct features that show it is in an intermediate stage between Aquatic and Terrestrial. It's tail is equiped to aid movement under water and the Axolotl can use it's gills to breathe. Besides that, it also takes in oxigen through its skin and it can breathe regularly through its lungs, depending on stage of development.
Freaks of nature
Personally I see it as a 'cop-out' when people ask for "intermediate species" and when you then provide some, which would come close to that which they seek, they just shrugg and call those 'freaks of nature' or say that "those are not intermediate at all" but 'designed like that by a common designer'. The fact remains that these animals fit within the theory.
These animals don't just fit within the theory, but they can even be used to test the theory. As has been done with Amphibious fish like the Bichir. This little animal can also survive on land. By comparing Bichir, which were raised in their natural habitat, with Bichir that were raised in a moist terrestrial habitat, their adaptation could be monitored, as described in this video.
The research showed not only that their movement on land improved, but over time even their skeletal structure changed, due to the alternative use of it's muscles. These skeletal changes were similar to those seen in different fossils.
There is a definite link between what we see in fossils, current species and the results of research like this. Not only does adaptation exist and not only does micro-evolution exist, but all evidence leads to the conclusion that, animals over generations do change their limbs and bodies from one shape to another shape. They do adapt or evolve to survive as good as possible in their changed environment.
When these adaptations are so big, that adapted specimen can't interbreed with the original species, we speak of speciation. Ringspecies are a wonderful example of speciation. Which is macro-evolution.
It doesn't matter if you look at Penguins, Flightless Cormorants, Bichirs, Mudskippers or Axolotls. The evidence for macro-evolution is quite clearly there. But somehow, I don't think most theists and apologists will agree, and you could wonder as to why.
Comments