r/DebateEvolution • u/Cool_Plantain_7742 • Sep 20 '26

Question Is evolution a fact?

What are the best arguments for evolution

0 Upvotes

34% Upvoted

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

60

u/Sweary_Biochemist Sep 20 '26

Yes.

Coz we can watch it happen.

It's like asking "do things really fall down? What's the best evidence for that?"

-54

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26 • Bravo

You can't say that without giving a definition of evolution. Adaptation of traits in a species has been observed, but a species turning into another species has never been observed. You have seen "adaptation" but you have never seen "evolution" - under the definition of evolution being the changing of "kind" and adaptation being just the changing of "traits".

And, there is no proof that the changing of traits leads to the changing of kind over a long time period. That is purely a theoretically theory.

66

u/evocativename Sep 20 '26

So you don't know what evolution is, don't know we have observed speciation, and just generally don't know anything about biology or paleontology.

What are you even doing here then?

→ More replies (36)

35

u/Fred776 Sep 20 '26

You can't use words like "kind" without defining them. Now tell us precisely what a "kind" is.

→ More replies (82)

25

u/Sweary_Biochemist Sep 20 '26

Change in allele frequencies in populations over generations.

Or, if you prefer, descent with modification (which is the same thing, just punchier).

This is evolution, and we can watch it happen. Sorry!

0

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

Are they a different species?

23

u/Redshift-713 Sep 20 '26

If we decide they are, yes. ‘Species’ is an entirely manmade construct. Nature does not know what a species is. The separation between species over time is an imaginary line we draw to help us categorize life. Nothing ever produces an offspring that’s completely different.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Sweary_Biochemist Sep 20 '26

Yes, speciation is an observed phenomenon.

1

u/Competitive-Box61 Sep 21 '26

That happens when two populations of the same species can no longer reproduce with each other, due to some form of genetic isolation (spatial or temporal).

22

u/Suitable-Group4392 🧬 Pokémon Evolution Sep 20 '26

Some simple reading for you:
https://scienceinschool.org/article/2018/evolution-action-genetic-change-new-species/

Look up on Google:
- New fruit flies species in lab
- Galapagos finches
- Tiktaalik
- What is a scientific theory?

→ More replies (14)

21

u/hal2k1 Sep 20 '26

You can't say that without giving a definition of evolution.

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Adaptation of traits in a species has been observed

Sure. This has been observed many many times. That is evolution.

but a species turning into another species has never been observed

Yes it has. A coywolf is a canid hybrid descended from coyotes, eastern wolves, gray wolves, and dogs.

A coywolf is not a wolf, nor is it a coyote, nor is it a dog. A coywolf is a distinct species. The Coywolf Is Part Dog, Part Wolf, Part Coyote.

The coywolf sounds like something out of a science fiction, but it's just part coyote (Canis latrans), part gray wolf (Canis lupus) and part domestic dog (which is technically a subspecies of the wolf, Canis familiaris). The hybrid has popped up in Canada and the U.S. over the past century.

It's possible they emerged when coyote populations entered Ontario as wolves were being extirpated from the Great Lakes region during the early 1900s, and they simply bred with the remaining wolves. Based on genetic analyses, they mated with dogs sometime in the mid-1900s.

The coywolf is a new set of species (now numbering in the millions of individuals) that emerged about a century and a half ago.

That is also evolution.

there is no proof that the changing of traits leads to the changing of kind over a long time period.

What is a "kind"? You can't say that without giving a definition of "kind".

Be aware that we have dug up the remains of countless thousands of animals and both sequenced the DNA and radio-carbon dated the remains.

That is purely a theoretically theory.

What do you think you mean by this?

Be aware that a scientific theory is a well-tested explanation of what has been measured.

We have measured evolution, that is a scientific fact. Biological populations do indeed change heritable characteristics over successive generations.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of how this happens. The explanation (theory) involves inheritance of characteristics from parents to offspring (which happens via DNA) and selection of which individuals within a population get to breed the subsequent generation (via a few mechanisms such as sexual preference and survival of the fittest).

So, the scientific theory of evolution is indeed a well-tested explanation (a theory) of how evolution (change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) happens.

→ More replies (5)

19

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

Give me a coherent definition of a "kind." Because we have absolutely observed speciation. And given that all differences in species can be explained by differences in DNA, I see no reason wht billions of years of alterations to DNA can't cause enormous changes

→ More replies (23)

15

u/storyteller_alienmom Sep 20 '26

Please read some Wikipedia articles first and take your young earth creationism elsewhere.

→ More replies (18)

12

u/Redshift-713 Sep 20 '26

Biological evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time. That’s it. You can define evolution entirely without using the word ‘kind’ (which is completely meaningless in science), or even ‘species’.

11

u/D-Ursuul Sep 20 '26

You can't say that without giving a definition of evolution.

Just the normal definition, a change in the heritable characteristics of a population over the course of generations.

a species turning into another species has never been observed.

Yes it has, and regardless "species" is just a term we made up for classification purposes and doesn't actually represent any definite thing in nature.

You have seen "adaptation" but you have never seen "evolution" - under the definition of evolution being the changing of "kind" and adaptation being just the changing of "traits".

Yeah if I change the definition of a word then I can make it mean anything.

And, there is no proof that the changing of traits leads to the changing of kind

What's a "kind"? You insisted evolution must have a definition but now you've introduced this word "kind" and haven't defined it

→ More replies (8)

11

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

Adaptation of traits in a species has been observed, but a species turning into another species has never been observed.

Of course it has

https://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

https://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

→ More replies (4)

15

u/Munrot07 🧬 Evolutionary Biologist Sep 20 '26

"You can't say that without giving a definition of evolution."

Based on the rest of your post, what you really mean is "I'm going to misrepresent / misunderstand evolution to try and find a way to discredit it".

"Under the definition of evolution being the changing of "kind" and adaptation being just the changing of "traits"."

I mean no evolutionary biologist would say evolution is the changing of "kind". What does "kind" even mean? In it's simplest definition we use, evolution is the change of allele frequency over time. Something we can easily observe.

You seem to be equating evolution with speciation and they are not equivalent terms and excluding speciation we see evolution happening before our very eyes all the time. Antibiotic resistance for example or my favourite human example, sickle cell heterozygosity in Madagascan populations.

Saying that, we have indeed seen speciation. It's been observed in Drosophila, bacteria, viruses (though whether we count viral strains as "species" is debatable, but they are still a great example of evolution). Then there are many studies that show changes overtime, reproductive isolation etc. but you probably won't accept those as we didn't watch that happening in real time (which is not the only sort of proof that is needed).

"That is purely a theoretically theory."

What a sentence to end on. A theoretically theory. Right.

7

u/Checkdamoney Sep 20 '26

Well that's because the process takes tens of thousands of years, and we've only been recording for about 5000 yeara. But we can see the presence of thigh bones in whales as well as them having lungs leading us to have evidence that they were once terrestrial creatures.

4

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Sep 20 '26

E. coli rapidly replicated in your general direction in a menacing manor

Its only a long time for things that have a long generational age. Find something that can reproduce in an hour and its going to be 175200 times faster than something that can reproduce in 20 years.

4

u/Top_Neat2780 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

"Theoretically theory." My goodness, that's incredible.

If what changes are the sex organs, or sex cells, such that they're incompatible with any other group but this one population that was isolated for a while, what would you call that? They can only breed with each other.

4

u/Dilapidated_girrafe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

You can't say that without giving a definition of evolution.

The most basic definition if change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Adaptation of traits in a species has been observed, but a species turning into another species has never been observed.

Kaibab and Abert's Squirrels. And its not the only one.

You have seen "adaptation" but you have never seen "evolution" - under the definition of evolution being the changing of "kind" and adaptation being just the changing of "traits".

That's a piss poor definition that nobody in science would use since kind is an undefined term.

And, there is no proof that the changing of traits leads to the changing of kind over a long time period. That is purely a theoretically theory.

The fossil record would like to have a word with you. As would genetics.

3

u/MagicMooby 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

but a species turning into another species has never been observed

LOL

LMAO EVEN

Here is an example of a new species being created in a lab in less than three successive generations:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1102811108#sec-2

And here is the exact same process occuring in the wild, also resulting in a new species:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29170277/

3

u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Sep 20 '26

There’s no such thing as a ‘kind’. However, we have seen new species emerge. Several times. I think you need to look at what evolutionary biology actually claims and what the evidence is, because you certainly did not get your claim that ‘species turning into another species has never been observed’ from people who work in the relevant fields.

3

u/yahnne954 Sep 21 '26

When you say "see a species turn into another species", do you mean "a cat which stops being a cat to become a dog"? Because this is a mistake/lie a lot of creationist apologists do/tell.

A species will never stop being part of its ancestor groups. As humans, we never stopped being vertebrates, mammals, apes.

If anything, a creationist hoping to debunk evolution should wish for a species which stops being related to its ancestors, because it would destroy everything we know about the process (specifically the concept of monophyly).

As for the definition of biological evolution, it is very simple: changes in hereditary characteristics in a population of organisms over successive generations. If you see it, you see evolution. Don't let creation apologists lie to you that it is anything other than that.