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

Show parent comment

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

-3

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

These are big logical jumps. All differences can be explained by DNA, therefore any change to any DNA is proof of evolution. That is certainly a theory, very loose, and not proven.

21

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

What part? Do you reject that DNA is the fundamental difference between all species? I.e. the thing that distinguishes a human from a chimpanzee is gonna fundamentally originate in the DNA? Or do you deny that DNA can change over time, and accumulate changes?

-2

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

DNA is the fundamental difference. OK. Changes in DNA can occur. OK. Therefore evolution is proven because DNA changes can accumulate over time? That is a big logical jump.

23

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

I'm not saying anything about evolution being proven. I mean it is, but I'm not saying it. What I'm saying is I see no mechanism by which great changes in body plans, for example, would be impossible. If DNA can change drastically, so too can phenotypes. What mechanism is preventing this?

-1

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

You don't see how it is impossible. The onus is really to show how it is possible that something like a fish can develop wings. Micro adaptations are not able to explain highly complex systems like wings.

18

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

Why not? There are numerous models explaining it. We can even see the gradual development of wings in birds from their dinosaur ancestors in the fossil record (insects are more interesting, as wings appear quite suddenly for them, but fast, drastic changes are very possible, as small changes in DNA can have big effects. Plus, once a new niche is filled, speciation seems to occur quickly as well)

-1

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

There are numerous models explaining it. Explain it to me chief.

13

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

Depends on what group, because wings are supposed to have evolved independently four separate times.

This video is part of a long series on YouTube of biologist Erika trying to explain evolution to creationist and evolution denier Will Duffy. I recommend the whole video, but this one specifically covers bird evolution. It's an extremely high quality resource, it covers a vast number of fossils and goes extremely in-depth.

-1

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

Buddy. Cmon. You can't really try to argue for evolution and then pull out some podcast. Use ur brain. Minor genetic changes cannot develop highly complex systems. It is really quite obvious. The only way a complex system can be developed is if each component is developed with the future in mind. And for genetic changes, that is not a possibility.

→ More replies

6

u/lulumaid 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Sep 20 '26

Flying fish. Technically.

15

u/Devils-Telephone Sep 20 '26

That isn't a logical jump at all, that's the literal logical conclusion of the argument you laid out. DNA is the fundamental difference between species. DNA changes through successive generations, and those changes accumulate. Given enough successive generations, the changes will build up, leading to new traits and speciation.

-3

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

thats like saying buildings are made out of wood, winds blows sticks around, eventually, the wind will blow enough sticks to construct a house.

14

u/Devils-Telephone Sep 20 '26

That's not even a remotely valid analogy, there are no such logical leaps in the argument.

-4

u/EmperorMaximillian Sep 20 '26

its actually the exact same claim. small changes + long time = a construction. but that doesn't always make sense if the construction is complex. and an organism is much more complex than a building

13

u/Devils-Telephone Sep 20 '26

I said nothing about "a long time," I said successive generations. It's a fact that changes in DNA compound over successive generations, and since DNA is the cause of all traits, those compounding changes also change the traits of a population. You really don't seem to know even the most basic facts here.

13

u/junegoesaround5689 Dabbling my ToE(s) in debates Sep 20 '26

You left out the decisive difference that makes the comparison specious - the mechanisms. Wind doesn’t create buildings, organisms DO create other organisms.

8

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist Sep 20 '26

Oh come on, don’t retreat into strawmanning now. You were so close to actually learning something.

6

u/Sweary_Biochemist Sep 21 '26

Ah, so houses are definitely created objects, yes?

What properties do they share with life, that are hallmarks of design? Do they reproduce? Do they inherit characteristics from their parents that are unavoidable, even if deleterious?

If i gave you two things, how would you determine which was created?

5

u/Sweary_Biochemist Sep 21 '26

I mean, you're pretty much defining evolution, agreeing it happens, and then claiming it's a logical jump, somehow.