If no population within the existing species evolved nor is evolving major biological transition (MBT), on what grounds...?
...does the theory of evolution claim that MBTs seen in the fossil record (FR) are the result of evolution?
Science isn't about what people can imagine. It's about whether they can empirically support the imagined. In the theory of evolution, people imagine that evolution (process) caused MBTs seen in the FR. That it caused tham rapidly. These transitions include: the Cambrian origin of novel organs, organ systems and body plans. Or going from fully terrestrial life to fully aquatic (whales). However in nature, there is zero empirical evidence of evolution being able to produce MBTs. Even after it has operated for hundreds of millions of years in many of the existing species. If you take a look at whatever species, no matter how long have they been around, no population within them is observed to underwent or is undergoing MBTs. So scientifically, the outcome of evolution process is never MBT. Just like the outcome of erosion is never a skyscraper. Or just like the outcome of human long jump is never 100 yards. The theory of evolution claims the opposite to what is observed. It claims that evolution can rapidly produce MBTs. On what grounds? On what empirical (not imagined) evidence?
@Cowboy, sure evolution is a FACT. That's because evolution is defined as hereditary changes (mutations) whose frequencies fluctuate based on environmental factors (natural selection). Obviously, mutations and natural selection do happen, which makes evolution a fact. But the IDEA that evolution produced MBTs is not a FACT. This is imagination. Where's the evidence supporting this imagination?
- οικοςLv 71 month ago
Firstly, it took very little time for the London Underground Mosquito to evolve. Proof of this is the the London underground has not been around for all that much time. Secondly, evolution is defined as a change in the population genotype. You don't get to make the rules or to define terms to fit your own biases.
- Bulldog reduxLv 71 month ago
Oh, jeez! What a load of bs! For one thing, the theory of evolution emphatically does NOT claim that evolution can rapidly give rise to new major taxonomic groups. And since the average lifetime of a human is less than a century, how could you expect anyone to directly observe major changes that take place over millions of years?
- CowboyLv 61 month ago
Biological evolution has been observed in every population ever studied - it's a FACT!
- DixonLv 71 month ago
As you say "seen in the fossil record".
We start with observations such as the fossil record and look for a theory that provides a framework in which the fossil record might be produced. And as it happens there already was a theory based on the interactions of heritability, variation and selection.
After the Cambrian explosion we don't see wide scale major changes like that again and a reasonable explanation is that the ecological environment had then become populated with specialised life forms competing to the margins of every niche, often leading to a cold-war style creep of modest changes.
However, whenever and wherever there have been sudden environmental changes we do observe there were often correspondingly quicker modifications to existing species as a response.