Thread: tell me about this one evolution misconception :\

I shouldn't be making this thread.

my grandmother is a christian, open-minded enough but unfortunately quite ignorant when it comes to science. we keep ending up on the subject of evolution, and she repeatedly asks me the question, "if evolution is true, then why don't we see any animals in in-between states? why don't we see fish sprouting legs?" (something like that).

anyway I've heard this before and I've read the answer but I don't remember it. I tried to find the answer on google but I'M HORRIBLE AT FINDING THINGS. oh, god. I looked through a couple evolution myth sites, tried a few other searches, ugh, what the hell. I'd much appreciate an answer so she can stop asking me finally, and it doesn't even have to be complex and detailed.

(please, I am tired of this question D:)

You will find plenty of answer in these excellent short explanatory videos.

Part 1 to 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43SskX-pEqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UGpcea8Zg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mtr3Cum74A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5kumHLiK4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgeSi1EGkU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZmLYWEPGk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJFI3ChOUU

and

Evolution: Where Are The Transitional Forms?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ

There is no "in-between state" because there's nothing to be in-between. everything's just in a constant gradual change.

Like Supernova and the videos said the changes are small and constant.

Originally Posted by nerve

"if evolution is true, then why don't we see any animals in in-between states? why don't we see fish sprouting legs?"

I'm going to assume your grandmother has never heard of mudskippers?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

Originally Posted by nerve

"if evolution is true, then why don't we see any animals in in-between states? why don't we see fish sprouting legs?" (something like that).

You should be all, "Look in the mirror. Appendixes are for herbivores who eat grass and leaves, tail bone is for animals with tails. People even have the remains of a third eyelid. Do you eat grass, do you have a tail, can you close your third see through eyelid like a crazy alien lizard men in the movies? Well you are in a in between state then."

Remember what Mr. Garrison said about it in South Park? Something about "retard babies having other retard babies"?

That may be a very crude way of putting it, but it's sort of true, to a degree. When the environment changes suddenly, organisms usually have only a short time to adapt. Organisms that are born with genetic mutations - that happen to be useful to them in their new environment - tend to survive, while the rest sort of die off. Those mutations get passed down to subsequent generations so that eventually the majority of those organisms have those oh-so-helpful traits. The species survives.

So you can kind of see why there's no "in-between" stages. Even though many say that evolution is gradual, it is, in many cases, more abrupt than that. Sudden, radical changes in the environment prompt organisms to make abrupt, equally radical changes in their own biological functions in order to survive.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Even though many say that evolution is gradual, it is, in many cases, more abrupt than that. Sudden, radical changes in the environment prompt organisms to make abrupt, equally radical changes in their own biological functions in order to survive.

I enjoyed your response, but you should probably describe what qualifies as abrupt and radical. To me, what I would consider a "radical change" would be considered abrupt if it happened within a few million years. I suppose you would say radical changes would be contingent upon the environmental change, but still, I'm interested in knowing time constraints and minimum-maximum rates of change.

But my definition of radical is pretty vaguely defined in my own head when it comes to this topic.