Posted on 07/03/2018 6:19:07 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Why is it really changing any ‘dogma’ (if that definition even applies)?
Evolution says things (species/whole ecosystems) change/adjust to meet environmental change and also refine efficiencies/robustness/flexibility over time.
So, if there were DRASTIC environmental changes which cause many existing species to lose their adapted environments then they would die off/mutate and be replaced buy ones better suited to the new environment. The ice ages were likely such drastic changes.
AND if the environment actually become less stable (in constant flux) then species who are more flexible/general in their abilities have an advantage, and thus likely increase, while other less flexible/specialized species lose out.
I recall some nightly news talking head 40 years ago declaring ‘DARWIN WAS WRONG!!!’ and then explained that some evidence about some ‘evolution’ had been found indicating fast changes instead of over a looooong time. It was a stupid statement because Darwin’s biggest point REALLY was that Evolution happens, and how fast or slow or frequent was just quibbling about details.
Intraspecies adaptation does not equal extraspecies evolution.
Cheetahs are the best example that I’ve heard of too.
I have always loved genetics. Thanks for sharing.
Lysenkoism! the Vanguard of Evolution. Or was that Revolution? I forget.
DUANE EDDY -”Because They’re Young” (1960)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHfFESFr5qA
Hmm, how did that happen?
You bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.