If you accept that organisms will over time evolve small adaptions to their environment, doesn't it logically follow that, given a much greater time, these small changes would add up a large change? And that this change could be so great that an organism from the beginning generation would be unable to reproduce with one from the final generation?But isn't that a "beak of the finch" argument? MRSA is still staphylococcus aureus, and drug-resistant TB is still a mycobacterium, not a protozoan. Environmental adaptation occurs without a doubt and occurs very rapidly. This is a proven observation that I don't dispute.
Speciation if I understand that term correctly -- the "evolution" of one distinct species into an entirely new species -- to the best of my knowledge (obviously limited) has not been observed in any laboratory experiment or ever irrefutably proven by any complete fossil record, fossil records being temporally limited to a few thousand years. And the theory of evolution, I believe (please correct me if wrong) would seem to imply that "speciation" must be a long-term consequence of natural selection, ending in the present biological diversity, but occurring over much longer time intervals than can perhaps be observed experimentally.
The theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life. It only explains how once self replicating life existed it could evolve into the wide range of forms we see today.As for entropy (and ice cubes) . . .
My poorly stated argument - apologies. May I reframe the argument? How did the first simple biological life form "evolve" from something else? How might DNA (or even RNA) spontaneously assemble itself from simple amino acids and having done so, evolve to become self-replicating and then, ever more complex? Nothing in my education or experience gives me a clue to a natural, physical process that would tend to have this result, least of all, random chance.
Have you read Richard Dawkins newest book, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution" [Broken]? In case you've found his past work to be too aggressive, I can say this one is very focused on evolution and presenting evidence. I don't think anyone would be offended by it.
Last edited by a moderator: