The case of the American cliff swallows, described in The Fine Article, offers an excellent response to the anti-evolutionist, "We've never observed it happening" position. That's it happening over decades.
The problem is more that the evidence they would accept is pretty much impossible to happen in the real world: something like a jiraffe giving birth to an eagle.
Black-and-white worldviews are, by definition, not nuanced, but evolution, but its slow (by human standards) nature, is extremely nuanced, to the point of beeing unnoticeable.
Um, no, the problem is that they are dishonest to the core and refuse to accept valid evidence presented to them because they don't want to believe that evolution occurs. Demanding impossible evidence is just a corollary.
It is noticeable for a scientist or for anybody interested, but for a creationist a slightly different mote or bird will never be a proof of speciation: it is anyway very similar to the original species, and it will be explained away by saying that is was already there or something similar.
As mentioned, a more radical event should happen to convince these people (so radical as to be impossible).
No, a "more radical event" will not convince creationists. There is already evidence enough to convince any reasonable person - more evidence of any kind will not change anything.
> for a creationist a slightly different mote or bird will never be a proof of speciation
As I noted, for a Creationist nothing will ever be proof of speciation. But apparently telling such simple truths gets downvoted.
> As mentioned, a more radical event should happen to convince these people (so radical as to be impossible).
No, no event, not matter how radical, would convince them because they are ideologically committed to rejecting evolution, which they see as contrary to their entire belief system.
You're wrong, and that silly ad hominem is content-free. What I said about Creationists is supported by large amounts of evidence in addition to my own personal experience engaging with them.
Your comment was nothing more than ignorant, content-free bigotry and gross generalization against Christians. How many Christian scientists would laugh at your characterization of their beliefs.
What I find even stranger is pro-science progressives essentially denying evolution to support their blank slate social policies. We can see that environment can have significant effects on animals in just a few decades, why would humans be immune? Progressives have ironically taken on a near religious ideology that humans are somehow different from other animals and immune to natural selection.
People throwing up emotional drivel while doing nothing to refute a point is one the least appealing aspects of hacker news
Please explain to me how humans are immune to natural selection and then go claim your nobel prize for revolutionizing human understanding of genetics.
Humans generally have given up on pure natural selection. Otherwise we would have abolished all laws and law enforcement and let the stronger win. You may be surprised by who will thrive in such a world.
Do we have any examples of beneficial mutations happening, as opposed to natural selection of existing genes? That's one of the biggest sticking points creationists have.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It may or may not be due to mutation. Why would someone discredit evolution for creationism just because they can’t see a tiny aspect of evolution.
Right, I'm just saying, back when I was a creationist myself, a large part of the argument was that it's well-nigh impossible for mutations to be beneficial. And it appears this is not direct evidence of that still.
