(Untitled)

[doc_monocle]

Okay, I just had a random thought. Many religious right-wingers and fundamentalists seem to have trouble accepting evolution because whichever old book they believe in says otherwise. However, haven't we seen/recorded evolution over the past few hundred years in the form of animal husbandry, specifically dog breeding? Sure, dog breeding hasn't

Comments

[toren_atkinson]

My favorite example of evolution you can see within a generation is this:

(Don't ask for proper names because I don't remember)

There is a species of moths that hang out on trees, the color of their wings camouflaging them.

Pollution from a nearby factory darkened the colour of the trees. The standard moths were easy to pick out by birds because they were lighter.

Random mutation made, as it always does, some of the moths darker, matching the new bark colour.

Those mutant moths were not eaten, and reproduced.

That is survival of the fittest - evolution - in action, and observable in our lifetime.

[doc_monocle]

Yeah, I remember learning about those moths at one time or another. But I suppose that it could be argued that they didn't change into different animals, they just changed colour. Humans can have kids and the kids' hair colour will be based on the parents', but the kids are still human.

I think that the dog breeding example can show some fairly drastic physical changes. I don't suppose that you (or any of the few other people who read this) know anything about animal taxonomy? How different does a dog breed have to change for those taxonomical types to take notice?

[toren_atkinson]

Good question. try www.tolweb.org