Why do people deny evolution?

That is one of the problems. Scientists have observed beings adjusting to their environment. However, how do we know that one species can
evolve into another species?
Perhaps people who are PhD in biology know. I question whether even they know.

Genetic variation among the offspring of a species continue to diversify until sub-species stabilize whose individuals are not genetically capable of making viable offspring with individuals of the other sub-species.

Horses and donkeys can mate and have offspring, for example, but the resulting mules cannot have viable offspring with other mules. As such, horses and donkeys are deemed different species.

How did horses and donkeys emerge as different species, though? By genetic variations progressing generation after generation among the offspring.

Presumably there was a donkey at some point that was also a horse, and vice verse. They were the same species before they diverged into different sub-species. Probably different populations of humans bred separate populations of wild horses until some evolved into domestic horses while the other population evolved into donkeys.

How else would horses and donkeys be genetically similar enough to make mules unless they were the same species in the past?

The problem is that humans played a role in this happening. Could that happen simply by chance?

This called adaptation, from which the visible micro volution and macroevolution can be seen

1Read the Grant's papers(Nature and Princeton prss) about micro evolution of Galapogos finches in our lifetime

2Read about the macro-evolution of percidae in dammed up sections of the Connecticut River since the early industrial Revolution when damms were common structures to run water wheels. Several new species and one new genus of percidae.


The evolution of both were based on adaptation not some guy in the sky.

The evolution of entire new genera of Cichlidae fish in African Rift zone lakes is also really great story of environmental adaptive radiation

These are all stories that are easily concluded from wxisting data and visible processes

Just because the odds of something are astronomical doesn’t mean it can’t happen a lot.

Look at your dinner, unless you live in some small rural community where everything is farm to fork and locally sourced your meal is from all over the world.

Think of all the individual ingredients in your meal, where they all came from, all the different countries. The odds of them all being on your plate together are incredible, yet it happens.

You mean could horses and donkeys evolve into different species naturally?

Well, how were the two populations kept separated so that their respective genomes would diverge to the point of not being able to produce viable offspring?

People have said there is no evidence that divergent species are linked by common ancestors, but how would you know which ancestors of a currently-existing species was capable of having viable offspring with the ancestors of some other species?

E.g. if there were ancient wild horses that could have viable offspring with both modern horses and modern donkeys, how would we know that since there wasn't as much species-differentiation between horses and donkeys at that time?

If horses and donkeys were both wild-horses once upon a time, how can you find a link between those wild horses and modern horses and donkeys? You have to invent an arbitrary line between the ancient wild horses and the modern horses/donkeys, but how would you define such a line without being able to test it by breeding them together and getting a mule that is not a viable offspring?

Any 'mules' that occurred naturally between emerging species would have been rare, unique individuals that couldn't reproduce themselves. So finding such a 'mule' that links any two species and recognizing it as being different from its parent species, and recognizing that it wasn't capable of having viable offspring would be nearly if not completely impossible.

mules and hinnies , as far as we knoow, have alays ben bred via human intervention . Hinnies and mules are sterile hybrids incapable of further breeding.

Things like coy-wolves are able to breed in the wild, but ligers or tigrons are generally sterile too but a few (As reported in Mayr ) were able to breed but BY BACK CROSS ONLY.

Neal, etc. always ignores the obvious burden of the math. Once you have self-assembling organic molecules, on a microscopic scale, in millions upon millions of locations, the odds in favor of the inevitability of self-replication are astronomical. Once you have billions of billions of billions of self-replicating, single-cell organisms, reproducing at least twice an hour, day in and day out, in a period of billions of years, the rise of multi-cell organisms is inevitable. Even with plants and animals in the sea and on land, generations will run a year or two, and with millions upon millions of iterations per year, in thousands of years there are billions and billions of opportunities for adaptive modifications in individuals who then successfully reproduce. Even with humans, reproductively viable in 12 to 15 years, over millions of years, the success of species is inevitable.

By the way, speciation is far from a settled matter. In some cases it means that individuals cannot reproduce with one another. In other cases, it simply means sexual isolation--individuals are unlikely to meet and reproduce--such as dogs and wolves, or grizzly bears and polar bears.

I mean really, why should an intelligent, educated individual care what some religious fool is prepared to believe?

yeh, all it takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .
Thie comparison to flipping hundreds of coins and coming up with 100's of one all heads int the way it works. In biochemitry the focus of a reaction needs just a few nodal points and , from the way reactions occur, there are probably an uncountable candidate molecules. All it takes in nature os a single whiff of Cl ,O3, or F and Oxidation begins forever.

We are talking about tens of hundreds of thousands of reactions PER SECOND. /Per square centimeter of water or fatty acids/esters .
The most common elements on the planet are H, He, O,C, and N and everything else is "Associate elements and/ or" rare elements". Since He is a noble gas it doesnt react with anything so it just hangs out . Therefore the makeup of life is, guess what H O C and N followed by P ,Fe, Ca, Mg from the "rest of the pile". BUT, if you look closely, Prokaryotic life only needs H,O,C, and N .

Organic Chemicals are natures tool kit. Inorganic elements seemed to interject their power well after life hd already begun.

What's your point? I was trying to explain how one species can evolve into two different species that can't produce viable offspring.

Can you speak to that issue?

Are you saying that there were never any religious scientists that were not "idiots"?

Don't attempt to distort what I wrote. My experience is that scientists are almost never fools, although some are willing to sell out to the highest bidder.

If you cannot directly challenge what I've written, keep your snide inferences to yourself.

What about scientists who were Roman Catholics?

What about scientists who were Anglican?

Thats hardly evolution because you fail to describe any kind of reproductive advantages now do you?

Mules and hinnies are NOT evolving . They are artificially produced hybrids with no subsequent descendents .

The issue they didn't understand was how one species can branch off into two different species.

There wasn't any discussion of survival advantages.

What a maroon . . .

What about Catholics and Anglicans? As I said, don't distort what I've written. If you don't understand, just say so.

Did you know that there have been religious scientists?

Do you have difficulty typing on your device?