WinAce

I had a debate with a creationist recently. He was doing the standard stuff--"how could all those mutations appear just in the right order to make stuff". <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Anyway, I brought up a few examples to demonstrate there's no such thing as "the" next mutation. I put down a few links to flying fish and mudskippers, which demonstate that an organ can acquire a multitude of uses, depending on environment and selection pressures.

He said "I have no problem accepting microevolution"... but I think he didn't realize such an admission is pretty much deadly to creationism when working with the mudskipper. It has very specialized adaptations in many areas--from the fins becoming grasping appendages that in some species are powerful enough to climb trees (!), to a rudimentary "breathing" system.

I think it's hard to deny the mudskipper evolved from fish. It's just so extremely, painfully obvious--even to a 5-year old. It looks as out-of-place on land (and climbing a tree) as a cat in the water hunting for sea cucumbers.

Anyway, I was wondering--what other examples in nature are there of very specialized, seemingly "unevolvable" features? I don't think I've ever seen any creationist deny foxes and wolves, for example, don't share a common ancestor. Are there foxes (or anything) with specialized organ systems that obviously aren't present in a species close to them, indicating they evolved? I've heard there's two species of closely related monkey, only one of which has a tail that's strong enough to grasp tree branches and has specialized muscles, bone, etc. but can't find it.

Snakes, beetles, anything will do. I tried looking on TalkOrigins, but couldn't find anything. An "examples of advanced evolved structures found in nature" FAQ would certainly help.

WinAce

Found this--<a href="http://www.planetcatfish.com/cotm/2000-06.htm" target="_blank">Walking Catfish</a>

Breathing, walking, the works. And unlike the mudskipper, it actually looks pretty much identical to other catfish.

... I would soooo hate to be a creationist trying to deny they share a common ancestor with good 'ole regular catfish.

LiveFreeOrDie

How about the Naked Mole Rat? They are mammals (rodents of course), but live in a colony similar to ants, complete with a queen. Weird.

<a href="http://www.lpzoo.com/tour/factsheets/mammals/naked_mole_rat.html" target="_blank">Naked Mole Rat</a>

Late_Cretaceous

I think part of the problem in many cases is how people try to visualize the evolutionary process. I often get the impression, from creationists' questions, that they imagine mutations occuring in a single indivdual. As if a whole cascade of the right mutations, have to occur in one lowly little individual - and just once at that. Well, if that were true evolution wouldn't work. If they took a step back and realized that if all the offspring from a single grasshopper were to survive, and all thier offspring survived - for 20 or 30 generations - the planet would be covered in grasshoppers. Of course, on average, only one offspring per parent survives (per generation). A whole lot of raw material, a tremendous amount of opportunity for advantageous mutations to play out exists right there, a whole lot of natural selection occuring. It's like the expression "one in a million chances happen 5 times a day in NYC".

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Late_Cretaceous ]

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Late_Cretaceous ]</p>

frostymama

That is exactly how my (YEC) Biology teacher "proved" to us how stupid evolution was. He called it the "Hopeful Monster" theory. For countless generations lizards lay eggs which hatch into lizards. For some reason a lizard lays an egg and... out pops a bird. He swore that this is what evolution was all about. What is sad is that he used taxpayer money to spew that nonsense.

Oolon Colluphid

I'll have a look in my mammal encyclopedia tonight, but if it narrows it down at all, the monkey will be South American. Only (some) new world monkeys have prehensile tails. Which is another one for Oolon's list really, since if it's such a good idea for monkeys (and common sense suggests it could be), then why do no old world ones have that feature?

How about the bombardier beetle?

DT

Duvenoy

Hmm.

How 'bout the Glass Snake, called the Slow Worm in England? Looks for all the world like a snake, yet it is a lizard. It has ear holes, eyelids, and a breakable, but regenerative tali, but no legs. Further, it can't 'walk' with it's belly scales as a snake can, but must always slither..

Evolution in action? I think so.

doov

Peregrine

Another problem is they also think of evolution along Lamarkian terms.