Actually Surgo, neither of those things is evolution. The bacteria didn't evolve a resistance to the antibiotic. Those members of the bacteria culture that were ALREADY resistant to the antibiotic survived the exposure and then reproduced, passing the genes along. The same thing happened in the next batch. That's an example of natural selection and population shift. No evolution took place because no new genetic material was created from the process.
natural selection =/= evolution, even if it is a part of the process
That is evolution. You don't have to have every possible manifestation of evolution for something to be evolution. Environmental pressures lead to a change in the population. You don't have to create 'new' genetic material in evolution.
Outside of natural selection and mutation, what else is there to evolution? I cannot think of any other component, and it's possible for one or the other acting alone to be the cause of the evolution of a species.
Err looks like I kind of spun the topic in a new direction, so sorry if I ruined the intent. Anyway, I always took macroevolution to mean the evolution of one species into something new, i.e. monkey to human, and I am skeptical to this!
That's because that's not what happened. No modern respectable scientist is claiming that humans evolved from monkeys, but rather, that the modern monkey and the human share a common ancestor.
This is what most people, Mike Huckabee included, disagree with on the grounds of evolution: bacteria evolving into greater life forms, including monkeys, which humans eventually evolved from. You've got to admit: monkeys to humans is somewhat plausible, bacteria into humans (even over millions of years) is not.
It's not bacteria to humans. A simplified timeline runs something like:
prokaryotes -> eukaryotes (unicellular) -> eukaryotes (multicellular, simple) -> simple animals (invertebrates, so pre-fish) -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles (in particular, synapsids) -> mammals -> primates -> common ancestor of humans, chimps, bonobos... ->
us!
The "bacteria turns into human" step seems absurd, but when you break it down to several smaller steps over billions of years, it's suddenly a lot more likely.
Additionally, the argument made by evolutionists saying that apes evolved into humans
I know of no scientist that makes that claim.
through natural selection is flawed. With natural selection, all organisms without the advantageous trait are wiped out and the new organisms with the beneficial mutation continue to live on.
This is false. Let's consider the example of a mutagen. Say there is something in the water that messes with some gene or another. Only a small subset of the species drinks this water, and thus only that species is influenced. The old group was obviously adapted to live as they were, and if the new group is lucky, the mutation will prove to be a net benefit. Alternately, the new mutation will only be a net benefit in some areas (those mutations that are purely negative or beneficial only in areas in which that species doesn't live will likely die out), and thus that new species will either gain a competitive advantage in that area and outcompete the old version of the species (possibly killing them all off in that area, or maybe just lowering their population), or else the mutation would put them into non-competition with the older version of themselves (for instance, they may have a different diet), which would have little-to-no effect on the old species. Evolution is often local, not global.
Alternately, it could be natural selection. Say you have a species of rabbit. Some of these rabbits live in a wooded area, others live in a snowy area. The rabbits in the snowy area that are whiter are more likely to survive, leading to an increase of white rabbits over time. Brown rabbits will increase in the wooded area for the same reason. This change in color could be enough to cause the two types of rabbit, although physically capable of interbreeding, less likely to interbreed. This creates isolation among the two species, which means that minor changes within each group will remain in that group. Over time, this leads to increasingly large differences between the two groups until eventually they are incapable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
There are several other scenarios in which it's more likely than not that both species would remain, rather than one's existence coming at the cost of the destruction of the other.
If this is the case, why do monkeys, birds, and all lower life forms still exist? If it is in their best interest to mutate and grow into a higher organism, why do they not do so?
It's not always in their best interest. An increased brain size means massively increased dietary intake and larger cranial capacity. In a desert, for example, there is not the food to support this increase, so even if a smarter creature had a theoretical advantage over its less intelligent comrades, it wouldn't be able to live long enough to put it to good use. The larger cranial capacity also means greater size, which many creatures simply cannot have.
yes. evolution isnt really survival of the fittest, its more who can leave the most offspring.
Not quite. If you have 5,000,000 children, and all of them die before they can reproduce, your line is still dying out. Compare the strategy of the turtle (lay a bunch of eggs in one place, and a lot of the baby turtles can make it to sea before being eaten, and hopefully enough of those will survive long enough to have baby turtles of their own) with the human (have few children, but spend time raising them to ensure that a maximum amount live to adulthood).
i agree with brain on huckabee. people don't have to believe in evolution to be good leaders. it will obviously bias their opinions but i don't think any sane person would cut scientific funding just because they refuse to believe in it. an athiest in the white house wouldn't remove churches from america because there is proof that faith is flawed.
But it is a sign that they may not be the best person to have a great influence in choosing where federal funds go for scientific research.