That also illustrates adaptation to a changing environment, and why evolution doesn’t always stagnate, on top of almost touching on evolution not having a target.
After arguing with another friend for close to a decade, I’ve determined that using the moths and similar examples doesn’t help it all. In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
Agreed, that is better.
That also illustrates adaptation to a changing environment, and why evolution doesn’t always stagnate, on top of almost touching on evolution not having a target.
After arguing with another friend for close to a decade, I’ve determined that using the moths and similar examples doesn’t help it all. In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
By “destructive” he meant “not able to generate additional complexity, ergo Macroevolution doesn’t exist.” (He was totally fine with microevolution).