An Easy Way to Explain Evolution

I am actually colorblind and I can still tell that’s red about as easily as I can tell that lots of small changes=a bigger one.

To be fair, that actually says nothing about how evolution works. It just suggests an analogy for why those who accept micro-evolution might also consider accepting macro-evolution. Even then it isn’t an especially good analogy, as the difference between red and blue is not the same thing as the difference between, say, a dinosaur and a modern bird.

I love it. It doesn’t prove anything, but it’s an excellent analogy, especially for those who still like to say that evolution means that a duck laid by a bird will hatch a lizard.

You mean an egg laid by a bird. Unless you really meant duck… O.O

Hah! Yes, yes I did. Though the idea of a duck hatching a lizard strikes me as kind of hilarious.

Miko, a particularly good typographic artist could extend the analogy by blending shifts to bold and italic text in to the mix, and by adding variation to the opacity of the text and the background image.

The analogy only shows one trait, breaking it down to the very simplest level. This is excellent for introducing the concept in a way that can’t be mistaken into “well why aren’t babies born as monkeys then? OH GOTCHA THERE!”.

Any further depth to the analogy would only create confusion, unless that base layer was introduced and understood first, and only after that other layers were added to show how more than one trait can change at a time and that they don’t need to change in unison.

Grammar nazi: it’s should be its in the 4th sentence…

I like it! Of course the big problem is that it’s science, and thus not to be trusted if you believe in god.

I don’t know. It does suggest the one thing that bothers me about people’s understanding of evolution, the problem summed up in the question, “If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

Now, for the first part, that’s an incredibly stupid question, because no one actually says that people evolved from monkeys (or chimps, or anything alive today). We say, rather, that we evolved from a common ancestor. But one could sensibly ask, “If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves today?”

And the answer is that evolution doesn’t happen in species. Evolution happens in individuals. One infant creature is born with one mutation that proves beneficial, such that this creature has more offspring, and over time the descendants of this creature begin to encompass more and more of the population.

Although, honestly, I’m more and more convinced that evolution isn’t really about beneficial genes as it is about the ability of two populations to continue to intermix. I think about chimpanzees and bonobos, who would up on opposite sides of a river (the Congo) that over time became too wide to cross, such that they could no longer interbreed. The humans walk out of Africa and suddenly the ones who settle in different places start looking different. I’m convinced that if some natural disaster had isolated the populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa for long enough, we would have wound up as three different species rather than one species with three different sets of physical appearances.

This may not be the perfect explanation to how evolution works, and I dont’ think the writer meant it as such. I think he was addressing how the way our language works doesn’t necessarily jive with some individuals’ way of thinking.

By way of logic, if a cat gives birth, its offspring are also cats. And so on, and so on, over millions of years. Technically, no matter how much it has changed, it would always be a cat, because no one could pinpoint that exact time when it changed from a cat to, say, a tac (yes, I know, lame examples, it’s 4am and I can’t sleep). But, at some point, the cat we know of would’ve given birth to the tac, which just completely hurts our brain to think about. Technically, our nearest ancestor had to give birth to a human, even though it’s not technically possible to give birth to another species.

I completely accept the theory of evolution; I really see no reason not to. But I can understand if someone asks the question of how one species got to be another. That’s fine. WE CAN EXPLAIN IT. Unfortunately, most of the time they just don’t wanna listen. JE-sus takes over the logical part of their brain.

Sure, they’ve demonstrated how minute gradual changes can be cumulative and lead to something that is noticeably different, but I don’t know how useful that is in defending or explaining evolution. After all these gradual changes in text color are the result of an intentional intelligent process. Someone planned this and executed it. That is the exact thing we don’t want people to think about evolution

I think this has to to with explaining the microevolution/macroevolution fallacy. Almost all creationists will accept “microevolution” (gahh I hate the term, it shouldn’t exist) because honestly they have no other choice. Bacterial evolution has been directly observed and thanks to antibiotic resistance isn’t really disputed even by creationists. Even though guided by humans, they must also accept that genetic variety within species is possible without divine intervention.

So most creationists will admit to microevolution but somehow cannot wrap their minds around the notion that changes from one species to another can be achieved through these small steps. Some merely claim it’s impossible of course, as if there were some invisible “limit” to variation, but I think others really don’t understand the notion of a large biological transition made up of very very small steps, hence the analogy above.

@lurker111
Miko is typically a Japanese woman’s name so I would bet on the her side of him/her.

But back on topic it is a good analogy to explain that micro-evolution over time is macro-evolution. But I just prefer to call the whole thing evolution.

Seems to me that this image provides nothing that one couldn’t get from simply looking up “gradual” in the dictionary.

Gretchen, how exactly does this image address the type of person you cite?

There is no change in “species” (so to speak) here, merely color. You mixed 2 primaries and produced a secondary.  It’s like mixing human races which results in a bi-racial human… you still have a human.  In this case; red, blue, or purple… you still have the same text.