The news a few weeks ago was that hybrid sharks had been found off the coast of Australia. They looked like tropical Australian black-tip sharks, but genetic testing revealed that they’d hybridized with the common black-tip, which has a wider range; these hybrid black-tips were similarly extending their range and living in colder waters.
This is an excellent example of evolution: it’s a population shifting its range, correlated with an observation of novel genetic attributes. This is exactly the kind of gradual transition that we’d expect to be compatible with evolutionary theory.
Unless you’re a creationist, of course. Or an idiot. But I repeat myself.
I wonder if they ever considered that when you stand back and look at them, they are all sharks. That means they are the same kind of animal. That is not evolution taking place; there is no changing from one kind of animal into another kind of animal happening here. We started with a shark and now we have a shark. That is not evolution!
Yes. define evolution as something that is not evolution. That is how creationists role.
When I read the story, my first thoughts were how the hybrids reacted to changing conditions, did the hybrids exhibit a greater ability to deal with the new environments and, if so, how much better was it than either parent alone.
To a creationist, the story leads to denialism and no further questions.
Scientists knew this over 400 years ago. Johannes Kepler, when describing the first nova seen in the West in the Middle Ages, stated:
Priusquam autem ad creationem, hoc est ad finem omnis disputationis, veniamus: tentanda omnia existimo.
However, before we come to [special] creation, which puts an end to all discussion: I think we should try everything else.
Even then, scientists realized that special denialism stopped discussions and prohibited understanding of the world around us.