Creationists, please provide evidence

[Noaidi]

Why is that that best explanation?

In 2007 the journal 'Nature' published an article which made the point that with all the research done on human evolution, they still dont know when or how the human line actually emerged from the apes.

The fact is that human evolution from apes has been under constant debate and there is still no consensus on the issue other then "we descended from apes" ....where is the actual evidence???
There is none... so why do you say its the best explanation we have??

www.physorg.com/news9211.html

Of course, as with anything in science, it's not 100% proof, but the evidence for taxonomic relationships between us and other species is compelling.

 

[Pegg]

No, I am assuming that it is accurate based on the taxonomical traits that firmly puts us in the same category as chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas, the remaining living species of apes. This is backed up not only by external and internal physical features but also by evidence provided by the mapping of DNA. Of course, "ape" is a human created term, but it is a term with clear definitions, and we are, unquestionably, apes.

it puts us in the same category because modern biologists have used taxonomy as a marker for who is related to who, but it doesnt make their claims true and accurate. They've simply come up with a method which suits their preconceived idea of how they imagine evolution to work.

To be honest, there are actually large differences in the DNA separating apes and monkeys from humans, not small ones. New research has found large deletions and insertions throughout the chromosome... so DNA does not provide evidence of similarity at all.

This is a fallacy. For all evolution cares the first forms of life might as well have been seeded here by aliens, poofed into existence by some deity, or developed in geothermal vents below the sea. It doesn't matter at all as far as evolution on this planet is concerned.

it always comes back to this with evolutionists...whenever they are questioned about how the first forms of life magically evolved, they backout by stating that evolution has nothing to do with how life began

yet the theory itself says that all have come from the same stock...that a tree of life can be drawn which can trace where all the different creatures have come from, each one coming from a previous one until you get right back to that point of how did the first one come about and then they go back to ...well evolution has nothing to do with that

This is why evolution can be torn down so quickly...without a firm foundation, it cannot be proven to be true.

 

[Noaidi]

This is why evolution can be torn down so quickly...without a firm foundation, it cannot be proven to be true.

This can also be levelled at your alternative, though. What is the firm basis for creationism, other than an ancient set of scrolls? This thread is about creationists providing a testable hypothesis and credible evidence. Until you do - and that evidence far outweighs the evidence for evolution - then evolution is the best current explanation we have.

 

[rusra02]

no, the excessive inbreeding would have killed off each animal species that was saved, since there was only 2 of each animal. This has already been shown to be a problem with groups of up to 10 animals, let alone 2. They would have all died off

Genesis 7:1-3 - "After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation. Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate; also of the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth."
To those who deny the existence of God, nothing is possible. Jehovah has raised people dead four days back to life. That, from man's standpoint, is not possible. He is the creator of life and can certainly preserve it as he did Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark. Thereafter, Jehovah could control the spread of man and animals across the earth.

 

[DeitySlayer]

it always comes back to this with evolutionists...whenever they are questioned about how the first forms of life magically evolved, they backout by stating that evolution has nothing to do with how life began

yet the theory itself says that all have come from the same stock...that a tree of life can be drawn which can trace where all the different creatures have come from, each one coming from a previous one until you get right back to that point of how did the first one come about and then they go back to ...well evolution has nothing to do with that

This is why evolution can be torn down so quickly...without a firm foundation, it cannot be proven to be true.

You can describe how a baby grows into an adult without knowing the fine technicalities of embryology. Whether the original prokaryote was designed by aliens, God, multiple gods, or came about through abiogenesis, has no bearing on the theory of evolution. It's true, deal with it.

Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of claiming that a pencil is flawed because it can't send email. It's not designed to send freaking email. Nor is the theory of evolution designed to explain the origins of life.

 

[Pegg]

Alright. I'll play.
Since you apparently accept what Creationists call "micro-evolution" (this term has no meaning in evolutionary theory), explain to me what mechanism stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution".

I will readily accept that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly but I woudlnt go so far as to believe in micro/macro evolution. The fossil record does not show a gradual accumulation of change leading to 'new creatures'...what it actually shows is that major groups of creatures appearing suddenly and remaining unchanged for vast periods of time until they disappear.

the changes im referring to is in the variety within a genus. An example being in us humans, we are one genus with an endless variety of different features giving us different races of people. That I can accept, but not the idea of completely new creatures coming into existence.

Seems obvious that small changes accumulated over a long enough period of time should result in major changes that in effect creates a new "kind.
So what stops this from happening?

Its genetics and DNA which prevent this from happening. The small changes we see do not eventuate into new creatures...even 40 years of mutation experiments could not create new creatures. The changes in DNA get to a certain point and dont go any further such as in the example of hybrids. That is the fact and it proves that mircro evolution is NOT a fact.

 

[jarofthoughts]

it puts us in the same category because modern biologists have used taxonomy as a marker for who is related to who, but it doesnt make their claims true and accurate. They've simply come up with a method which suits their preconceived idea of how they imagine evolution to work.

Actually Linneaus, the founder of the taxonomy system that is in common use today, was a creationist, so if anything, his "preconceived idea" was closer to yours than that of modern biologists. Of course, as with anything in science, the system has been modified and corrected in the face of new evidence.
In other words, your claim is unfounded drivel.

To be honest, there are actually large differences in the DNA separating apes and monkeys from humans, not small ones. New research has found large deletions and insertions throughout the chromosome...

I'm somewhat familiar with the mapping of DNA in relation to humans but I really cannon comment on this without a reference to exactly what you are talking about. Please provide a link the articles you are referring this from so I can review them.

so DNA does not provide evidence of similarity at all.

Yes...yes it really does.

it always comes back to this with evolutionists...whenever they are questioned about how the first forms of life magically evolved, they backout by stating that evolution has nothing to do with how life began

Well, it doesn't. If you want to discuss Abiogenesis instead then you should say so. But Evolution and Abiogenesis are really two different subjects.

yet the theory itself says that all have come from the same stock...that a tree of life can be drawn which can trace where all the different creatures have come from, each one coming from a previous one until you get right back to that point of how did the first one come about and then they go back to ...well evolution has nothing to do with that

The Phylogenetic tree: Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A simplified example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

What happened before that, i.e. the origin of the first forms of life, is within the domain of Abiogenesis.

This is why evolution can be torn down so quickly...without a firm foundation, it cannot be proven to be true.

This is also a fallacy. Nothing in science (except mathematics) is ever "proven" to be true. Instead one follows the evidence to the most likely conclusion, and in the case of the Theory of Evolution it is possibly the most likely theory we have, being backed up by tons of evidence and contradicted by none.

Even so, refuting evolution isn't complicated at all. Just find me a fossil of a modern rabbit in verifiable per-Cambrian stone and Evolution falls. Good luck finding that fossil though...

 

[Pegg]

www.physorg.com/news9211.html

Of course, as with anything in science, it's not 100% proof, but the evidence for taxonomic relationships between us and other species is compelling.

sure its compelling, we each have five fingers and ten toes

we must be related!

 

[jarofthoughts]

To those who deny the existence of God, nothing is possible.

So, the achievements of science is "nothing"? Then, pray, what are you doing here on the net (invented through scientific means), using a computer (invented by scientific means), eating food (developed through scientific means), wearing clothes (produced using technology developed through scientific means), living in a house (designed by the use of scientific knowledge) or going to a doctor (using medicine and methods developed through scientific means)?

Face it. You owe your life and most of what makes it what it is, to science.

Jehovah has raised people dead four days back to life.

Evidence?

He is the creator of life and can certainly preserve it as he did Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.

Evidence?

Thereafter, Jehovah could control the spread of man and animals across the earth.

Evidence?

 

[Pegg]

This can also be levelled at your alternative, though. What is the firm basis for creationism, other than an ancient set of scrolls? This thread is about creationists providing a testable hypothesis and credible evidence. Until you do - and that evidence far outweighs the evidence for evolution - then evolution is the best current explanation we have.

all we have to do is look at scientific fact and it blows the ToE out of the water.

I can confidently say this because mutations have not produced new species, natural selection has been shown to help animals adapt to their environment but it certainly has not created anything new, the fossil record shows large groups of animals who appear suddenly and stay virtually unchanged for long periods of time.
Yes we do get a large variety within each genus, but thats all it is...variety as a result of genetics.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Its genetics and DNA which prevent this from happening. The small changes we see do not eventuate into new creatures...even 40 years of mutation experiments could not create new creatures. The changes in DNA get to a certain point and dont go any further such as in the example of hybrids. That is the fact and it proves that mircro evolution is NOT a fact.

First off, speciation has been directly observed on numerous occasions and is fully testable.
Secondly, 40 years? Really? You do realise that 40 years is NOTHING when considering evolutionary time? We're talking hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years here...

And yet, you have not answered my question. What is the MECHANISM that in a genus stops it from changing beyond a certain point?

 

[evolved yet?]

Still no evidence!

 

[jarofthoughts]

sure its compelling, we each have five fingers and ten toes

we must be related!

Is that really the level at which you wish to discuss this? :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

I can confidently say this because mutations have not produced new species...

It has and it has been observed numerous times. Really. In our lifetime.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

natural selection has been shown to help animals adapt to their environment but it certainly has not created anything new, the fossil record shows large groups of animals who appear suddenly and stay virtually unchanged for long periods of time.

That is also false.

 

[Pegg]

I'm somewhat familiar with the mapping of DNA in relation to humans but I really cannon comment on this without a reference to exactly what you are talking about. Please provide a link the articles you are referring this from so I can review them.

“Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”—published in the October 25, 2002 issue of Science written by Elizabeth Pennisi (a staff writer for Science) She wrote:

"For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies​

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: “The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant”

 

[jarofthoughts]

“Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”—published in the October 25, 2002 issue of Science written by Elizabeth Pennisi (a staff writer for Science) She wrote:

"For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren’t noticed in previous studies​

Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: “The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant”

Right. That does not justify your argument stating that: "To be honest, there are actually large differences in the DNA separating apes and monkeys from humans, not small ones."

The estimated percentages are still in the same range, even 10.000 base pairs does not amount to a large portion of our DNA containing about 2,9 BILLION base pairs, and it in no way puts into question our relatedness.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

maybe but then how would Christians account for the genetic defects.

We call those atheists.

 

[jarofthoughts]

We call those atheists.

He he... Nice reply.

 

[newhope101]

It has and it has been observed numerous times. Really. In our lifetime.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That is also false.

Pegg, I agree.

Jarofthoughts, I looked up Evowiki for a list of examples for speciation. These examples highlight that scientists have overcomplicated everything in a effort to make it all fit. Most of these examples below a good examples that illustrate how researchers have confused themeslves to death. The primroses are still flowers. The fact that the offspring are called by another name doesn't mean any more than saying a Chinese and Aboriginal are different species because they appear a little different. It's nonsence. I refer back to 'Race' in Wiki.

Speciation is micrevolution and doesn not account for macroevolution. In fact I can post research that notes micrevolution is unlikely to account for macroevolution. I think I have posted it already in this thread.

So let's have a look at this evidence of yours.

Firstly let's look at some RECENT research re plants.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — The origins of flowering plants from peas to oak trees are now in clearer focus thanks to the efforts of University of Florida researchers.A study appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences unravels 100 million years of evolution through an extensive analysis of plant genomes. It targets one of the major moments in plant evolution, when the ancestors of most of the world's flowering plants split into two major groups.

God created flowers and plants, may have been a few, or thousands. The point being they were created with the huge genetic diversity seen in genomic testing so that they could adapt and change into the beautiful array we see today. However they are just plants, always were plants, always will be plants and did not evolve from anything else. Just because every plant is called a different species does not stop them from being simply plants that changed and flowered, and one kind.

The same goes for the sunflower which remains a flower, maggot is still a fly maggot, mosquito still a mosquito, sheep still a sheep.

As for Archaeopteryx. It is only evidence of researchers not really being able to tell what came from what. If arch devleoped a few feather it is likely no more than an adaptation before it went extinct. Yet any variation researches will grab to uphold and resolve within ToE. If there is strong evidence that birds decended from dinos and stong evidence that dinos descended from birds, effectively what you have is no evidence at all. Again, it sounds like clutching at straws. Read something recent below.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

How can researchers that actually know what they are doing be so confused about which way ToE worked it? This appears to be guesswork at best, not science. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we would never have got to the moon if the theory of relativity was this kind of science.

Cattle evolved from wild cattle. So you give them another species name and say this is evidence of evolution. The point being they remain a kind "cattle".

This is evidence of micro evolution. It means virtually nothing. Your DNA will change over your lifetime in response to viral infections and ageing, but you are still you, and will be you until you die. You are not evolving into anything. Rather you are adapting to your environment.

It appears that every species adaptation is used to illustrate a new species. However despite the words and concepts it remains the same kind. eg all horses, donkeys, mules, okapi, zebra are the same kind. You may group them 'equidae' and then give idividual species names. You can argue the concept of species and subspecies. You can argue whether or not different species can or cannot interbreed. All that is irrelevant in speaking about 'kinds'.

The bible states kinds were created. It does not say god created a flower or an equidae and that it would never look any different. Indeed they, and all organisms, were gifted with huge genetic diversity, much more than adaptation requires (eg. sponge with nerve cells) so they could spread into various environments and adapt but still be a flower or an equidae. The equidae is the creature that all these adaptations adapted from. So basically God created organisms that adapted and changed appearance. But still remained the same kind. Just because you give the adaptations different names and call the adaptaions different species means only that you have chosen various descriptors to describe the adaptaions. Yet, they remain the same biblical "kind". It does not matter if they adapted so much they could no longer interbreed. The bible says nothing about that, only that kinds were initially created. It's is meant to be a spititual guide, not a biology book.

Let's look at Equidae.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2009) — Ancient DNA retrieved from extinct horse species from around the world has challenged one of the textbook examples of evolution -- the fossil record of the horse family Equidae over the past 55 million years.
"Previous fossil records suggested this group was part of an ancient lineage from North America but the DNA showed these unusual forms were part of the modern radiation of equid species," Dr Orlando says.
"Overall, the new genetic results suggest that we have under-estimated how much a single species can vary over time and space, and mistakenly assumed more diversity among extinct species of megafauna," Professor Cooper says.
"This has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, where a large number of species are currently recognised from a relatively fragmentary fossil record.

EvoWiki examples of speciation:

1. The Giant Evening Primrose, Oenothera gigas, arose from Lamarck's Evening Primrose O. lamarckiana, through polyploidy, in that the former has twice as many chromosomes as its parents (2N=28 versus 2N=14).
2. The Kew Primrose Primula kewensis arose from fertile tetraploid mutants from an otherwise sterile hybrid cross between P. floribunda and P. verticillata.
3. The Honeysuckle Maggot Fly, Rhagoletis mendax × zephyria, of North America, is descended from a hybrid between Snowberry Maggot Flies and Blueberry Maggot Flies around 250 years ago, and has been afflicting imported European honeysuckle vines used as ornamental plants in Eastern North America ever since. It was determined to be a hybrid species when scientists recreated new honeysuckle maggot flies by breeding the two parent species in laboratories.
4. The mosquito species Culex molestus lives only in the underground of the British city of London, having descended from a population of the species C. pipiens that was stranded there over a century ago. The two species are physically and genetically similar, but can not interbreed, and prefer different prey (the former prefers humans and rodents whereas the latter prefers birds).
5. Molecular tests done on the rare desert sunflower species Helianthus anomalis and H. deserticola show that they are descendants of diploid hybrids between the two widespread species, H. annuus and H. petiolaris.
6. Domestic sheep are a result of humans using a process known as artificial speciation - selecting existing genetic variants within species or hybridizing different subspecies or breeds to create new species that are more suited to human use.
7. The evolution of new species has also been observed in the fossil record numerous times for example the fossil bird Archaeopteryx appears to have evolved from the earlier dinosaur species Compsognathus [1], and the first species of modern horses Equus stenonis appears to be descended from more primitive horses such as Plesippus.
8. Modern cattle are also a result of artificial speciation they are descended from the extinct species of wild cattle Bos primigenius.

So this evidence is not evidence at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

God created flowers, mayhave been a few, or thousands. The point being they were created with the huge genetic diversity seen in genomic testing so that they could adapt and change into the beautiful array we see today.

Would you mind specifying how many organisms were created? Because, quoting WikiAnswers, "Botanists estimate that there are more than 10,000 species of flowering plants."

However they are just flowers, always were flowers, always will be flowers and did not evolve from anything else. Just because every flower is called a different species does not stop them from being simply flowers and one kind.

But micro-evolution has been established to happen, and there is no known reason why the changes cannot accumulate enough to class as a different "species".

If there is strong evidence that birds decended from dinos and stong evidence that dinos descended from birds. Effectively what you have is no evidence at all.

Not quite. What you have is a logically inconsistent mess.

Cattle evolved from wild cattle. So you give them another species name and say this is evidence of evolution. The point being they remain a kind "cattle".

But in my personal dictionary, wild cattle are called moodielooya. By your reasoning, they're not the same kind at all.

This is evidence of micro evolution. It means virtually nothing. Your DNA will change over your lifetime in response to viral infestions and ageing, but you are still you, and will be you until you die. You are not evolving into anything. Rather you are adapting to your environment. Adaptation is not contrary to creationist thinking.

Then our definition of "you" doesn't depend on DNA. And you're not adapting to anything; Changing the DNA of an already-grown organism usually causes failure, and, AFAIK, is not put to any beneficial purpose, ever.

Indeed they, and all organisms, were gifted with huge genetic diversity...

Genetic diversity across an individual is a nonsensical concept. Relying on it in an argument is fallacious.