empiracle evidence

[Curious George]

I am curious as to why anyone would try to deny evolution. Putting the creation vs. evolution argument aside, evolution is happening. Whether or not some deity created the first organisms or not does not change the mounting evidence that evolution has and is occurring. I thought it would be nice to have a thread to point people to this mountain of evidence that is mounting even as I type these letters. Feel free to add to this or to challenge what has been peer reviewed by the scientific community.


Barluenga M, Stölting K, Salzburger W, Muschick M, Meyer A. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature [serial online]. February 9, 2006;439(7077):719-723. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. Speciation (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA,
2004).

Dieckmann, U. & Doebeli, M. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation.
Nature 400, 354–-357 (1999).

Govindarajulu R, Hughes C, Bailey C. PHYLOGENETIC AND POPULATION GENETIC ANALYSES OF DIPLOID LEUCAENA (LEGUMINOSAE; MIMOSOIDEAE) REVEAL CRYPTIC SPECIES DIVERSITY AND PATTERNS OF DIVERGENT ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION. American Journal Of Botany [serial online]. December 2011;98(12):2049-2063. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

Reznick D, Ricklefs R. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature [serial online]. February 12, 2009;457(7231):837-842. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

RYMER P, MANNING J, GOLDBLATT P, POWELL M, SAVOLAINEN V. Evidence of recent and continuous speciation in a biodiversity hotspot: a population genetic approach in southern African gladioli ( Gladiolus; Iridaceae) P. D. RYMER ET AL. SPECIATION IN AFRICAN GLADIOLI. Molecular Ecology [serial online]. November 2010;19(21):4765-4782. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012

 

[Man of Faith]

The problem is the definition of evolution changes with the wind. Evolution means one thing to a creationist and another to an evolutionist. Creationists for the most part don’t deny change, they deny that man came from any other creature. Speciation doesn’t prove that man came from any other creature. Biodiversity doesn’t prove that man came form any other creature. Everything that can be observed by science is allowed in the creation model.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is the definition of evolution changes with the wind.

false

it hasnt changed n over a hundred years

only new material is added to the larger picture.


but he fact that all life evolves from previous generations, remains intact

 

[Man of Faith]

but he fact that all life evolves from previous generations, remains intact

And this doesn't prove that man came from any other creature. Life evolves, or changes, big deal. Did life forms evolve from a single common ancestor, naturally, or did life forms evolve from multiple creatures created fully whole by God during creation week? The answer to that question doesn’t come from empirical evidence, it comes from philosophy.

 

[mycorrhiza]

And this doesn't prove that man came from any other creature. Life evolves, or changes, big deal. Did life forms evolve from a single common ancestor, naturally, or did life forms evolve from multiple creatures created fully whole by God during creation week? The answer to that question doesn’t come from empirical evidence, it comes from philosophy.

The answer actually comes from scientific evidence, both in the field of paleontology and genetics. You don't need to accept it, but there is little doubt about it in the scientific community.

We have several "transitional" forms of humans in the fossil record.

 

[Breathe]

Evolution means one thing to a creationist and another to an evolutionist.

Wouldn't that just show that creationists don't understand evolution, though?

 

[FearGod]

The answer actually comes from scientific evidence, both in the field of paleontology and genetics. You don't need to accept it, but there is little doubt about it in the scientific community.

We have several "transitional" forms of humans in the fossil record.

But still that will never deny that god do exist.

Man invented B&W television ,then later developed the color TV,
so the developer of the TV was still the man.
From huge TV box to what we can see today of attractive slim ones.

We can see that TVs were evolved from primitive to advanced one,not by coincidences,but by the plan of man and god has his own plans.

 

[Pegg]

when it can be demonstrated that one creature can change its body plan over many thousands of generations so that it takes on a new form, then perhaps that part of the theory will be more widely accepted. But no one has ever witnessed that happen and no scientist has ever reproduced it ...so where is the 'empirical evidence' for such a phenomenon? There is none. It only exists as a theory in the minds of evolutionists. Therefore we are right to not blindly believe such a theory.

 

[mycorrhiza]

But still that will never deny that god do exist.

Man invented B&W television ,then later developed the color TV,
so the developer of the TV was still the man.
From huge TV box to what we can see today of attractive slim ones.

We can see that TVs were evolved from primitive to advanced one,not by coincidences,but by the plan of man and god has his own plans.

I can't say that God doesn't exist, because I don't know, and evolution could be a guided process simply having the appearance of being non-guided, so I'm not planning to argue against God. All I'm saying is that evolution is a scientific fact.

when it can be demonstrated that one creature can change its body plan over many thousands of generations so that it takes on a new form, then perhaps that part of the theory will be more widely accepted. But no one has ever witnessed that happen and no scientist has ever reproduced it ...so where is the 'empirical evidence' for such a phenomenon? There is none. It only exists as a theory in the minds of evolutionists. Therefore we are right to not blindly believe such a theory.

If you give me an example of a higher species that we could study for several thousand generations in, let's say 20 years, I will forward it to scientists so that they can do the research . Because I'm guessing you don't count the changes we have observed in lower organisms like yeast. I think it's quite obvious why we have never directly observed or recreated such big changes, because they take a lot of time. We have, however, seen animals and plants become new species.

Empirical research works on indirect observations too, you know, and we have plenty of those in the fossil records. We also have several genetic mappings of plants and animals that allow us to see their relations with eachother.

If only direct observations were viable as evidence, then we would have to scrap many fields of science. The whole field of biology happens to think that evolution is a scientific theory, and by all definitions it is.

You don't need to accept evolution, but it is still a fact.

 

[Pegg]

If you give me an example of a higher species that we could study for several thousand generations in, let's say 20 years, I will forward it to scientists so that they can do the research . Because I'm guessing you don't count the changes we have observed in lower organisms like yeast. I think it's quite obvious why we have never directly observed or recreated such big changes, because they take a lot of time. We have, however, seen animals and plants become new species.

yeast remains yeast. Bacteria changes, but remains as bacteria. Changing habits or appearance or size or shape does not change the body plan so that the organism is no longer the same organism. The bacteria has not become anything less then bacteria.

and what of humans....6,000 years and many generations later we are still human with the same body plan. but humans have changed shape, size, color and appearance...this could be likened to different species of human...but all still human nonetheless.

Evolution is 'change over time'...its not proven to create new 'families' over time though.

 

[Man of Faith]

Wouldn't that just show that creationists don't understand evolution, though?

It could also show that evolutionists don't understand creation, or that evolutionists aren't really interested in discussing the real debate.

 

[McBell]

when it can be demonstrated that one creature can change its body plan over many thousands of generations so that it takes on a new form, then perhaps that part of the theory will be more widely accepted. But no one has ever witnessed that happen and no scientist has ever reproduced it ...so where is the 'empirical evidence' for such a phenomenon? There is none. It only exists as a theory in the minds of evolutionists. Therefore we are right to not blindly believe such a theory.

So, why is that creation is not held to this exact same standard?

 

[Man of Faith]

The answer actually comes from scientific evidence, both in the field of paleontology and genetics. You don't need to accept it, but there is little doubt about it in the scientific community.

We have several "transitional" forms of humans in the fossil record.

Science is married to atheistic naturalism so of course they will choose that path. Also if you understand the definition of a transitional form then you should know that it is based on the same philosophy of naturalism.

 

[McBell]

It could also show that evolutionists don't understand creation, or that evolutionists aren't really interested in discussing the real debate.

Are you telling bold faced lies or are you honestly that ignorant of what evolution is?

 

[Man of Faith]

If you give me an example of a higher species that we could study for several thousand generations in, let's say 20 years,

Lenski's e.coli experiment has had 50,000 generations to observe and no changes have been observed that have resulted in a new morphology.

 

[Man of Faith]

yeast remains yeast. Bacteria changes, but remains as bacteria. Changing habits or appearance or size or shape does not change the body plan so that the organism is no longer the same organism. The bacteria has not become anything less then bacteria.

and what of humans....6,000 years and many generations later we are still human with the same body plan. but humans have changed shape, size, color and appearance...this could be likened to different species of human...but all still human nonetheless.

Evolution is 'change over time'...its not proven to create new 'families' over time though.

This is exactly right and helps explain what I am trying to say. Evolutionists discuss change over time and creationists discuss new families. Every time I hear “evolution is a fact”, I hear “change over time is a fact”, I don’t hear “man came from anything other than man” is a fact, and if I do hear that, I hear a philosophical position that is adopted by science.

 

[Man of Faith]

Are you telling bold faced lies or are you honestly that ignorant of what evolution is?

Case in point, instead of discussing what a creationist posts, we are hammered all day and night by the propaganda techniques of name calling, public ridicule and scorn.

 

[savagewind]

I think it is interesting that every living thing has DNA, from the simplest form to the most complex. Plants, animals and viruses. If life does not have a designer why aren't there different building blocks? Why does everything have DNA?

 

[McBell]

Case in point, instead of discussing what a creationist posts, we are hammered all day and night by the propaganda techniques of name calling, public ridicule and scorn.

If you would stop telling bold faced lies (or waving your ignorance around like a flag) perhaps one could actually have an honest meaningful discussion on evolution.

Problem is that you prefer to talk about all sorts of nonsense that has nothing to do with evolution and claim that it is evolution.

I notice that you did not answer the question.
Which is it?
Are you telling bold faced lies, or are that that ignorant of what evolution is?

And you have the gall to claim that it is "evolutionists" who do not want honest debate?

 

[Quintessence]

There is no discussing of what some literalistic Bible-based creationists post because - to those who understand the science evolution - discussing it is like debating whether or not planet earth is flat. It's nonsense talk.

I don't understand why it is so offensive to some humans to recognize our kinship with the nonhuman world. No, I find it sad, to be more accurate.