empiracle evidence

[savagewind]

We probably share a common ancestor with ferns, yes. We're not very closely related though. Even so, I'm proud to be related to ferns. Isn't the unrolling of the fronds just beautiful?

Yes it is. And ferns can be food too.

 

[Curious George]

So, I was hoping people would add other citations for scientific research. Just to address some general misunderstanding I would like to point out that there are several types of evolution. The one which is so hotly contested by the Bible is the concept of Macroevolution in which speciation occurs. The research that I gave had solely to do with macroevolution and speciation. Someone brought up the fact of diversity within a species. This is not the same as speciation because two diverse creatures of that species are still able to reproduce. Of speciation, we find several types of speciation allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric speciation. there are also many theories, and much scientific research that suggests the conventional theory of evolution is not the entire story. Feel free to dig up that research. I love reading scientific research papers, and have access to many databases full of them. I am sure many others do too.

 

[Curious George]

But please don't come making accusations about evolution when you do not understand it. If you don't understand it I and others will help you where we can.

 

[Curious George]

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?

I am not so sure you are correct. There are viruses which only have RNA and not DNA. Prions, which do not have DNA, might also be brought up here. But I do not know that they are counted as life. However, there seems to be evidence that Prions evolve.

 

[s2a]

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

What many (if not most) "evolution deniers" fail to grasp, or consciously seek to conjoin as like-comparison...is a direct correlation of "cosmological origins" with "life origins.".

Simply put, "Big Bang Theory" does not speak to, nor even hint at the prospective origins of life on Earth, and "Evolution Theory" offers no ties nor links to "cosmological origins" for validation or support in evident fact.

The supposed conflict/debate that two separate theories that neither conflict nor contradict one another is just a fabrication of ignorant invention that perceive either or both prevailing theories as somehow conflicting with literal interpretations of ancient and unscientific religious texts as documented historical fact and record of undeniable "truth".

The simple fact remains that everyday folks that can discern these distinctions rarely deny the scientific evidences presented (overwhelmingly reinforced), time and again, accepting the validity and factual foundations of Evolution theory (as endorsed by even the Pope of the roman Catholic church), is neither contradictory nor in conflict with the creation myths popular amongst most major religions today.

The people most confused and in sustained denial are those that lump the two disciplines as a conjoined-twin beast of one, and unalterably inseparable from each other.

We self-assured, egotistical, and conspiratorial minded "god-haters/deniers" know (secretly of course), that "stupid" can be amended over time, but self-delusion requires especial professional aid for hope of a lasting "cure"

 

[Breathe]

It could also show that evolutionists don't understand creation,

What do you mean by "creation", and why don't "evolutionists" understand it?

or that evolutionists aren't really interested in discussing the real debate.

What debate? Creation vs. evolution?

There is no debate. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution. Overwhelmingly. It just gets stronger and stronger.


And, there are no scientific alternatives to evolution. Intelligent design is a farce. Biblical creationism takes things too literally and misses out on the beauty of the story, and even if it was meant to be taken literally (which not everyone believes), it's known not to be true now.

The compilers of Genesis had no scientific method. They were not able to test for the beginning of the universe, nor did they have the tools to find and understand evolution. They had to make the best with what they knew, and what they thought. When we have more accurate, more testable results, it's pointless to hold on to a literalistic interpretation of texts which a) don't explain how things were created, other than being created and b) may not have been intended to be read as literal in the first place.

 

[David M]

The one which is so hotly contested by the Bible is the concept of Macroevolution in which speciation occurs. The research that I gave had solely to do with macroevolution and speciation.

In which case any counterarguments are invalidated as speciation has been observed in the wild and in the laboratory. Speciation is an observed fact. It confirms that such objections to evolution from creationists are not scientific but solely religious, and stemming from their interpretation of religious writings.

 

[Man of Faith]

In which case any counterarguments are invalidated as speciation has been observed in the wild and in the laboratory. Speciation is an observed fact. It confirms that such objections to evolution from creationists are not scientific but solely religious, and stemming from their interpretation of religious writings.

Speciation does not equate to macroevolution.

 

[outhouse]

Speciation does not equate to macroevolution.

Double facepalm


because one wasnt enough

 

[savagewind]

Can I raise you one?

Are they the same thing? I'm new.

 

[outhouse]

Can I raise you one?

Are they the same thing? I'm new.

sure im easy

 

[Man of Faith]

Are they the same thing? I'm new.

Because you are new I will help you out. There might be a possibility that you can shake off any atheistic naturalism evolution brainwashing that you went though in the public school system, I don't know. First of all scientists can't even agree on what the definition of a species is. Here is the question, has any evolution been observed that produces a new family of organism? If we have 30,000 species of butterflies, that means nothing, they are still butterflies.

Here is how it could have happened and there is no scientific discovery that can disprove it. God could have created a male and a female cat kind of creature, fully whole in one day that had the genes in it to naturally select and creature all the cats in the cat family today. And God could have created a male and female human fully whole in one day who had the genes in them to naturally select to create all the races of humans that we have today.

What you will find is the ToE isn’t even a scientific theory, it is just a model and there are competing models out there that don’t get looked out just because they aren’t atheistic and naturalistic in nature. That is the only reason why science chooses the tree model over the orchard model, because it is the naturalistic one, it is because of philosophy, not science. Do your own research if you dare and you will find that the creation model best fits the evidence.

 

[savagewind]

There exists evidence in the human body that point to it being an evolved life form. I agree with the creation account but I wonder why there is so much evidence pointing to evolution? Is it a joke? A cosmic guffaw?

I also agree that there is no evidence that presently one species is turning into another species of a different kind. I have heard of an atheist arguing evolution and proudly pointing to different breeds of dogs. Dog breeding is not so spectacular. Show me a cat/dog and get a prize.Ooh better yet a snakebird. That would be a dragon. Why are there no dragons?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I also agree that there is no evidence that presently that one species is turning into another species of a different kind.

You would be mistaken then. We have observed speciation happening in labs and in the wild.
A good start:
Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Because you are new I will help you out.

Stating falsehoods doesn't help anyone out, but the speaker.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Because you are new I will help you out. There might be a possibility that you can shake off any atheistic naturalism evolution brainwashing that you went though in the public school system, I don't know. First of all scientists can't even agree on what the definition of a species is. Here is the question, has any evolution been observed that produces a new family of organism? If we have 30,000 species of butterflies, that means nothing, they are still butterflies.

We have studied evolution for less than 200 years. Why should we expect a whole new family to arise? We have found new animal families we didn't know about, though What a butterfly is is decided by humans, and the same goes for species. There are no such clear distinctions in nature. Species is simply a human-made system.

Here is how it could have happened and there is no scientific discovery that can disprove it. God could have created a male and a female cat kind of creature, fully whole in one day that had the genes in it to naturally select and creature all the cats in the cat family today. And God could have created a male and female human fully whole in one day who had the genes in them to naturally select to create all the races of humans that we have today.

We have already disproven it. Could you provide evidence for these "kind" barriers? What prevents evolution beyond a "kind"?

What you will find is the ToE isn’t even a scientific theory, it is just a model and there are competing models out there that don’t get looked out just because they aren’t atheistic and naturalistic in nature. That is the only reason why science chooses the tree model over the orchard model, because it is the naturalistic one, it is because of philosophy, not science. Do your own research if you dare and you will find that the creation model best fits the evidence.

I would say that 99,9% of all biologists would disagree. By all definitions, evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. ID simply isn't scientific and there's no evidence to support it. We can't adapt science to religions, as science should be independent. When something is disproven in science, it stops being used, but there is absolutely no debate in any of the relevant scientific fields whether or not evolution is true. So while there might be competing models, none of them are scientific or backed up by scientific evidence. You're welcome to believe in creationism, but please do not spread lies about evolution and it's status as a scientific theory.

 

[savagewind]

You would be mistaken then. We have observed speciation happening in labs and in the wild.
A good start:
Observed Instances of Speciation

Yes, a good link and interesting. It makes me feel like I'm in school.

I think the Jesus people want examples of biological formations that are in the process of becoming something. Let's take a Bible example. "every house is build by someone" Hebrew 3:4. A building begins with a hole. A foundation next. The walls. The roof. There is a point when the building becomes finished enough to be a dwelling.

Are there scientific example of "what the hell is this?" Are there biological formations in any species that point to what the thing is changing into.

The appendix in humans is a bad example because it is a leftover of something, I have heard. Are there many organ type things that have been found that WILL be something. You know, later?

Like in the process of being something. Not a species. But something IN species. An unfinished something that does not function yet? (no roof) There should be lots of those, shouldn't there be? Unless evolution is stopping. Is there any evidence of that?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It's not likely you would recognize something that was to become something, because... how would we know?

You are asking for things unlikely to be seen. Everything we have is going to become something else, at some point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, a good link and interesting. It makes me feel like I'm in school.

I think the Jesus people want examples of biological formations that are in the process of becoming something. Let's take a Bible example. "every house is build by someone" Hebrew 3:4. A building begins with a hole. A foundation next. The walls. The roof. There is a point when the building becomes finished enough to be a dwelling.

Are there scientific example of "what the hell is this?" Are there biological formations in any species that point to what the thing is changing into.

That's just the thing: creationists expect us to find something that is "half one thing and half another thing", which is not what evolution predicts, nor does it make sense. There's no such thing as "half-evolved". Nor is there such a thing as "half species" or even, really, a "transitional species". There is no point at which evolution just sort of stops, having reached where it wanted to, and then starts up again. Evolution is not a process that exists between one geneology and the next - evolution never stops. You are a "transition" between your parents and your children, your children are a "transition" between yourself and your grand children. Every generation exhibits new mutations, and every generation is therefore an "evolution" of the one that preceded it.

Would you say that the platypus is a "half-species"? It isn't, because there is no such thing. The platypus, like every other species on the planet that there has ever been, is a "complete" species. Just because it possesses features that make it duck-like does not make it a "half duck". It is a platypus.

The appendix in humans is a bad example because it is a leftover of something, I have heard. Are there many organ type things that have been found that WILL be something. You know, later?

It doesn't work like that. Things that are left over often remain because our bodies have evolved beyond the use (or some of the uses) of that particular appendage, but the body cannot just decide "hmm, an extra arm would be handy - I'll start working on that", and we develop a small, proto-limb that is useless at first but will eventually become useful. Every mutation that sticks and persists through a population has to be useful. If it has no uses, it's selected out of the gene pool, so over generations anything that isn't useful to our bodies is naturally "filtered" out of them.

Like in the process of being something. Not a species. But something IN species. An unfinished something that does not function yet? (no roof) There should be lots of those, shouldn't there be? Unless evolution is stopping. Is there any evidence of that?

See above. There is no such thing as an "unfinished" species, and mutations don't develop on a population level unless they actually have some use.

 

[Man of Faith]

There exists evidence in the human body that point to it being an evolved life form.

There was no evidence in the human body that pointed to evolution when the ToE was imagined by Darwin. Scientists couldn't see inside the human body that much at that time. There are other explanations for what we see inside the human body besides evolution, but if scientists already accept evolution before the data is analyzed, guess what it will point to?

There is no scientist in their right mind would buck the system on evolution. You see what happens to them, they are publicly ridiculed, scorned and fired. They need a paycheck just like everybody else. Besides the evolution that most scientists support with their jobs is the type that can be observed, they just accept by faith that the kind not observed happened.