Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[Willamena]

Still, no first life form, no evolution. Well, we have billions if not trillions of life forms now so there must have been a first organism. The theory of evolution is dependent upon how that first organism came to be the first organism. If the creator created many different kinds organisms then the theory of evolution may not be accurate in its present form.

It's not dependent on their being any particular in the series--it's a theory of series to series, nothing more.

 

[dust1n]

Do you believe the Holy Spirit has possibly told me anything?

Do you believe that anyone who has had made claims to have had God tell them something?

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that evolution isn't real, and that genetics allows genes to change so far and then stop changing, because he put a "kind" limit there?

"How does that make sense?"
It makes sense in that you are able to speculate about certain things. You are able to convince yourself (and others) that what you are saying/reading is fact. But you're wrong because it isn't fact, it's speculation.

Are you talking about the evolution or the Bible?

Speculation isn't fact. Sorry but it isn't. That's all you've got.

Yup. Speculation about real things that actually exist, as opposed to things that God only tells and not me apparently.

My speculation makes far more sense with the observable phenomenon of the universe. Your Bible has contributed literally no knowledge about anything that I can go and walk out and see about the universe. The Holy Spirit only talks to you, remember? Not to me.

Oh yeah, also I was a Christian at one point, accepted Jesus, was baptized, and thus apparently also the Holy Spirit descended into my soul. But he never told me evolution was wrong for any reason. Actually he didn't much of anything at all. Oh well, should probably discount my experiences and replace them with yours, despite the fact they can't be shared, apparently.

 

[dust1n]

Once again, this is a deflection. You want to talk about evolution from one life form to another. But evolutionists dodge the questions about the first life form. How did the first life form "evolve"?

Let's say the first life didn't evolve. Let's say God put it there. Now Evolutionary Theory is entirely unaffected by this premise. Whether God put the first life there or not, Evolutionary Theory still explains the diversity of life on Earth, because all physical evidence about biology does not contradict evolutionary theory.

To me, it just seems more like you are using abiogenesis as a way to dodge the questions about how allele frequencies change over time in populations, and when genetics supposedly can no longer change to a different kind.

"The development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide-resistant forms of plants and insects, is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients, is a direct result of evolution through natural selection."

Eh, speculation and nothing more, right. But this insistence that there are kinds, where living beings change genetically up to a certain point, but then can't change anymore, is actual speculation, because it's based on no observation about any living thing in the entire history of humans looking at living things.

 

[Etritonakin]

We currently cannot create life from scratch. If we could then it would only point out the fact that we understand it well enough to know how it functions. If we could create life by the way we understand it through evolution it would be validation of evolution.

By observing this change in a way that is obviously non-random. If god was tweaking evolution we would assume that it would have been a quick process. Instead it is littered with failures. If god is the one who creates and tweaks DNA he is an incompetent god.

I do not understand what you ask here. Can you put it differently?

It is not possible for specific radiation to create specific effects no. But it is possible to send radiation to the earth from a long ways away. We see it happening all the time. Mostly from the sun. If there was other radiation we could intercept it.

Didn't mean from scratch -meant affecting life/manipulating DNA

Perhaps I can be more clear later.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Didn't mean from scratch -meant affecting life/manipulating DNA

Perhaps I can be more clear later.

I don't know if this changes anything.

 

[Parsimony]

The theory of evolution is dependent upon how that first organism came to be the first organism.

Did you even read my last post? I'm guessing not. Why would the theory of evolution depend on how the first organism came into being when a process other than evolution would have to have been responsible? The first living organism would be the first living organism regardless of how it came to be. Why would the origins of the first living thing have any affect on what happens to that organism and its descendents in the future?

 

[David M]

I make no claims of scientific fact. However, I hear evolutionists say they that macro-evolution is fact. It isn't scientific fact, it is all just one way of looking at the evidence presented. Macro-evolution requires faith just as much as, if not more so, than any religion does.

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild, macro-evolution is an observed fact.

 

[First Baseman]

Did you even read my last post? I'm guessing not. Why would the theory of evolution depend on how the first organism came into being when a process other than evolution would have to have been responsible? The first living organism would be the first living organism regardless of how it came to be. Why would the origins of the first living thing have any affect on what happens to that organism and its descendents in the future?

The last question is unreasonable. If aliens from some planet where only plasma exists brought the first life form here then the theory of evolution must account for that. Evolution is totally dependent on the composition of the first life form since it began evolution according to the theory. If your first life form was totally composed of plasma then your current theory of evolution cannot possibly be correct. Of course I do not think it is correct anyway as far as macro-evolution is concerned.

 

[First Baseman]

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild, macro-evolution is an observed fact.

Speciation is not macro-evolution, what you refer to is micro-evolution. No one has ever observed a bacteria evolve into a virus or vice versa.

No one has ever observed a plant evolve into an animal. Macro-evolution says it must have happened. Micro-evolution only involves evolution or change among like kinds of organisms. Dogs may end up "speciating" but they are always dogs, never any other kind of animal.

 

[Parsimony]

The last question is unreasonable. If aliens from some planet where only plasma exists brought the first life form here then the theory of evolution must account for that. Evolution is totally dependent on the composition of the first life form since it began evolution according to the theory. If your first life form was totally composed of plasma then your current theory of evolution cannot possibly be correct. Of course I do not think it is correct anyway as far as macro-evolution is concerned.

If the first life form on Earth that everything else evolved from was composed of plasma then we would be composed of plasma too, so obviously your plasma suggestion is faulty. The theory of evolution does not have to account for something that is observably untrue. You might as well be saying that evolution has to account for why humans are green when humans aren't green. Whether a peanut butter sandwich is created by hand, manufactured by aliens or materialized supernaturally makes no difference to what it actually is: it's still a peanut butter sandwich. Same thing with the first life form.

No one has ever observed a plant evolve into an animal. Macro-evolution says it must have happened.

The theory of evolution does not claim that plants evolved into animals. Please do the proper research before making claims.

 

[First Baseman]

If the first life form on Earth that everything else evolved from was composed of plasma then we would be composed of plasma too, so obviously your plasma suggestion is faulty. The theory of evolution does not have to account for something that is observably untrue. You might as well be saying that evolution has to account for why humans are green when humans aren't green. Whether a peanut butter sandwich is created by hand, manufactured by aliens or materialized supernaturally makes no difference to what it actually is: it's still a peanut butter sandwich. Same thing with the first life form.

The theory of evolution does not claim that plants evolved into animals. Please do the proper research before making claims.

So what was the first life form then? At some point in time your evolutionary tree had to split into plants and animals so at one time there was an organism that was both. Not hard to figure out.

 

[dust1n]

Speciation is not macro-evolution, what you refer to is micro-evolution. No one has ever observed a bacteria evolve into a virus or vice versa. No one has ever observed a plant evolve into an animal. Macro-evolution says it must have happened.

If you were vaguely familiar with evolutionary theory, you'd know that no one has ever claimed that a bacteria evolved into a virus or that animals evolved from plants.

Micro-evolution only involves evolution or change among like kinds of organisms. Dogs may end up "speciating" but they are always dogs, never any other kind of animal.

Ah, another scientific fact that you didn't just claim.

I make no claims of scientific fact.

Are wolves dogs? Are coyotoes dogs? Are foxes dogs? Are jackals dogs? Are hyenas dogs?

 

[Parsimony]

So what was the first life form then? At some point in time your evolutionary tree had to split into plants and animals so at one time there was an organism that was both. Not hard to figure out.

The first life form would have been a single-celled prokaryote similar to a bacterium. It wouldn't have been either a plant or an animal. The oldest fossils are indeed of single-celled prokaryotes. There is no evidence of plants or animals existing at that time.

 

[First Baseman]

The first life form would have been a single-celled prokaryote similar to a bacterium. It wouldn't have been either a plant or an animal. The oldest fossils are indeed of single-celled prokaryotes. There is no evidence of plants or animals existing at that time.

No but there is evidence of them existing now. Your "prokaryote" evolved into plants and animals is what you believe, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life but evolution begins with the first life form, in theory. So where the first life form came from and how it came about should be very important to evolutionists.

Evolution is simply evolution. It doesn't concern itself with how life started, because that is an entirely different area. Evolution builds off of biogenesis, but saying evolution is a part of biogenesis is like saying that the theory of magnetism is a part of the theory of gravity. We can see how the two relate, but they are still nevertheless two completely different theories. But when it comes to the origins of life, science has yet to reveal its nature.

When I say "evolutionist" in this context I am talking about a person who does not believe in any sort of creation theory but strictly believes that the first life form came to be by "random chance." In this case evolution is entirely dependent on abiogenesis. So this kind of evolutionist must choose some theory or another to explain the first life form or admit that it is possible at least that evolution did not happen from the first life form.

There are many who are theist and who believe in a divinely guided or "nudged" evolution. And evolution does not begin when life began, but rather when life began to reproduce and genetic changes were introduced into offspring, changes that have been ongoing for billions of years, and changes that are happening now as I type this out.

So what was the first life form then? At some point in time your evolutionary tree had to split into plants and animals so at one time there was an organism that was both. Not hard to figure out.

The first life forms, on Earth at least, were single celled prokaryotes. As they evolved, eventually a line of these simple single-celled organisms developed a nucleolus and became eukaryotes, eventually some of these acquired mitochondria, one-celled organisms gave way to multiple-celled organisms, and billions of years later we have a wide variety of diversity of life. It's not that there were organisms that were both plant and animal, but rather developing organisms "branched out" and evolved into plant and animal life (clearly seen by the differences between plant and animal cells), but mostly remained as simple single-celled prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

 

[David M]

Speciation is not macro-evolution, what you refer to is micro-evolution. No one has ever observed a bacteria evolve into a virus or vice versa.

Speciation IS macro-evolution. So when somoeone says that macro-evolution is a fact they are correct. The fact that you have your own special meaning of the term is your problem.

No one has ever observed a plant evolve into an animal. Macro-evolution says it must have happened.

No it doesn't say this.

Micro-evolution only involves evolution or change among like kinds of organisms. Dogs may end up "speciating" but they are always dogs, never any other kind of animal.

Provide a rigourous definition of Kind. Until you can (something no "creation scientist" has ever been able to do) your definition of micro-evolution is meaningless.

And mammals always remain mammals. That is because this is how we humans have defined the rules of labelling living things.

 

[Parsimony]

No but there is evidence of them existing now. Your "prokaryote" evolved into plants and animals is what you believe, right?

That is what the evidence supports.

 

[Jared Jammer]

The great Casey Luskin wrote a brilliant piece a few years back on speciation. It's become quite possibly the best piece ever written on speciation. It's well worth a read.

Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

One crucial thing that must be pointed out: Speciation doesn't involve the gaining of novel traits, and so it's irrelevant to the origins debate.

This debate is about one simple thing: What can produce the level of engineering we find in the living world?

Speciation in no way addresses this question. It's mostly a bluffing game designed to trick the ignorant into thinking small-scale, cosmetic changes somehow prove the "random mutation dunnit" fairy tale true.

 

[First Baseman]

Speciation IS macro-evolution. So when somoeone says that macro-evolution is a fact they are correct. The fact that you have your own special meaning of the term is your problem.



No it doesn't say this.



Provide a rigourous definition of Kind. Until you can (something no "creation scientist" has ever been able to do) your definition of micro-evolution is meaningless.

And mammals always remain mammals. That is because this is how we humans have defined the rules of labelling living things.

Which came first, the plant or the animal? God created the plants before He created animals so the question has been answered for you in Genesis.

You know what I'm talking about when I say kind. Don't be silly. Cats and dogs are different kinds of animals. Calico cats and tabbies are like kinds, both are cats.

Speciation is micro-evolution. It involves small changes among like kinds. It does not involve ape-like ancestor to man. That is macro-evolution and there is no proof whatever that macro-evolution has ever taken place. There is only "evidence" that can and has been interpreted to support creation so it does not prove macro-evolution. Simply see the icr.org website.

 

[First Baseman]

The great Casey Luskin wrote a brilliant piece a few years back on speciation. It's become quite possibly the best piece ever written on speciation. It's well worth a read.

Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

One crucial thing that must be pointed out: Speciation doesn't involve the gaining of novel traits, and so it's irrelevant to the origins debate.

This debate is about one simple thing: What can produce the level of engineering we find in the living world?

Speciation in no way addresses this question. It's mostly a bluffing game designed to trick the ignorant into thinking small-scale, cosmetic changes somehow prove the "random mutation dunnit" fairy tale true.

I basically agree with you but this crowd seems hard of hearing on the issue.