evolution could be wrong

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes and what did those scientist do when someone showed them they were wrong. I believe he was put on house arrest. And if you read the Bible it does correct some of the errors that those scientist had. Such as the world being flat. If they would have read the book of Isaiah it tells us that God sits on the circle of the earth.

I assume that i was created just as you assume you evolved.

Please stop it please. I have addressed that bible quote and others like it before. The Hebrew word used there for circle (means "compass"). A compass give direction (N, S, E and W) in a complete "circle" but does not measure the (circumference) of the "spherical" earth.

 

[rlasater]

I said you think my problem is ignorance not what i think. And if you have genuine proof of a species change(ie dog to cat) you should tell everyone because a lot of people might have a change of faith.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I said you think my problem is ignorance not what i think. And if you have genuine proof of a species change(ie dog to cat) you should tell everyone because a lot of people might have a change of faith.

There are 80 plus pages here of people point to and presenting the evidence for evolution. Pretty much every question, concern or criticism raised has been dealt with. No one here is suggesting that cat's turn into dogs rather we're showing how life gradually changes over time. This change can and is dependent on various factors and conditions. The evidence is overwhelming for evolution.

 

[rlasater]

Visual proof make it a fact. I am all for evolution in the aspect of adaptation. But not from one species to another. Life gradually changing over time. Have you observed this? I mean to say we all have, but have you observed, or anyone for that matter, observed species going from one to another?

 

[Autodidact]

I said you think my problem is ignorance not what i think.

You mean you know that bacteria is an entire domain,not a species, and went ahead and posted an example of bacteria changing into a non-bacteria as an example of one species changing into another anyway? Why, are you a liar? I mean, why would you make a knowingly false statement like that?

And if you have genuine proof of a species change(ie dog to cat) you should tell everyone because a lot of people might have a change of faith.

Sure, but would you be so kind as to answer my question first? If I cite actual scientific studies showing new species evolving out of existing ones, will you withdraw your statement and change your mind?

 

[Autodidact]

Visual proof make it a fact. I am all for evolution in the aspect of adaptation. But not from one species to another. Life gradually changing over time. Have you observed this? I mean to say we all have, but have you observed, or anyone for that matter, observed species going from one to another?

No, I haven't, I'm not a Biologists. But yes, biologists have. So, my question: if I cite a study showing just that, will you change your mind?

btw, are you a literal-Genesis, YEC creationist, ark, flood, etc? Or what theory are you espousing?

 

[Smoke]

Anyone else feeling a little...inadequate...?

Actually, I was thinking that I've never really seen venereal warts, but maybe that's what they look like.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

So most of you agree with me that evolution is not 100% verifiable and therefore cannot be a fact but a belief.

Why are you pointing this out? It's a scientific theory and theories are meant to be testable and falsifiable, hence, they're not meant to be factual. Pointing this out is redundant.

I guess i should be more specific. A species will never change into another species. But i do appreciate your antagonism. Since you think my problem is ignorance shouldn't you feel sorry for me, as i do you.

I suppose you haven't heard of something called speciation. It's the process where a new species forms and this does occur. For example, if you have one large population of organisms, let's suppose they're birds. A portion of this population migrates elsewhere and they begin living there. In terms of a biological species, one element to it is that it is REPRODUCTIVELY isolated. One method of speciation is allopatric speciation, where a group is GEOGRAPHICALLY separated from the rest of the initial population, develop diversity and the group can become REPRODUCTIVELY isolated (i.e. Founder effect). In the example of birds, there are finches in South America and long ago there was an ancestral species. Nowadays, that one species has developed into many, which can be put into either seed eaters, bug eaters or insect eaters, all due to allopatric speciation. Have I witnessed this myself? No, however, others have and have documented these changes and postulated such theories.

Another example, David Wake studied a genus of salamanders called Ensatina in California. Within this genus, he noticed ring species, and many of the species would interbreed, however, E. klauberi and E. eschscholtzii do not. The genus Ensatina began with a species from Oregon, which eventually travelled its way down to California. It underwent allopatric speciation and formed costal and inland populations, each with different patterns and different species. The ring species come into play as being another species that due to its immense interbreeding has diverse phylogeny.

I said you think my problem is ignorance not what i think. And if you have genuine proof of a species change(ie dog to cat) you should tell everyone because a lot of people might have a change of faith.

See above. There are plenty of other examples, however, the changes are not something so drastic such as a cat to a dog as that's not a change in species, that's a change in more detailed taxonomy.

Visual proof make it a fact. I am all for evolution in the aspect of adaptation. But not from one species to another. Life gradually changing over time. Have you observed this? I mean to say we all have, but have you observed, or anyone for that matter, observed species going from one to another?

I haven't observed this, however, others have and have documented such changes.

Just for the hell of it, let's toss out another example. Buffalo State University's Martin G. Kelly wrote this (I chose this one intentionally due to the simplicity of it) article regarding the speciation of apple maggot flies: As the Worm Turns: Speciation and the Apple Maggot Fly - Case Study Collection - National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science .

 

[Smoke]

i know it has alot of other factors, one of them being mutations. so i want to know if evolution is correct then how come there has been no beneficial mutation?

There have been beneficial as well as deleterious mutations, though most mutations are kind of a wash. See here: Are Mutations Harmful?

What I want to know is, if there is a good and merciful god, why don't I have both lungs and gills? That would obviously come in very handy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief.

No, we weren't there, but we have many things that were left behind. No different than looking at another planets surface and being able to figure a good deal about it. We know one of Jupiter's moons is covered with ice, and it is constantly stretching and contracting because what appears to look like scars covers the surface of the ice. We haven't seen it, but we see the evidence. It's also like solving a crime. Detectives don't actually see it, but they do piece together evidence. That is how scientists figured out evolution. By piecing together the evidence.

 

[fantome profane]

So most of you agree with me that evolution is not 100% verifiable

This is true, nothing in science is ever proven 100%. Everything must be open to question. This includes not only the theory of evolution, but every other scientific theory. The theory of relativity, the theory of electro-magnetism, atomic theory, germ theory, they are all open to question. Even the aforementioned heliocentric theory is open to question, maybe the planets don’t revolve around the sun after all. But you and I are both pretty sure that they do.

You can use this idea that nothing is science is absolutely proven to choose not to accept the theory of evolution. As I say that is your choice. But you cannot deny that the evidence supports the theory, unless you are completely ignorant of the evidence.

It was about a week ago that you said:

I do not intend to quit but i will make sure my questions are somewhat intelligent. You are right science is an amazing study and i mean to learn as much as i can.

Well have you learned anything about science in the past week? Do you intend to learn anything about science in the next week? or the week after that? If so what will you do to accomplish that?

I do think that we can change and adapt but i do not believe that we change species. A bacteria may change but it will always be bacteria.

I guess i should be more specific. A species will never change into another species.

And if you have genuine proof of a species change(ie dog to cat) you should tell everyone because a lot of people might have a change of faith.

Visual proof make it a fact. I am all for evolution in the aspect of adaptation. But not from one species to another. Life gradually changing over time. Have you observed this? I mean to say we all have, but have you observed, or anyone for that matter, observed species going from one to another?

Why are you so convinced that speciation has never been directly observed? Have you personally scoured the scientific literature? Have you spoken to many (or any) biologists working in the field? Have you done any research yourself? It seems that your conviction that speciation has never been observed is based solely on faith. This would be no different that someone saying that the sun and planets do revolve around the earth and this is based on faith.


This is the real problem here. It seems that in your mind the concept of evolution is incompatible with “God”. And if you believe this I can certainly understand your reluctance to accept it. If you believe that evolution means that “God” does not exist I can understand why you might choose to reject evolution despite the overwhelming scientific evidence. But this is not the case. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not “God” exists. I asked you how you thought “God” created new species and you had no answer. Why is it so inconceivable you that “God” might create new species through a process of evolution?

Well anyway Autodicact has already given you some evidence of directly observed speciation. It has been observed in the lab and in the wild (and interestingly enough in the subways of London).

Here are a couple more examples:

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

A NEW species of mosquito is evolving on the London Underground


And there is even a thread on one of them. Directly observed speciation.



[FONT=&quot](p.s. no moving the goalposts, that is cheating)[/FONT]

 

[Man of Faith]

With reason, too.

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

 

[MSizer]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

People don't appreciate propoganda. The claim you make here has been refuted multiple times. You are doing the forum a disservice by continuing to post information that has been shown to be incorrect on several occasions. There are people in this forum who wish to learn, and posts like the one interfere with the endeavours of such people. Evolution has been observed under both natural and lab controlled circumstances. You've been told this. Stop posting false information.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

Self deception on your part is a lie not only to those you speak to, but also to yourself.

Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge. (Colossians 3:9)

It is exactly attitudes like yours that are driving people away from organized religion.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

No theory can be observed or repeated. Therefore we should neither do nor teach science?

It would be helpful if you would learn, say, one thing about science. Anything. Pick one.

Meanwhile, your argument is basically this: "I, ManofFaith am completely ignorant of science, the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Therefore I can say anything about it, however ridiculous, because it will not violate anything I know. Therefore ToE is false. Furthermore, I am not interested in learning anything about science, the scientific method or ToE, so my argument will continue to work, as long as I work really hard at staying ignorant." Do you find that argument effective?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Speciation (At a glance)
This is for those who care not to read. Just watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoEiLOV8jc

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No theory can be observed or repeated. Therefore we should neither do nor teach science?

It would be helpful if you would learn, say, one thing about science. Anything. Pick one.

Meanwhile, your argument is basically this: "I, ManofFaith am completely ignorant of science, the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Therefore I can say anything about it, however ridiculous, because it will not violate anything I know. Therefore ToE is false. Furthermore, I am not interested in learning anything about science, the scientific method or ToE, so my argument will continue to work, as long as I work really hard at staying ignorant." Do you find that argument effective?

And that's my problem with creationist/IDers/literalist.....We keep presenting the evidence to them in these MANY...MANY ongoing threads and the same stupid questions and arguments keep creeping in.

I've been trying so hard to present video that they can go and look at. I've tried to use qualified people on the subject and not (Joe Schmo) sitting at home with a blurry web cam reading from his own notes or ranting and raving against a creationist.

A question was raised about Beneficial Mutation and Speciation and we have ALL been presenting evidence that is not in dispute.....SO what the problem...?

Well, people don't "really" want to know. They aren't "really" interested in the evidence...because for some reason they may believe it contradicts the dogma they've been spoon fed since childhood.

We've dealt with Micro and Macro Evolution, Beneficial Mutation, Speciation etc...What's next? And will they except the ToE as a valid theory or will they continue to do this....:ignore:

 

[Autodidact]

And that's my problem with creationist/IDers/literalist.....We keep presenting the evidence to them in these MANY...MANY ongoing threads and the same stupid questions and arguments keep creeping in.

I've been trying so hard to present video that they can go and look at. I've tried to use qualified people on the subject and not (Joe Schmo) sitting at home with a blurry web cam reading from his own notes or ranting and raving against a creationist.

A question was raised about Beneficial Mutation and Speciation and we have ALL been presenting evidence that is not in dispute.....SO what the problem...?

Well, people don't "really" want to know. They aren't "really" interested in the evidence...because for some reason they may believe it contradicts the dogma they've been spoon fed since childhood.

We've dealt with Micro and Macro Evolution, Beneficial Mutation, Speciation etc...What's next? And will they except the ToE as a valid theory or will they continue to do this....:ignore:

When your entire argument rests on your own ignorance, you have to work hard at maintaining it.

I need a graphic of a spray can labelled "Evidence" with the slogan, "Repels creationists. 100% effective."

The easiest way to get a creationist to flee a thread is to start spraying evidence. They just hate that stuff. I guess if you actually experience it, it's hard to keep denying that it exists?

 

[averageJOE]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

By this statement your implying that creationism can be observed? Have you or anybody you know ever seen an elephant poof into existance?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm surprised that people don't see this a problem. We have a theory, the ToE, that cannot be observed or repeated and scientists don't want but one theory introduced.

If science is confined to what can be directly observed, then the earth if flat, and we have no way of knowing otherwise. Atoms do not exist.