The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that tuskless elephant transitioning to another species? Or is it still elephant?

If descendents of elephants would be anything other then elephants, then evolution theory would be falsified.

Speciation is a vertical process, not a horizon one.

Mammals product mammals. Canines produce canines. Canines do not produce felines.

Evolution is a philosophical view point.

No, it's not.

Not science..

Yes, it is.

 

[USincognito]

.
Can u point to me where evolution is happening, so that I can see it with my own eyes?

Yes, but when we do so, we'll see goalposts sprout legs and run as you demand something else.

That said Creationists don't understand that scientific observations are not limited to real time and before your eyes.

 

[USincognito]

Is that tuskless elephant transitioning to another species?

Please explain, and give a hypothetical if you could, what you mean by "another species".

Evolution is a philosophical view point. Not science..

Laughably vacuous rhetoric.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Easily, but I don't know what your understanding of evolution is. Could you describe in your own words what you think you should see that would convince you that evolution is a fact?

We could look at several lines of evidence: Comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA, fossil record. Which would you like to go over?

If you truly want to see it happen before your very eyes, see if your local community college offers a biology lab.

It seems to me that this discussion is about natural selection rather than macro-evolution. It seems every time someone asks for scientific evidence for macro-evolution they are giving evidence for natural selection (micro-evolution) which most people whether creationists, evolutionists and everyone inbetween already accept.

 

[USincognito]

It seems to me that this discussion is about natural selection rather than macro-evolution. It seems every time someone asks for scientific evidence for macro-evolution they are giving evidence for natural selection (micro-evolution) which most people whether creationists, evolutionists and everyone inbetween already accept.

Natural selection is not a synonym for so-called micro-evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

It seems to me that this discussion is about natural selection rather than macro-evolution. It seems every time someone asks for scientific evidence for macro-evolution they are giving evidence for natural selection (micro-evolution) which most people whether creationists, evolutionists and everyone inbetween already accept.

No, this is not correct. Macroevolution is the formation of new species.

We have evidence of new species forming, both in the laboratory and in the field.

 

[Aronbengilad]

No, this is not correct. Macroevolution is the formation of new species.

We have evidence of new species forming, both in the laboratory and in the field.

Every time some one gives an example of this it is merely micro-evolution and is just a another variation within the one kind of creature well within its genetic possibilities. No new genetic information is created or developing with new mutations either, just a loss of information from what I can see.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Natural selection is not a synonym for so-called micro-evolution.

Maybe not but it means much the same thing to most people. People who don't agree with darwinist evolution mostly have no problem with accepting that most living creatures have an ability to adapt built into them which allows them to adapt to various different environments but not outside the limits built into their genetic code. This is natural selection. However I would like to hear your definition of what natural selection is and what micro evolution and macro evolution is and how they differ so that we are understanding each other what is meant by those terms.

 

[Aronbengilad]

By the way i find it rather strange that the two people who have answered me are Atheists and thus most likely with an anti-religious agenda for being on a Christian forum. As a Catholic Christian I have the freedom to believe in a evolutionary explanation or not. I don't accept Darwinian Evolution because I don't think there is much convincing evidence for it and if I was convinced by further discoveries it certainly wouldn't mean I would become an Atheist. I have no problem that God if he had so wished could have used an evolutionary model for creation and many of my fellow Christians do think he did. I am not alone in not accepting Darwinian evolution I have a good friend also a Catholic who is a Geo-physicist who doesn't accept evolution or an old earth.

 

[SteveB28]

Every time some one gives an example of this it is merely micro-evolution and is just a another variation within the one kind of creature well within its genetic possibilities. No new genetic information is created or developing with new mutations either, just a loss of information from what I can see.

Please describe what you would consider to be macroevolution.


.

 

[SteveB28]

Maybe not but it means much the same thing to most people.

Not to those people who actually understand some basic biology.

People who don't agree with darwinist evolution mostly have no problem with accepting that most living creatures have an ability to adapt built into them which allows them to adapt to various different environments but not outside the limits built into their genetic code.

And what exactly are these "limits"? Where will we find these limits "built into the genetic code" exactly? Where will we find them?

This is natural selection.

No, it isn't. Why do you pretend to know something about an area of study in which you plainly are ignorant?

However I would like to hear your definition of what natural selection is

Natural selection is simply the phenomenon of those genetic characteristics which are better suited to an environment becoming more prevalent in a population, as the organisms possessing those characteristics have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.

and what micro evolution

Evolutionary change below the level of species.

and macro evolution is

Evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

and how they differ so that we are understanding each other what is meant by those terms.

Done.


.

 

[SteveB28]

By the way i find it rather strange that the two people who have answered me are Atheists

Hardly strange. This is a sub-forum open to atheists.

and thus most likely with an anti-religious agenda for being on a Christian forum.

What does this have to do with biology and evolution?

As a Catholic Christian

...you are part of a sect which has stated that it accepts biological evolution.

I have the freedom to believe in a evolutionary explanation or not.

Being a Christian doesn't confer that freedom...we are all free to believe whatever we like...

I don't accept Darwinian Evolution

Oh dear....the Pope won't be happy.

because I don't think there is much convincing evidence for it

And yet, you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't have the skills nor knowledge to recognise that evidence if it were presented to you.

and if I was convinced by further discoveries it certainly wouldn't mean I would become an Atheist.

The two are mutually exclusive.

I have no problem that God if he had so wished could have used an evolutionary model for creation and many of my fellow Christians do think he did.

Yes indeed.

I am not alone in not accepting Darwinian evolution I have a good friend also a Catholic who is a Geo-physicist who doesn't accept evolution or an old earth.

Then your friend is also in need of further education.



.

 

[USincognito]

Every time some one gives an example of this it is merely micro-evolution and is just a another variation within the one kind of creature well within its genetic possibilities. No new genetic information is created or developing with new mutations either, just a loss of information from what I can see.

Will you be the Creationist who finally provides us with a scientifically useful definition of kinds that has both explanatory and predictive power?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

By the way i find it rather strange that the two people who have answered me are Atheists and thus most likely with an anti-religious agenda for being on a Christian forum

No anti-religious agenda here. Science doesn't concern itself with the existence or non existence of God. It investigates the natural world. Many Christians accepted evolutionary theory. A poster here by the name of sfs works in a field that depends on the understanding of evolution and he is also a Christian. Take a chance to talk with him whenever he participates in one of these threads.

I don't accept Darwinian Evolution because I don't think there is much convincing evidence for it and if I was convinced by further discoveries it certainly wouldn't mean I would become an Atheist

The Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution. You're right, it wouldn't mean you would necessarily become an atheist if you accepted evolution. If you're more interested in the overwhelming evidence and predictive capabilities of evolutionary theory but would rather hear it from a Christian, read some of Francis Collins. He's one of the most respected geneticists in the entire world.

I am not alone in not accepting Darwinian evolution I have a good friend also a Catholic who is a Geo-physicist who doesn't accept evolution or an old earth.

Care to link some of his published papers that challenge evolutionary theory?

 

[sfs]

they are giving evidence for natural selection (micro-evolution) which most people whether creationists, evolutionists and everyone inbetween already accept.

One would think that, but I've repeatedly run into people on this site who argue that natural selection doesn't happen. (And no, natural selection is not the same as microevolution.)

 

[Speedwell]

One would think that, but I've repeatedly run into people on this site who argue that natural selection doesn't happen. (And no, natural selection is not the same as microevolution.)

What is evident is that the public high schools are doing an absolutely wretched job of teaching the basics of the ToE.

 

[Aronbengilad]

No you are wrong about the Catholic Church- the Church allows a Catholic to hold evolutionary views within certain limits and not in a dogmatic way. Humani Generis 36 states: "... For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question..."

 

[Aronbengilad]

Not to those people who actually understand some basic biology.




And what exactly are these "limits"? Where will we find these limits "built into the genetic code" exactly? Where will we find them?



No, it isn't. Why do you pretend to know something about an area of study in which you plainly are ignorant?



Natural selection is simply the phenomenon of those genetic characteristics which are better suited to an environment becoming more prevalent in a population, as the organisms possessing those characteristics have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.



Evolutionary change below the level of species.



Evolutionary change at or above the level of species.



Done.


.

Not to those people who actually understand some basic biology.




And what exactly are these "limits"? Where will we find these limits "built into the genetic code" exactly? Where will we find them?



No, it isn't. Why do you pretend to know something about an area of study in which you plainly are ignorant?



Natural selection is simply the phenomenon of those genetic characteristics which are better suited to an environment becoming more prevalent in a population, as the organisms possessing those characteristics have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.



Evolutionary change below the level of species.



Evolutionary change at or above the level of species.



Done.


.

Thank you at least I know what you mean by the terminology. However one then needs to know what you mean by evolutionary change. If by evolutionary change one means that certain populations adapt or change due to variation or natural selection and artificial breeding then I believe in evolutionary change. However if by evolutionary change you mean a change that leads to a cat or dog or elephant no longer being a cat or dog or elephant then I don't accept it.

 

[Aronbengilad]

Professor Maciej Giertych stated, "Evolutionists main argument is that there are small positive (beneficial) mutations which occur in the reproductive cells and are then retained by natural selection. These mutations, they say, accumulate and cause one species to gradually change into another. I am a geneticist and I can confirm that in all the laboratories around the world where many generations of organisms have been produced, no where have positive mutations ever been observed. For evolution to occur we need new genes full of new genetic information. There is no natural process known which will produce these new genes either by isolation, selection, mutation, or breeding. This is not possible."

 

[Speedwell]

If by evolutionary change one means that certain populations adapt or change due to variation or natural selection...

Both variation and natural selection are required.

However if by evolutionary change you mean a change that leads to a cat or dog or elephant no longer being a cat or dog or elephant then I don't accept it.

"Cat, dog" and "elephant" are not scientific terms, so it is hard to tell exactly what part of evolution you are talking about.

But here is a question for you: My great-grandfather was German. How many generations of my descendants will have to be born and pass away before my great-grandfather is no longer German?