Evolution vs. Creationism

[Arikay]

You should be able to find information about the weed in journals, including extra research since that article. Yes I do believe it's not an experiment but a natural creation.

Here is a rather overwhelming list by Lucaspa,
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626-observed-speciation.html
Not all fit what you are looking for but there are quite a few there.

It's important to note that artificial selection shouldn't be completly dismissed, as it provides evidence that speciation can happen.

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting but I'll want to check it out on a reputable site first, such as newscientist.com

Is there a guarantee that it isn't an escaped gene-spliced experiment? It could be another one of the other so-called missing links such as Eohippus, Archaeoperyx, or the Australian platypus, echidna, or lungfish. Admittedly in the plant kingdom, rather than animal, but hey.

I would welcome some other links when you get a minute to share them.

SODinOZ

 

[Jet Black]

it is worth noting that artificial selection is more often than not just extremely intense selection for a particular feature. Linkage disequilibrium and associated genes can end up selecting for a load of other things unintentionally, such as is the case with artificial selection of dogs. Most of the time we have relatively little control over what we are actually selecting for, particularly in cases where there is reduced penetrance of some phenotypical trait.

 

[lunalinda]

Oyyy...okay, I read through the 1st 45 pages of this thread so far (took like what...5 hours or more?), and it's exhausting! Brain-numbing! I intend to read the rest, but I wanted to put in my two cents.

Ehh...actually, I don't think I have 2 cents. Maybe just one cent. Anyway, I've got one question for evolutionists out there. Can you explain the platypus to me? I'm not an expert on neither evolution nor creation, so I was wondering an evolutionist's take on the origin (or even current state) of the modern platypus. How is it that an animal can have a beak and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, but be considered a warm-blooded mammal who lays eggs but feeds milk to its young? I hear that's a stumper to evolutionists, but that's just hearing. I want to read actual opinions or explanations of actual evolutionists out there, if that's ok.

As far as my own opinion? I couldn't vote on the poll either, tell you the truth. I believe in Creationism, no doubt, but believe that at least some types of evolution is sensible (such as evolving to adapt to changes in environment, which I'm sure was stated in the umpteen number of pages I read lol). Anything is possible if God's permits it to be so. So if evolution is a fact, it's only cuz God's allowing it, or heck...even behind it, but that's going out on a limb. God's mysterious in soooo many ways, after all. But as far as how things BEGAN? Well sorry...that's going to be Creation for me, now and forever. I for one, however, don't believe humanity...as advanced and complex we are, came from the ape, let alone animals. Think of it...think of what only humans can do. We can laugh. We can be happy. We can tell stories. We can cry...grieve. We can wallow in the beautiful sounds of music and can take comfort in it. We have morals...ethics...conscious thoughts. We know right from wrong (well...generally speaking) We're intelligent enough to carry on debates such as THIS. I guess I just see these things as far too "beautiful" of traits to have if we derived from animals, which, if I'm not mistaken, can't do or appreciate much of the things I've stated. We have more potential in God's eyes to do anything. What a great thing he did for us to give us free will.

Anyway wow...babbling over here lol...

 

[lunalinda]

BTW, heh, I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads a phrase that seems fitting for this thread:

"The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG, it happened."

 

[Tomk80]

Oyyy...okay, I read through the 1st 45 pages of this thread so far (took like what...5 hours or more?), and it's exhausting! Brain-numbing! I intend to read the rest, but I wanted to put in my two cents.

the whole thread. WOW, respect.

Ehh...actually, I don't think I have 2 cents. Maybe just one cent. Anyway, I've got one question for evolutionists out there. Can you explain the platypus to me? I'm not an expert on neither evolution nor creation, so I was wondering an evolutionist's take on the origin (or even current state) of the modern platypus. How is it that an animal can have a beak and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, but be considered a warm-blooded mammal who lays eggs but feeds milk to its young? I hear that's a stumper to evolutionists, but that's just hearing. I want to read actual opinions or explanations of actual evolutionists out there, if that's ok.

Platypusses are cool, they are like, really, really cool. And no problem for evolution at all.
First off, the beak is not like the beak of a duck. The structure of it is completely different. Also, the eggs are leather scaled, like the eggs of reptiles. Also note that the platypus is not the only egg-laying mammal. It is part of the class of monotremata, which has two other curretly living species (two species of echidna, "spiny ant-eaters"). Now, what does it say?
Well, if you look at the evolutionary history of mammals, you'll see that mammals are descendants of reptiles. So, encountering an animal with both mammalian and reptilian characters is no big surprise. And this is exactly what a platypus is.
Man, I really should make a thread about monotremata. Maybe later.

 

[Mistermystery]

Oyyy...okay, I read through the 1st 45 pages of this thread so far (took like what...5 hours or more?), and it's exhausting! Brain-numbing! I intend to read the rest, but I wanted to put in my two cents.

Ehh...actually, I don't think I have 2 cents. Maybe just one cent. Anyway, I've got one question for evolutionists out there. Can you explain the platypus to me? I'm not an expert on neither evolution nor creation, so I was wondering an evolutionist's take on the origin (or even current state) of the modern platypus. How is it that an animal can have a beak and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, but be considered a warm-blooded mammal who lays eggs but feeds milk to its young? I hear that's a stumper to evolutionists, but that's just hearing. I want to read actual opinions or explanations of actual evolutionists out there, if that's ok.

As far as my own opinion? I couldn't vote on the poll either, tell you the truth. I believe in Creationism, no doubt, but believe that at least some types of evolution is sensible (such as evolving to adapt to changes in environment, which I'm sure was stated in the umpteen number of pages I read lol). Anything is possible if God's permits it to be so. So if evolution is a fact, it's only cuz God's allowing it, or heck...even behind it, but that's going out on a limb. God's mysterious in soooo many ways, after all. But as far as how things BEGAN? Well sorry...that's going to be Creation for me, now and forever. I for one, however, don't believe humanity...as advanced and complex we are, came from the ape, let alone animals. Think of it...think of what only humans can do. We can laugh. We can be happy. We can tell stories. We can cry...grieve. We can wallow in the beautiful sounds of music and can take comfort in it. We have morals...ethics...conscious thoughts. We know right from wrong (well...generally speaking) We're intelligent enough to carry on debates such as THIS. I guess I just see these things as far too "beautiful" of traits to have if we derived from animals, which, if I'm not mistaken, can't do or appreciate much of the things I've stated. We have more potential in God's eyes to do anything. What a great thing he did for us to give us free will.

Anyway wow...babbling over here lol...

I'll awnser the question about the platypuss at home (allthough you have to take into account that if Creationism is true then God has a pretty twisted sense of humor, nes pas?) But your first faulty premise that you make is that Evolution somehow has got something to do with (the act of) creation. The theory of evolution is a theory that explains the biodiversity of life here on the planet Earth. Nothing more. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains how living material can come from basic materials, perhaps explaining how we ever came to be. And those theories both don't say anything wheter or not a God was involved or not.

 

[Mistermystery]

BTW, heh, I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads a phrase that seems fitting for this thread:

"The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG, it happened."

Which besides being entirely lame is also not relevant to the theory of evolution, and implies that you say that evolution (or whatever sick hybrate you have tried to make of it) equals atheism.

 

[Steve_SandbachBaptist_UK]

Threads like this are just divisive, so am not going to post an opinion. People's opinions are unlikely to change so I don't see the point of this forum but still it makes some people happy.

Merry Christmas to all of you, whether you are Creationist or Evolutionist or neither

Steve in Sandbach

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

BTW, heh, I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads a phrase that seems fitting for this thread:

"The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG, it happened."

Which besides being entirely lame is also not relevant to the theory of evolution, and implies that you say that evolution (or whatever sick hybrate you have tried to make of it) equals atheism.

Maybe it is time to take a break Or maybe I just have a wierd sense of humor 'cause I think the bumpersticker is kinda cute.

I used to have a t-shirt that had "God said" then had maxwell's equations followed by "and there was light."
Ah here we go, hopes this works...

<heh>
Lots of different ways to read it, one could see it as implying a literal reading of Gen 1 or one could apply it literally to the creation the universe, God spoke and the singularity formed and expanded.

Maybe he sees it as implying evolution = atheism but I don't

Peace to all,
Robert

 

[william jay schroeder]

Which besides being entirely lame is also not relevant to the theory of evolution, and implies that you say that evolution (or whatever sick hybrate you have tried to make of it) equals atheism.

it has to be envovled and or relavent to evolution how can it not. for evolution to happen it has to start at some point.

 

[caravelair]

it has to be envovled and or relavent to evolution how can it not. for evolution to happen it has to start at some point.

no, because evolution only explains how populations of organisms change over time. it does not explain how those organisms got there in the first place. that is a different issue. we know that the organisms were there, regardless of how they got there. god could have zapped them there, aliens could have planted them, or they could have formed naturally through abiogenesis. as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter which of these is correct. evolution does not depend on any of them.

 

[Tomk80]

it has to be envovled and or relavent to evolution how can it not. for evolution to happen it has to start at some point.

Indeed. But how to arrive at the starting point of evolution is not a question for the theory of evolution itself. Get it over with. Evolution starts with the first self-reproducing organism. How we arrive at that organism is not, I repeat not a question evolution itself can answer. Stop mixing the two. It is illogical.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Indeed. But how to arrive at the starting point of evolution is not a question for the theory of evolution itself. Get it over with. Evolution starts with the first self-reproducing organism. How we arrive at that organism is not, I repeat not a question evolution itself can answer. Stop mixing the two. It is illogical.

i see why its not talked about because its not explainable and creates a huge problem right of the bat for evolution. your being illogical by starting something that cant begin in the first place. which is why you all use all this vast information to over whelm people into thinking it is true without saying we really cant explain the start of it but it did just trust us. All that all your info shows is a process of life not and i repeat not evolution. evolution being all of life from this unexplained self-producing organism.

 

[william jay schroeder]

no, because evolution only explains how populations of organisms change over time. it does not explain how those organisms got there in the first place. that is a different issue. we know that the organisms were there, regardless of how they got there. god could have zapped them there, aliens could have planted them, or they could have formed naturally through abiogenesis. as far as evolution is concerned, it doesn't matter which of these is correct. evolution does not depend on any of them.

what i lie of lies it depends on one of them to begin. populations of animals change all the time so what, they dont create a different type of species like a mammal to a reptile or what ever. wont happen cant happen didnt happen. you try to make us focus on one issue so we dont see the over all picture, because the over all picture points to creation.

 

[Tomk80]

i see why its not talked about because its not explainable and creates a huge problem right of the bat for evolution. your being illogical by starting something that cant begin in the first place.

You misunderstood what I was saying. Let me try again. I did not say that something cannot begin. What I did say was that the theory of evolution only explain changes in living organisms. No living organisms, no evolution. Evolution does not explain how living organisms came into being, only how they change over time. Using the theory of evolution to explain how living organisms came to be is illogical, since the theory of evolution only explain changes within already living organisms. We have other theories/models to explain the origin of the first living organisms. These theories are abiogenesis theories and are decidedly different from the theory of evolution.

Just as germ theory only explains what germs do, not how to came to exist, the theory of evolution only explains how populations of organisms change, not how the first organisms came to exist. Capice?

which is why you all use all this vast information to over whelm people into thinking it is true without saying we really cant explain the start of it but it did just trust us.

I know of no evolutionist here who is saying that we can explain how life started. I know of several (including me) who will say that we have some plausible guesses, but that is all.

All that all your info shows is a process of life not and i repeat not evolution. evolution being all of life from this unexplained self-producing organism.

I think one of the problems here is that you do not have the theory of evolution down. I think one of the major problems here is that you don't even have a coherent idea of what a species is. I would advise you to start and study such things before trying to understand the theory of evolution.

 

[h2whoa]

*not directed at above post, by the way*

"Your" is the possesive of the word "you"
"You're" is the compound word for "you are".

h2

 

[caravelair]

what i lie of lies it depends on one of them to begin.

but the point is, it doesn't matter which one of these is correct. therefore it does not depend on any of them individually. it only depends on the fact that organisms got there somehow, and i think we can all agree that they did.

populations of animals change all the time so what, they dont create a different type of species like a mammal to a reptile or what ever.

you are changing the subject. this has nothing at all to do with whether abiogenesis is a part of evolution. it isn't, and what you said here has nothing to do with that.

wont happen cant happen didnt happen.

the reason you don't observe that is because it's a process that takes millions upon millions of years. however, we do see exactly the type of change we would expect to see if evolution were true, including new species forming through evolution. does happen, can happen, did happen, as all evidence indicates.

 

[h2whoa]

This is just a visual example:

..........
..,.......
..,...,...
,.,...,...
,.,...,.,.
,,,...,.,.
,,,.,.,.,.
,,,.,.,,,.
,,,,,.,,,.
,,,,,.,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,

If we take each line to represent gradual population drift it serves a reasonably good view.

Each line is pretty similar to each other. The difference is more noticeable because I only used 10 characters. If I'd used 100 or a thousand you probably wouldn't even notice each successive change.

So it's true that each line is very similar to the one before it and the one after it. However there is no getting away from the fact that at the beginning you have a line of 10 dots and at the end you have 10 commas.

It's a very simplistic example but shows what "the big deal" is of populations showing change.

h2

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Threads like this are just divisive, so am not going to post an opinion. People's opinions are unlikely to change so I don't see the point of this forum but still it makes some people happy.

I wouldn't say it makes me happy, occasionally satisfied. The point that I am here is that I see creationists as doing serious harm to society, to Christianity and to themselves.

Merry Christmas to all of you, whether you are Creationist or Evolutionist or neither

Steve in Sandbach

Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

[Ondoher]

i see why its not talked about because its not explainable and creates a huge problem right of the bat for evolution. your being illogical by starting something that cant begin in the first place.

In order for chemistry to work, matter has to exist. Since we do not know how matter began to exist, chemistry cannot possibly be correct.

The above argument is obviously flawed. We know that chemistry works because the mechanisms of chemistry do not rely on the manner in which matter was created.

In the exact same way, the claim that evolution is wrong if we do not know how life originated is flawed. The mechanisms of evolution do not rely on the manner in which life orginated. Due to the evidence, we know that life has evolved from a common source, and that it has diversified through descent with modification. We know that the mechanisms of the modern synthesis played a large part in this diversification. How that life started does not effect the veracity of evolution any more than the origin of matter effects the veracity of chemistry.

which is why you all use all this vast information to over whelm people into thinking it is true without saying we really cant explain the start of it but it did just trust us.

"Vast information" supporting a theory is a good thing. No, really, it is. And the origin of life really doesn't effect what we know about evolution. After all, we have vast amounts of supporting data.

All that all your info shows is a process of life not and i repeat not evolution.

Well, except that you are wrong, even if you do repeat it. The twin nested hierarchies, ERV's, atavisms, vestigial traits, psedogenes and everything else supports common ancestry.

evolution being all of life from this unexplained self-producing organism.