Examples

[Not_By_Chance]

We hear a lot about evidence from the fossil record. Supporters of the theory of evolution claim that such evidence supports their beliefs. Supporters of [relatively] recent Divine creation, similarly claim that the evidence from the fossil record supports their beliefs too. Only one of these conclusions can be right, but no-one can actually prove that they have truth and the other side has the error. So leaving aside the past and what cannot be proven, I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature. If evolution is really true, it ought to be quite simple to provide such examples from all the masses of lifeforms on this planet. Can you do it?

 

[whois]

If evolution is really true, it ought to be quite simple to provide such examples from all the masses of lifeforms on this planet. Can you do it?

invalid assumption.
genetics is proving to be a lot more complex than we ever imagined.
evolution is not a simple matter of mutating genes.
there are many examples of evolution producing organisms with decreasing fitness and instances of evolution that aren't the result of natural selection.

i believe that the recent advances in knowledge about the genetic structure of DNA, coupled with genetic algorithms will soon make it possible to either prove or disprove all of the theories associated with evolution.

no, i'm no expert, i have based my post largely on the work of other scientists.

 

[lasthero]

let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature.

What's a 'kind'?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So leaving aside the past and what cannot be proven, I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature.

Evolution doesn't work that way.

It's kind of like asking "well, if gravity exists, then why do hammers float in the ISS?".

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What's a 'kind'?

Well, there's the Biblical kinds, where God makes it clear (as far as I recall) that each "kind" can mate to produce fertile offspring. I don't know about man-made definitions though, but we are constantly being told that reptiles evolved into birds and that monkeys evolved into humans, etc, so if this kind of process were really true, then we surely ought to be able to see examples of such things happening today. If no-one can come up with any hard evidence amongst living creatures, then why should anyone believe evolutionary stories about the past, especially based on nothing more than a collection of old bones?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

In what way does it work, or perhaps it doesn't and that's why no-one can come up with real evidence for it?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

there are many examples of evolution producing organisms with decreasing fitness

That's what I have been told - but decreasing fitness is devolution and not evolution. Creation scientists would firmly agree with you on that one. Amen to that.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

i believe that the recent advances in knowledge about the genetic structure of DNA, coupled with genetic algorithms will soon make it possible to either prove or disprove all of the theories associated with evolution.

I've seen computer-simulations of some of the workings of the cell and it just blows my mind to even consider that anything so complex could possibly have arisen by chance. So I think, the current knowledge about DNA has already shown, well beyond any reasonable doubt that it could not have come about by chance from non-living chemicals. And this is just one part of the whole puzzle that increasingly seems to defy any explanation other than a Divine origin. God must be amused by our feeble attempts to figure out how He created the universe in general and life on our planet in particular.

 

[whois]

That's what I have been told - but decreasing fitness is devolution and not evolution. Creation scientists would firmly agree with you on that one. Amen to that.

i'm not into creation science.
what i've posted comes from legit, peer reviewed sources.
you might want to read the following:
Tactics

 

[whois]

God must be amused by our feeble attempts to figure out how He created the universe in general and life on our planet in particular.

in my opinion, if there is indeed a god, he's up there ROTFL at our puny human ways, mocking us.
figure THIS one out smarty pants ! !

 

[Not_By_Chance]

i'm not into creation science.
what i've posted comes from legit, peer reviewed sources.
you might want to read the following:
Tactics

The trouble is, such peer-reviewed articles are, as far as I am aware, reviewed by others with similar beliefs. I would suggest that not many people are brave enough to go against the main tide of opinion, especially when their reputations and careers are at stake.

 

[sfs]

The trouble is, such peer-reviewed articles are, as far as I am aware, reviewed by others with similar beliefs. I would suggest that not many people are brave enough to go against the main tide of opinion, especially when their reputations and careers are at stake.

I would suggest you stop suggesting derogatory things about people you don't know.

 

[lasthero]

Well, there's the Biblical kinds, where God makes it clear (as far as I recall) that each "kind" can mate to produce fertile offspring. I don't know about man-made definitions though

There is no scientific definition of kind, so we'll have to go by whichever one your using. Am I right to understand that by your definition, if two organisms cannot mate produce fertile offspring, they're different kinds?

If I had two animal or plants, how would you determine if they're the same kind?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

he's up there ROTFL at our puny human ways, mocking us

If anything, God is weeping. When God came to earth as a man (Jesus), not once did He ever mock anyone. Quite the reverse, it was the crowds who mocked Him and they are still doing it 2000 years later.

 

[Zosimus]

I would suggest you stop suggesting derogatory things about people you don't know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12038911

"Conclusion: Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I would suggest you stop suggesting derogatory things about people you don't know.

Oh that's funny, I mean really funny, after all the derogatory remarks I have heard about creation scientists, even on this Christian forum. Just take a look here for starters:-
http://creation.com/discrimination-against-creation-scientists

 

[Not_By_Chance]

If I had two animal or plants, how would you determine if they're the same kind?

I wouldn't - but there must be experts who know enough to be able to give a considered opinion. If this cannot be defined, how can anyone say that macro evolution is occurring? It's then nothing more than an idea with no basis in fact.

 

[sfs]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12038911

"Conclusion: Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain."

Irrelevant comment is irrelevant.

 

[lasthero]

I wouldn't - but there must be experts who know enough to be able to give a considered opinion. If this cannot be defined, how can anyone say that macro evolution is occurring? It's then nothing more than an idea with no basis in fact.

But biologists don't define macro-evolution as a 'change in kinds'. You do. They don't use that term.

 

[Zosimus]

Irrelevant comment is irrelevant.

Redundant comment is redundant.