If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Donkeytron · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
The only elovution that "happens" is within one species. Not only can you not prove that one species evolves into something completely different, but you have to have faith to believe it. Hm, I guess that puts you on the same humble level as those of us who trust God about how we came to be.

This post seems to show more concern for what nonchristians think then what God thinks. King Saul got into big trouble over that.

The development ofnew species have been observed, so the rest of your post is kind of moot beyond the first sentence.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
The only elovution that "happens" is within one species. Not only can you not prove that one species evolves into something completely different, but you have to have faith to believe it.

Why would one even try to prove that one species evolves into something completely different? That is not what evolutionary theory predicts.

Darwin called evolution "descent with modification". That means any new species ought to be a modification of its ancestors. It should be different, but never completely different. It should have enough similarities to its ancestors that you can connect the new species with the older species.

That speciation occurs is not imagination. It is an observed fact. And as expected, the new species is a modification of its ancestor, not something unrelated to it.

livingword26 · Mar 19, 2006

Scholar in training said:
Repeat after me:

Evolution is a process that occurs within a group population. The theory of evolution does not say that apes gave birth and suddenly humans popped out. This is very basic. Understanding this is important for understanding the theory of evolution - if you don't agree with it, the least you can do is research it properly so that you can argue against it.

Repeat after me.The theory of evolution does state that apes evolved into man, though obviously not in a single birth. In fact the theory of evolution states that all life evolved from the same simple organism. What you are talking about is miro-evolution which is not what Romanseight is talking about.

livingword26 · Mar 19, 2006

Donkeytron said:
The development ofnew species have been observed, so the rest of your post is kind of moot beyond the first sentence.

Perhaps you would care to share this observation with the rest of us.

Scholar in training · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
The theory of evolution does state that apes evolved into man, though obviously not in a single birth.

Romanseight said that "[we] cannot prove that one species evolves into something completely different". This is not what we see in nature and it is not what the theory of evolution predicts we would see.

In fact the theory of evolution states that all life evolved from the same simple organism. What you are talking about is miro-evolution which is not what Romanseight is talking about.

My post did not say anything about micro evolution.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
Perhaps you would care to share this observation with the rest of us.

How many would you like? I have a short list of references i.e. 50 instances of speciation observed in nature and in experiments. And it is neither new nor complete. There are many more.

My favorite is a laboratory experiment in which a single population of fruit flies was transformed over a period of seven years into eight distinct species.* Some of these showed more genetic divergence from the parental species than humans do from chimpanzees.

*That they were distinct species and not just variants was demonstrated by attempting crosses between the new populations both with each other and with the parent population. Trans-species mating either did not occur or was reproductively unsuccessful i.e. no offspring or non-viable offspring.

Romanseight2005 · Mar 19, 2006

gluadys said:
Why would one even try to prove that one species evolves into something completely different? That is not what evolutionary theory predicts.

Darwin called evolution "descent with modification". That means any new species ought to be a modification of its ancestors. It should be different, but never completely different. It should have enough similarities to its ancestors that you can connect the new species with the older species.

That speciation occurs is not imagination. It is an observed fact. And as expected, the new species is a modification of its ancestor, not something unrelated to it.

Hmm. This sure sounds like microevolution. Still no proof of macro. Also with the fruit flies. Are they not still fruitflies?

livingword26 · Mar 19, 2006

gluadys said:
How many would you like? I have a short list of references i.e. 50 instances of speciation observed in nature and in experiments. And it is neither new nor complete. There are many more.

My favorite is a laboratory experiment in which a single population of fruit flies was transformed over a period of seven years into eight distinct species.* Some of these showed more genetic divergence from the parental species than humans do from chimpanzees.

*That they were distinct species and not just variants was demonstrated by attempting crosses between the new populations both with each other and with the parent population. Trans-species mating either did not occur or was reproductively unsuccessful i.e. no offspring or non-viable offspring.

1. Can you provide a link to this information or a web address to support this experiment?
2. A lab experiment does not provide proof of the evolutionary theory, ie gene splicing that would not have occoured in nature
3. Were they not still flies? You say that they were different species, what was the new species created called?
4. Doesn't the fact that they could not bread indicate that they would never have survived in nature and therefore never would have become a new species?

Romanseight2005 · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
1. Can you provide a link to this information or a web address to support this experiment?
2. A lab experiment does not provide proof of the evolutionary theory, ie gene splicing that would not have occoured in nature
3. Were they not still flies? You say that they were different species, what was the new species created called?
4. Doesn't the fact that they could not bread indicate that they would never have survived in nature and therefore never would have become a new species?

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
Repeat after me.The theory of evolution does state that apes evolved into man, though obviously not in a single birth.

Actually, the theory of evolution states that man is still a kind of ape... which evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

In fact the theory of evolution states that all life evolved from the same simple organism. What you are talking about is miro-evolution which is not what Romanseight is talking about.

Because the only difference between micro and macro evolution is one of time and degree... a difference so insignificant as far as the mechanisms are concerned, that most evolutionists don't even bother to differentiate.... Creationists do.
Evolution happens. Given enough time, it happens quite a lot.

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
Hmm. This sure sounds like microevolution. Still no proof of macro. Also with the fruit flies. Are they not still fruitflies?

It's posts like this that make it seem the entire debate is utterly pointless at times.

Despite attempts to cloud the issue with micro and macro the FACT is there is no such delineation in biological theory.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
Hmm. This sure sounds like microevolution. Still no proof of macro. Also with the fruit flies. Are they not still fruitflies?

Yes, you are confused about what evolution is. Do you know the difference between variants (aka races, breeds, sub-species) and species?

Do you know anything about the way life forms are classified into taxonomic categories like genera, families, orders?

"Fruit flies" is not the name of a species. It is the name of a large family of species in the order of "flies" which is one of many orders in the class of insects.

When you get a new species of fruit fly, it is not like getting a new breed of dogs. A new breed of dogs still interbreeds with its parental breed and even with other breeds, because domestic dogs are all of the same species.

But a new species implies a barrier has arisen which prevents successful cross-breeding. This is not micro-evolution (evolution within the species). It is macro-evolution (the evolution of a new species).

Sure, this new species is in the same family i.e. fruit flies. What else would you expect? That's like saying a new species of mammal is still a mammal. It is still a new species, and as a new species it is an example of macro-evolution.

PS do you know what the genetic consequences of speciation are?

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
1. Can you provide a link to this information or a web address to support this experiment?
2. A lab experiment does not provide proof of the evolutionary theory, ie gene splicing that would not have occoured in nature

No, but genetic mutation happens all the time.

3. Were they not still flies? You say that they were different species, what was the new species created called?

Yes, they were still flies, but they were a different species of flies... or is this the tired old "Show me a cat giving birth to a dog!" argument?

4. Doesn't the fact that they could not bread indicate that they would never have survived in nature and therefore never would have become a new species?

The new population could not breed with the original species, but can breed just fine among themselves.

Romanseight2005 · Mar 19, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
Actually, the theory of evolution states that man is still a kind of ape... which evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Because the only difference between micro and macro evolution is one of time and degree... a difference so insignificant as far as the mechanisms are concerned, that most evolutionists don't even bother to differentiate.... Creationists do.
Evolution happens. Given enough time, it happens quite a lot.

Show me biblical evidence for evolution. Instead of making the bible fit science, thereby making science an idol, you should be seeing science through a biblical filter. Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
Show me biblical evidence for evolution. Instead of making the bible fit science, thereby making science an idol, you should be seeing science through a biblical filter. Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

You seem to be making the Bible an idol.

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
Show me biblical evidence for evolution.

Show me Biblical evidence for the Internet.

Instead of making the bible fit science, thereby making science an idol, you should be seeing science through a biblical filter.

thereby making the Bible an idol instead?

Unless of course you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

I don't. I believe the Bible is a record of the word (lowercase w, not capital... the Word of God is Christ) of God as recorded by inspired men.

Kindly don't presume anything about my faith becasue I choose not to idolize it.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

livingword26 said:
1. Can you provide a link to this information or a web address to support this experiment?

I have the journal reference.
G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

I haven't found this particular one on-line, but it is referenced with comments from a professional biologist (who is also Christian) here: (Post 54)

http://www.christianforums.com/t722770&page=5

2. A lab experiment does not provide proof of the evolutionary theory, ie gene splicing that would not have occoured in nature.

If lab experiments did not help us understand what is happening in nature they would not be done. No gene splicing was involved here---only providing divided populations with different environments and different food resources. That is something that does happen in nature.

3. Were they not still flies? You say that they were different species, what was the new species created called?

Is "fly" a species? Or is it a large group of species? A new species of fly is a new species, because "fly" does not refer to a single species (as "human" or "platypus" does) but to a grouping of many, many different species (as "mammals" and "grasses" do).

I don't know what specific names, if any, were given to the new species. They may have just been given numbers as many species are.

4. Doesn't the fact that they could not bread indicate that they would never have survived in nature and therefore never would have become a new species?

No. Let's be clear on what is being spoken about. The new flies could breed. It is possible they could survive in nature, but I don't know if that was tested out. They were already new species and each one of the new species was successfully breeding and had been from the beginning of the experiment 7 years earlier.

What did not happen was successful cross-breeding between one new species and another or between one new species and Drosophila melanogaster (the parental species)

As long as mating happened within each new species group there was no problem with breeding.

The purpose of trying to cross-breed was to test if these were really new species. If they had only been new breeds, the cross-breeding would have been successful. The fact that cross-breeding was not successful shows that they are genuine new species and therefore this is an instance of macro-evolution.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:

I hope you are as enthusiatic about the answer as you are of the question.

Romanseight2005 · Mar 19, 2006

KerrMetric said:
You seem to be making the Bible an idol.

So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

Romanseight2005 said:
So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God?

No. I believe Jesus is. I believe the Bible is a book of Jewish mythology and man written, God inspired, writings.

If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Veteran

sine ira et studio

Legend

Romanseight2005

Guest

Veteran

Romanseight2005

Guest

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Legend

The Lady Kate

Guest

Romanseight2005

Guest

Well-Known Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

Legend

Romanseight2005

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency