New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But in this case they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

The x-breeds (between species) may be able to procreated, but their offspring can't.

Pictures of ligers, Half lions and tigers. Results from cross breeding. There is your micro-evolution and your answer to diversity.

pictures of ligers - Google Search

 

[Woyzeck]

There was only one link i saw, it was lizards.

You don't understand what cross breeding means ?

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

The lizards actually haven't quite evolved enough to produce speciation. I can't say much for the finches of the Galapagos.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

So, you count hybrids (formed by closely related 'cousins' so to speak) as creating new species, but not macro-evolution? You just admitted as well that isolated lions and tigers cannot cross. You're point is rather flimsy.

Speciation via hybrids is a very specific kind of speciation called polyploid speciation. Another example (though sterile) is donkeys. Truthfully, if you wanted to disprove the tenants of macro-evolution via sex, then it should be possible for a human to fuck a fish, and get a human-fish hybrid, or something similar. But it's not because of species isolation, we're simply not closely related enough, although interestingly enough, all mammals are descended from fish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you are going in for the "Did they prove it or is it only theory ?" argument you are already showing me you are ignorant as to how the science actually operates so there is no need to pretend you would be able to produce scientific evidence of anything.

So might as well cut to the chase here. Instead of pretending something is science, you can use the ready made bullcrap detector the scientific community has created for us, the peer review system.

If it isn't in a peer reviewed journal, it means whatever study or research has not passed muster among those in the field for sound methodologies or reasonably supportable conclusions. It means its crap until further notice.

Tak a hike,you don't know me well enough to make such a comment fool.

 

[Woyzeck]

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?



Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

According to who your teachers and books ?

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

The lizards actually haven't quite evolved enough to produce speciation. I can't say much for the finches of the Galapagos.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

So, you count hybrids (formed by closely related 'cousins' so to speak) as creating new species, but not macro-evolution? You just admitted as well that isolated lions and tigers cannot cross. You're point is rather flimsy.

Speciation via hybrids is a very specific kind of speciation called polyploid speciation. Another example (though sterile) is donkeys. Truthfully, if you wanted to disprove the tenants of macro-evolution via sex, then it should be possible for a human to fuck a fish, and get a human-fish hybrid, or something similar. But it's not because of species isolation, we're simply not closely related enough, although interestingly enough, all mammals are descended from fish.

Now we are getting somewhere. If the finches evolved why did the origional finches (short beak) make a comeback once the drought was over and the longer beaks didn't do as well ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you look at the pictures ?

Guess what they can cross and their offspring can produce offspring.

A liger is the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger. This should not be confused with a tigon, which is the offspring of a female lion and a male tiger.

Hybrids are sometimes able to reproduce offspring.

 

[Woyzeck]

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

The lizards actually haven't quite evolved enough to produce speciation. I can't say much for the finches of the Galapagos.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

So, you count hybrids (formed by closely related 'cousins' so to speak) as creating new species, but not macro-evolution? You just admitted as well that isolated lions and tigers cannot cross. You're point is rather flimsy.

Speciation via hybrids is a very specific kind of speciation called polyploid speciation. Another example (though sterile) is donkeys. Truthfully, if you wanted to disprove the tenants of macro-evolution via sex, then it should be possible for a human to fuck a fish, and get a human-fish hybrid, or something similar. But it's not because of species isolation, we're simply not closely related enough, although interestingly enough, all mammals are descended from fish.

Now we are getting somewhere. If the finches evolved why did the origional finches (short beak) make a comeback once the drought was over and the longer beaks didn't do as well ?

Could you provide more information about the finches? I don't know much about finches, or their evolutionary progress since Dawrin's time. And perhaps you could also address the rest of my post?

My best guess with what little I know would be, whatever fitter traits natural selection filters through, it can just as easily remove them. One of the prime tenants of evolution is that nothing is permanent, and instead of concrete ideals, organisms are more so statistics in a shifting cloud of averages.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey it's this simple you can breed dogs,cats,horses,and cows for a thousand years and you will still get,dogs,cats,horses,and cows.

All these animals have been bred for thousands of years, and i have read no literature that said they ever gave birth to a new creature.

 

[Woyzeck]

Hey it's this simple you can breed dogs,cats,horses,and cows for a thousand years and you will still get,dogs,cats,horses,and cows.

All these animals have been bred for thousands of years, and i have read no literature that said they ever gave birth to a new creature.

Key word, bred. As in, artificially selected by humans, removed from the wild, and therefore natural selection. And that's not even considering it's an amazingly short time to demand a major evolutionary change. These are usually bred for specific traits, and any mutations that produce undesirable variance are promptly not bred. They don't have mutations arising to help them survive in the wild if they aren't in the wild in the first place. To consider this proof that evolution is false, belies a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The lizards actually haven't quite evolved enough to produce speciation. I can't say much for the finches of the Galapagos.



So, you count hybrids (formed by closely related 'cousins' so to speak) as creating new species, but not macro-evolution? You just admitted as well that isolated lions and tigers cannot cross. You're point is rather flimsy.

Speciation via hybrids is a very specific kind of speciation called polyploid speciation. Another example (though sterile) is donkeys. Truthfully, if you wanted to disprove the tenants of macro-evolution via sex, then it should be possible for a human to fuck a fish, and get a human-fish hybrid, or something similar. But it's not because of species isolation, we're simply not closely related enough, although interestingly enough, all mammals are descended from fish.

Now we are getting somewhere. If the finches evolved why did the origional finches (short beak) make a comeback once the drought was over and the longer beaks didn't do as well ?

Could you provide more information about the finches? I don't know much about finches, or their evolutionary progress since Dawrin's time. And perhaps you could also address the rest of my post?

My best guess with what little I know would be, whatever fitter traits natural selection filters through, it can just as easily remove them. One of the prime tenants of evolution is that nothing is permanent, and instead of concrete ideals, organisms are more so statistics in a shifting cloud of averages.

This is true as long as there is new information entering the gene pool. When a species get''s isolated that is how you wind up with a breed. The reason is over time information = traits get bred out of them that is why you see some over time are incompatible to breed back in the family.

That is why a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but that mule is as far as it will go. I have never heard of a mule being fertile unless it can only breed with either the horse or the donkey only.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey it's this simple you can breed dogs,cats,horses,and cows for a thousand years and you will still get,dogs,cats,horses,and cows.

All these animals have been bred for thousands of years, and i have read no literature that said they ever gave birth to a new creature.

Key word, bred. As in, artificially selected by humans, removed from the wild, and therefore natural selection. And that's not even considering it's an amazingly short time to demand a major evolutionary change. These are usually bred for specific traits, and any mutations that produce undesirable variance are promptly not bred. They don't have mutations arising to help them survive in the wild if they aren't in the wild in the first place. To consider this proof that evolution is false, belies a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Yes,but it happens in the wild as well.

Cross-species Mating May Be Evolutionarily Important And Lead To Rapid Change, Say Indiana University Researchers

More

What Is a Beefalo?

I have to go now talk to you later.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?



Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.



Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

According to who your teachers and books ?

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

 

[Dr.Drock]

According to who your teachers and books ?

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Why can't macro evolution happen because of the mechanisms God put into place?

 

[Si modo]

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Why can't macro evolution happen because of the mechanisms God put into place?

May the force be with you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

According to who your teachers and books ?

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

I'm a little confused now as to what your position is.

At first I thought you were denying the creation of new species by evolution because the Bible says God created everything, here you're admitting new species are formed in a period after God's initial creation, so why do you deny macro evolution and speciation if you know species have come about that weren't directly created by God?

 

[CryingKoala]

If you are going in for the "Did they prove it or is it only theory ?" argument you are already showing me you are ignorant as to how the science actually operates so there is no need to pretend you would be able to produce scientific evidence of anything.

So might as well cut to the chase here. Instead of pretending something is science, you can use the ready made bullcrap detector the scientific community has created for us, the peer review system.

If it isn't in a peer reviewed journal, it means whatever study or research has not passed muster among those in the field for sound methodologies or reasonably supportable conclusions. It means its crap until further notice.

Tak a hike,you don't know me well enough to make such a comment fool.

I can see your silly arguments clear enough. At least 2 other posters seem to think you don't really seem to grasp the nature of Evolution. If you can't handle the brutal truth about your arguments and the big honking glaring flaws in it, so be it.

You are using stock replies from the typical sources. You think you are the only one to claim:

"No evidence of Macro-evolution"
"Its only a theory"
"It just is designed, OK!"

These are old worn out tropes for Creationism. You are not dazzling anyone with your brilliance by using them.

I am waiting for you to claim that "evolution is an atheist conspiracy and the creation scientists are being excluded from the scientific world unfairly"

That being said, if evolution was so flawed, you would have seen thousands of peer reviewed scientific journal articles to support your theory. EVERY biologist would give their kidneys to be the one to come up with a new theory which they could attach their name to. But you don't. What we have is some self-reflexive articles by people who are not taken seriously by any recognized scientific body.

In fact the he National Center for Science Education decided to compile a list-- one with very, very strict guidelines. Each scientist who signed had to agree that creationism was, in fact, silly and that it should not be taught in schools. They had to be from an area of science where their expertise was actually pertinent and, finally, because this apparently needed to be stipulated, they had to be an actual scientist. Oh, and in order to sign, you had to be named Steve or a variant thereof. As it stands, over 1000 Steves are on the list, including Stephen Hawking.

Explaining the reasoning behind the stunt, the scientific community noted that they could have easily compiled a contradicting list of tens of thousands of signatures. But focusing on scientists not named Steve would have taken too much time, and they had things to do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Why can't macro evolution happen because of the mechanisms God put into place?

Because they work to prevent Macro-evolution.

Because they limit change.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Why can't macro evolution happen because of the mechanisms God put into place?

May the force be with you.

 

[Woyzeck]

Now we are getting somewhere. If the finches evolved why did the origional finches (short beak) make a comeback once the drought was over and the longer beaks didn't do as well ?

Could you provide more information about the finches? I don't know much about finches, or their evolutionary progress since Dawrin's time. And perhaps you could also address the rest of my post?

My best guess with what little I know would be, whatever fitter traits natural selection filters through, it can just as easily remove them. One of the prime tenants of evolution is that nothing is permanent, and instead of concrete ideals, organisms are more so statistics in a shifting cloud of averages.

This is true as long as there is new information entering the gene pool. When a species get''s isolated that is how you wind up with a breed. The reason is over time information = traits get bred out of them that is why you see some over time are incompatible to breed back in the family.

That is why a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but that mule is as far as it will go. I have never heard of a mule being fertile unless it can only breed with either the horse or the donkey only.

Information can enter and exit a gene pool. It simply cannot only exit.

And now we're going from finches back to cross-breeding again. You still haven't tied this in with the finches we were originally discussing or given me more information to give you a better and well-informed answer.

 

[Woyzeck]

Hey it's this simple you can breed dogs,cats,horses,and cows for a thousand years and you will still get,dogs,cats,horses,and cows.

All these animals have been bred for thousands of years, and i have read no literature that said they ever gave birth to a new creature.

Key word, bred. As in, artificially selected by humans, removed from the wild, and therefore natural selection. And that's not even considering it's an amazingly short time to demand a major evolutionary change. These are usually bred for specific traits, and any mutations that produce undesirable variance are promptly not bred. They don't have mutations arising to help them survive in the wild if they aren't in the wild in the first place. To consider this proof that evolution is false, belies a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Yes,but it happens in the wild as well.

Cross-species Mating May Be Evolutionarily Important And Lead To Rapid Change, Say Indiana University Researchers

More

What Is a Beefalo?

I have to go now talk to you later.

But you weren't saying cross-breeding couldn't happen. You were saying when we breed cows, we always get cows and nothing ever changes. I think you're mixing up what you were replying too.