Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

We know that things evolve, FULL STOP (period )

The only theory part of this is, did we?

I and most sane people will agree here, YES!

Babies born with 6 or 3 fingers are proof of the never-ending stream of random mutations trying to find the recipe for a "Superhuman"

And if (as no doubt will happen) all humans die out and are replaced with "Superhumans" they will continue to evolve maybe growing extra heads (two cores= twice the logical processing power) or eyes (SLI pwns 1 GPU setups!!!)

Just one question. Has any scientist anywhere created or scene a new species evolve? I'm just wondering.

 

[Burnout]

*snip*
Creationists will have you believe that the answer is that life was 'created' by God... and that everything God created was intellegently designed... but then, how do you explain the presence of God...? Another God...?

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives. If you were to completely neglect the idea behind time, it wouldn't be hard to understand that God has been around forever.

Perhaps you should give the current scientific knowledge the credit it deserves... we know a whole lot about the origins of life, but not everything... evolutionary theory can explain where we as a species originated from, but Creationism does not... Creationists will have you believe that humans have existed for as long as the Earth has.... that is simply not true and is scientifically verifiable... if you want to argue this point, read some of my most recent posts in this thread and then get back to me....

No, Creationists would not have you believe that. The earth was barren before God prepared it for Life. Up until the 7 Day Creation that you've probably heard about, the earth was nothing more than a floating rock.

 

[Swift]

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives. If you were to completely neglect the idea behind time, it wouldn't be hard to understand that God has been around forever.


No, Creationists would not have you believe that. The earth was barren before God prepared it for Life. Up until the 7 Day Creation that you've probably heard about, the earth was nothing more than a floating rock.

Burnout, I agree with you. However, we have gone over that multiple times. So if we're going to continue this discussion, we need to take it from a different angle.

 

[Burnout]

Burnout, I agree with you. However, we have gone over that multiple times. So if we're going to continue this discussion, we need to take it from a different angle.

Sorry, I haven't bothered reading the entire thread, however I believe it to be a safe presumption that it's basically been "No, you're wrong. If you have to believe in something, you're not thinking rationally. We have proof that more humans are growing up without wisdom teeth, we must've evolved from single celled Paracemwhatducallitvirusthingy! Oh yeah, you're wrong. And irrational."

 

[Sage]

Just one question. Has any scientist anywhere created or scene a new species evolve? I'm just wondering.

Anyone can see a species evolve (especially rapidly-breeding species like fruit flies – give them a couple months under a variety of different conditions, and you'll see changes that span throughout the population, generation-by-generation, due to mutations that give individuals a benefit over others). Of course, it's more difficult to track evolution of, say, humans or anything else that has a considerable reproductive lifespan, but it you have anything that can nail out babies in a matter of days, it's very easy to see (including bacteria and that stuff).

 

[Duke]

Just one question. Has any scientist anywhere created or scene a new species evolve? I'm just wondering.

Human beings have been genetically manipulating animals for hundreds of thousands of years.

Dogs, for instance. Cows. Pigs. Chickens. These animals have evolved before our very eyes to meet their new environments as domesticated animals.

So, yes, scientists have created and seen new species evolve. I did it with fruit flies in 10th grade bio. In fact, there's been a breakthrough recently in the equipment for studying bacteria-level life. The big breakthrough is they've finally designed a container that stops the bacteria from evolving as quickly, allowing studies on a more genetically stable population for a longer time.

In the wild things evolve more slowly, so it's not a matter of suddenly waking up one day and finding a new species of robin that is brown and green instead of brown and red. A million years from now; maybe, but you'll never point to a specific instant where something went from A to B in such a long process. I think, honestly, that's why so many Creationists have trouble accepting the idea of evolution.

 

[Famine]

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives.

I just registered 4.4 on the Richter Scale, through my lower jaw smacking the desk.

 

[Sage]

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives. If you were to completely neglect the idea behind time, it wouldn't be hard to understand that God has been around forever.

What?! Did you just say "completely neglect the idea behind time"? That's absolutely absurd – you do know that space and time are intertwined, don't you? If time doesn't exist, then you don't exist.

What you're probably referring to is our relative measure of time, which, yes, is for our convenience, but has nothing to do with the notion of "forever" or space-time itself.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Just one question. Has any scientist anywhere created or scene a new species evolve? I'm just wondering.

Well yes...evolution is a very slow process, so in our tiny lifetimes we are unlikely to see a new species develop. Maybe in the insect world where life runs at a fantastic speed we might be lucky and see it happen in front of our eyes.
We discover new species of insects every month(rough figure...don't quote me ), whether these were undiscovered, or are indeed evolved new species is unclear.

In a lab you can see evolving lifeforms, creating new species. You may want to argue over the technicalities but a famous one would be the superbug that plagues hospitals.
This is a mutation that has become immune to some antibiotics and has created a new strain (strain/ species...technicality) The life of a virus is accelerated compared to ours, they adapt and evolve with amazing speed. Why do you think they don't prescribe penicillin any more?

Animals aside, plants evolve too...there are many primitive species of plants still around (including a prehistoric tree) but when you look at ancient ferns you can see the common ancestor in our modern plants but there are thousands of new flowers and trees that simply didn't exist. Orchids attract devoted followers because of their ability to throw up a flower of species that has never been seen with an amazing regularity. People die trying to collect them from rain forest as you might just be the first to ever see that type...

Animals aside, plants evolve too...there are many primitive species of plants still around (including a prehistoric tree) but when you look at ancient ferns you can see the common ancestor in our modern plants but there are thousands of new flowers and trees that simply didn't exist.

Orchids attract devoted followers because of their ability to throw up a new species with a flower that has never been seen before, with an amazing regularity. People die trying to collect them from rain forest as you might just be the first to ever see that flower. (doesn't do it for me , but it's a passion for some)

There are new things appearing all the time, some slowly over millennium, some in a blink of the eye...the world is not static, it's a dynamic diverse thriving organic melting pot!

 

[Burnout]

Anyone can see a species evolve (especially rapidly-breeding species like fruit flies – give them a couple months under a variety of different conditions, and you'll see changes that span throughout the population, generation-by-generation, due to mutations that give individuals a benefit over others). Of course, it's more difficult to track evolution of, say, humans or anything else that has a considerable reproductive lifespan, but it you have anything that can nail out babies in a matter of days, it's very easy to see (including bacteria and that stuff).

I should clarify.

I'm not trying to completely disregard Evolution as a form of living things better suiting themselves with their surroundings, but rather as a form of origin. To say that nothing at all has changed since when God first created living things would be irrational thinking of me. I must ask, however, could living specimens evolving not be something God created, as part of his design?

I should also clarify what Swift was saying. I believe he was asking, "Have we seen living specimens, such as a fruit-fly, evolve into something else completely different, like a different type of insect?" The answer to which would be, as far as I know, "No."

 

[Touring Mars]

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives. If you were to completely neglect the idea behind time, it wouldn't be hard to understand that God has been around forever.
.

That's nonsense... time is a word for our concept of the passage of events... but you're kidding me if you think that humans have anything to do with it... we can measure time, we can make sense of the world around us by measuring time, but humans (or any other living being) didn't create time.... i'd like to see your evidence of that either way....

No, Creationists would not have you believe that. The earth was barren before God prepared it for Life. Up until the 7 Day Creation that you've probably heard about, the earth was nothing more than a floating rock

Barren meaning that life did not exist...? That is almost certainly true.... Certain to a point that no scientific evidence can refute it.... but science can also prove that life has existed on this planet for billions of years... and that human-kind is merely a recent form of the myraid forms of life seen on this planet throughout it's long long history.... to say that humans were the original form of life on this planet is totally without foundation, and you can't give me any evidence to the contrary, can you?

I just registered 4.4 on the Richter Scale, through my lower jaw smacking the desk.

So that's what that faint rumble here in London was...

 

[Swift]

Anyone can see a species evolve (especially rapidly-breeding species like fruit flies – give them a couple months under a variety of different conditions, and you'll see changes that span throughout the population, generation-by-generation, due to mutations that give individuals a benefit over others). Of course, it's more difficult to track evolution of, say, humans or anything else that has a considerable reproductive lifespan, but it you have anything that can nail out babies in a matter of days, it's very easy to see (including bacteria and that stuff).

I didn't say has anyone seen a species evolve. I said has anyone scene an entirely new species evolve from an older one?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Time, as you and I know it, was created by human to keep track of our lives. If you were to completely neglect the idea behind time, it wouldn't be hard to understand that God has been around forever.

Man invented time...omg

That's as bad an error as one I made when I was about 8. We were writing essays (at that age..a scribble ) on the US custom of Thanksgiving and I said Americans invented the Turkey

 

[James2097]

Yeah, no argument here. But saying that a scientist is not driven by either what he BELIEVES he can prove or that he is not driven by a greater belief in something is simply not true.

Of course you need a theory to test, and you need to think of something that seems rational and logical as a starting point. But its not like a good scientist believes he is right before testing conclusively. He should be just as open to his theory being proved wrong as right. If he wants it to be proven right so bad that he fakes the result, well then his human ego has gotten the better of his rationality and desire to understand the world in a logical and truthful way (surely a scientist's motivation), and he's not a scientist anymore.

Of course humans are weak with big egos. To be a good scientist with great integrity is hard when complex theories take a lot of personal investment of time/energy to develop. There have been many bad scientists that have found their theories to be fact. These bad scientists are always proven wrong in time, and certainly these days the scientific process is incredibly stringent.

That is the only flaw in the scientific process, the human factor of ego that may colour certain conclusions. These will always be questioned and put right in time, however. The truth (or the admission of the lack of knowledge) will always prevail if the scientific process is adhered to.

 

[Sage]

I'm not trying to completely disregard Evolution as a form of living things better suiting themselves with their surroundings, but rather as a form of origin. To say that nothing at all has changed since when God first created living things would be irrational thinking of me. I must ask, however, could living specimens evolving not be something God created, as part of his design?

Well, again, that brings me to a point that I brought up a long time ago in this thread (a couple months ago, I guess): The thread title and subject are misleading. "Creation vs. Evolution" implies that these are parallel ideas, when they absolutely are not. Creation attempts to explain how life originated; evolution attempts to explain how life changes. To make this a truly sensible topic, it should be something like "Creation vs. M-Theory", since those two topics attempt to explain the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

[Duke]

I should also clarify what Swift was saying. I believe he was asking, "Have we seen living specimens, such as a fruit-fly, evolve into something else completely different, like a different type of insect?" The answer to which would be, as far as I know, "No."

As far as you know, perhaps, but to the scientific community the answer is a resounding "Yes!" See my post about the breakthrough in studying bacterium above. The issue is not whether you can witness evolution or not, but how you can keep the little buggers genetically stable enough to get a decent study.

But on a larger scale, just put it out of your head that evolution happens to a living organism itself, or even in one generation. It just plain flat out does not work that way, and no one ever said it did. You guys just can't seem to grasp the concept of a really long time, which is why you find it necessary to attack and 'refute' a logically coherent theory that is backed by a vast quantity of measurable evidence.

 

[Burnout]

That's nonsense... time is a word for our concept of the passage of events... but you're kidding me if you think that humans have anything to do with it... we can measure time, we can make sense of the world around us by measuring time, but humans (or any other living being) didn't create time.... i'd like to see your evidence of that either way....

It's a concept we created to measure events. It's simply a word. Period.

Barren meaning that life did not exist...? That is almost certainly true.... Certain to a point that no scientific evidence can refute it.... but science can also prove that life has existed on this planet for billions of years... and that human-kind is merely a recent form of the myraid forms of life seen on this planet throughout it's long long history.... to say that humans were the original form of life on this planet is totally without foundation, and you can't give me any evidence to the contrary, can you?

Scientists like to think they can prove that life has been around for billions of years, but can they really? No, and why, you ask? Because the technique scientists use to rule such information has been proven numerous times as horribly inaccurate.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, again, that brings me to a point that I brought up a long time ago in this thread (a couple months ago, I guess): The thread title and subject are misleading. "Creation vs. Evolution" implies that these are parallel ideas, when they absolutely are not. Creation attempts to explain how life originated; evolution attempts to explain how life changes. To make this a truly sensible topic, it should be something like "Creation vs. M-Theory", since those two topics attempt to explain the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Maybe it should be more accurately named 'Creationism v Evolution'? .. Creationism actively attempt to discredit scientific evidence because it doesn't fit with their preconceived ideas about the true nature of the world/universe.... real scientists may be religious, spiritual, whatever.... but they seek to answer the tough questions with answers based upon reality, as opposed to creationism, which seeks to answer these questions with fairytales, nonsense and sheer ignorance.

 

[Sage]

[RE Time] It's a concept we created to measure events. It's simply a word. Period.

No no no! Did you not read what I wrote? Time and space are connected – space-time. We did not create time any more than we created the other three dimensions. Without time you and I cease to exist. It's like saying we created volume – no, we created the units for measuring volume, as well as the word itself, but we did not create volume. Volume has always existed, even when we didn't know it. Ditto with time.

 

[Swift]

As far as you know, perhaps, but to the scientific community the answer is a resounding "Yes!" See my post about the breakthrough in studying bacterium above. The issue is not whether you can witness evolution or not, but how you can keep the little buggers genetically stable enough to get a decent study.

But on a larger scale, just put it out of your head that evolution happens to a living organism itself, or even in one generation. It just plain flat out does not work that way, and no one ever said it did. You guys just can't seem to grasp the concept of a really long time, which is why you find it necessary to attack and 'refute' a logically coherent theory that is backed by a vast quantity of measurable evidence.

So, the fruit flies become a new species genetically? Not just a mutant or "upgraded" fruit fly?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I didn't say has anyone seen a species evolve. I said has anyone scene an entirely new species evolve from an older one?

It happens too slow! Yes it would be nice to see it happen, but you are talking thousands of generations, before even a small change occurs. Look at Darwin's finches, or the lemurs, that have evolved a very long index finger for extracting grubs from trees.
The Giraffe was mentioned earlier, and I find it both amazing and think it is a dead giveaway that it has the same number of vertebrae in its neck as we do. if you were designing it from scratch you would use twice as many, because as it is it lacks flexibility, and it can't drink water without doing the splits!

As far as you know, perhaps, but to the scientific community the answer is a resounding "Yes!" See my post about the breakthrough in studying bacterium above.

And mine mentioning the MRSA superbug, first discovered as a threat in the 1980's. (This thread is evolving so fast it got swamped and is now a page or two back there.)

Edit:

Of course humans are weak with big egos. To be a good scientist with great integrity is hard when complex theories take a lot of personal investment of time/energy to develop. There have been many bad scientists that have found their theories to be fact. These bad scientists are always proven wrong in time, and certainly these days the scientific process is incredibly stringent.

This is true, there is the case of the cold fusion experiments, they were falsified in an attempt to win a noble prize.

Science is meant to be the "Pursuit of Truth",
but sadly there are many disillusioned scientists out there that now say that it is the "Pursuit of Funding".

 

[Duke]

[Time is] a concept we created to measure events. It's simply a word. Period.

Interesting to note that the Earth didn't travel around the sun before we invented the calendar to tell it how long the years was supposed to be...

The units of time which we invented are relatively meaningless, certain all except those that relate directly to the yearly orbit and daily revolution of the Earth. That doesn't mean we invented the concept of time, since it was passing in great quantities and at the same rate and in the same direction as it is now, long before we were there to conceptualize it.

Scientists like to think they can prove that life has been around for billions of years, but can they really? No, and why, you ask? Because the technique scientists use to rule such information has been proven numerous times as horribly inaccurate.

Actually, Creationists have proven to themselves numerous times that certain particular methods of dating things are horribly inaccurate. They do this by implying that certain well-known techniques are the only methods available (such as carbon dating), and then demonstrating their inaccuracy with measurements taken well outside the accepted range of the techniques.

Radiocarbon dating is good for about 50-100,000 years past, and that's it. It's good for dating the age of man-made objects, which is why it's so famous. Fortunately for scientists, and unfortunately for the Creationists, we've developed other more sophisticated techniques that can range MUCH farther back with MUCH greater accuracy.

 

[Swift]

I didn't say has anyone seen a species evolve. I said has anyone scene an entirely new species evolve from an older one?

It happens too slow! Yes it would be nice to see it happen, but you are talking thousands of generations, before even a small change occurs. Look at Darwin's finches, or the lemurs, that have evolved a very long index finger for extracting grubs from trees.
The Giraffe was mentioned earlier, and I find it both amazing and think it is a dead giveaway that it has the same number of vertebrae in its neck as we do. if you were designing it from scratch you would use twice as many, because as it is it lacks flexibility, and it can't drink water without doing the splits!

You know, it's ok to say "no". You won't be shot or burned at the stake or anything.

 

[Duke]

You know, it's ok to say "no". You won't be shot or burned at the stake or anything.

But yes, we have, at the level of bacteria and viruses. Why do you think they need to develop new flu vaccines every year?! Evolution in action!

But for more complex organisms, like insects, it takes much longer to occur so there is zero chance of observing enough generations to form a new speecies with your naked eye.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

You know, it's ok to say "no". You won't be shot or burned at the stake or anything.

Ok...NO...can I smell burning...

Burnout may have never been to school but he has certainly brought this thread to life.

 

[James2097]

It's a concept we created to measure events. It's simply a word. Period.

Talk about desperately generalising because your last statement was such a 'turkey'!

Scientists like to think they can prove that life has been around for billions of years, but can they really? No, and why, you ask? Because the technique scientists use to rule such information has been proven numerous times as horribly inaccurate.

I think MY jaw just hit the floor.

 

[Famine]

I didn't say has anyone seen a species evolve. I said has anyone scene an entirely new species evolve from an older one?

I should also clarify what Swift was saying. I believe he was asking, "Have we seen living specimens, such as a fruit-fly, evolve into something else completely different, like a different type of insect?" The answer to which would be, as far as I know, "No."

To ask that question in that context - and even more so with Burnout's "clarification" - is to completely fail to understand what evolution is.

 

[Flame-returns]

Just one question. Has any scientist anywhere created or scene a new species evolve? I'm just wondering.

I dont think a scientist has ever seen an aminmal evolve (unless they are very old.) Evolution is a very slow process which involves hundreds of mutations before a superior one is found.

They have however, under lab conditions, watched animate molecules and viruses evolve.

Viruses evolve constantly to escape eradication at the hands of cures/vaccinations. This invulnerability to todays Amoxicillin is what is making my chest infection very frustrating.

A cure will be found in a month or so, and the infection will adapt and evolve so the next time it hits me it will be invulnerable to the cure, and irritate me further.

This is why drugs are so profitable, GSK own a monopoly in a never ending market.

 

[Burnout]

Burnout may have never been to school but he has certainly brought this thread to life.

Funny you say that, actually; I was homeschooled, so technically I've never gone to 'school'.

A note on something that Duke said, about the sophisticated methods used to dating, how do we actually know that they're giving us accurate results? Who was alive 48 Trillion years ago, or however long ago they're saying, to tell us that we're indeed getting accurate results?

 

[Touring Mars]

Swift - to answer your question as best I can - an entirely new species will not evolve from an older one.... there is only gradual change from one generation to the next.... but the illusion of new species forming spontaneously is determined by how often you look... and because we are only able to observe over a relatively short timescale, we cannot see individual changes happening...

A simple analogy is like looking at a football team... a coach is unlikely to sack every player in the team, where all 45 members of a football team would be completely different to the last team (a new species from an older one).... what would actually happen is, the coach replaces players one by one, making improvements each time, until eventually the team is totally different to what it used to look like.... gradual versus total....

It is almost theoretically impossible in nature for one species to totally change from its immediate ancestor... and the chances are, even if it did happen, it would die (or not be cared for by its parents), hence it wouldn't reproduce.... natural selection would favour the child that was more suited to the environment (and parents) to which it was born...