Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119386 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol
but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!
Species according to evolution theory do not "change into" other species.
Nor do Sub or Dan implied this. ASK THEM, who knows you will LEARN something.
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119387 Aug 3, 2014
pale horse of death wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, sir.
If I may be able to offer some small contribution?
Somewhere in my memory there is a study of some cheetahs that have
"changed their spots" so to speak.
I guess some of the spots on some of the cheetahs
have merged or fused together to form a slightly different pattern
on the top anterior area of the body ( the rump I think?).
The scientists had been studying the cheetahs for some
time when they noticed the mutation in a few of the specimens.
They were going to continue the study to see how far the mutation
would carry on into the population over time to study the process of "natural selection"
in a present-day context to see of course, if current experience would verify assessments made of fossil remains. A "reality check" on evolution theory. I don't know what the
study revealed later as I never kept up on it. I was younger and had
many other interests at the time.
Pardon my nom d' plume,
it has a certain purpose
as a sort of 'tool'
for a certain job.
You are just talking about how gene flow causes species evolution, bit no new species is emerging in what you are saying. What would have made a new species emerge , is that if a group of slightly different spotted cheetahs left the main group, and could not or refused to mate with the main group of cheetahs. After some lengthy amount of time, the sub group would become sexually incompatible with the main group and then be defined a new species.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119388 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Species according to evolution theory do not "change into" other species.
Nor do Sub or Dan implied this. ASK THEM, who knows you will LEARN something.
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.
then you are saying a dinosaur did not become a bird or chicken. is that what you are saying? we all have been thinking about that the wrong way?
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119389 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you already don't know how evolution theory defines and conceptualizes "speciation", while it is among its core concepts, WHY THE HELL are you TATTLING about it.
wow!! evolution does all that. heII i thought it was man, science and taxonomy that did that.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119390 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Any ancient precedent? As as far as i know all ancient history assumes a young Earth. A flood; deluge. Now i know you guys think this is all rubbish, but those are the facts.
In the first place the "flood" is not only lacking ANY geological evidence but is completely refuted by almost everything of modern geology.

As far as >I< know, all ancient history completely discards a young earth.
As far a I also know, about the whole of modern geology refutes a young earth.
As far as I know the whole of modern cosmology refutes a young earth.

So TELL us, WHAT scientific evidence do you have for a young earth then?
Wasting away in anticipation of your answer.
Tell me what I should have missed last 35 years in the scientific literature and journals.

You may try one out of the about 70 dating techniques we have.
Take ANY of them. You may choose randomly and entirely at your whim.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119391 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.
We see the evidence this happened with many species, due to continental drift. But what you are asking for isn't possible, on terms you would accept.
Because species emergence isn't a process of instant gratification. It takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We have seen the emergence of new species though.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-speci...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119392 Aug 3, 2014
paddyomalley wrote:
<quoted text>
"Of course none of this is relevant to the scientific validity of evolution". Sorry bunky, evolution is still a theory, so says the scientific community, excepting some God haters, that is. It is a theory. It is a theory. Can you remember that.
You mean like quantum *theory*, the atomic *theory*, the *theory* of general relativity, cell *theory*, or the *theory* of continental drift?

The problem is that you are using the popular idea of theory as a wild speculation that has no evidence to support it. That isn't how it is used in the scientific community. In that community, a theory is a cohesive collection of ideas that have have been extensively tested and found to work.

You are thinking that evolution is a *hypothesis*. Furthermore, you probably also think that science uses the word 'Law' for something that has been well-proven. But that is not the case: Newton's *Law* of gravity is known to be wrong. Ohm's *Law* has many exceptions. Historically, the word 'Law' was used for a simple mathematical hypothesis. The *theory* is the overarching collection of ideas that have single *Laws* as a part.

So, yes, the *theory* of evolution is a scientific *theory*; meaning is is a well-tested, coherent collection of ideas, in this case dealing with the *fact* that biological species change over time.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119393 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/new-species...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119394 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.
But what *can* be done is to take a *population* of computer programs, mutate them, and then select the ones that do the best job. Then repeat the process. In this way, it is possible to find optimal solutions to many types of search and recognition problems. And, guess what? That is *exactly* what evolution does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorith...

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119395 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then you are saying a dinosaur did not become a bird or chicken. is that what you are saying? we all have been thinking about that the wrong way?

(An *isolated group of dinosaurs evolved into birds).
But it actually may have been several groups that evolved more and more birdlike features over time. eventually becoming the species we see now. But a tyrannosaurus isn't a bird and a bird isn't a tyrannosaurus. But tyrannosaurus's offspring may have evolved toward birds.

http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environmen...

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119396 Aug 3, 2014
pale horse of death wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, sir.
If I may be able to offer some small contribution?
Somewhere in my memory there is a study of some cheetahs that have
"changed their spots" so to speak.
I guess some of the spots on some of the cheetahs
have merged or fused together to form a slightly different pattern
on the top anterior area of the body ( the rump I think?).
The scientists had been studying the cheetahs for some
time when they noticed the mutation in a few of the specimens.
They were going to continue the study to see how far the mutation
would carry on into the population over time to study the process of "natural selection"
in a present-day context to see of course, if current experience would verify assessments made of fossil remains. A "reality check" on evolution theory. I don't know what the
study revealed later as I never kept up on it. I was younger and had
many other interests at the time.
Pardon my nom d' plume,
it has a certain purpose
as a sort of 'tool'
for a certain job.
Species have a genotype and a phenotype.
The genotype comprises all the genetic traits observed, the phenotype is the composite of an species' observable characteristics and traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Of course those two connect: the phenotype always is the result of the genotype to a major extent.

The problem with fossils is that they only allow (partial) determination of morphology and physiological appearance. Development may only be determined if we find specimen of both infants and adults of the same species. Sometimes we find evidence of behavior (like the fossilized nests of dinosaurs). Also SOME biochemical analysis is possible and only to a very restrict degree. But, moreover, we almost never can determine the genotype out of fossils, but in very rare and rather recent fossils.

In biology the main criterion to distinguish between related species is genetic isolation: when two (sub)populations cannot interbreed successfully (any more), they are called different species. But we do not have the genotypes of fossils. Because DNA deteriorates rather fast, even when preserved well.

But there IS a strong relationship between genotype and phenotype.
For instance, we know that if species have different procreative strategies (like live-birth and milk feeding in contrast to egg-laying), they inevitably belong to different species (and even to different classes).

If we study the precise relationship between phenotype and genotype of extant species and are able to establish statistically strong correlation, we may use this relationship to interfere form the fossil evidence (which tells a lot of phenotype but almost nothing of genotype) a better phylogeny. Which means: we are better capable of determining distinct species in fossils when lacking their genome.

The notion "species change into other species" is wrong. And not a little bit wrong but a major flaw. It leads to the utter ridiculous and stupid questions like "when humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes"? You really can't get it any more stupid than that.

The answer lays in an analogy: "when Americans are descendants from Europeans, why are there still any Europeans"? Stupid you find? Stupid it is, indeed.

New species arise as SUB-POPULATIONS from their ancestral species.
If humans descended from a Pithecus species, then chimps, gorillas and orang utans are the OTHER descendants ("Pithecus" = "ape", but MIND that apes are EXTANT species, hence the different name "Pithecus"). That ancient Pithecus species did not "change" into Homo Sapiens but gave rise to different daughter species, among those Homo Sapiens.
pale horse of death

Hemet, CA

#119397 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just talking about how gene flow causes species evolution, bit no new species is emerging in what you are saying. What would have made a new species emerge , is that if a group of slightly different spotted cheetahs left the main group, and could not or refused to mate with the main group of cheetahs. After some lengthy amount of time, the sub group would become sexually incompatible with the main group and then be defined a new species.
Thank You, I understand your point completely. You response is a very possible conclusion to that story and couldn't have been better said.
As I mentioned I never kept up with the study. It was at least 20 years ago.
That article I read may have appeared in Omni Magazine, as I had a subscription to it at the time?? Possibly Discovery magazine.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119398 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well heII there goes your whole theory of evolution if that is what you think. lol
but then again i know I have seen you, subduction zone, danfromsmithville and several other claim straight up that we have seen that happen in a lab. so please take the time and name one that we have seen!
You are acting like a pigeon shitting its crap all over a chess play, thinking it has won the game through this, flying back to its flock to cry victory.

Instead of this embarrassing behaviour, answer my questions.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119399 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
nice speech. i am a supporter of evolution but these retards preach and claim we have sen species to species in a lab but cannot show a change of species to a new species as they claim. why lie to support your cause? that makes them on the same level of a creationists, lying for their cause and
not better than them as we should be because we have science on our side..
For once in a while, can't you just stop tattling?
Do yourself and particularly us a favour and start to read about evolution.
Start with 101 level. In my country that would be grammar school.
pale horse of death

Hemet, CA

#119400 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha,
TurkanaBoy,
Thank You
So much!
I am delightedly
enlightened!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119401 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
show me one species we have actually seen change into another species. don't just talk the usual bs and say "we have seen them in the lab or in the fossil record". NAME me one species we have seen change into another species! slight change or variation does not count. just to make sure you see this i say again "slight change or variation does not count.it has to be one species changing to another species". i want one species changing to a different species that we have actually observed in real time, real life! point blank period. when you do that we will continue this discussion. end of story,
Tragopogon,(also known as salsify or goatsbeard) has split into at least one new species in the Americas since its introduction from Europe.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119402 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
In the first place the "flood" is not only lacking ANY geological evidence but is completely refuted by almost everything of modern geology.
According to modern interpretation which is obviously hostile to the ancients, who (it is assumed) could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Where is the dissent report? Actual written history records a deluge. Multiple sources. These are facts.
.
So TELL us, WHAT scientific evidence do you have for a young earth then?
I was referencing recorded history. You really have little, if any ancient precedent for any modern assumptions. Flood a myth etc. In 1850, for example not many taught human ancestors were ape like creatures. The kings of Europe traced their ancestry to Adam. That reflected their perception. Now you guy come along and say they were all wrong.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry....
Tell me what I should have missed last 35 years in the scientific literature and journals.
It's not what you miss, it is what you ignore. 3000 or so years of recorded history which directly refutes modern assumptions. Moderns were wrong about many things in the past as it relates to history. David kingdom comes to mind. The problem with the moderns is they do not keep track of their many screw ups. Where the ancients were right and moderns were wrong.
You may try one out of the about 70 dating techniques we have.
Take ANY of them. You may choose randomly and entirely at your whim.
Dating techniques which only a handful have any understanding with obvious built in materialist and old earth assumptions to accommodate common descent or macro evolution. Where is the dissent report?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119403 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is in contrast to modern thinking, though I somewhat protested the thought at first myself too.
Erectus is considered more what you are saying a hominid , but humans were more than a single species, for instance , neandertal was a human, just a different kind of human.
But some even think we're a single species composed of subspecies.
But you might find this interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
Here's the term.
archaic Homo sapiens
And another interesting read.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/libr...
In general, archaic Homo sapiens were ‘‘admitted to membership in our species because of their almost modern-sized brains, but set off as ‘archaic' because of their primitive looking cranial morphology" (Cartmill & Smith 2009).
I think the modern concept is merely not to solely stare at "species" by trying to force each fossil into one particular species but to study the evolutionary development in traits and phenotype as such instead. Biologists like Richard Dawkins are not concerning about whether Habilis was in the Pithecus or in the Hominid genus. they just don't care. The only thing they are interested in are its traits and its chronological place in the course of hominid evolution. The only things he is interested in, are:
- its ~610 cc cranial volume, larger than Australopithecus but smaller than Erectus
- its rather long arms but not as long as Australopithecus and shorter than Erectus
- its protruding muzzle but not that protruding like Australopithecus but less than Erectus
- its rather large molars and teeth but smaller than those of Australopithecus and larger than Erectus
- etc. other traits of its phenotype that perfectly fit an intermediate position between Australopithecus and Erectus
- its chronological place in the time-line of human evolution exactly between Australopithecus and Erectus (with some overlap with Erectus).

I notice that your first link to archaic humans refers to Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and also Homo antecessor.
That fits my assessment when I said that scientifically spoken it would be more convenient to confine "human" only to home Sapiens. These include all species mentioned in your list:
- homo Sapiens Sapiens (that will be us)
- homo Sapiens Heidelbergensis, homo Sapiens Rhodesiensis, homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis
- and may also include Homo antecessor.

Notice that homo Erectus and homo Habilis are not mentioned on the link.

This also applies to your second link, where it reads: "Most paleoanthropologists agree that Homo erectus and H. sapiens are distinct species".

I could agree with the assessments on both links.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119404 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"species have offspring that can become other species over time."
name one we have seen that has done that and not the fossil record or just mere change. actually a species becoming another species. after all the Lenski Ecoli that is always used is still just Ecoli.


We can see it in progress in certain ring species:

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119405 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> According to modern interpretation which is obviously hostile to the ancients, who (it is assumed) could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Where is the dissent report? Actual written history records a deluge. Multiple sources. These are facts.
.
<quoted text> I was referencing recorded history. You really have little, if any ancient precedent for any modern assumptions. Flood a myth etc. In 1850, for example not many taught human ancestors were ape like creatures. The kings of Europe traced their ancestry to Adam. That reflected their perception. Now you guy come along and say they were all wrong.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry....
<quoted text> It's not what you miss, it is what you ignore. 3000 or so years of recorded history which directly refutes modern assumptions. Moderns were wrong about many things in the past as it relates to history. David kingdom comes to mind. The problem with the moderns is they do not keep track of their many screw ups. Where the ancients were right and moderns were wrong.
<quoted text> Dating techniques which only a handful have any understanding with obvious built in materialist and old earth assumptions to accommodate common descent or macro evolution. Where is the dissent report?
Could you please provide any ANSWERS to my QUESTIONS please?
WHERE CAN I FIND THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Delete, erase, shred: enemies of federal record... 4 min Gary 1
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 4 min goonsquad 325
News Latest on Ferguson: Civil rights leaders condem... 5 min Son of Man 1,623
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min freebird 320,202
News US Congress concerned over Turkey's drift from ... 6 min goonsquad 8
News Ted Cruz Announces White House Bid 6 min Colbuzzsaw 284
News Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... (Aug '14) 7 min Spaulding Smails 6,136
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min TSM 1,206,138
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Jay 175,676
News Harry Reid to retire, will not be seeking re-el... 18 min Lawrence Wolf 56
More from around the web