recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

So you can do experiments on evolution?

NP here. Yes, of course you can. See earlier PP's comment about experiments with fruit flies such as the ubiquitous D. melanogaster and bacteria, etc.

Did fruit flies or D. melangoster mutate into another species?

From this, I really don't think you have the factual background to ask questions. How about you get a few textbooks about evolution, read them, maybe take a class or two?

I'm not sure if you're really interested or trolling, but if you're really interested, you're not going to understand the answers to this sort of question without very fundamental knowledge of how evolution, mutation, selection, adaption, etc work.

[Anonymous]

OP, this may help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

A theory in this case is not the same as a theory in, say, detective work. A scientific theory is based on the evidence of many scientists and their observations/experiments (for example, a similar scientific theory is the cell theory, which is not disputed at all). The only reason it is called a theory is that there are no physical laws governing it (like gravity, motion, etc), and so it can happen in several different ways-it is fluid. But theory does not mean it is a guess or open to changing.

So you can do experiments on evolution?

NP here. Yes, of course you can. See earlier PP's comment about experiments with fruit flies such as the ubiquitous D. melanogaster and bacteria, etc.

Did fruit flies or D. melangoster mutate into another species?

From this, I really don't think you have the factual background to ask questions. How about you get a few textbooks about evolution, read them, maybe take a class or two?

I'm not sure if you're really interested or trolling, but if you're really interested, you're not going to understand the answers to this sort of question without very fundamental knowledge of how evolution, mutation, selection, adaption, etc work.

From this, I'm not sure you can really answer the question, so you've referred me to a textbook. Changes within a community and changes to another species are entirely different things. I'm pretty sure fruit flies and bacteria have never been shown to have become different species in the way that evolution is said to have done. If you really understand, please try to enlighten me. I don't think asking a question on a forum like this is trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

It is testable and reproducible -- scientists have done many studies or smaller organism, such as bacteria and fruit flies, that show how mutations at the individual level over time lead to larger changes at the community level.

It is also observable, through the fossil record.

Do those bacteria and fruit fly studies show a mutation to a new species, or just a change in the community? I'm sure traits within a community change, but that's not the same thing as a species change. I'm not sure how fossils can show a change from one species to another. I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Yes, there are studies that show how mutations can lead to the creations of new "species" ie sets of organisms that can mate with each other, but not with their original ancestors.

Fossils show that different organisms existed on earth over time and comparative genomics shows unequivocally that many species on earth (ie as many as we have sequenced the genomes of or important parts of) are consistent with having come from a common ancestor and diversified through a process of slow mutation over time.

This data all shows that evolution is the single most consistent explanation for the life we observe today of all other scientific theories. That said, no theory can ever rule out the involvement of a supernatural diety or agent. IE we cannot ever rule out a creationist story that happened before we were all born, but we also cannot use science to discount theories that God smote Malaysian Airlines flight 320, or that God caused airplanes to fly into the World Trade center rather than the terrorists most people believe to be responsible for this action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, this may help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

This article only mentions traits within a species. No mention of mutation from one species to an entirely different one.

The interesting thing about the Biblical account, is that each species reproduced "according to its kind," mean start with a dog, get another dog. So what's interesting is that this "according to its kind" reproduction is actually repeatable, observable, testable, reproducible; in other words, "science."

[Anonymous]

divergent evolution: when one species becomes two species, usually due to new habitats. This is how scientists explain that humans and apes have a common ancestor. The common ancestor may have been somewhat secluded in one area, and over time that group of descendants developed new characteristics to adapt to their particular environment. In another somewhat secluded area, the common ancestor's descendants develop "different" characteristics in order to adapt to their environment. At some point these two groups become too different to interbreed. And therefore become different species.

There are several lines of evidence, that when taken together, show this occurring. Fossil record, geographical diversity, DNA, anatomy, etc. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an easy, modern day example that is helpful to explore as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can I find unbiased information to answer questions about creationism vs. evolution? Are there any?

What do you mean by "unbiased"? From a scientific perspective the evidence is sufficiently strong that the and considered so settled that scientists consider evolution to be a fact, while the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for how it happened. There is continuing research in various niches about how evolution happened, but there is no practical controversy among scientists that it did happen.

Some religious groups object to this on the grounds that it seems to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible or does not explicitly require the intervention of a deity.

The concept that there is actually any scientific debate on the is the product of the media's desire to simplify issues into a debate which one representative for each side, as well as the arguments from groups like the Discovery Institute that schools should "teach the controversy" (when there isn't actually any from a scientific perspective).

For some good background you might look up the PBS documentary on the Dover School Board case. In that trial, every argument made by the creationists was shot down by scientists and the judge issued an opinion that was pretty devastating to the cause of creationism.

John Oliver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where can I find unbiased information to answer questions about creationism vs. evolution? Are there any?

What do you mean by "unbiased"? From a scientific perspective the evidence is sufficiently strong that the and considered so settled that scientists consider evolution to be a fact, while the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for how it happened. There is continuing research in various niches about how evolution happened, but there is no practical controversy among scientists that it did happen.

Some religious groups object to this on the grounds that it seems to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible or does not explicitly require the intervention of a deity.

The concept that there is actually any scientific debate on the is the product of the media's desire to simplify issues into a debate which one representative for each side, as well as the arguments from groups like the Discovery Institute that schools should "teach the controversy" (when there isn't actually any from a scientific perspective).

For some good background you might look up the PBS documentary on the Dover School Board case. In that trial, every argument made by the creationists was shot down by scientists and the judge issued an opinion that was pretty devastating to the cause of creationism.

John Oliver

^^ oops. Was going to say something else about a show John Oliver did. Wasn't trying to imply that John Oliver wrote that post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It terrifies me that people are now approaching this issue as if creationism is equivalent to science. Wow.

FWIW, this is a main driver for having Common Core. It's what parents forget about when they complain about it. The agenda to end Common Core originates with hard-right religious nutjobs (i.e. the American Taliban) that want to teach creationism in schools, among other things.

[Anonymous]

OP, it seems you want experiments that show one species magically turning into another-as in a fruit fly mutates to a housefly and voila! a new species is created! That is science fiction and NOT evolution. Changes in characteristics is what leads to evolution. Little by little, characteristics change within a population, over several/many generations. Nature tends to select those characteristics which allow the species to produce more offspring (the whole point of life-to produce more!). Many time, geographical features play into this, with several different populations developing their own distinct set of characteristics. Over time, the resulting organism has different enough characteristics that it is no longer the same as its ancestor, and if the two were to mate, no viable offspring would be produced. Fruit flies are ideal to show these changes because they breed so quickly and we can manipulate their genomes easily.

I am interested as to why you are asking this. Are you a creationist? If so, what are your views exactly about how species change? Or do you not believe they change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, this may help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

This article only mentions traits within a species. No mention of mutation from one species to an entirely different one.

The interesting thing about the Biblical account, is that each species reproduced "according to its kind," mean start with a dog, get another dog. So what's interesting is that this "according to its kind" reproduction is actually repeatable, observable, testable, reproducible; in other words, "science."

OP, please see what I wrote above. What you are looking for is not evolution. No scientist ever said that if you breed dogs together, they will one day mutate spontaneously into a cat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, this may help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

This article only mentions traits within a species. No mention of mutation from one species to an entirely different one.

The interesting thing about the Biblical account, is that each species reproduced "according to its kind," mean start with a dog, get another dog. So what's interesting is that this "according to its kind" reproduction is actually repeatable, observable, testable, reproducible; in other words, "science."

OP, please see what I wrote above. What you are looking for is not evolution. No scientist ever said that if you breed dogs together, they will one day mutate spontaneously into a cat.

And you're simplifying what I wrote. What I am saying is that you'll always get a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, this may help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

This article only mentions traits within a species. No mention of mutation from one species to an entirely different one.

The interesting thing about the Biblical account, is that each species reproduced "according to its kind," mean start with a dog, get another dog. So what's interesting is that this "according to its kind" reproduction is actually repeatable, observable, testable, reproducible; in other words, "science."

OP, please see what I wrote above. What you are looking for is not evolution. No scientist ever said that if you breed dogs together, they will one day mutate spontaneously into a cat.

And you're simplifying what I wrote. What I am saying is that you'll always get a dog.

Not that PP, but with one mating. Yes. But not necessarily over thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it seems you want experiments that show one species magically turning into another-as in a fruit fly mutates to a housefly and voila! a new species is created! That is science fiction and NOT evolution. Changes in characteristics is what leads to evolution. Little by little, characteristics change within a population, over several/many generations. Nature tends to select those characteristics which allow the species to produce more offspring (the whole point of life-to produce more!). Many time, geographical features play into this, with several different populations developing their own distinct set of characteristics. Over time, the resulting organism has different enough characteristics that it is no longer the same as its ancestor, and if the two were to mate, no viable offspring would be produced. Fruit flies are ideal to show these changes because they breed so quickly and we can manipulate their genomes easily.

I am interested as to why you are asking this. Are you a creationist? If so, what are your views exactly about how species change? Or do you not believe they change?

Sure, the traits of a species change. That's how dog breeders do it; that's what happens to those fruit flies; that's what happens when people have babies. But that's not the question. But a species reproducing will yield the same species. That's a scientific fact that can be shown to be true. Evolution can only be theorized, because you can't show that a species doesn't yield the same species when it reproduces; you can actually show the opposite. My point is that I don't understand why evolution is called "science" when it's basic premise cannot be scientifically shown, only theorized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please excuse the questions, but is evolution really science? I thought it was a theory. It's neither testable nor reproducible nor observable. Thought you needed those things to validate a scientific theory.

Evolution is a theory. So is the idea of gravity. Theory is a scientific word for an explanation.

You can't directly observe either evolution or gravity, you can only observe the results. But you can use both evolution and gravity to make predictions. If predictions are confirmed over and over again, as they have been for both evolution and gravity, then we would say that that theory is science.

Creationism isn't based on science. There is zero scientific evidence to support it. People who believe in creationism are either deeply religious people who accept the Bible or another religious text as evidence, or they are idiots who don't understand science.