recent unbiased sites/publications to read about creationism vs. evolution
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
And back to my original point; you can't show that a species has ever become another species. It's not testable over thousands of years. |
Anonymous
Can you please show predictions of evolution coming true "over and over again"? Evolution as a theory originated in the 1800s. How have we been able to predict it's results and have it borne out empirically since then? |
Anonymous
OP, first you'll need to define what a species is. That's not easy to do. Many of us think of species as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. That definition of a species might seem cut and dried — and for many organisms (e.g., mammals), it works well — but in many other cases, this definition is difficult to apply. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. How can the biological species concept be applied to them? Many plants and some animals form hybrids in nature, even if they largely mate within their own groups. Should groups that occasionally hybridize in selected areas be considered the same species or separate species? The concept of a species is a fuzzy one because humans invented the concept to help get a grasp on the diversity of the natural world. It is difficult to apply because the term species reflects our attempts to give discrete names to different parts of the tree of life — which is not discrete at all, but a continuous web of life, connected from its roots to its leaves. So, start there. |
Anonymous
I believe you just wrote above that the Wikipedia article did not mention spontaneously mutating from one species to another. Well, it wouldn't, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTION IS. Please read what several pp's have written about what evolution is, that you seem to be ignoring. And yes, if you start with a dog, you'll end with a dog. But trace that dog's ancestry back via DNA, and you will find it had a common ancestor with other, similar animals, such as a wolf. That common ancestor did not mutate suddenly and become a dog. But many generations ago, common ancestors did undergo mutations that changed their genotypes in such a way that eventually their phenotype so changed as well, and a new species came about. The forerunner then most likely died out as this new species was better equipped to survive. Do you think that the dachshunds of today are identical to the dogs kept by the pharaohs? The ancestors of dogs lived before Old Testament times, btw. |
Anonymous
Aren't you avoiding the main point? You're talking bout dogs looking different thousands of years ago, but still being dogs, or related to wolfs and such and "similar animals." But the basic premise of evolution is that everything branched out from one single-celled organism, and there isn't anything observable that even remotely supports this viewpoint. You post doesn't go too far to explain that. And "common ancestors under(went) mutations that changed their genotypes in such a way that eventually their phenotype so changed as well, and a new species came about" is speculation. No one can show that happening. You all are oversimplifying what I'm saying -- that a dog had babies and out came a cat! -- but your basic point is that at some point, you have a new species. And I'm saying this is not an observable, testable, repeatable hypothesis. |
Anonymous
|
OP, evolution is not the study of all life coming from a single-called organism. If you are truly interested in this, and not just trolling, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Chromosome_2_in_humans. Then read some of the reference articles linked at the end (the one about speciation w/in drosophila is a good one). These can explain it much better than anyone on DCUM, and in truth, it's a very complex theory that not everyone understands/can grasp. If you are waiting for someone to come along and agree with you that you can't reproduce the lineage/all the steps that went into getting to a dog, well, let me be that person. But I think you are being somewhat disingenuous (or perhaps just one of those people who has trouble grasping complex theories-it does seem that way from your replies attempting to reduce evolution down to 1 single repeatable experiment) to conclude that just because we can't actually observe species changing over millions of years makes it false. If I were to ask where the hard proof is that God created every single specie on earth, what would be your answer? Or if I asked why he's not creating a new Earth every generation or so for us to observe him repeating his past deed...how can you explain/prove that? |
Anonymous
You're assuming that predictions must be about the future. Many predictions based on evolution are about how things happened in the past. Just to name a few: • Jaw to Ear Transition: In 1837, C.B. Reichert observed that when pig fetuses were growing, there was a point at which a portion of the jawbone detaches to become the tiny bones of the middle ear. One of the early predictions of the Theory of Evolution was that there should exist a fossil between reptiles and mammals that essentially has two separate jaws, one of which was smaller and near the ear. When fossils of early cynodonts were found, specifically the Diarthrognathus (“two-jointed jaw”), this prediction was found to be true. • Trilobite Precursors: Darwin predicted that precursors to trilobites should be found in pre-Cambrian fossils, honestly acknowledging that a lack of such would be bad for the theory. Consistent with his prediction, precursor fossils have been found. • Long-tongued Moth: Darwin predicted in 1862, from observation of the Madagascar Star orchid, that there should exist a species of moth with a tongue a bit less than 30 cm (specifically “between 10 and 11 inches”). At the time, one with a tongue that long had not been discovered. However, evolution predicts a battle between the orchid and moths in an “arms race” to get/deny nectar without proper “payment” in the form of pollination. In 1903, A hawk moth with a tongue around 300 mm was discovered, satisfying Darwin's predictions. • Archaeopteryx Teeth: When the first Archaeopteryx fossils were found, the head was not in good shape and had no teeth. Then when Ichtyhornis and Hesperornis were found in 1872, they were determined to be seabirds, but they retained teeth. Henry Woodward of the British Museum, predicted that that the archaeopteryx should also have had teeth since reptiles had teeth, and birds descended from them. Woodward recognized the controversy of his proposal, writing “But, it may be urged, ‘your proposition that the Archaeopteryx had teeth is a pure assumption. Show me some evidence of a fossil bird whose head and skeleton are in juxtaposition so as to leave no reasonable doubt of their unity’”. Like Darwin's prediction regarding trilobite precursors, if the Archeopteryx didn’t have teeth, that was a problem for evolution. In 1877, more intact Archaeopteryx fossils were found with teeth. • Antarctica, and its fossils: We didn’t always knows Antarctica existed (nor did we understand continental drift or the idea of Pangaea). In 1893, H.O. Forbes presented a paper at the Royal Geographic Society in which he discussed his findings in the Chatham Islands. He (and other naturalists) predicted that there should have existed a large sub-tropical southern continent because of the wide variety of species whose distribution only made sense in light of there being this continent. At this time Antarctica had been spotted, but was seen as just being ice shelves. At this time scientists were just starting work on the idea of prior large connected continents that broke up over millions of years. In any case, Antarctica was obviously finally discovered. One of the predictions was based on similarities between marsupials in Australia and Patagonia, arguing that while there were obviously not going to be live marsupials in the current Antarctic environment, there should be fossils in the Antarctic from the Mesozoic era. These were found in 1982, with Polydolops - a 9-foot marsupial. • Flying Insects with Hemocyanin: The theory of evolution held for a long time that flying insects evolved from gilled crustaceans. Those crustaceans use a protein known as hemocyanin to circulate oxygen. Evolutionary theory would hold that there should be still be remnants of that in some flying insects, but none had been found. In 2003, scientists discovered a type of stonefly (generally considered to be some of the most “primitive” of insects, which makes sense) which still had functional versions of that protein. • Ancestral Whale with Teeth and Baleen: There are two types of whales: those that have teeth, and those that have baleen to filter their food. None exist currently that have both. On the assumption that all whales must have descended from a common ancestor, it was predicted that there must have existed a whale that had both teeth and baleen at the point in time when the two diverged. Even today, baleen whales start with tooth buds that disappear (evidence that the toothed whale was first). In 2008 this transitional form was found to have existed 24-28 million years ago. • “Junk” DNA Fingerprinting: “Junk” DNA can be used to predict whether two seemingly-unrelated animals shared a common ancestor. When we know that two species are related, we can predict whether or not they will share certain sequences of “junk” DNA. For example, There is a particular sequence found in hippos, whales and cows but not in humans, mice, kangaroo, elephants or horses. This would lead to conclusion that there was a common ancestor that split off from the evolutionary tree that is shared by hippos, whales and cows (which is true). And based on this theory, they should be able to find this same set of “junk” DNA in deer, but not in monkeys. (Were they to find this particular “junk” DNA in monkeys, it would actually be a point against evolution, since the retro-virus that caused it came after the ancestor to primates. It hasn't been found there.) As another example, both guinea pigs and humans have a specific defect in the gene that encodes for Vitamin C processing, meaning that anything from guinea pigs up to humans should have that mutation (the genetic divergence would have occurred approximately 20 million years ago). If this exact same “typo” (of the same letters) were found outside of the primate line from guinea pigs to humans, that would be a problem for evolution. As with the previous example, it hasn't been found outside of that line. • Location of Human Ancestors: Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence. • Relationship Between Speed of Change in Environment and Mutation Rate: Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients. Ernst Mayr also predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied by faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction. Going beyond just predictions, evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas. For example: • Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. • Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture. • Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields. • Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. • Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations has been used to help guide public health policy. • Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction. There are no countervailing examples of successful predictions made using creationism/intelligent design as an underlying framework. Here's the NOVA site for the Dover School Board case (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html) where Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush, ruled in a 139-page opinion that intelligent design is not science. (Here's the full opinion - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.pdf) |
Anonymous
|
It's observed and tested every time a scientist makes a new discovery of a fossil, a species, or maps out a genome. They either prove or disprove the theory. Hypothetically, if a human fossil is discovered right to a dinosaur fossil, that is an observation related to evolution, it is a test of what we know about evolution, and it is repeatable every time we find a similar discovery in any of the various lines of evidence. In this hypothetical case, with a human and dinosaur fossil found together, it would disprove what we know about evolution. But so far it hasn't happened.
If you want to look at one recent study of "predicting evolution" or something, Google an study called "predicting evolution with generalized models of divergent selection: a case study with poeciliid fish" by R. Brian Langerhans. It's available for free on icb.oxfordjournals.org maybe that's more what you are looking for. |
Anonymous
Thank you. I admit I'm not a biological scientist, and I doubt many on here are. So the point is that lots of different organisms occurred spontaneously, and from those different species evolved independently? I think either way, my point hasn't been addressed. I'm not saying, nor have I said, that not being able to reproduce it makes it false. I'm saying I don't see how it is "science" if you can't test it in the way you test other sciences. I'm not saying you have hard proof that God created everything either, and whether I believe that or not, we haven't addressed how evolution is "science." It's theory, in the same way the Big Bang is a theory. There are a lot of "somehow" involved, none of which you can test. My questions have nothing to do with science vs. religion. You can prove if I throw a ball in the air, it will come down, and you can explain scientifically why. You can't prove that 13 billion years ago an infinitesimal point of light that contained all the matter in the universe and exploded into what we have today, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. And you can't prove that all life on earth today came from however many life forms that spontaneously arose from the beginnings of the planet, and you can't explain scientifically that's what happened. Indeed, there ARE repeatable, provable, testable experiments that you can't get matter from nothing and that life won't spontaneously erupt and that when a species reproduces it gets more of that species. So I'm just don't know why so many people call evolution and the Big Bang "science." (Sorry to introduce the Big Bang; I'm not trying muddy the waters or expand this into a religious thing. They just seem very alike to me as theories). |
Anonymous
Funny how finding a human and a dinosaur together would disprove evolution. There are millions of different species with varying degrees of complexity all over the world. If you believe evolution is "science," do you believe this is the final state of things? If so, haven't you just contradicted yourself? And if you don't believe we're in the final state of things (which I assume you don't), why would the current millions of species not disprove evolution, but a dinosaur and a human found together disprove it. Does the fossil record have just one species around at a time? I think the fossil record shows incredible diversity no matter when you look at it. Maybe I'm wrong about that. |
Anonymous
You test it whenever you acquire new data. That new data doesn't have to be created in the lab. It can be new fossil records. The scientific test is that it stands up whenever new data is introduced. |
Anonymous
| What you are looking for is impossible. Science can never disprove faith, and faith can never disprove science. Evolution is a scientific theory with all the flaws and issues that any scientific theory has. But scientists will never throw up their hands and say "oh well, my theory was disproven, I guess an unknowable and all seeing god created life." Instead they will come up with a new hypothesis. That is the scientific method. But that same scientist may go to church on Sunday and worship his "creator." That is religion. Science and religion are two separate things. Judge science by scientific standards and religion by religious standards. Don't try to compare them to each other. |
Anonymous
Actually OP hasn't brought religion into this much. Which is why it's odd she's posting in the religion forum and won't give her views and reasons for asking these questions (not that she's required to, really, it just seems...trollish). |
Anonymous
|
OP doesn't sounds like they want to be convinced, but...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ "Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created." This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. |
Anonymous
Science is not limited to what we can reproduce in a laboratory. Think about weather, or planets, or plate tectonics. Observation of the natural world is just as important as experimentation. |