Creation vs Evolution

Started by queeq221 pages

Originally posted by AngryManatee
New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

These are still not transitions from one type of creature to another. It's mainly taht different parts of the DNA get activated under different circumstances.

Re: Creation vs Evolution

Let's compare Evolution and Creationism:

Evolution
I've seen not one shred of evidence for evolution on a scale that reaches beyond inter species mutations.

Creation
I've seen what is most likely the effects of God, but no evidence of creation.

Micro-Evolution Yes, Creationism yes. Macro-Evolution no chance.

so what your trynna say iz we aint cum from munikies?

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Let's compare Evolution and Creationism:

Evolution
I've seen not one shred of evidence for evolution on a scale that reaches beyond inter species mutations.

Creation
I've seen what is most likely the effects of God, but no evidence of creation.

Micro-Evolution Yes, Creationism yes. Macro-Evolution no chance.

Oh come on. How is Creationism any more likely than Macro-Evolution.

Originally posted by queeq
These are still not transitions from one type of creature to another. It's mainly taht different parts of the DNA get activated under different circumstances.
Originally posted by inimalist
at what percentage of mutation does a fruit fly cease to be a fruit fly?
Originally posted by red g jacks
so what your trynna say iz we aint cum from munikies?

He said cum.

Originally posted by queeq
He said cum.
hysterical

Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Let's compare Evolution and Creationism:

Evolution
I've seen not one shred of evidence for evolution on a scale that reaches beyond inter species mutations.

Creation
I've seen what is most likely the effects of God, but no evidence of creation.

Micro-Evolution Yes, Creationism yes. Macro-Evolution no chance.

In the words of Michael Shermer:
I shall never forget the four words pounded into the brains of us students of evolutionary biologist Bayard Bratstram at California State University, Fullerton — "Mutants are not monsters." His point was that the public perception of mutations at the county fair — two-headed cows and the like — is not the sort of mutations evolutionists are discussing. Clearly it would be unreasonable to argue that these sorts of mutations are beneficial. But most mutations are small genetic or chromosomal aberrations that have small effects. Some of these small effects may provide benefits to an organism in an ever-changing environment. Also, the modern theory of "allopatric speciation," first proffered by Ernst Mayr and integrated into paleontology by Eldredge and Gould, demonstrates precisely how natural selection, in conjunction with other forces and contingencies of nature, can and does produce new species.

...

Since this was written, numerous lengthier defenses have emerged, all corroborated by evidence. Most take Mayr arguments further, or simply support them via more recent findings (his work on the subject was first published in the 70's). And for all your talk of the "affects of God" all it amounts to is a subjective interpretation (among many more credible interpretations) and doesn't offer a shred of evidence.

...

But really, we were having a good time posting irreverant videos. Did you really need to join to throw in this one comment, especially when it's been addressed dozens of times already in this thread? And when you esstially brought no new information to bear on the subject, resorting to familiar ID tactics of offering a constant stream of questions for evolutionists without providing a testable theory of your own?

Believe it if you want, but don't pretend its science, or that subjective observations from believers can debunk scientific evidence.

Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by DigiMark007
In the words of Michael Shermer:
I shall never forget the four words pounded into the brains of us students of evolutionary biologist Bayard Bratstram at California State University, Fullerton — "Mutants are not monsters." His point was that the public perception of mutations at the county fair — two-headed cows and the like — is not the sort of mutations evolutionists are discussing. Clearly it would be unreasonable to argue that these sorts of mutations are beneficial. But most mutations are small genetic or chromosomal aberrations that have small effects. Some of these small effects may provide benefits to an organism in an ever-changing environment. Also, the modern theory of "allopatric speciation," first proffered by Ernst Mayr and integrated into paleontology by Eldredge and Gould, demonstrates precisely how natural selection, in conjunction with other forces and contingencies of nature, can and does produce new species.

...

Since this was written, numerous lengthier defenses have emerged, all corroborated by evidence. Most take Mayr arguments further, or simply support them via more recent findings (his work on the subject was first published in the 70's). And for all your talk of the "affects of God" all it amounts to is a subjective interpretation (among many more credible interpretations) and doesn't offer a shred of evidence.

...

But really, we were having a good time posting irreverant videos. Did you really need to join to throw in this one comment, especially when it's been addressed dozens of times already in this thread? And when you esstially brought no new information to bear on the subject, resorting to familiar ID tactics of offering a constant stream of questions for evolutionists without providing a testable theory of your own?

Believe it if you want, but don't pretend its science, or that subjective observations from believers can debunk scientific evidence.

they can disprove science if they prey hard enough 😉

Originally posted by xX-Angel-Xx
Let's compare Evolution and Creationism:

Evolution
I've seen not one shred of evidence for evolution on a scale that reaches beyond inter species mutations.

Creation
I've seen what is most likely the effects of God, but no evidence of creation.

Micro-Evolution Yes, Creationism yes. Macro-Evolution no chance.


WHOB?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by chickenlover98
they can disprove science if they prey hard enough 😉

I'd like to laugh at the excellent pun, but with you it's hard to be sure if it was intended or not.

😉

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd like to laugh at the excellent pun, but with you it's hard to be sure if it was intended or not.

😉

of course it was intended. and im paticularly offended this time. thx digi, for ruining my day 😠

Lol your days almost over so you cant really complain.

Originally posted by spadoinkle
Lol your days almost over so you cant really complain.
i can complain all i want. go back to your cannibal the musical. god. i mean Chuck.

btw have i told you that theres a giant purple deathsquirrel on my porch

Many many times.

Originally posted by spadoinkle
Many many times.
ive tried the green spray paint ive thrown cheeseburgers at it, but its evolved beyond all that. what do you suggest your royalness?

Pray to the Chuck first and if that doesn't work then well have to think of something else. Pray hard though and the Chuck may bless you.

Originally posted by spadoinkle
Pray to the Chuck first and if that doesn't work then well have to think of something else. Pray hard though and the Chuck may bless you.
Chucks to busy to help poor little me. i pray to chuck every night. havent u seen my shrine?

Originally posted by queeq
He said cum.

Re: Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...

Since this was written, numerous lengthier defenses have emerged, all corroborated by evidence. Most take Mayr arguments further, or simply support them via more recent findings (his work on the subject was first published in the 70's). And for all your talk of the "affects of God" all it amounts to is a subjective interpretation (among many more credible interpretations) and doesn't offer a shred of evidence.

...

But really, we were having a good time posting irreverant videos. Did you really need to join to throw in this one comment, especially when it's been addressed dozens of times already in this thread? And when you esstially brought no new information to bear on the subject, resorting to familiar ID tactics of offering a constant stream of questions for evolutionists without providing a testable theory of your own?

Believe it if you want, but don't pretend its science, or that subjective observations from believers can debunk scientific evidence.

As far as i'm concerned, the Bible is as credible as a science book, or the quote you just sent. They're both books, both text. They both provide specific formulae(or events) that must be followed properly to get the intended result.
With God this formula is(as the bible tells us):
Undestuctable and Undoubting Faith in God + God = Whatever you want from God/Miracles/Healings galore.

Scientists themselves are as real as God.
I can't see or hear either of them right now at this moment, even if someone comes up to me and tells me they're a scientist or God, they probably wont/can't prove it to me on the spot for one reason or another.

The problem with alot of people and experiencing God is that people give up at the first hurdle, the faith area.