Does Evolution exist at all?

[Alchemy]

Does evolution exist in any form?

If you are a proponent of Creation, do you believe that evolution is at work in any form or is everything created by God?

If you believe the latter, how do you account for bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin or rabbits becoming immune to Myxomatosis?

Do you believe that God actually changed the make up of some bacteria to make penicillin ineffective and thereby increasing human suffering?

These bacteria have certainly changed in some way for them to be resistant to Penicillin so if you dont believe God intervened in the change of these bacteria, are you not acknowledging the make up of these bacteria changed by some other method and have obviously passed on something to their offspring who are also resistant to Penicillin? This is one of the basic concepts of Evolution. If not, how do you account for this phenomenon?

Do you believe that when God was creating the Rabbits, he made some that were immune to Myxomatosis and some that werent? If not, how do you account for the fact that some rabbits have not died from Myxomatosis despite continued exposure to it and the offspring of those rabbits that did not die are also very likely not to die from it. The offspring of those off spring are even more likely not to die and so it goes on until we have the current situation where in some environments 50% of the rabbit population are now immune to Myxomatosis?

[FrostyM288]

Even if they were all lab experiments, it would not detract from their findings. The point of a lab experiment is to control the variables and get to the crux of a question. In this case, if there is selective pressure, does evolution and speciation occur?

The fact that the experiment is "doctored" means nothing since that was the point. If speciation did happen, we know now that selective pressure can cause speciation. If there is selective pressure in nature, then speciation can happen in nature, though obviously the process is a lot more complex since it is a lot more variable than a lab setting.

[Grumpy]

TheMessenger

Sorry to rain on your parade but none of these are valid. Might you have evidence of a new species outside of a controlled lab environment? Forcing mutations in a lab is hardly natural evidence of evolving species......I have read these before.

Reading and understanding are evidently two incompatable things for you, then. You demanded evidence and we buried you and your argument in it. Still, from the bottom of the stack comes the whimper "Evidence? What ow...groan evidence?"

By the way, not one of the new species I listed was grown in a lab, they all occurred naturally, evolving in the short time the nylon wastes have existed. It is incontrovertable(at least by you)confirmation of examples of two species existing where before there was only one. So your statement about such speciation never happening is just your ignorance and prejudice, not fact.

Grumpy

[Noah IV]

First Post; love the site. I enjoy reading posts, even from those I disagree with. The tone and professionalism here is encouraging. Every topic is interesting and the view points enlightening. I expect to learn a lot here.

On track, though, I have a question on macro evolution.

First, I want to acknowledge that macro and micro are rhetoric used by creationists to describe the same thing. More accurately would be adaptations and speciation.

The question I have, though, (and this may clear up confusion as to why it only happens in labs so far) is why do we not witness speciation in natural settings?

Am I mistaken as it has happened? If so, I'd enjoy being directed to the content in available for I may be familiarized of it.

Or, does it not happen due to requiring more time than avaliable in a human life-time, or rare circumstances that are not as common as they used to be?

I am familiar with how speciaition could occur, but why do we not see it in nature in our time?

(( Edit ))

[ I saw Grumpy's post above and saw where he referenced a natural example. I guess a revised question would be why we do not see more examples, especially in more complex animals? ]

Thank you.

[Wootah]

Grumpy,

The Nylon Waste bug
http://creation.com/the-adaptation-of-b ... ylon-waste

If you do read the article are you prepared to concede anything in relation to the nylon waste bug?

[Goat]

First Post; love the site. I enjoy reading posts, even from those I disagree with. The tone and professionalism here is encouraging. Every topic is interesting and the view points enlightening. I expect to learn a lot here.

On track, though, I have a question on macro evolution.

First, I want to acknowledge that macro and micro are rhetoric used by creationists to describe the same thing. More accurately would be adaptations and speciation.

The question I have, though, (and this may clear up confusion as to why it only happens in labs so far) is why do we not witness speciation in natural settings?

We have.. if you read earlier, the list of plant specialization events were all in the wild.
Then, the list of bacteria events the Grumpy listed were all in the wild. There were also such other examples such as the Faeroe island mouse.

Am I mistaken as it has happened? If so, I'd enjoy being directed to the content in available for I may be familiarized of it.

See my comment above.. ... also http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

Or, does it not happen due to requiring more time than avaliable in a human life-time, or rare circumstances that are not as common as they used to be?

We have seen it... however, the examples that we are given tend to be things like mice, which have a fairly short life cycle.

I am familiar with how speciaition could occur, but why do we not see it in nature in our time?

(( Edit ))

[ I saw Grumpy's post above and saw where he referenced a natural example. I guess a revised question would be why we do not see more examples, especially in more complex animals? ]

If you look at the link I have above, we see we have observed that in mammals, however, they tend to be shorter lived animals. We have even seen the development of an extra stomach in lizards, which shows a potential for a speciation event,

http://www.physorg.com/news127667797.html

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

The Nylon Waste bug
http://creation.com/the-adaptation-of-b ... ylon-waste

If you do read the article are you prepared to concede anything in relation to the nylon waste bug?

Let's look at who Creation.com is...

...
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
...
Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
...
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
...
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, mans sin.
...
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
...
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
...
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

But perhaps the most important'n...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This is an organization that refuses to accept valid science by rejecting a priori anything that contridicts their sacred religious texts.

This organization, and those who accept the "science" of this organization, expose themselves as anti-science religious zealots.

[Lux]

Moderator Warning

Reading and understanding are evidently two incompatable things for you, then.

So your statement about such speciation never happening is just your ignorance and prejudice, not fact.

Personal attacks not only don't help your argument at all, they are against the rules. Direct your attention towards the topic only.

[Noah IV]

Thank you for the response, I hate to appear to have not read the posts before. I had, but I was mislead by one post stating all examples stated were in the lab. That goes to show I need to lower my naive trusting nature, and secure a more skeptical posture.

On top of that, it doesn't hurt to read a bit more thoroughly on my part.

Thanks again, but I have a follow up question. You stated we do observe it, and I have reviewed the material (very fascinating stuff, showing occasional instances of theoretically complete speciation. Why is this not advertised more openly?) and I am pleased to see sited examples.

My question, though, is why we do not see it in larger mammals, or animals?

This is more of a curiosity, since any natural speciation is all that is required to support the claim of 'macro' evolution. I expect to be asked by evolution skeptics why its not more common. For arguments sake its common enough. Any thoughts on its limit to the smaller animals? (Labs show its possible, but for the laymen, a natural example shows that it actually does happen. Limited imaginations need not apply, its there before your eyes.)

[Goat]

Thank you for the response, I hate to appear to have not read the posts before. I had, but I was mislead by one post stating all examples stated were in the lab. That goes to show I need to lower my naive trusting nature, and secure a more skeptical posture.

On top of that, it doesn't hurt to read a bit more thoroughly on my part.

Thanks again, but I have a follow up question. You stated we do observe it, and I have reviewed the material (very fascinating stuff, showing occasional instances of theoretically complete speciation. Why is this not advertised more openly?) and I am pleased to see sited examples.

My question, though, is why we do not see it in larger mammals, or animals?

This is more of a curiosity, since any natural speciation is all that is required to support the claim of 'macro' evolution. I expect to be asked by evolution skeptics why its not more common. For arguments sake its common enough. Any thoughts on its limit to the smaller animals? (Labs show its possible, but for the laymen, a natural example shows that it actually does happen. Limited imaginations need not apply, its there before your eyes.)

We have not observed it because larger mammals have a much longer life span than mice.. and we have not been looking for this to happen as long. We can see situations that show evidence of it.. but we have not observed the event itself. For example, we have observed that lions and tigers can produce offspring, but the males are sterile, and the females are mostly fertile. In donkeys and horses, we see sterile offspring. This is what is expected with the process of evolution.

[Grumpy]

Noah IV

First Post; love the site.

Welcome, all reasonable debate is encouraged.

The question I have, though, (and this may clear up confusion as to why it only happens in labs so far) is why do we not witness speciation in natural settings?

We do, but speciation requires reproduction, it is only the offspring that have new traits. And, given our short lives we concentrate on evolution in smaller, faster reproducing organisms, but even they can take years of research to detect new traits. We try to force these changes by putting the organism under stress in a lab but natural changes are driven mostly by changes in the environment. Thus you get species that do not change much(like sharks and crocodiles)because their environment hasn't changed much.

But we do see evolution in nature, blind fish in caves once could see. They evolved to not have sight due to the darkness of the cave. We can trace the development of feathers in dinosaurs from fluff for warmth as chicks to body coverings for display to streamlining for running to flat assymetric foils fror gliding and finally, for flight. Where along that line do you point to a species and say "bird"?

While we are a long way from understanding everything about evolution, the evidence is undeniable.

Grumpy