Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

Has there ever been an account of an observed instance of a change of kind? i.e., a population of fish evolving into something other than a fish ? Yes we have the fossil record, but this is not evidence of a change of kind. Many will also say the galapagos finches, or other examples of adaptation. But that is all it is, an adaptation; they are still birds, the same kind.

Sure, you can look at a chain of kinds (like that picture of fish becoming amphibians, then monkeys, then humans, etc) but this may simply be a vestige of embryology. The human embryo goes through the series of the proposed evolutionary development. At one point the human embryo even has gills. Perhaps, the theory of evolution is nothing more than an embryologic description. If you are going to give evidence against what I have said, all I ask for is an observed change of kind, like a fish becoming an amphibian. Otherwise, without an observable instance of evolution, we are left to only believe in this theory, because it has not been demonstrated by scientific experiment.

"What about creationism, that has never been demonstrated"

There has been demonstrations that imply that creation is possible. An experiment by Andrew Crosse was able to create moving, living bugs with nothing but silicates, water, and electricity, which are the same initial conditions in Genesis 1:1-3 (light is electromagnetism, and so is electricity). To prove his experiment was genuine, and not just an infestation by biological eggs, WH Weekes of the London Electrical Society recreated the experiment. His aseptic technique involved roasting the equipment at over 400 degrees (115 degrees is the recommended temperature for certainly eradicating the eggs of bed bugs) , and bathing the set-up in mercury. He successfully got the same bugs that Crosse did. The full description of both of their experiments can be read in "Abiogenesis and life from Dirt".

The concept of biologically recognizable forms arising from non-biological means has been demonstrated in other experiments too, including the morley-martin experiment in which biologically recognizable forms arose from a primordial goo and electricity. Charles Littlefield's experiments, in "man, minerals and masters" demonstrated that words alone could generate recognizable forms in mineralized water (See John 1). To not believe these experiments would be to deny scientific evidence.

To put it bluntly, scientific experiment has demonstrated aspects of creationism, but has yet to generate observable evidence that a given kind can change into a different kind over time. All I am asking for is an example of an observed change of kind.

a reply to: cooperton

To put it bluntly, scientific experiment has demonstrated aspects of creationism,

Like what, for example? Andrew Crosse was not a god and he created nothing.

Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments.

en.wikipedia.org...

All I am asking for is an example of an observed change of kind.

"Kind" religious terminology. Can you define it more scientifically?

Are you aware of the timescales involved with evolution?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

All I am asking for is an example of an observed change of kind.

"Kind" religious terminology. Can you define it more scientifically?

Let's keep it simple. you can see a bird is a bird, a fish is a fish, a bacterium is a bacterium, etc. Is there evidence of a fish begetting something that is no longer a fish, or a bird begetting something that is no longer a bird?

"Crosse did not claim that he had created the insects. He assumed that there were insect eggs embedded in his samples. Later commentators agreed that the insects were probably cheese mites or dust mites that had contaminated Crosse's instruments."

This was to avoid scrutiny from the ignorant religious folk of the time who claimed only God could create (ironically they didnt realize it was the best evidence for creationism to date). The book abiogenesis and life from dirt has the entire scientific description of both the initial experiment and the recreation by the london electrical society.

a reply to: cooperton

Is there evidence of a fish begetting something that is no longer a fish, or a bird begetting something that is no longer a bird?

Begetting. Good one. Nice and biblical sounding.
No, there is no such evidence because that doesn't happen. It also has nothing to do with evolution. Not surprising you don't know that.

The book abiogenesis and life from dirt has the entire scientific description of both the initial experiment and the recreation by the london electrical society.

I'll just bet it does. I'll also bet it has nothing to do with science.

a reply to: cooperton

There has been demonstrations that imply that creation is possible. An experiment by Andrew Crosse was able to create moving, living bugs with nothing but silicates, water, and electricity, which are the same initial conditions in Genesis 1:1-3 (light is electromagnetism, and so is electricity). To prove his experiment was genuine, and not just an infestation by biological eggs, WH Weekes of the London Electrical Society recreated the experiment. His aseptic technique involved roasting the equipment at over 400 degrees (115 degrees is the recommended temperature for certainly eradicating the eggs of bed bugs) , and bathing the set-up in mercury. He successfully got the same bugs that Crosse did. The full description of both of their experiments can be read in "Abiogenesis and life from Dirt".

Are you saying the 'Creator' is merely a conjurer of cheap tricks?

I mean if a couple of men in the 1830s could do it....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Begetting. Good one.

No there is no such evidence because that doesn't happen. It also has nothing to do with evolution.

"All I am asking for is an example of an observed change of kind."

so your answer to that^ is no? I don't mean to sound condescending, but a toddler could recognize different kinds of animals. Is there observable evidence that one kind can evolve into another?

The book abiogenesis and life from dirt has the entire scientific description of both the initial experiment and the recreation by the london electrical society.

I'll just bet it does. I'll also bet it has nothing to do with science.

Science is based on observable evidence, and they generated observable evidence while maintaining proper controls to ensure no infestation occurred.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: cooperton

There has been demonstrations that imply that creation is possible. An experiment by Andrew Crosse was able to create moving, living bugs with nothing but silicates, water, and electricity, which are the same initial conditions in Genesis 1:1-3 (light is electromagnetism, and so is electricity). To prove his experiment was genuine, and not just an infestation by biological eggs, WH Weekes of the London Electrical Society recreated the experiment. His aseptic technique involved roasting the equipment at over 400 degrees (115 degrees is the recommended temperature for certainly eradicating the eggs of bed bugs) , and bathing the set-up in mercury. He successfully got the same bugs that Crosse did. The full description of both of their experiments can be read in "Abiogenesis and life from Dirt".

Are you saying the 'Creator' is merely a conjurer of cheap tricks?

I mean if a couple of men in the 1830s could do it....

I am not... but rather, if a couple people in the 19th century can accidentally make life from these conditions, then a more knowledgeable, capable being could have created the complex life we see today from similar conditions.

a reply to: cooperton

Is there observable evidence that one kind can evolve into another?

Yes, there are extensive fossil records of that having happened. For the "kind" you are speaking of, it takes millions upon millions of years.
Wait, let me guess. The world is not that old, right?

Science is based on observable evidence, and they generated observable evidence while maintaining proper controls to ensure no infestation occurred.

Sure they did.

I'll keep this respectable as you don't seem to be the type of Creationist who just attempts to slander everything. Thanks for that

Firstly, it's extremely apparent that you're getting all your information about Evolution from Creation-based websites and sources. No respectable Evolutionary Biologist would ever refer to a species or genus as a "kind". There is no such thing as one "kind" going to another "kind" because the word "kind" isn't descriptive enough to display what you're actually referring to. Right now I have no idea what you want us to attempt to prove to you. Do you want speciation? Or do you want us to demonstrate the divergence from one genus to another? or are you talking about any of the following: Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain, Family?

The issue is, if you want to debate scientific information, you must refer to things in the "scientific language" of whatever branch of science you're discussing. To use outside terminology is far more than confusing, it's inaccurate considering that terminology vague and often incorrect to begin with.



Once you point out exactly which you would like evidence for, I will provide it (as we have evidence for the divergence and branching of all those classifications)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Is there observable evidence that one kind can evolve into another?

Yes, there are extensive fossil records of that have happened.

The fossil record shows different kinds of animals, but it does not prove that a certain kind evolved from another kind.

Science is based on observable evidence, and they generated observable evidence while maintaining proper controls to ensure no infestation occurred.

Sure they did.

Here is an excerpt that demonstrates their precaution:

"Adjacent to the shore, and about two miles from the town of Sandwich, there exist immense ridges of silicious stones, from which the waters have long since retired. These stones have, doubtless, at some former period, been rounded by the long- continued action of the ocean into what we now provincially denominate "bowlders.” One of these, weighing from four to five pounds, I selected for my purpose; and having broken it with a hammer, I obtained several pieces of fine black flint from the central part of the stone. These were made red hot in a wind furnace, then quenched in water, and reduced, in an iron mortar, to a state of very fine powder. To one ounce of this powder I added three ounces of carbonate of potass, and fused the whole into a dark green glass, by means of a furnace heat directed for a considerable time upon a Hessian crucible, in which the mixture had been previously made. Upon removing the crucible from the fire, its contents were immediately discharged into a stoneware jar, containing a pint of boiling distilled renter, which, having closely covered, I left standing for the space of six hours, when the solution was carefully filtered through Dutch paper, under cover of a large glass receiver occasionally em¬ployed in my laboratory manipulations for the purpose of screen¬ing delicate processes from the action of dust and currents of air. The operation of filtering having been completed, about half a pint of the clear solution of silicate of potass thus obtained was poured into the tumbler n, when the bell-glass which had in the mean time been made hot over a clear fire, and then carefully wiped from every particle of dust and other matter, was instantly brought over and deposited in the circular mercurial trough of the block the rim of the bell dipping at least three-tenths of an inch beneath the surface of the metal, from which, op to the date hereof, it has never been removed, or in any way encountered the slightest disturbance."

a reply to: cooperton

I am not...

Maybe not intentionally...

if a couple people in the 19th century can accidentally make life from these conditions, then a more knowledgeable, capable being could have created the complex life we see today from similar conditions.

So maybe a few folk from this century? With a modern lab?

It just doesn't seem to give such a being all due respect if a couple of guys from over 150 years ago can get the basics right with little to no effort?

a reply to: cooperton

Interesting stuff. I don't think what those scientists did would be considered Creationism though. Creationism already has a theoretical model behind it.

At the very least you'd have to come up with a different title for it.

originally posted by: Ghost147

The issue is, if you want to debate scientific information, you must refer to things in the "scientific language" of whatever branch of science you're discussing. To use outside terminology is far more than confusing, it's inaccurate considering that terminology vague and often incorrect to begin with.

Once you point out exactly which you would like evidence for, I will provide it (as we have evidence for the divergence and branching of all those classifications)

Family is the closest thing to the rudimentary classification of "kind". The dog family, the cat family, etc. Hypothesized taxonomy aside, because that is not observed evidence, has there been an experiment that demonstrated a certain family evolving into another? I know its a lot to ask, and it has never been directly observed, but that is my point. We are so quick to bash creationism, yet there are these experiments that directly indicate that this sort of generation was possible. With evolution, we must put our faith in something that has not been directly observed.

Are you really promoting creationism over evolution on the basis that you belive that evoloution is having faith in something that cannot be directly observed?

You have had some very inteligent members offereing some real information that could answer your op if you took the time to answer there questions and maybe listen to the answers.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: cooperton

if a couple people in the 19th century can accidentally make life from these conditions, then a more knowledgeable, capable being could have created the complex life we see today from similar conditions.

So maybe a few folk from this century? With a modern lab?

It just doesn't seem to give such a being all due respect if a couple of guys from over 150 years ago can get the basics right with little to no effort?

So I found this recent replication from some good folks on the other side of the world. Unfortunately their artistic expression made their results a bit ambiguous, but they seem to imply they successfully produced the same bugs when they claim to have "witnessed the birth of impossible life":

vimeo.com...

a reply to: cooperton

We are so quick to bash creationism, yet there are these experiments that directly indicate that this sort of generation was possible.

Bashing a belief is pointless. You can believe whatever you wish. If your belief is that strong, why bother arguing about it? What is "bashed" is the idea that "creationism" has as much scientific validity as evolution.

With evolution, we must put our faith in something that has not been directly observed.

No, with evolution we have an explanation of what is seen in the fossil record. With evolution we have a process for how life has changed over time. And it isn't the one size fits all explanation offered by creation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

We are so quick to bash creationism, yet there are these experiments that directly indicate that this sort of generation was possible.

Bashing a belief is pointless. You can believe whatever you wish. If your belief is that strong, why bother arguing about it? What is "bashed" is the idea that "creationism" has as much scientific validity as evolution.

No I said creationism has more directly observable evidence than evolution. The difficulty with evolution is that it has never been observed happening; because it is proposed to require extensive amounts of time, which no experiment could possibly control. Observing the fossil record does not prove that a kind (family) ever changed into another kind (family). Creationism, on the other hand, was demonstrated by the experiments of Andrew Crosse, Charles Littlefield, Morley-Martin, etc. If faith is belief in things unseen, then evolution requires more faith than creationism.

a reply to: cooperton

Creationism, on the other hand, was demonstrated by the experiments of Andrew Crosse, Charles Littlefield, Morley-Martin, etc.

No, it wasn't.
You actually believe that complete organisms spontaneously formed? I'll admit, that's a new tack on the topic, new to me anyway.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Creationism, on the other hand, was demonstrated by the experiments of Andrew Crosse, Charles Littlefield, Morley-Martin, etc.

No, it wasn't.
You actually believe that complete organisms spontaneously formed? I'll admit, that's a new tack on the topic, new to me anyway.

Its not a matter of belief, because it was directly observed. I don't think this evidence should be brushed aside just because it challenges the way we think life came into being.

a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.