Debunk evolution once and for all

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by oozyism

 

I don't know the specific generation times for any of the lab experiments but in the lab experiments my guess is they were replacing natural selection by selecting for certain genes.

Outside of a lab Evolution happens in varying degrees in a species. My guess is it takes longer for more complex lifeforms like us humans but then again look what just the last 200 years has done to us. We're taller on average, fatter on average, this is an evolutionary reaction to changes in how much food is readily available for us to consume (although it might also be epigenetic and not permanent). So evolution doesn't go at a constant rate...

The Talk Origins page has a whole section about the fruitfly experiments (section 5.3 I believe)

Talk Origins Speciation

I have read that origin website and tried to understand it, but just failed..

Could you post an example of speciation from that website and explain it in your own words if possible, so I can get a grasp of what it is saying. Just one example, I think there is more than one, but I just need one, the most convincing one.

Thanks in advance

reply to post by oozyism


The easiest example of speciation I can give is that of Darwin's Finches. Charles Darwin studied them and they are sort of the first example of how evolution works.

While Darwin was in the Galapagos he noticed several very similar groups of birds but each species had a slightly different shaped beak because each one had adapted (read Evolved) to eat a different kind of food. They had each evolved differently but were otherwise very similar.

Another example I gave earlier in this thread is the one of corn or Maize, corn is actually a type of grass but through selective breeding native Americans turned it into what we know it as today (although thanks to big corporations many types of corn are now gone forever).

Honestly I can't understand all of it either, I don't exactly have an Evolutionary Biology degree but I understand enough of it to know that it works. Even without speciation we would know that evolution works because we see it at work in us, like those Genes that help the isolated Tibetan people thrive at high altitudes, if we left them isolated there for a few more hundred thousand years they very well might become another species.

Here's one I found that's pretty funny, a guy crossed radishes with cabbage - YUCK

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

Talk Origins




[edit on 27-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Honestly I can't understand all of it either, I don't exactly have an Evolutionary Biology degree but I understand enough of it to know that it works. Even without speciation we would know that evolution works because we see it at work in us, like those Genes that help the isolated Tibetan people thrive at high altitudes, if we left them isolated there for a few more hundred thousand years they very well might become another species.

Thank you, I'm like you, I don't understand it, and the Tibet thing, well we just have to wait and see.

I'm not saying evolution should be abandoned, nor am I saying it should be shoved in people's throats.

Just like you, another individual wasn't able to explain WTF the origin website was talking about.

That doesn't mean they are lying, nor does it mean you are lying, for me, I personally need more than that.

I can create a circuit, I can create a light bulb, I can generate electricity, I can build a house based on different mathematical equations to help it stand even though it doesn't look like it would stand, I can build a motor, I have got my degree in IT therefore know much about networks and how they operate, about computers, I can test them, see empirical evidence, know about fiber optics, and how they send information through light, know about binary and how light can be used to send information using binary language through Fiber Optics, I can test all of these with ease in front of my eyes, I don't have to rely on someone else's research, or have to pay millions of dollars to duplicate that research in order to see whether some people are telling the truth.

My point is, until the day comes, when I either get effected by evolution, or I can test it just like I can test electricity and light bulb, I will stay neutral.

They can teach me about it, and I will learn it, but whether I believe it or not needs more than that.

Originally posted by oozyism
I'm sick of Atheist and any anti-Religious, or anti-God movement who revolve all their arguments around evolution.

It's a good job that the Bible and Christianity promotes understanding and tolerance of others then, isn't it?

There is an absence of absolute proof on either side, but for myself, I'll accept the science rather than a bedtime story otherwise known as the Bible.

I admire the convictions of your faith though. Anyone who can believe in something so absolutely without proof of any kind deserves some credit at least for their perseverance, if not for their brains.

reply to post by babybunnies


Without any evidence? Everything is evidence of a creator, I think you are the one with the problem for dismissing all this evidence of GOD right in front of your face, everything you see, from atoms, to cells, to animals, to planets, to stars, to galaxies, to who knows probably even Universes.

reply to post by oozyism


Here's a case of speciation that's a little easier to understand. It's not an animal, but plants are still organisms and the principles of evolution still apply. I'll see if I can find an easy to understand example of animal speciation.

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by babybunnies

 

Without any evidence? Everything is evidence of a creator, I think you are the one with the problem for dismissing all this evidence of GOD right in front of your face, everything you see, from atoms, to cells, to animals, to planets, to stars, to galaxies, to who knows probably even Universes.

He's talking about the biblical god.
It's a huge stretch to go from "The universe looks like it may have a creator" to "the biblical god created the universe"

Also you really can't use reality to prove god, that would be a quite simplistic view and would require us to understand the universe entirely, for us to say that something as complex as the universe just HAS to have a creator would be ignorant.

I'm sure for our brains it makes sense to pop a creator on things we don't quite understand yet, but I don't think we should jump to that conclusion without conclusive evidence.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by babybunnies

 

Without any evidence? Everything is evidence of a creator, I think you are the one with the problem for dismissing all this evidence of GOD right in front of your face, everything you see, from atoms, to cells, to animals, to planets, to stars, to galaxies, to who knows probably even Universes.

You should really look up the definition of "evidence"

reply to post by MrXYZ

You should really look up the definition of "evidence"

How about you help me out here, you sound like a smart guy, tell us what evidence means

This will be interesting, I love to have a conversation with know it all people

reply to post by oozyism


Oh comon'...not able to google a single definition?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism

 

Oh comon'...not able to google a single definition?

You're the one who brought it up, do you question yourself? Ofcurse you do, because you know you are not smart enough to have this discussion with me.

Common, I can't push any further, tell us what evidence means.

Originally posted by oozyism
You're the one who brought it up, do you question yourself? Ofcurse you do, because you know you are not smart enough to have this discussion with me.

Common, I can't push any further, tell us what evidence means.

Do you really not see the ignorance in trying to label all of reality as something that only a complex creator could have made?

reply to post by hippomchippo


Do you know what reality is?

Start small then go big.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Do you know what reality is?

Start small then go big.

That's laughably vague.
How can you claim something like reality could only be formed by a creator when we don't even know a fraction of it?

You're arguing from ignorance, everything we've seen so far in the observable universe has formed naturally, star systems, plant life, animal life, etc.
But for some reason you jump to the conclusion that our universe had to be created by some intelligent being, why is that?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by hippomchippo

That's laughably vague.
How can you claim something like reality could only be formed by a creator when we don't even know a fraction of it?

You are making assumptions.

I asked you what reality is.

This is a discussion, or straight to the point debate?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

That's laughably vague.
How can you claim something like reality could only be formed by a creator when we don't even know a fraction of it?

You are making assumptions.

I asked you what reality is.

This is a discussion, or straight to the point debate?

No, you're making the assumptions.

You're saying that the universe was created by an intelligent being.
When asked how you know that, you said because of everything around us.
That's an argument from ignorance, and you're running away from it by arguing semantics.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by hippomchippo]

–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Can't wait for your "proof of the facts"

Need definitions of proof or facts too? I'm not sure you'll get those right if you can't even get "evidence" right

Let's turn your statement around, shall we?

"Evolution is what made us! Want evidence? Just look around you!"

The difference is, we actually have very strong, specific evidence for evolution. When it comes to the creator theory, we have no evidence...and no, saying "just look around you" isn't strong, specific, scientific evidence.

If you believe it is, you have a very poor understanding of evidence, proof, and facts. Put away the bible, and start reading science literature based on FACTS and peer reviewed. Don't get your info from www.creation.com

[edit on 27-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

Shouldn't this be in the breaking news section or some major scientific discovery??? What are you going to debunk next the theory of gravity?

reply to post by MrXYZ

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Why did it take you so long, not that hard to use Google is it now

Now read the above definition and read the last part lol

I take our existence and the existence of this universe to prove the existence of a creator, that is my belief.

It came back to belief didn't it smart guy

reply to post by hippomchippo

When asked how you know that, you said because of everything around us.
That's an argument from ignorance, and you're running away from it by arguing semantics.

LOL

Are you suggesting I don't know anything about my surrounding?

I take everything around as evidence of a creator, that everything was created.

How do I know what? That everything is created? Well because now that we are creators ourselves we have better understand of creation.

I'm not talking out of ignorance, nor arrogance like you.