One Less Argument For Creationists: Development Of New Species Observed

Myths Of Creationism

A paper in the January/February Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology dispels “the myths of intelligent design” by examining the evolution of amoebas and other unicellular organisms.

Proponents of intelligent design claim the Cambrian explosion of 545 million years ago, when the body plans of the ancestors of most animals developed, occurred too rapidly be explained by the gradual process of Darwinian evolution. Biologists Mark Farmer and Andrea Habura point out in their paper that unicellular protistan evolution lasted 1 billion years, providing the genomic diversity from which multicellular organisms arose during that remarkably fertile period.

Evolution skeptics also claim that no one has ever seen the development of a new species, a myth Farmer and Habura tackle by outlining a case in which amoebae became symbiotically dependent upon infecting bacteria. The symbiotically dependent amoebas developed into an undeniably separate species, because attempts to interbreed with the parent stock would infect and kill them.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


It's a shame but most creationists will deny science if it doesn't fit in with their religious views, no matter how convincing the science actually is. Somehow they will try and discount this observation as well, I'm sure. Sadly, there is nothing we can do to convince most of these people of the leading scientific theories if they contradict the bible or their perception of the bible. Instead, they will continue to try and block my children from learning the truth and denying ignorance.

Just my 2 cents.

--airspoon

FAIL!!!!

NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new SPECIES can come about by natural selection.

Go to Answers in Genesis right now and look up Natural Selection!!!

They all agree that specieation happens BECAUSE we can BOTH OBSERVE IT and EXPERIMENT on it.

BUT, we deny the evolution of new FAMILIES of animals. Such as a dog evolving into something totally different from a dog so that it can no longer be classified in the same SPECIES of dog anymore.

You are spreading dis-info to discredit something you don't understand.

And as promised you are now being linked to this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go read it!

Originally posted by trueperspective
BUT, we deny the evolution of new FAMILIES of animals. Such as a dog evolving into something totally different from a dog so that it can no longer be classified in the same SPECIES of dog anymore.

You are spreading dis-info to discredit something you don't understand.

If you're going to claim an objection to evolutionary processes on the basis that a dog could evolve into something totally different from a dog, I'd say that you are arguing something you don't understand. What evolutionary scientist has ever made a claim that this is even a possibility?

Adaptation != Evolution
Macro Evolution != Micro Evolution

Hey, religion debunker/traditionaldrummer, explain to us what the singularity is and how it was created.
I'd love to hear your sciency answer. :3
All of science's best explanation for the singularity sound just like religion to me.
Let me know when there's a difference in having faith in an invisible God, and having faith in a reaction so vast it created the universe spawning from nothing.

Let me tell you what, I'll be honest and say that neither side seems very logical, but eventually you have to accept one possibility over the other.

Originally posted by TheBeastOfSixPaths
Adaptation != Evolution
Macro Evolution != Micro Evolution

Hey, religion debunker/traditionaldrummer, explain to us what the singularity is and how it was created.
I'd love to hear your sciency answer. :3
All of science's best explanation for the singularity sound just like religion to me.
Let me know when there's a difference in having faith in an invisible God, and having faith in a reaction so vast it created the universe spawning from nothing.

Let me tell you what, I'll be honest and say that neither side seems very logical, but eventually you have to accept one possibility over the other.

Hey, I have an idea. How about we stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to derail the thread?

Let's review:

Evolution skeptics claim that no one has ever seen the development of a new species.

Scientists have now observed the development of a new species.

Comments?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well, then how are there so many different families of animals on the planet? If a Phyla(family, type) can not evolve into another phyla9family, type) then there would only be one!!

You are not even argueing honestly. think about what you are saying. "No evolutionist has ever claimed that a family of animal can evolve into another." Uhhh...

The animal kingdom is divided into about 30 phyla. Many species exist within this class. Where did they come from????



[edit on 14-5-2010 by trueperspective]

Prove that it's not just a mutation.
They have 290 billion base pairs in their genome.
A few mutations here or there, and suddenly they can't produce offspring with the unmutated.
Besides, that's micro evolution.
Creationists generally don't argue against micro evolution.
Amoeba=Single Celled Organisms

Creationists argue against macro evolution, which is the changing of a multi-cellular species into another multi-cellular species.

Now, continue with your pointless thread/argument.

Originally posted by TheBeastOfSixPaths
Prove that it's not just a mutation.

I would suggest you review the article. Have you done that? Or are you just sort of arguing blindly in a hostile manner?

Originally posted by trueperspective
You are not even argueing honestly. think about what you are saying. "No evolutionist has ever claimed that a family of animal can evolve into another." Uhhh...

That's hilarious. You claim I'm not arguing honestly, then you change the actual statement I posted.

Your initial argument rests on incorect assumptions also. Not that this matters.

The point is that a new species has been observed developing. This is blow to evolution skeptics who claim this has never happened. It's okay though. Every time science makes another discovery, evolution-deniers can find something else to grope for.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TheBeastOfSixPaths
Prove that it's not just a mutation.

I would suggest you review the article. Have you done that? Or are you just sort of arguing blindly in a hostile manner?

Link me to the article then.
The link in your OP only sends me to a small snippet on some third party website?

Quick and simple question for Drummer, Where did the amoeba come from they used in this test? and also where did the infecting bacteria come from?

Your article sounds a lot like an example I gave in a different thread pertaining to a new species not being able to reproduce with it's parent species:

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.

The example above is not macroevolution, but is simply due to a single genetic event known as polyploidy. The original goatsbeards from Europe were standard diploid (two copies of each chromosome) plants. However, plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed. No new information is created (Do you have twice as much information if you copy one book to produce an identical copy? No!), but the chromosomes are duplicated. The new "species" cannot produce viable offspring with the original species simply because of the difference in number of chromosomes. With goatsbeards, the process has happened more than once. Of course, the two "new" species have the same number of chromosomes and can produce viable offspring, since they are virtually identical.

If you look at the speciation events that are listed as evidence of evolution, most of them will fall into the polyploidy plant category. Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event. How much new information added to the new species? None!

The Crazy Creationist
Let's look at your "article" from the perspective of whom it was meant to attack.

I'd say it loses some credibility.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by TheBeastOfSixPaths]

Originally posted by TheBeastOfSixPaths
The Crazy Creationist
Let's look at your "article" from the perspective of whom it was meant to attack.

I'd say it loses some credibility.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by TheBeastOfSixPaths]

The author claims "Avelina Espinosa tells us that ID has “creationist beginnings”....", amongst other things.

His response? "Blah blah blah".

Yes, that's the way to bust up credibility.

reply to post by trueperspective

Originally posted by trueperspective
FAIL!!!!

NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new SPECIES can come about by natural selection.

Go to Answers in Genesis right now and look up Natural Selection!!!

They all agree that specieation happens BECAUSE we can BOTH OBSERVE IT and EXPERIMENT on it.

BUT, we deny the evolution of new FAMILIES of animals.

Oh, good.

It wasn't five years ago that creationistas were denying that evolution could take place at the species level. Now they've rolled it back to families, have they?

Soon, no doubt, they'll be telling us that 'NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new FAMILIES can come about by natural selection. BUT, we deny the evolution of new ORDERS of animals.'

And soon after that, 'NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new ORDERS can come about by natural selection. BUT, we deny the evolution of new PHYLA of animals.'

And shortly after that...

'NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new PHYLA can come about by natural selection. BUT, we deny the evolution of new KINGDOMS of animals.'

Taxonomic Hierarchy

Will these people never learn?

reply to post by Astyanax


Hahaha, I was just about to point that out.

Why do they choose Family? They complete skipped Genus.

Oh, and I have heard creationists claim that speciation does not occur. Maybe creationists need some sort of empirical system where they can share information and replicate data to support their claims... they could at least come to a consensus on what they believe.

reply to post by PieKeeper


Only creationists who are ignorant and don't want to believe in evolution think speciation doesn't occur. Speciation has been observed to occur in as little as a few years as seen in guppies, lizards, fruit flies, mosquitoes, finches, and mice; just to name a few.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Why do they choose Family? They complete skipped Genus.

Because all God-fearing Republicans believe in Family values.

Genus sounds like genius, and they never trusted those eggheads.

This means nothing. If you cross a donkey and a horse, you get a mule, which is niether a horse nor a donkey but the cross between the two and can't mate with a donkey, horse, or even another mule. So is a mule the evolved form of the horse and donkey, or just the combination of the two parents that creates a different type of animal all together?