[_ Old Earth _] What evolution is and isn't in one easy picture

[Grazer]

View attachment 2960

Not sure about the first point under "This is evolution" I'd argue that we are special and were the target but that's more a theological/philosophical statement than a scientific one

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

View attachment 3819

Not sure about the first point under "This is evolution" I'd argue that we are special and were the target but that's more a theological/philosophical statement than a scientific one

Despite the arguments to the contrary, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any mutation/adaptation has ever caused one species to cross species lines and become another, new species.

 

[lordkalvan]

Despite the arguments to the contrary, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any mutation/adaptation has ever caused one species to cross species lines and become another, new species.

Plenty of evidence that evolution leads to speciation, however. You may disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but you cannot argue that it does not exist.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Despite the arguments to the contrary, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any mutation/adaptation has ever caused one species to cross species lines and become another, new species.

There is plenty of both genetic and morphological evidence that shows the links between all organisms and their origins. The thing to remember about "species" is that we as humans are the ones who has made up the definition of species. I don't have to show A dog transcending species boundaries, I would just have to show the origins of the common dog from wolves, wolves from the ancestor of Dogs, Racoons, and Bears. To the origin of caniforms, to the origin of carnivores.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Despite the arguments to the contrary, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any mutation/adaptation has ever caused one species to cross species lines and become another, new species.

Real scientists scoff at your sentence . . . and I mean scoff.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Real scientists scoff at your sentence . . . and I mean scoff.

Wow! Scoff? Really? Geez, I'd be scoffed at by a real scientist? That really hurts my feelings.

[?sarcasm]

After searching for evidence of speciation, British bacteriologist Jonathan wells concluded in 2001:

“None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” Wells, Jonathan. The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute Press, p. 12
​

Like it or not, there are numerous credentialed scientists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, etc., who do not accept the "evidence" that others have presented as fact. But then, I'm sure many on this thread will say they "aren't" real scientists, primarily because they are not on the Darwin bandwagon.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

After searching for evidence of speciation, British bacteriologist Jonathan wells concluded in 2001:

“None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.†Wells, Jonathan. The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute Press, p. 12
​

Like it or not, there are numerous credentialed scientists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, etc., who do not accept the "evidence" that others have presented as fact. But then, I'm sure many on this thread will say they "aren't" real scientists, primarily because they are not on the Darwin bandwagon.

Great. You quote a guy who thinks that Sun Myung Moon was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a conclusion that real science doesn't tend to lead to. He is British? Maybe you mixed two different guys together as one "Jonathan Wells".

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Great. You quote a guy who thinks that Sun Myung Moon was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a conclusion that real science doesn't tend to lead to. He is British? Maybe you mixed two different guys together as one "Jonathan Wells".

Not the same Jonathan Wells. Sorry to disappoint you.

If one scientist isn't enough for you, though, you might read the sticky thread at the top of this forum. Or visit this website, linked in that thread's OP.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

[Milk-Drops]

Not the same Jonathan Wells. Sorry to disappoint you.

If one scientist isn't enough for you, though, you might read the sticky thread at the top of this forum. Or visit this website, linked in that thread's OP.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Actually its easier to point out that Biologists are almost completely unanimous in accepting the theory of evolution and all the updated information that goes with it. It makes sense since these scientists actually deal with evolution directly. An electrical engineer or a chemist can say evolutions stupid all they like, since that isn't their area of expertise, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Its very interesting to note that a lot of the people on the 500 list don't have biology degrees, and a good chunk of it are people that don't actually have a degree or any authority in science. Barbarian has a liste of 500 scientists named Steve that accept the theory of evolution. The list by itself is stupid and nothing but an appeal to popularity and doesn't actually address the theory itself. Its just dishonest nonsense.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Wow! Scoff? Really? Geez, I'd be scoffed at by a real scientist? That really hurts my feelings.

[?sarcasm]

After searching for evidence of speciation, British bacteriologist Jonathan wells concluded in 2001:

“None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” Wells, Jonathan. The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute Press, p. 12
​

Like it or not, there are numerous credentialed scientists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, etc., who do not accept the "evidence" that others have presented as fact. But then, I'm sure many on this thread will say they "aren't" real scientists, primarily because they are not on the Darwin bandwagon.

Linton's results have been refuted multiple times and his claims that there is no evidence is not supported. His statement is that we don't have a direct link between prokaryote and eukaryote species. Or in lay man's terms single celled and multicelled organisms. Technically he is right that we haven't found it, but that probably has more to do with the Asexual nature of bacteria and the scarcity of fossilization compared to the life span of bacteria.

His claim that there is no evidence period is outright false, considering that many of his colleagues have discovered and witnessed specification. That of which is evolution. As far as I can tell , this scientist is pretty much known for being a talking head for creationism and hasn't contributed much else that I can really find, so taking his word is already kind of sketchy.

 

[lordkalvan]

Actually its easier to point out that Biologists are almost completely unanimous in accepting the theory of evolution and all the updated information that goes with it. It makes sense since these scientists actually deal with evolution directly. An electrical engineer or a chemist can say evolutions stupid all they like, since that isn't their area of expertise, I take what they say with a grain of salt.

Its very interesting to note that a lot of the people on the 500 list don't have biology degrees, and a good chunk of it are people that don't actually have a degree or any authority in science. Barbarian has a liste of 500 scientists named Steve that accept the theory of evolution. The list by itself is stupid and nothing but an appeal to popularity and doesn't actually address the theory itself. Its just dishonest nonsense.

As of 16 January, Project Steve numbered 1238 signatories:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

It's also worth noting that at least a number of the 'Dissent from Darwin' have defected from then initiative and, in at least one case, have accused the DI of being misleading about their intentions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Defections_and_disagreements

 

[cupid dave]

Despite the arguments to the contrary, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any mutation/adaptation has ever caused one species to cross species lines and become another, new species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presentsvery strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locuscloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomerefusion and marks the point atwhich two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

Because the fusedchromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurredafter the human–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around theworld, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).



References:

1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure andEvolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogousregions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages1651-1662.

 

[Barbarian]

Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.†Wells, Jonathan. The Myth of Junk DNA (2011) Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute Press, p. 12

This is indeed the Jonathan Wells who thinks that the Rev. Myung Son Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ. He's quoting a British bacteriologist, Alan H. Linton, who seems unaware of a number of speciation events that have been directly observed. One of the first was the evolution of a new species of plant by a polyploidy event.

 

[cupid dave]

This is indeed the Jonathan Wells who thinks that the Rev. Myung Son Moon is an improvement on Jesus Christ. He's quoting a British bacteriologist, Alan H. Linton, who seems unaware of a number of speciation events that have been directly observed. One of the first was the evolution of a new species of plant by a polyploidy event.

The Catholic Church learned not to project its assumptions about what the Bible means in matter of factual science when the advent of Modern Empiricism came forth with the Scientific Method.That modern scientific method allows anyone to observe for themselves whether a matter is factually correct or not.
Galileo recommended to telescope to the pope, but was turned away, while half of the rest of the catholics peered at Venus and agreed with him.

The time bomb of Truth created these same Protestants today who will learn the same lesson as had the Pope, if they keep stone walling against Theistic Evolution and science supported Bible interpretations.

They think they do god a service by using their present numbers as a force, thinking that such democracy will allow the majority to prevail, even over the Truth, which Christ recommended as the Way.