Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

a reply to: cooperton

How about the whale? Scientists have observed many of its transitions from land to sea via the fossil record. They have observed the common traits and noticed the retraction of the legs over time, and there are still remnants of those leg bones in modern whales. Remember, an observation in science is not always sitting there directly watching something change. I don't think any of us has 20 million years to observe a big evolutionary change such as that. An observation can be a scientist testing and studying fossils for common links. Now does that mean that one day a dog like swamp dweller gave birth to a whale? Of course not. The features slowly changed over time until we classified it differently. Species don't suddenly change "kinds" (which isn't even a scientific classification in the first place).

Dinosaurs to birds is pretty conclusive now and that should definitely qualify as a "change of kinds". Again, they follow the common links and have observed dinosaur fossils that have quills (which is a slam dunk for feathers).

I feel like we have seen this thread before. A dozen times at least. Some people seem to think that if you bring the argument up enough times, we will forget all the research and facts and evidence and just roll over for pseudo science.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You know what the best "observable" evidence for evolution is? The entire scientific field of genetics. Genetics wouldn't be a sound scientific discipline if evolution weren't true.

What's really bizarre is the Creationists who don't realize this and try to use concepts from genetics like DNA or various studies done in genetics to try to disprove evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

Where did the OP go in this thread? He's been online but hasn't responded to anything. Maybe I'm just impatient, but could you provide your response to this specific post, please? Right here

originally posted by: cooperton

But there was no experiment that observed a viable change of kind from these genetic mutations. I would like to see the evolutionary development of a wing, it must've been pretty useless until adaptation over the generations allowed it to let the organism take flight. The intermediary wing, which would be incapable of allowing the organism to fly, would not be an advantage, so that species would die off before fully developing a set of wings capable of flight. Therefore, it would require begetting a bird from something that isnt a bird (an organism without wings giving birth to an organism with wings capable of flight), and thus a change of kind. But this has never been observed.

Ostrich hater! Why you deny the existence of flightless birds?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: cooperton

Your misunderstanding within the Theory of Evolution is actually quite common.

Here's a dramatically uncomplicated analogy to the whole concept: Time, as we know it at a basic level, is made up of seconds, minutes, and hours. Think of a second as those small mutations that occur in every generation. Those seconds (mutations) build up and up until a minute is formed (a new species). That same process of seconds building upon one another continue to grow forming more minutes, and in time an Hour is formed (a new family). That Hour (family) is still made up of seconds (mutations) that that very first minute had, however. Yet, an hour was formed in the same way a minute is formed. The difference is only that there is a greater number of accumulated seconds.

We have observed speciation numerous times. Here are a few examples; you can read further into the matter at this link (all instances are sourced from peer reviewed scientific publications) Source:

I am aware of speciation, and how your primrose example is an instance of polyploidy. The pre/post-zygotic barriers that occur from allopatric/sympatric speciation are evidence of a new "species", by definition. I hate to pull out the "K" word, because I know it has no scientific purpose beyond the most rudimentary form of classifying organisms. But, the examples you gave did not demonstrate a change of kind; plants were still plants, flies were still flies. I truly appreciate your well thought-out response and it is good to know I am discussing these ideas with someone who knows what they're talking about beyond the most superficial aspects of the theory of evolution.

I want to extend on your analogy of seconds being single mutations, and minutes, hours, etc, being an aggregation of those mutations to ultimately give rise to a change in family (change in kind; i.e. fish to amphibian). Unfortunately, observable evidence, due to time restraints, can only directly study changes in genetics that would result in speciation, but nothing on the level of familial evolution, which would imply a change of kind. I understand that it really, REALLY looks like evolution is the way organisms developed into being, but, if you look at the night's sky, it also really, REALLY looks like were living in a dome. Yet, scientifically observable evidence indicated that it is not that simple. Christianity does not claim the world to be flat, but this is a topic for another time, for now I just want to use the dome-sky as an example of our extrapolations of thought, as convincing as they may seem, being incorrect. Logically, we could presume that speciation over time could lead to changes of kind (family), but this is only speculation because it has not been directly observed. So, as intuitive as the theory of evolution is, it still is exactly that, a theory.

The ATS community is great. Everyone here is very logical and does not stand for baseless fluff and sophistry. Although, I was a little disappointed at the disregard for the evidence I provided that biological lifeforms have been successfully generated from non-biological means. To ignore these experiments would be negligence, and to deem them impossible just because they challenge our current ideas would be ignorant:

Andrew Crosse generated living bugs that responded to external stimuli. He initially thought it was some sort of contamination, but further experiment made him conclude that this was not the case. Even more interesting, the three main ingredients he used (silicates, water, and electricity) are the same initial conditions claimed in Genesis 1:1-3; the earth is comprised majorily of silicates, light is an indication of electromagnetic radiation, and water is explicitly stated. It was successfully recreated by William Weekes; all of the original papers written by them can be read in 'abiogenesis and life from dirt', but here is an adequate synopsis www.rexresearch.com... Some oriental researchers also made a video in which they claim to have "witnessed the impossible (birth of Andrew Crosse bug)", but unfortunately their shoddy microscope camera does not give a clear picture of the bug, so we are only left with their word that they successfully recreated this experiment in this millenium vimeo.com...

In his book 'Man, Minerals, and Masters', Charles Littlefield discusses his experiments in which mineral water would generate intelligible forms (Animal forms, the Alphabet, etc) according to his words/thought. This is remniscent of Genesis in which God creates form by his word, and is also further disambiguated in the beginning of the Gospel of John.

The experiments of Morley-Martin were similar to that of Crosse. He uses what he called a mineral 'protoplasm', similar to Crosse and Littlefield's ingredients, and he was able to generate the forms of "crustacean, (microscopic) fish, and even (microscopic) amphibian forms" www.rexresearch.com...

There are also the experiments of Wilhelm Reich which gave rise to protozoans via non-biological means. Recreation seen here: www.youtube.com...

In all of these experiments there are 3 things in common; silicates, water, and electromagnetic energy. The three initial conditions in Genesis. To deny the possibility of all these experiments would be to deny scientifically repeatable evidence. Luckily for creationism, the time-frames required for this sort of genesis do not require extensive amounts of time like testing a change of kind would. These experiments I mentioned are direct evidence that life could have been created in the manner described in Genesis.

a reply to: SuperFrog

You mentioned stupid design. yhis doesn't seem stupid to me...
www.nature.com...

a reply to: cooperton

Andrew Crosse generated living bugs that responded to external stimuli. He initially thought it was some sort of contamination, but further experiment made him conclude that this was not the case. Even more interesting, the three main ingredients he used (silicates, water, and electricity) are the same initial conditions claimed in Genesis 1:1-3; the earth is comprised majorily of silicates, light is an indication of electromagnetic radiation, and water is explicitly stated. It was successfully recreated by William Weekes; all of the original papers written by them can be read in 'abiogenesis and life from dirt', but here is an adequate synopsis www.rexresearch.com... Some oriental researchers also made a video in which they claim to have "witnessed the impossible (birth of Andrew Crosse bug)", but unfortunately their shoddy microscope camera does not give a clear picture of the bug, so we are only left with their word that they successfully recreated this experiment in this millenium vimeo.com...

You know this is complete nonsense. It has been disproven over and over again. There's another thread somewhere on ATS with all the links to the evidence.

Maybe that's why no one responds to the post.

a reply to: cooperton

I think you have either ignored or missed my posts.

The first about the evolution of whales from four legged walking land mammals, to whales today. That would certainly be an answer to your question. Because obviously, they weren't what we define as whales when they walked on land.

The second, where I pointed out the vimeo video you keep linking was merely an art project, not an actual science experiment. You have also ignored the point brought up that nobody has successfully repeated the experiment. Probably because you believe the art project to be a real science experiment.

Please disregard your bias here. Show me anywhere in that art project where they show results. NOT in the artistic way where they say "witnessed the impossible". There is absolutely zero documentation. It's an art project.

originally posted by: cooperton
These experiments I mentioned are direct evidence that life could have been created in the manner described in Genesis.

Only in the loosest of senses.

Science and History in the Bible

originally posted by: cooperton
I want to extend on your analogy of seconds being single mutations, and minutes, hours, etc, being an aggregation of those mutations to ultimately give rise to a change in family (change in kind; i.e. fish to amphibian). Unfortunately, observable evidence, due to time restraints, can only directly study changes in genetics that would result in speciation, but nothing on the level of familial evolution, which would imply a change of kind. I understand that it really, REALLY looks like evolution is the way organisms developed into being, but, if you look at the night's sky, it also really, REALLY looks like were living in a dome. Yet, scientifically observable evidence indicated that it is not that simple. Christianity does not claim the world to be flat, but this is a topic for another time, for now I just want to use the dome-sky as an example of our extrapolations of thought, as convincing as they may seem, being incorrect. Logically, we could presume that speciation over time could lead to changes of kind (family), but this is only speculation because it has not been directly observed. So, as intuitive as the theory of evolution is, it still is exactly that, a theory.

I too am glad to see you are not uneducated on the subject. Nevertheless, you're missing a few key references I mentioned in my post. We don't need personally observed instances to accurately describe a natural phenomena. We have seen speciation, we understand why and how genetic drift occurs, and we have very vast biological records (both living and fossilized) that all point to a specific direction. It is then completely reasonable to conclude that the branching of organisms at a family based level is factual. There is no evidence to show that this doesn't occur. Especially when we have biological "fingerprints" that show how different families have really are directly related.

Again, I'm still curious as to your definition of "kind". Would you not consider this example as one "kind" evoling into another "kind"?

A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

Also, just to point out, "Fish" are not a Biological family, taxonomically speaking; they belong to the phylum Chordate. Amphibians are also not a biological family, nor are they a phylum, they belong to a biological class called Amphibia. As you can see, using the term "Kind" leaves everything at a bit of a mix up.

originally posted by: cooperton
The ATS community is great. Everyone here is very logical and does not stand for baseless fluff and sophistry. Although, I was a little disappointed at the disregard for the evidence I provided that biological lifeforms have been successfully generated from non-biological means. To ignore these experiments would be negligence, and to deem them impossible just because they challenge our current ideas would be ignorant

I didn't respond to this because others already have

originally posted by: cooperton
So, as intuitive as the theory of evolution is, it still is exactly that, a theory.

You do realize that the "theory of evolution" literally means that we are attempting to describe how the naturally occurring phenomena of Evolution functions, right? Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is the naturally occurring phenomena, our theory OF evolution is our attempt to describe how it functions.

Just as we have a Theory of gravity (general relativity). The theory is the part when we describe how that naturally occurring phenomena functions. Gravity is a fact, and we have a theory that describes it. Evolution is a fact, and we have a theory that describes it.

a reply to: cooperton

But, the examples you gave did not demonstrate a change of kind; plants were still plants, flies were still flies.

This is a common nonsense argument that has been beat to death by creationist. It goes something like this..
A new species of, lets say a moth, came into existence, creationists would always shout "But they are still moths.'' What else would they be? According to your ridiculous claim, they should have become fluffy kittens? Lol..Why? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! The offspring of every generation is still part of the nested hierarchy of its parents!
An operative definition of evolution is "descent with modification from a common ancestor". It's the population-level cumulative effects of what happens when life does what life does. Breeding two flies will not beget a ant, or a butterfly or any other kind of animal, it flies completely in the face of life doing what life does, along with everything else that the theory of evolution says.

a reply to: flyingfish

I think their questions have more to do with common ancestry.

As in, THE common ancestor.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: flyingfish

I think their questions have more to do with common ancestry.

As in, THE common ancestor.

um...primordial monocellular lifeforms?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I can understand where they are coming from when they ask for proof of change of "kinds". What was the first ant? What was the first bird? What was the first this, or that? You know what I mean?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: TzarChasm

I can understand where they are coming from when they ask for proof of change of "kinds". What was the first ant? What was the first bird? What was the first this, or that? You know what I mean?

i understand the question. i also understands that it stems from an incomplete understanding of how evolution actually operates.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Noted.. Even so, The "fly is still a fly" argument shows the op's blatant misunderstanding of TOE.
I will repeat..
The offspring of every generation is still part of the nested hierarchy of its parents!

a reply to: TzarChasm
a reply to: flyingfish

Totally agree on the lack of them fully understanding TOE.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Here is a link to an article that shows evolution in crickets due to the presence of parasitic fly that came over from the US mainland.

On my phone atm, but I think this is a great example of evolution happening right now.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



You know (Andrew Crosse) is complete nonsense. It has been disproven over and over again. There's another thread somewhere on ATS with all the links to the evidence.

Maybe that's why no one responds to the post.

Disproven over and over again? Links please? Source? I have provided multiple sources, I said the limitations of the video, and because of the language barrier I could not tell whether it was artistic expression or a successful controlled recreation. Regardless of the video, the experiment was successfully replicated by the London Electrical Society at the time. I also mentioned 3 other scientists who demonstrated that biological forms can come from non-biological means. Wilhelm Reichs experiment was recreated recently: www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Ghost147
Just as we have a Theory of gravity (general relativity). The theory is the part when we describe how that naturally occurring phenomena functions. Gravity is a fact, and we have a theory that describes it. Evolution is a fact, and we have a theory that describes it.

Gravitational force can be calculated mathematically, and can be repeated experimentally. We have never had an instance where we observed an organism change its kind. monkeys are monkeys, humans are humans, etc. I understand speciation, and that it accumulates, over time, and gradually an organism will "evolve"; I understand it is proposed that a monkey did not simply give birth to a human, but rather, encephalization of the humanoid was a slow process. All I am saying, is that there has never been an observable example of, for example, a population of fish evolving into a population of amphibians. We can assume all we want, but the fact is we have not observed such evolution, we have only observed adaptations or minute speciation. Evolution appears to be the logical choice as to how things came into being, but maybe evolution seems so logical because it is the way biogenesis occurs, that is, the way biological life gives birth to other biological life (embryology):www.youtube.com...

But, maybe, JUST MAYBE, (come on now, this is ATS, we should be questioning EVERYTHING), abiogenesis, which is biological life forming from non-biological means, is how life forms first came into being. Especially since there are experiments that demonstrate this is possible. So, I strongly urge you all to look into it on your own with an open mind.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Andrew Crosse generated living bugs that responded to external stimuli. He initially thought it was some sort of contamination, but further experiment made him conclude that this was not the case. Even more interesting, the three main ingredients he used (silicates, water, and electricity) are the same initial conditions claimed in Genesis 1:1-3; the earth is comprised majorily of silicates, light is an indication of electromagnetic radiation, and water is explicitly stated. It was successfully recreated by William Weekes; all of the original papers written by them can be read in 'abiogenesis and life from dirt', but here is an adequate synopsis www.rexresearch.com... Some oriental researchers also made a video in which they claim to have "witnessed the impossible (birth of Andrew Crosse bug)", but unfortunately their shoddy microscope camera does not give a clear picture of the bug, so we are only left with their word that they successfully recreated this experiment in this millenium vimeo.com...

You know this is complete nonsense. It has been disproven over and over again. There's another thread somewhere on ATS with all the links to the evidence.

Maybe that's why no one responds to the post.

You are right. Every so often someone posts it on here like it is new. I will post a few threads that the subject has been in.

from 2005 Did Andrew Crosse Create Life in his lab in 1837?

2011
Maybe we are the aliens.


2013
The Cejka Files...most interesting research I have done in a while....


2015
Can someone show me evidence of man being created from dirt?

Can someone show me any evidence of abiogenesis?