Uncategorized

Atheists, Has One Species been observed to Evolve into a New/Different Species?


Simple question, citing peer reviews doesn’t help, unless those peer reviews have it stated that a Species was observed to evolve into a New/Different Species in a test tube.

Also don’t bring up the fact that Micro-Evolution has been observed, because all this would do is prove that one Species can evolve… into The Same Species, that a Species can adapt to it’s enviroment, you’d still need to prove via Observation that One Species can evolve into a New/Different Species for Evolution to be a fact.

Unless One Species is Observed to evolve into a New/Different Species, Evolution remains a mere idea.

Also if you answer with we can never observe evolution, takes millions of years then you just proved the point, Evolution is not a Fact.

Now, while we can never observe evolution(thus forever remaining a mere idea(not even a theory) in science) we can Observe Creation via DNA, and The Holy Spirit/YHWH(Moral Sense)

I wouldn’t ask an atheist that question.

Simple question, citing peer reviews doesn’t help, unless those peer reviews have it stated that a Species was observed to evolve into a New/Different Species in a test tube.

– No, they did it in nature.

Also don’t bring up the fact that Micro-Evolution has been observed, because all this would do is prove that one Species can evolve… into The Same Species

– Macro-evolution is the process of millions of micro-evolutions.

you’d still need to prove via Observation that One Species can evolve into a New/Different Species for Evolution to be a fact.

– And that has been done dozens of times, look upi ring species. How about this, you ask the question in the right section.

Also if you answer with “we can never observe evolution, takes millions of years” then you just proved the point, Evolution is not a Fact.

– But we have, ring species have been observed.

Now, while we can never observe evolution

– Maybe youi can’t, since fundies can’t see anything, but science has and has proven it.

we can Observe Creation via DNA, and The Holy Spirit/YHWH(Moral Sense)

– How monumentally stupid. Please show me where you have observed the “creation of DNA”.

Fossils record can just as easily prove that YHWH created species

– Yes, once you PROVE a deity exists. You “saying” one exists or attribute actions to one does not prove a deity.

Similar and at different levels, evolution not required,

– ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, “When” you prove magic or a deity exists then you are correct, but you have yet to do that.

this is not Facts, show observation.

– ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AGAIN, produce ANY fact of a deity and an observation of one.

All you have to do is demonstrated and have observed One Species evolved into a New/Different Species, If Evolution is a Fact, why is this hard?

– Its not, it has been done, try reading science rather than fundie captions.

I can easily site observation of Creation in DNA Coding, we can easily observe that under a Microscope

– REALLY, why has no legitmate scientist ever seen that?

Be Honest, has One Species been observed to evolve into a New/Different Species/

– Many, read science rather than fundie captions.

What do atheists (or atheism for that matter) have to do with evolution?”

– Nothing other than evolution is a science and science is a way of thinking and atheists think.

If At once it’s obviously Creation

– Yes, so prove a deity.

if Gradual has no proof and is actually disproven(DNA), then atheism is disproven.

– And the operative word is “IF”, which it has been proven.

Actually in DNA we observe intelligent coding.

– In DNA we observe DNA, nothing more, you want to make it intelligent coding, but your “saying” it does not prove it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/…

– WOW, an “opinion” where have I seen that before.

‘Also don’t bring up the fact that Micro-Evolution has been observed, because all this would do is prove that one Species can evolve… into The Same Species, that a Species can adapt to it’s enviroment, you’d still need to prove via Observation that One Species can evolve into a New/Different Species for Evolution to be a fact’

So this doesn’t count? That’s exactly what evolution is! Species adapting to their environment. Humans have done it as well. That is why we have black and white people because black people originate from the hotter parts of the planet and their skin has darkened as a natural defence to the Sun.

Have you not noticed how every animal is perfectly adapted for their purpose? Fish have gills so they can breath underwater, birds have wings so they can fly, moles can dig whole networks of tunnels without sight because they have evolved to work in the dark. It’s that simple.

I believe all of this is a lot more logical than the argument that the world and everything in it was made in 6 days by somebody in the sky. You say we have no proof, but where is YOUR proof? You have none. Zero.

If you want to argue that a scientific theory is incorrect, there is a proper way to do that. The correct way is to identify a prediction that that theory makes, and then show that that prediction is incorrect. That is what you are pretending to do here. You are pretending that evolutionary theory predicts that we should be able to observe speciation happening from beginning to end in a matter of years or centuries. This is a complete and total lie. Evolution makes no such prediction. Instead, it predicts that speciation events are gradual, and boundaries between species can be vague for many, many generations. This prediction is exactly what we observe in the natural world. Your strawman argument is a complete fallacy. But of course you knew that already. Edit: Wait, wait – I didn’t read carefully enough the first time. Did you seriously just suggest that “plant” is a species??! My apologies for my last sentence. I gave your intelligence far too much credit. I never should have suggested that you had any functional knowledge about biology at all. I will amend that part to acknowledge that you probably had not a damn clue how incredibly stupid your argument is.

Yes, it has actually. Please see this peer reviewed example: Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, “Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory.” Evolution 46: 1214-1220

There you go. Peer reviewed evidence definitively *proving* that one species can and has evolved over time into a completely new species. And it did take place in the lab. So you could call that your “observed to evolve in a test tube” criteria if you so desire. Ask and you shall receive. Any more questions?

So how does this work? Now that you’ve asked for evidence, and been provided with exactly what you asked for, do you now acknowledge that evolution is a fact? I ask for evidence that your god exists. If you were able to provide it I would be convinced….. Somehow I’m guessing that being presented with evidence won’t have any affect at all on your opinion…. And I predict that you will choose as “best answer” the most assinine response on here imaginable so long as it exactly mirrors your own, wrong, opinion on the matter.

LOL! Kid, I guess you’re not familiar with the *FACT* that there is no such thing as “micro” or “macro” evolution huh? There is only evolution.(period) It is only theists that try to cling on to those old, long disproved, disctinctions of the exact same phenomenon.

“All you have to do is demonstrated and have observed One Species evolved into a New/Different Species”. OK. Again, DONE. See above. Exactly what you have asked for, provided. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that you didn’t even read the article huh? I think it’s very ironic that I use as a source a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal, with research done by multiple professional scientists. Yet you post a link to Yahoo Answers…… Hilarious.

Hold on….. Account created today…..idiotic question…..denying evidence even after it’s thrown in your face……I’m starting to think that you’re just a Poe. Nobody can really be that stupid. Can they??

Actually, scientists got a chicken to give birth to a duck back in March. Two different species. Google it.

And yet no one personally witnessing creation doesn’t seem to bother you. It’s just for the things you don’t believe in, right? I mean come on, admit it. Every “hole” you seem to see in evolution can also be applied to creation.

There is absolutely NOTHING that illustrates that creation can be observed in DNA, and yet you are touting this as fact, something you are attacking evolutionists for. Your whole reasoning behind that is because something is effective and intricate, it denotes a designer. This argument runs into a brick wall right away with the whole “who designed the designer?” argument. But the only answer you’re going to have to that is “God doesn’t need a designer”, which refutes your entire reasoning because your essentially saying that everything does NOT need a designer. God is not exempt from this argument simply because of what the Bible says. You can’t cop out like that.

So do everyone a favor and just admit that creationism has myriad of flaws and holes, just like you seem to think evolution has. But you wont, because you just take everything that goes against your beliefs and move them into the back of your mind, choosing to remain ignorant of anything that puts a crack in your faith. I’d be nice if you were willing to admit you were lying. You know you are. Of course you don’t think you are, but deep down inside, you know you’re lying. You’re lying for Jesus.

EDIT: LOL?! That article has nothing to do with intelligent design, it is all about how intelligence (i.e. human intelligence) is genetic (as in, runs in the family).

And if scientists can make it happen, that proves that it is possible, so why couldn’t it have happened naturally?

No proof from what I know of a change in species, but there is proof showing the change from one animal to another. The whales. Obviously if you have hind legs or stand on two legs you need hipbones. The whale, however, does not because it uses a tail. Yet it still has hipbones, thus why it is classified as a mammal. Anyway, with this discovery it has been proven that the whale did not start off as a whale, or as an aquatic animal at all. It was once a land mammal that evolved into a whale, which explains why they have hipbones but no legs.

Ah so you lack education and think saying “prove it” means anything?!

Creationists use the term “macroevolution” to describe a form of evolution that they reject. They try to deny that one species can evolve into another. This unscientific doctrine is rejected by science, which holds that there is ample evidence for macroevolution.

A growing number of studies have shown that two animal species can combine to produce a third, sexually viable species in a process known as hybrid speciation. Newly identified examples include both insects and fish.

Animals were generally thought to evolve when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations. But scientists now know that behavior that has been called animals’ sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution.

Hybrid-formed species are usually extremely difficult to detect because of their close physical resemblance to their parent species. But today scientists are able to collect the detailed molecular data needed to identify previously unrecognized hybrids. 10 percent of animal species and 25 percent of plant species are now known to hybridize.

Superbly preserved fossils of the intermediate, Ventastega have been found which compared with the fish-tetrapods, Tiktaalik and Acanthostega amply demonstrate the change from paired fins to paired limbs!!!

The shape of the Ventastega skull, and the pattern of teeth in its jaws, are neatly intermediate between those of Tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

But we do not need fossils to show intermediate evolution! For that we have the living Platypus!!!

The platypus, classified as a mammal because it produces milk and is covered in a coat of fur, also possesses features of reptiles, birds and their common ancestors, along with some curious attributes of its own. One of only two mammals that lays eggs, the platypus also sports a duck-like bill that holds a sophisticated electrosensory system used to forage for food underwater. Males possess hind leg spurs that can deliver pain-inducing venom to its foes competing for a mate or territory during the breeding season. It is therefore classed as a mosaic and is absolute proof of different species mingling!!!

One could be the Bull Terrier.

It’s nose has changed dramatically over the past 80 odd years, and is now almost totally different. It is a minor evolution, yet an evolution nonetheless.

Oh, yeah. Humans. We’ve watched ourselves go from Stone Axe-wielding savages who wore the worst part of nothing and had an IQ rivalling a rasin’s, to the marginally evolved creature we see today.

I guess you never took botany or biology in home school. New species are evolving all the time. Some by chance, some by necessity to survive and some by deliberate manipulation of the genes such as in hybrids for one. Just because a hybrid may not reproduce on its own doesn’t mean it’s not a new species.
A mule is a cross from a horse and a burrow. Lions have been crossed with tigers and thousands of plants and insects have evolved of late.

edit: New pathogens are popping up all the time. That’s why antibiotics and controls can’t keep up.

actually, yes. you can do it with fruit flies. It takes about 3 years to evolve a new fruit fly species, a species unable to breed back into the original stock. It’s an easy enough experiment just about anyone can do.
And if you argue that it doesn’t count because it was done in the lab, you are wrong. But if you can work out the mechanisms to observe and monitor, you could still perform this experiment in the wild, using different ecosystems to provide the natural selection pressures to cause speciation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *