Look up the Hawthorne fly. When apples were introduced to north america, a certain group of these flies began to feed primarily on apples. This group of flies matures faster and earlier in the season than normal Hawthorne flies, and differences have been recorded in six out of thirteen allozyme loci. These new "apple flies" will no longer interbreed with normal Hawthornes, suggesting that sympatric speciation is occuring right in front of our eyes.
@gastarbeiter1, It's like how black ink on paper disseminates into separate colors when water is added. The colors were there in the black ink originally. Speciation is like that. But evolution would be like another color being added that was not there originally.
@forest51690 What does the definition of evolution say?Basically its change over time.In the case of biological evolution it happens due to mutation and then followed by natural or sexual selection or genetic drift(mostly in small population).So by definition every speciation IS evolution.
The potential of all this(the black ink) was the first living organism(wherever you might label it life or not).It had a replicating molecule.Basically this veried to everything we know.
@gastarbeiter1, change over time, yes, but in an upward, more complex direction, adding new features. All of the genetic codes were not in the first organism; they were added over time. Speciation may only be a recombination of existing genes (a mix and match kind of thing), and not the appearance of new genetic codes. So it's change, yes, but not change in the upward direction.
@forest51690 The potential was there.That is all that is needed.New information has been observed.Mutations do the work(hox genes can do great changes if mutated).Also epigenetic has a big impact.Also it has been proven that in humans over 150 mutations are fixed in the genome per generation.Also upward is a bad expression here.There is no ladder.It is fitting to the environment.Nothing more.
Creationism is a conspiracy theory. Assuming for a moment that creationists are correct, all branches of science and the experts therein (irrespective of faith) must be colluding to convince each other that the age of the Universe is 14 billion years. And to what end? A description of nature doesn't negate the need for a creator. It certainly doesn't disprove the story of Jesus. Creationists are like the fans of a sports team that only ever blame their losses on a biased referee.
They're not trying to convince each other. The thing is, they're already convinced there is no Creator, and they go from there. All of their conclusions have that foundational presupposition.
@forest51690 "They're already convinced there is no Creator" Not so. This is the big lie that you've been fed, and for some mysterious reason seem to have swallowed. Again, plenty of scientists are people of faith, and of all levels of devotion. Nor does one single observation, law or theory in science suggest that there is no creator.
Yes there are many scientists with religious beliefs, but mainstream science has a bias against religious explanations such as "God created the earth." If anyone wrote a scientific paper on that, they would get laughed at.
@forest51690 Rightly so, and any Christian scientist would agree. It's a simplistic thing to say, even if it is true. If God created everything then there is no way that nature can take the place of God, and science aims only to describe nature. And yet creationists claim that some observations in nature cannot be true because they would refute the existence of God! How could this possibly be?!
To use the common analogy, there is no level of study of a painting that could possibly refute the existence of the painter. Creationists like to say that scientists continually change their ideas. This only goes to show that our understanding changes over time. Had the writers of Genesis been told "God set the gravitational constant to x, and the permittivity of free space to y" there is no way the real 'truth' of the story would have been understood. Genesis therefore uses allegory.
So you are saying that learning outside of what your parents and pastor tell you is bad? Have you ever taken a biology class or opened a biology textbook? The difference between creationists and those who side with evolution is evidence. Evolution has a variety of sources and is constantly being updated with new discoveries. Creationism doesn't and is stagnant.
No I am not saying learning is bad. I have both taken a biology class and opened a biology textbook. Evolutionists and Creationists both have the same evidence. Yes, Evolution's theories are constantly changing to accomodate new discoveries, but Creation has stayed basically the same since its writing :) God told it to Abraham, who wrote it down, and God does not lie, so there is no reason for it to change. Creationism is rock-solid.
@forest51690 If creationism is so rock solid, where does it talk about DNA? How about the fossil record? Speciation?
Also, if you are under the assumption that Abraham supposedly wrote down what god said to him, why is it that there were not written records of anything until thousands of years later?
In science, having one source for information does not suffice. Instead, many different sources need to test the claims of a single source to validate the claims. The bible isn't a science book.
@junosden Well creationism is more of a platform, defining key aspects and constraints, like these: - God created the earth from nothing in six normal days. - The earth was covered by a global flood. I mean that this platform found in from the word of God is solid. It hasn't changed.
There may have been written records of creation before Abraham; Abrahams was just the one that we have now. It says that Abraham met in his tent with God regularly. God spoke to him "clearly and not in riddles" (Numbers 12:8). I'm sure God told him the story of creation.
Look up the Hawthorne fly. When apples were introduced to north america, a certain group of these flies began to feed primarily on apples. This group of flies matures faster and earlier in the season than normal Hawthorne flies, and differences have been recorded in six out of thirteen allozyme loci. These new "apple flies" will no longer interbreed with normal Hawthornes, suggesting that sympatric speciation is occuring right in front of our eyes.
brianpv1 1 year ago
@brianpv1 Yes, sympatric speciation may be occuring there. But speciation is not necessarly evolution.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 How can speciation NOT be evolution?
gastarbeiter1 7 months ago
@gastarbeiter1, It's like how black ink on paper disseminates into separate colors when water is added. The colors were there in the black ink originally. Speciation is like that. But evolution would be like another color being added that was not there originally.
forest51690 7 months ago
@forest51690 What does the definition of evolution say?Basically its change over time.In the case of biological evolution it happens due to mutation and then followed by natural or sexual selection or genetic drift(mostly in small population).So by definition every speciation IS evolution.
The potential of all this(the black ink) was the first living organism(wherever you might label it life or not).It had a replicating molecule.Basically this veried to everything we know.
gastarbeiter1 7 months ago
@gastarbeiter1, change over time, yes, but in an upward, more complex direction, adding new features. All of the genetic codes were not in the first organism; they were added over time. Speciation may only be a recombination of existing genes (a mix and match kind of thing), and not the appearance of new genetic codes. So it's change, yes, but not change in the upward direction.
forest51690 7 months ago
@forest51690 The potential was there.That is all that is needed.New information has been observed.Mutations do the work(hox genes can do great changes if mutated).Also epigenetic has a big impact.Also it has been proven that in humans over 150 mutations are fixed in the genome per generation.Also upward is a bad expression here.There is no ladder.It is fitting to the environment.Nothing more.
gastarbeiter1 7 months ago
When u are given facts... u delete them from your posts. Do facts scare you that much?
Bats are not birds. This is no misinterpretation from the bible
There is no such thing as a firmament. Again... those in your circles must reason these stories away in the bible
The Sun was NOT created after the Earth
Joshua (With "God's help) Could NOT have stopped the Sun and the Moon our solar system simply does not work this way.
There are millions more.
Are you going to delete this post too?
emeralds222 1 year ago
@emeralds222 I deleted your last comment because it was off-topic. I don't want my comments to be cluttered.
Bats can be birds if the meaning of the word "bird" only meant flying things, as it probably did in Hebrew.
There is not now, but there may have been a firmament in the past.
The sun was created after the earth.
God can do anything.
There are not millions more. I think we've talked about most of these things before....
forest51690 1 year ago
Creationism is a conspiracy theory. Assuming for a moment that creationists are correct, all branches of science and the experts therein (irrespective of faith) must be colluding to convince each other that the age of the Universe is 14 billion years. And to what end? A description of nature doesn't negate the need for a creator. It certainly doesn't disprove the story of Jesus. Creationists are like the fans of a sports team that only ever blame their losses on a biased referee.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z
They're not trying to convince each other. The thing is, they're already convinced there is no Creator, and they go from there. All of their conclusions have that foundational presupposition.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 "They're already convinced there is no Creator" Not so. This is the big lie that you've been fed, and for some mysterious reason seem to have swallowed. Again, plenty of scientists are people of faith, and of all levels of devotion. Nor does one single observation, law or theory in science suggest that there is no creator.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
@Misterb0z
Yes there are many scientists with religious beliefs, but mainstream science has a bias against religious explanations such as "God created the earth." If anyone wrote a scientific paper on that, they would get laughed at.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 Rightly so, and any Christian scientist would agree. It's a simplistic thing to say, even if it is true. If God created everything then there is no way that nature can take the place of God, and science aims only to describe nature. And yet creationists claim that some observations in nature cannot be true because they would refute the existence of God! How could this possibly be?!
Misterb0z 1 year ago
To use the common analogy, there is no level of study of a painting that could possibly refute the existence of the painter. Creationists like to say that scientists continually change their ideas. This only goes to show that our understanding changes over time. Had the writers of Genesis been told "God set the gravitational constant to x, and the permittivity of free space to y" there is no way the real 'truth' of the story would have been understood. Genesis therefore uses allegory.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
So you are saying that learning outside of what your parents and pastor tell you is bad? Have you ever taken a biology class or opened a biology textbook? The difference between creationists and those who side with evolution is evidence. Evolution has a variety of sources and is constantly being updated with new discoveries. Creationism doesn't and is stagnant.
junosden 1 year ago
@junosden
No I am not saying learning is bad. I have both taken a biology class and opened a biology textbook. Evolutionists and Creationists both have the same evidence. Yes, Evolution's theories are constantly changing to accomodate new discoveries, but Creation has stayed basically the same since its writing :) God told it to Abraham, who wrote it down, and God does not lie, so there is no reason for it to change. Creationism is rock-solid.
forest51690 1 year ago
@forest51690 If creationism is so rock solid, where does it talk about DNA? How about the fossil record? Speciation?
Also, if you are under the assumption that Abraham supposedly wrote down what god said to him, why is it that there were not written records of anything until thousands of years later?
In science, having one source for information does not suffice. Instead, many different sources need to test the claims of a single source to validate the claims. The bible isn't a science book.
junosden 1 year ago
@junosden Well creationism is more of a platform, defining key aspects and constraints, like these: - God created the earth from nothing in six normal days. - The earth was covered by a global flood. I mean that this platform found in from the word of God is solid. It hasn't changed.
forest51690 1 year ago
@junosden
There may have been written records of creation before Abraham; Abrahams was just the one that we have now. It says that Abraham met in his tent with God regularly. God spoke to him "clearly and not in riddles" (Numbers 12:8). I'm sure God told him the story of creation.
forest51690 1 year ago