Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a creationist, and I believe in evolution. Evolution happens, sure, yet I don't believe all life descended from a common ancestor. Now, we've done experiments to prove evolution, we see it going on today. What I'm wondering, is there an experiment that shows large scale branching off?
We see evolution in things like the breeding of dogs. At one time, the canine species were pretty much wolves and foxes. Yet man began to domesticate them, and the result is all the different variety of dogs we see today. So this is an example of an experiment that shows evolution on the small scale.
So is there an experiment that shows large scale evolution? That totally unrelated species are shown to have branched off of existing species? (A real time, observable experiment)
So is there an experiment that shows large scale evolution? That totally unrelated species are shown to have branched off of existing species? (A real time, observable experiment)
The million years only comes in because of nature. Evolution is not focused, it's just random change. Yet unlike nature, we are very focused. Theoretically, we should be able to do an experiment to show a branching off of unrelated species.
I'm a creationist, and I believe in evolution. Evolution happens, sure, yet I don't believe all life descended from a common ancestor. Now, we've done experiments to prove evolution, we see it going on today. What I'm wondering, is there an experiment that shows large scale branching off?
We see evolution in things like the breeding of dogs. At one time, the canine species were pretty much wolves and foxes. Yet man began to domesticate them, and the result is all the different variety of dogs we see today. So this is an example of an experiment that shows evolution on the small scale.
So is there an experiment that shows large scale evolution? That totally unrelated species are shown to have branched off of existing species? (A real time, observable experiment)
During the course of the experiment, one sample population of E. Coli bacteria developed the ability to metabolize citrate, something that wild E. Coli are not able to do, and a defining difference between E. Coli and Salmonella.
I'll read up more on this link a little later. From scanning over it, I can understand how the evidence show common descent. Yet as they say, other explanations could also be given for what we see. Common descent is the best explanation from testing and observation. Yet I want something even more concrete concerning the testing. I want a real time experiment. Something that can be viewed to clearly show common descent at work.
During the course of the experiment, one sample population of E. Coli bacteria developed the ability to metabolize citrate, something that wild E. Coli are not able to do, and a defining difference between E. Coli and Salmonella.
Very interesting. I'm not going to lie and say I understand all the things said there, but I do understand a little bit. I'll look more into this experiment and it's results. I think as a creationist however, bacteria wouldn't be considered life in terms of what God calls life. I know I sound un-scientific here, but bear with me for a sec. According to the Bible, life is in the blood. So all creatures that have blood, is considered to be life. Now getting back to science, bacteria is considered to be life. So such an experiment would be valid. (I'm interested to know if the newly evolved bacteria, would be considered totally unrelated to it's ancestors. According to the wiki article, they are, but they could also re-evolve, which I take to mean they could return to the older form in newer generations if my understanding is correct)
Yet I want something a little more concrete than bacteria. As I said, I'm a creationist, and life is considered to be in creatures that have blood. There's no real scientific definition from the Bible, that seperates living bacteria from living animals/humans, but according to the Bible there is a difference. So I would like to see an experiment using creatures.
Saying you can have speciation, but not for every species, is like saying you can cook dinner for your family, but it's patently impossible to cook dinner for 100 people at once.
The changes in each speciation event between prokaryotes and humans were no greater than the changes in any example of speciation. The parents were always fertile with the offspring. Just compare the parents with the 200th generation and they may not be fertile with each other. It's like renovating a house over 20 years, no single project seems huge, but when you look back at what you started with, it's now an entirely different house. Or a child growing up. There's not so much difference between how they are today and how they were yesterday, but go back a year and there's noticeable differences, go back 20 years and they're unrecognisable.
Google "ring species" for a really graphic illustration of this.
Saying you can have speciation, but not for every species, is like saying you can cook dinner for your family, but it's patently impossible to cook dinner for 100 people at once.
The changes in each speciation event between prokaryotes and humans were no greater than the changes in any example of speciation. The parents were always fertile with the offspring. Just compare the parents with the 200th generation and they may not be fertile with each other. It's like renovating a house over 20 years, no single project seems huge, but when you look back at what you started with, it's now an entirely different house. Or a child growing up. There's not so much difference between how they are today and how they were yesterday, but go back a year and there's noticeable differences, go back 20 years and they're unrecognisable.
Google "ring species" for a really graphic illustration of this.
I'm starting to see what you're saying. Yet I'm hesitant to jump on the idea early life on this earth (pretty much bacteria and single cell organisms), evolved into the many creatures we see today, multi-cellular organisms. Are there any experiments showing this in real time?
Yet I want something even more concrete concerning the testing. I want a real time experiment. Something that can be viewed to clearly show common descent at work.
Yet I want something a little more concrete than bacteria. As I said, I'm a creationist, and life is considered to be in creatures that have blood. There's no real scientific definition from the Bible, that seperates living bacteria from living animals/humans, but according to the Bible there is a difference. So I would like to see an experiment using creatures.
So as I suspected, what you want to see is something like a cat turning into a dog overnight and when we can't produce such an experiment (because evolution doesn't do that) you will claim that there is no such thing as macroevolution, raise your 'Creationist' flag and claim victory.
As I said, you will never see what you are wanting to see because you just won't be on this planet long enough.
So as I suspected, what you want to see is something like a cat turning into a dog overnight and when we can't produce such an experiment (because evolution doesn't do that) you will claim that there is no such thing as macroevolution, raise your 'Creationist' flag and claim victory.
As I said, you will never see what you are wanting to see because you just won't be on this planet long enough.
Now don't jump the gun here, I'm not going to wave anything because there are no creationist experiments showing we are right. I'm just thinking theoretically, we should be able to produce such an experiment. Not overnight, but within years, maybe within a couple of hundred of years. (Of course I will be dead by then, but for the sake of others who might be living in that time who denies common descent)
We've shown small scale change that might have took thousands of years to happen naturally. Surely we should be able to do an experiment that shows major change, millions of years worth, within a decade or a hundred years in one continous experiment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but bear with me for a sec. According to the Bible, life is in the blood. So all creatures that have blood, is considered to be life. Now getting back to science, bacteria is considered to be life. So such an experiment would be valid. (I'm interested to know if the newly evolved bacteria, would be considered totally unrelated to it's ancestors. According to the wiki article, they are, but they could also re-evolve, which I take to mean they could return to the older form in newer generations if my understanding is correct)
