Evidence of evolution?

[billwald]

http://www.livescience.com/21614-mo...ter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=SP_07162012


A new species of monkey flower has been found in Scotland, the product of a tryst between two foreign flowers. But this is no ordinary love child. While almost all such hybrids are sterile — just as mules are sterile hybrids of donkeys and horses — a rare genetic duplication allowed this species to become fertile.

It's rare to discover a newly evolved species, said researcher Mario Vallejo-Marin, who found the handsome yellow flower while on a walk through southern Scotland with his family last summer.

While many new species of plants are thought to arise this way, it has only been witnessed amongst wild plants a handful of times in history, said Vallejo-Marin, a scientist at the University of Stirling. Hybrid flowers typically have an odd number of chromosomes, or enormous packets of DNA, making them unable to reproduce. But this flower somehow duplicated its entire genome.

 

[Jon-Marc]

There can be NO "evidence of evolution" since evolution is just a lie of the devil. Nothing evolves, but things and people can adapt to their environment with minor mutations for lack of a better word. Evolution is one species changing into an entirely different species, and that does NOT happen.

Where are all the fossils of animals that died while in the process of changing from one species to another? After all, that process wasn't supposed to happen immediately but over a period of millions of years.Can evolutionists show us a fossil of a fish with legs and lungs for living on land that died while changing? No they can't. They claim there was a "big bang" that started everything. If there wasn't anything to go "bang", then what caused the "bang"?

 

[Deacon]

Lets see if I got this right

One flower + One flower = new flower.

"Move along, nothing to see here"

Now if it was a cross between a monkey and a flower I might get excited.

There can be NO "evidence of evolution" since evolution is just a lie of the devil. Nothing evolves, but things and people can adapt to their environment with minor mutations for lack of a better word. Evolution is one species changing into an entirely different species, and that does NOT happen.

Where are all the fossils of animals that died while in the process of changing from one species to another? After all, that process wasn't supposed to happen immediately but over a period of millions of years.Can evolutionists show us a fossil of a fish with legs and lungs for living on land that died while changing? No they can't. They claim there was a "big bang" that started everything. If there wasn't anything to go "bang", then what caused the "bang"?

Wow Jon, you'd better go back to your elementary school science books and re-read them, I think you missed something.

Rob

 

[Winman]

It is not evolution because it did not happen by chance.

 

[billwald]

>It is not evolution because it did not happen by chance.

God can't design a random factor into his creation?

 

[The Biblicist]

>It is not evolution because it did not happen by chance.

God can't design a random factor into his creation?

If so, then Jesus cannot be the omnipotent God in flesh as he placed the institution of marriage "at the beginning of creation." However, evolution would place the origin of man billions of years after creation.

Either Jesus is God as he claimed or he is the greatest deceiver who ever walked the face of the earth and a lunatic besides for claiming to be God in the flesh.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God created the heaven and the earth and "all that is in them" in 6 literal days....no room to speculate about whether God designed "random factors" when you believe in the literal interpretation of God's Word.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Well, there is evolution ..... and then there's evolution.

People will disagree with me here, but whatever....

Two separate species of flowers reproducing and the hybrid adapting to its environment to the point where it can reproduce by itself is, in my opinion, mico-evolution, which is provable and observable.

How do we think that the poodle, the dachshund, black roses, and the Maine Coon cat got here? They certainly weren't on Noah's ark.

Brand new breeds of all kinds of plants and animals have been happening all the time - ever since the animals got off of the ark and the plants grew back. And there are all SORTS of reasons for that. Species can lose genetic information because of mutations, natural selection, and human beings purposefully cross-breeding certain existing species of plants or animals and it only takes a few generations.

But, macro-evolution, which requires the ADDITION of brand new genetic information - non-existent before to "pop up" out of thin air and to cause a rose bush to eventually turn into a pine tree or a tree frog to eventually turn into a mountain lion......over millions and millions of years......with several unobservable and never evidenced missing "links" in the chain....

......well, that's just plain silly.

And anyway, it is neither provable, observable, or experimentally available. Ergo, it isn't genuine science. Macro-evolution is metaphyiscs which is a philosophy, not a science.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, there is evolution ..... and then there's evolution.

People will disagree with me here, but whatever....

Two separate species of flowers reproducing and the hybrid adapting to its environment to the point where it can reproduce by itself is, in my opinion, mico-evolution, which is provable and observable.

How do we think that the poodle, the dachshund, black roses, and the Maine Coon cat got here? They certainly weren't on Noah's ark.

Brand new breeds of all kinds of plants and animals have been happening all the time - ever since the animals got off of the ark and the plants grew back. And there are all SORTS of reasons for that. Species can lose genetic information because of mutations, natural selection, and human beings purposefully cross-breeding certain existing species of plants or animals.

But, macro-evolution, which requires the ADDITION of brand new genetic information - non-existent before to "pop up" out of thin air and to cause a rose bush to eventually turn into a pine tree or a tree frog to eventually turn into a mountain lion......

......well, that's just plain silly.

And anyway, it is neither provable, observable, or experimentally available. Ergo, it isn't genuine science. Macro-evolution is metaphyiscs which is a philosophy, not a science.

Excellent!

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, there is evolution ..... and then there's evolution.

People will disagree with me here, but whatever....

Two separate species of flowers reproducing and the hybrid adapting to its environment to the point where it can reproduce by itself is, in my opinion, mico-evolution, which is provable and observable.

How do we think that the poodle, the dachshund, black roses, and the Maine Coon cat got here? They certainly weren't on Noah's ark.

Brand new breeds of all kinds of plants and animals have been happening all the time - ever since the animals got off of the ark and the plants grew back. And there are all SORTS of reasons for that. Species can lose genetic information because of mutations, natural selection, and human beings purposefully cross-breeding certain existing species of plants or animals and it only takes a few generations.

But, macro-evolution, which requires the ADDITION of brand new genetic information - non-existent before to "pop up" out of thin air and to cause a rose bush to eventually turn into a pine tree or a tree frog to eventually turn into a mountain lion......over millions and millions of years......with several unobservable and never evidenced missing "links" in the chain....

......well, that's just plain silly.

And anyway, it is neither provable, observable, or experimentally available. Ergo, it isn't genuine science. Macro-evolution is metaphyiscs which is a philosophy, not a science.

Well said:thumbsup:

 

[Amy.G]

Different breeds of dogs, cats, whatever are not new. They all come from a common ancestor..either a dog or a cat or whatever. The different breeds are merely different combinations of DNA that were present in the original pair. Same with humans. Adam and Eve were only 2 people, but contained the DNA to produce many different traits, not different breeds.

 

[The Biblicist]

Different breeds of dogs, cats, whatever are not new. They all come from a common ancestor..either a dog or a cat or whatever. The different breeds are merely different combinations of DNA that were present in the original pair. Same with humans. Adam and Eve were only 2 people, but contained the DNA to produce many different traits, not different breeds.

Amy,

You are correct that all ability to adapt and all variants are genetically present in the original pair God created.

 

[billwald]

We don't see macro evolution in large critters because our life span is to short and humans have not been civilized long enough to notice.

It is a miracle that we have as much pre-historical evidence as we do. Logically, every intermediate link we find creates two more "missing links" to be found. If we had a continuous record the progression would be obvious.

If all you had was my baby picture and my driver's license picture the connection between the two would not be obvious. If you had a photo taken every 5 or 10 years it would be obvious.

 

[The Biblicist]

We don't see macro evolution in large critters because our life span is to short and humans have not been civilized long enough to notice.

It is a miracle that we have as much pre-historical evidence as we do. Logically, every intermediate link we find creates two more "missing links" to be found. If we had a continuous record the progression would be obvious.

If all you had was my baby picture and my driver's license picture the connection between the two would not be obvious. If you had a photo taken every 5 or 10 years it would be obvious.

Truly your religion requires much more faith than Christianity.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I've put my thoughts on the subject in my blog:

http://www.sapperwoody.blogspot.com/2012/01/creation-vs-evolution-part-2.html

 

[Scarlett O.]

We don't see macro evolution in large critters because our life span is to short and humans have not been civilized long enough to notice.

Human beings may have not been civilized long, but that doesn't negate the fact that modern and civilized humanity has limitless access via scientific technology to explore and examine our own uncivilized past and the earth's past.


It's like this. I wasn't alive during the Civil War. But because of artifacts, primary sources, photographs, and even secondary sources - I can know more about it today than even some who lived it did.

It is a miracle that we have as much pre-historical evidence as we do. Logically, every intermediate link we find creates two more "missing links" to be found. If we had a continuous record the progression would be obvious.

But, bill, that's just it. Where are the "intermediate" links that you claim we have found? I'd like to see a listing of them. As for as a continuous progress is concerned, evolutionists have been presenting these for decades - as a factual evidence - without evidence of links - intermediate, missing, or otherwise.

That's why it is called a "theory". Only it is presented as fact - and a fact without merit, evidence, and not even a hint of even desiring evidence. No one is even trying anymore. We've just "accepted" the "fact" and don't care that it isn't factual at all.​

If all you had was my baby picture and my driver's license picture the connection between the two would not be obvious. If you had a photo taken every 5 or 10 years it would be obvious.

Not the same. You and your baby picture are showing the same organism - you - only in different stages of the same organism's life. Evolution is claiming that two completely separate organisms - apes and humans - came from the same "baby picture" or ancestor. If you were to show me your baby picture and then to show me a picture of yourself today and a picture of a orangutan and tell me that both you and the orangutan were once the same baby ....

....well, you get the idea.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, there is evolution ..... and then there's evolution.

People will disagree with me here, but whatever....

Two separate species of flowers reproducing and the hybrid adapting to its environment to the point where it can reproduce by itself is, in my opinion, mico-evolution, which is provable and observable.

How do we think that the poodle, the dachshund, black roses, and the Maine Coon cat got here? They certainly weren't on Noah's ark.

Brand new breeds of all kinds of plants and animals have been happening all the time - ever since the animals got off of the ark and the plants grew back. And there are all SORTS of reasons for that. Species can lose genetic information because of mutations, natural selection, and human beings purposefully cross-breeding certain existing species of plants or animals and it only takes a few generations.

But, macro-evolution, which requires the ADDITION of brand new genetic information - non-existent before to "pop up" out of thin air and to cause a rose bush to eventually turn into a pine tree or a tree frog to eventually turn into a mountain lion......over millions and millions of years......with several unobservable and never evidenced missing "links" in the chain....

......well, that's just plain silly.

And anyway, it is neither provable, observable, or experimentally available. Ergo, it isn't genuine science. Macro-evolution is metaphyiscs which is a philosophy, not a science.

Chrsitians can and do hold to evolution within same species, as God created/designed within the original animal/parents ALL genetic coding needed to evolve/adapt within species !

NO evidence for inter species evolution, nor is it in the bible, as plainly Lord created all living things "after theirown likeness!"

And NO reason evolutionists can postulate for just WHY/HOW humans are different from all other animals, in that we have souls!

 

[WestminsterMan]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God created the heaven and the earth and "all that is in them" in 6 literal days....no room to speculate about whether God designed "random factors" when you believe in the literal interpretation of God's Word.

Literal? Hmmmm... Please give us your literal interpretation of John 6.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Literal? Hmmmm... Please give us your literal interpretation of John 6.

WM

Jesus plainly SHOWS you how to interpret his language in John 6 both before and after the passage you are so concerned about but you simply refuse to accept it:

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.



Jn. 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Jesus plainly SHOWS you how to interpret his language in John 6 both before and after the passage you are so concerned about but you simply refuse to accept it:

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.



Jn. 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Skipping over it are we?

WM