Calling all evolutionist! Answer the unanswerable for me!?

Question

How can an evolutionist say that evolution is fact if there is no proof! Tell me about an instance of evolution that anyone has witnessed, please. Explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Tell me how you continue to believe inspite of the fossils record's contradicting evidence? Can you do that? And finally, has the black community been informed that Darwin considered them closer to the apes that white poeple?

AND IF YOU WANT THIS SAID ANOTHER WAY, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

ADAPTATION TO THE THREAT OF ANTIBIOTICS, NOT EVOLUTION! THE THINGS THAT CHANGED IN RESPONSE TO EVOLUTION AREN'T NEW ORGANISMS.

IS IT SO IMPOOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT ALL CURENT ORGANISMS ARE DECENDANDS OF THE ORIGINAL GROUP? THEIR IS ROOM FOR HUGE AMMOUNTS OF VARIATION IN EACH SPECIES. OVER THE PERIOD OF SIX THOUSAND PLUS YEARS, THIS VARIATION HAS CREATED THE SPECIES WE SEE TODAY.

SW, READ "IT COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN" FOR OVERWHOLMING EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION, AND A CLEAR VIEWPOINT OF A RELIGION THAT YOU WEREN'T ( I ASSUME ) TAUGHT ABOUT IN SCHOOL.

Answer 1

OK. Instances of evolution (speciation, not just adaptation to pesticides or antibiotics through selection):

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

These are just a few of the many recorded speciation events. There are many more.

As to the lack of evidence in the fossil record, I'm not sure exactly what you are refering to. The fossil record contains many thousands of pieces of evidence FOR evolution. In fact, every fossil ever found has provided more and more evidence that the diversity of life has undergone changes and shifts in morphology and physiology and that shifts and changes have occurred in the fashion predicted by observations of genetic diversity in modern organisms, at the time periods predicted by evolutionary theory, and according to the phylogenies reconstructed through comparing modern physiognomies, genetic reconstruction and cladistic analysis.

Perhaps you could provide a single piece of this 'contradicting evidence' you claim exists, and then we can examine that. In the meantime I'll provide a single piece of non-contradicting evidence for you: All of the great apes living today (gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan) share a unique cusp morphology in their molar teeth. They possess a single extra cusp when compared with cercopithecoid primates such as baboons and rhesus monkeys. There is one addition living species which shares this character. Homo sapiens sapiens. There are also several fossil species which share this character: the Australopithecines and the other species of the Genus Homo (i.e. Homo habilis, Homo erectus). Nothing contradictory to the theory of evolution there.

And finally, even if Darwin did consider black people closer to apes than white people (which isn't true, but that's beside the point), it does not provide evidence that the theory of speciation through natural selection is incorrect. Linus Pauling believed that massive doses of Vitamin C were good for you, that doesn't mean that his work on the nature of chemical bonds and the determination of crystal and protein structure is wrong.

Answer 2

Did you know that around 50% of people do not have wisdom teethe? Why? Because we do not need them anymore. They are being ripped out of most who have them...I happen to have none on the bottom and my top ones are so far up that they probably will never be an issue. That is an adaptation...survival of the fittest...evolution. Also, there is proof that race is NOT a scientific phenomenon. Race cannot be determined genetically, race is a human invention. With that in mind, black people cannot be compared to apes because of there skin color so let's not make it a race issue...and let's not forget that it was YOUR bible that allowed slave owners to get away with saying that slavery was a "necessary evil" and that blacks were inferior to whites. I'm not saying there is truth in those statements, but they were used and accepted at that time. The bible is a beautiful story, a tool for living life some 2000 years ago, a way to live peacefully with one another. It gave people a since of security, a faith in a higher being. Religion and the bible has been used and abused to control, boost morale, and convince others that believers are good folks. Also, the thing that annoys me is that apples and oranges are being compared. Evolution is defined as change over time. We can see change over time in any area...the fact that I'm responding to your question via a computer is a change to the way people in the 1920's responded. Life has and is changing over time. The argument is not if evolution exist...it does. The argument is that of creation. Who created us, the universe, etc. We will know....we will, probably not in any lifetime right now...so it's easier to have blind faith in a greater being until someone figures the puzzle out. Truths are uncovered daily...some "BIG" truths are only uncovered every 50 years, but eventually, there will be an answer. I guess it boils down to..."when i die, will I A) Go in to the ground and contribute to the circle of life the end or B) will I make it past the pearly gates of heaven into the afterlife. Why have the discussion...doesn't the bible say to love thy neighbor, obey laws, and the golden rule? Wouldn't be easier if the holy rollers minded their own business and left the scientists be. A good religious person should want to respect and learn from an evolutionary scientist and vice versa. Maybe if there was more openness, there would be more answers. Scientists are always willing to share their results and research and improve on it. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was like that?

Answer 3

First, evolution is a theory just like any other, meaning that it cannot be unequivocally proved or disproved. My at least partial belief in evolution is based on the obvious logic of natural selection and vestigial structures. If whales don't have legs, why do they have pelvises? Easy: they, or whatever creature they evolved from, DID have legs. As for Darwin's beliefs, just remember: mankind used to believe that the earth was flat, and Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun. On a different note, if antibiotic-resistant bacteria had been around a few centuries ago, they most certainly would have been classified as a different species than the bacteria they adapted from. Finally, belief in God and in evolution is not mutually exclusive. There is even a nice (albiet controversial) middle-ground: intelligent design.

Answer 4

Ready? Let's begin. Sure, there may be no proof in the form of documentation, but I also remember learning in grammar school history that our cave dwelling brethren did not have the luxury of parchment, and that their writing was done in the form of pictures. Moving right along, the fossil record is to this day being filled with new evolutionary discoveries (try reading the news once in awhile, it's all there, in English). I believe in evolution for many reasons, but let's stick to the elementary facts. The only time I can think of where my body felt like it may or may not have been crafted from the earth, clay and sand is when I get up from sitting on the beach and have to shake the sand out of my ***. A theological explanation places man as being created in the beginning of the world (Genesis). Well, scientific studies have shown that man is a relatively new species and most certainly did not exist in the time when the earth was covered with a giant ocean, unless you want to believe in merpeople. The Flintstones is historically incorrect, man did not coexist with dinosaurs, and the first homo-erectus did not appear until long, long after the extinction of said beasts. As for the black community, they should know that Darwin is not infallible, and I'm sure he had his biases as we all somewhat do. His statements on that were probably based on the fact that black folk were still considered "uncivilized" and were largely tribal in their home land at that time period. I can't tell you what to believe, but put God away for a moment and look at the physical world around you.

Answer 5

Certain microorganisms have always had "antibiotic resistance." The only reason antibiotic resistance came to be known is because antibiotics were created. Before this time a small percentage of microorganisms had a certain amount of resistance. A resistance that was useless before the dawn of antibiotics. Antibiotics first kill the microorganisms with the lowest resistance. After these are killed, one taking an antibiotic should continue the antibiotic to completely rid there system of the harmful microorganisms. If this is not done the microorganisms with the resistant trait continue to exist and reproduce. At a certain point the ratio of resistant to non-resistant bacteria is too high and another antibiotic is necessary. I suppose one could deem that natural selection, but it does not prove the existence of another species, just the extinction of the weaker one.

Answer 6

You need to put your Bible down and check into a bookstore. There is plenty of evidence in the science section, but I doubt if you'll ever go there. Evolutionists don't feel that the theory is something to be adhered to like a religion. Theories themselves evolve. And proof isn't necessary, it's evidence that supports a theory. The unattractive truth about religion is that it is dogmatic and resists change or adaptation. By it's very nature, religion does not evolve. Besides, whats wrong with descending from an ape? Are you an elitist? I doubt that God wants us to be so ignorant, thats why I just try to do the next best thing and try to listen to God as he speaks through other people and circumstances. You are a typical Religionist, "to hell with all other opinions, my religion is better than your religion." People like you disgust me.

Answer 7

First of all there are facts that support evolution like the fact that some genetic traits of apes are found in humans. The genetic codes are unique for every creature. These codes may have similarities that point to the fact that there were common ancestors of some beings.
Without these links it would be as if all the animals and birds just poped out att some time onto the earth.

Answer 8

I believe in creation but I believe God made things to adapt over time or to go extinct if they cannot change. That's a form of evolution. I love to study Biology and the more I study it the more am convinced in creation. I have friends that are the complete opposite though.

Answer 9

well some of the genetic processes have taken place in creating you from your parents. You have been genetically modified by nature. Whether you choose to call that evolution or whatever the fact remains that it has happened. Over many generations these changes are more perceptible. It is like watching your kid grow. In one day there is not much "visible" change, even though there is change. But over many years there is more visible change also. Similarly with genetic changes.

Answer 10

WHile it does have scientific backin, the theory of evolution is such a slow process that the historcal records don't go back far enough to show evolution in black and white.
However, ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE.
I get the feeling you posted your question just so that you could start an argument, not to start an intellectual discussion...

Answer 11

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. The problem you have is you are reading all the creationist claptrap. It is misinformed, misinterpretive and just plain lies. Read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins for some enlightenment.

You don't have to give up your christian belief to understand evolution. The people who wrote the bible had no way of knowing the truth about creation so no one is blaming them for getting it wrong.