Another Evolution Question?

Question

Alright, so I got hammered (with misinformation by the way) in my last question by people who *do not* believe in evolution even though the question was for people who *do* believe in evolution.

So, my question to you in return is; if people are using evolution in the lab to create new things would that be proof enough for you?

In the lab, completely observable, completely new things being created as the result.

What more proof could you ask for?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2004/04_55AR.html

The point that all of you seem to miss is that the software is based on the same principles of evolution:

Mutation

Randomness

Population

Crossover

Selection

Much of science today is based on computer modeling of the 'natural' world. The same laws (and in this case algorithms) that apply in the natural world apply when modeling the world on computers.

And to ipeemountaindew, *** you. Your too stupid to understand the *exact* same things you copy and pasted were what went into this computer modeling.

Answer 1

The fact that creatures adapt points to Evolution as the most plausible explanation for the rise and ultimate dominance of mammals.
That mankind is developing technology-wise, developing new skills and techniques in the process, and hasn't stood still in all it's time on this planet also supports a general Evolutionary theory.

Answer 2

Buddhist,
Really, pay close attention because I think you're a little off track. What they created is a machine, not a living thing.

Second, all we have seen is variation in species. No one has ever observed one species turning into another one. We only see variations.

Last, if science created a completely new species in a lab, that would prove that it takes an intelligent designer to create life, thus proving creation and not evolution.

The true theory of evolution says that if you leave chemicals alone they will somehow make themselves into something other than a variation of themselves. It wont happen in a million years or 100 million years.

Answer 3

Sorry, not a life form!

Let them make at least one virus or an amoeba out of chemicals! I'm liberal in my combination of chemicals, but those chemicals CANNOT contain life forms already! They must be chemicals. Amino acids. Protein strains. Building blocks, not something with a nucleus!

And I do believe in evolution, I just can't believe life occurs randomly, by chance mixing of chemcials and that humans evolved from animals.

First, most animals are more humane than humans! It's insulting to some animals! Many animals have a well organized structure and few animal groups wage WAR.

Man if virtually alone in that.

How many animal groups put the word out, conscript other animals and then venture into a rivals territory to rape and pillage.

Most animals are too teritorial and probably too civilized to do that!

Stop insulting animals. They never made an A bomb or bio weapon!

Answer 4

Even though scientists are creating new, unique lifeforms in the laboratory, that doesn't amount to any type of proof about naturally occuring evolution, because the scientists are there to guide the process.

I don't think there is a conclusive way to absolutely prove evolution, especially to those with religious views that differ.

Answer 5

Here again you have another opportunity to repent for the misinformation you have given. What the link shows is totally different matter. It is about an evolutionary software by NASA. Darwin is not the inventor of word "evolution" to claim right for the word wherever used.

You cannot think wiser than this for you don't have the base.

Answer 6

I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 7

The theory of evolution is unprovable in that it can not be scientificaly observed... as it speaks to that which happened over millions of years...not what may or may not happen in a test tube in some lab... just as the creation story of my Christian Faith can not be "proven" to any non-believer... It was not observed by any living today or by any of those who recorded the verbal history thousands of years ago.... non of it will be "proven" untill God decides it is time for man to know "The rest of the story"...and that's the way it is....

Answer 8

First, trhe creation is always within a species. To the best of my knowledge no lab ever used fish cells to create a mammal. Even Darwin never asserted that species change only that they adapt.

Answer 9

Yeah well, synthetic evolution is not really evolution though. I mean, if it is being "forced" by humans is it really evolution? Evolution is nature's process, not human process. It's survival of the fittest. Can you really show that what evolves in a lab is the result of the fittest of any species?

Answer 10

See, your evolution has one major snag.
Your saved by "proof". Which you have none. You have not gone out and done these studies. you are relying on man for information. Your proof is not real. You live a man-made opinion, based on guess, and man's logic. Your saved by man's logic. If I remember correctly, man's logic built the Titanic.

I'm saved by Faith. I can't be wrong. My faith is real based on what man has said that were eye witness' to Jesus Christ life.


Now. Let both understand one thing my friend. MAN has not created anything new. Man has NOT made anything that was not already here from the beginning. Man only combined minerals and such to "create" his own delusion.

You tell me what Made has invented that God didn't.

Plastic? wrong. it's made from Oil.
Glass? wrong, it's made from sand.
Steel? wrong, it's made from minerals.


You tell me..........................