A question each for evolutionists and creationists...?

Question

Evolutionists: Would it be ethical and worthwhile to take members of a sexually reproducing species, divide them into two groups, and encourage completely separate traits in each? The goal would be to eventually make them unable to interbreed, fulfilling the requirements for them to be considered distinct species. The caveat is that it would be very expensive, need to be on a massive scale with hundreds or thousands of organisms in each generation, and the traits we select for wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to the organisms.

Creationists: If scientists did this and were completely, unquestionably successful, would you believe in evolution?

Please explicitly indicate whether you're a creationist or evolutionist in your answer.

By detrimental traits, I mean unpleasant mutations. We'd be selecting for different species only, not different healthy species... in other words, just taking the most divergently "weird" members of each strain and mating them to each other to try to make the strains as different as possible. For example, if we used rats, one strain might become blind, hairless, and unable to synthesize their own amino acids while the other one might become limbless and have an unsymmetrical skeletal structure. Of course, I don't think anyone would complain of the ethics if we just used plants...

I just wanted to say I'm very impressed with these answers. I didn't expect nearly this much thoughtfulness and depth.

It's almost tempting to give Dee best answer, though-- even with irrefutable evidence of evolution, she would remain true to her convictions. That's exactly what I was afraid I'd hear.

Answer 1

Nothing unethical about this at all. You can do this using plant species, or species of fruit flies, worms, or fish ... and is no more unethical than your local pet shop breeding fish for your aquarium.

The difficulty is not ethics, but the *huge* number of generations required for speciation to occur.

Nevertheless, THIS HAS BEEN DONE. Speciation has occurred and been documented both in the laboratory and in the wild.

Source #1 gives *many* examples of speciation in the lab using both plants and animals. Among animals, fruit flies (drosophila) are by far the most common species used in the lab, but also house flies, beetles, and worms.

It is also done with bacteria ... however, since they reproduce asexually, the definition of 'species' is harder to agree upon.

Some additional examples in Source #2:

1. Two strains of fruit flies developed hybrid sterility in the lab over a 4-year span. ('Hybrid sterility' means that mating between the two strains produced infertile offspring, the definition of speciation.)

2. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock, was documented by Mosquin in 1967.

3. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

4. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

However, this has not convinced creationists.

However, I admire your pluck in posing the question "what would it take to convince you" to creationists. That is a question scientists ask themselves *every single day*, but it is contrary to the philosophy of faith-based belief systems like Creationism. This is why I believe that the efforts by religious leaders to promote the "science of creationism" is a *horrible* thing to do to the faithful who listen to them. By saying "your faith is verified by, and therefore subject to, science" they actually *demean* pure faith. This forces a crisis of faith in believers. It has backfired, and forced Christians to choose betwen either rejecting their faith or rejecting science ... the result is that a lot of people turn away from the church, or turn away from science ... both of which are very, very sad.

Answer 2

Your question does not provide a useful scenario. Not even Creationists deny the mutation of animals or the breeding of variants. They deny that a higher organism (Man) could have been derived from an inherently, obviously and currently visible, inferior organism (Ape). They miss the point that both modern Man and modern Ape have evolved, and that *no* one says people came from apes.

Since genetically speaking, the difference in the two species' DNA is less than 2%, maybe less than 1%, there can be no doubt of a common ancestry. But the Creationists will be caught up in their mysticism and point out that nothing about DNA imbues free will, appreciation for beauty and a desire to recognize and serve God.

The rationalists' problem (speaking as an insider ;)) is that we are unable to convince the Creationists that their criteria are self-defined and beg the question (a fallacy by which the definition of the problem already includes the expected answer).

All the rest of their refutation arguments are similarly flawed by fallacies, chief among which is the fallacy of ignorance (They ask: How could an eye evolve, since it would have no benefit until it worked? Therefore, it must have been Created whole.)

Is there a scenario that could settle the question? I don't think so. Even if God came to Earth in visible form, and stated categorically that She just set up the Universe to work itself out, there would still be those who claimed it was an imposter. De spirituus, non disputandum.

Answer 3

I see what you're getting at, but the question implies a practicality that doesn't exist. You'd need to isolate the organism(s) in question for thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of generations and literally millions of years before anyone could observe meaningful results.

This being the case, no creationist alive today or even a few thousand years from now would buy into the theories of evolution ("theories" because the principles are based on several, not just the teachings of Darwin) based on you're hypothetical experiment.

We do indeed have a plethora of hard, testable evidence to support the theories of evolution. Those choosing not to accept do so by denying the scientific method. This is fine, as long as they don't turn around and try to prove baseless contentions (e.g. intelligent design "theory") with the same scientific principles they deny in regards to the theories of evolution.

Answer 4

The concept of an "evolutionist" is absurd. You might as well call someone a "gravityist" or an "electrictyist". The real "debate" over evolution ended over a century ago. The few superstitious holdouts deserve a category of their own, i suppose, but not everyone else.

Make them unable to interbreed? That's probably impossible, because it would take such a long time.

But other than that, this has already been done.

Ever wonder where all the breeds of dogs came from? Selective breeding by humans for thousands of years for various traits. We continue to do selective breeding on various species in addition to dogs to this day. It's quite common.

People also do this quite often with plants.

And no, such a thing would never convince a creationist of evolution. Creationists believe what they do simply because they believe it; rationality and logic have nothing to do with what they believe.

Answer 5

Evolutionist, here, although that will probably become apparent later in this post.

As others have said, I think you've created an impossible premise. Drastic endeavors of this sort would take time, as evolution does, so by the time the desired result happened, the people to whom it would matter would be long dead.

As for creationists, there are many who will probably never accept evolution, no matter how much evidence and facts there were. Many are so wrapped up in their own dogma that they'll never change their minds, and there's little we can do otherwise. So there wouldn't really be any point to this exercise, anyway.

Answer 6

i'm an evolutionist

i think it would certainly be ethical (you're not hurting them or traumatising them in any way), and worthwhile if only for the sake of collecting more evidence for evolution (and hey, if it doesn't work, it just means we'd either have to revise our model or agree on creationism). i don't exactly see how you could select a trait that is detrimental to an organism (maybe clarify what you mean?) so i'd say that yes, it is ethical and worthwhile

=edit=

whoa. no amino acids, hair or sight? now that *is* unethical. i think i'd disagree with things like that, unless it gave the animal some other advantage that compensated.... but still, i think it would be interesting (if no longer ethical) to see if it could be done.

also: "holy cow", who says you'd need millions of years? evolution of beak size has been observed in galapagos finches in the past two centuries. check out http://www.newscientist.com for details

Answer 7

I believe in evolution, and I'm Christian, but I doubt even the above scenario would change the minds of anyone who were going to hold onto their preconceptions no matter what.

Answer 8

I believe in evolution, but I think this particular experiment would be an exercise in futility... number one, it wouldn't be ethical, number two, the cost would be prohibitive, and, number three, Creationists won't change their minds, they're all brainwashed.

Answer 9

I"m a Creationists and my answer is No!!! Only God has the right to say what traits, gender, and person you will be.

Answer 10

God created creatures that evolve.