Evolution is observed occuring in laboratories so how can it not be an indisputable fact?

Question

Evolution has been directly observed occuring in laboratories-even creationists don't deny that. Therefore if evolution of micro-organisms occurs in laboratories what is the biological mechanism that prevents evolution throughout the entire animal kingdom-that is the dilemma that you have to deal with. No mechanism equals no argument and evolution is an undeniable fact.

St. N,
Virtually every laboratory dealing with micr-organisms has observed evolution. Evolution is defined as " a change in the gene pool of a population over time." Do insects not develop resistance to pesticides. Unless you deny that then you must accept that evolution is a proven fact and a biological mechanism must exist that makes species evolve in response to environmental pressures.

Cogito sum,
The issues you raise are important for biology but not for evolution. My only concern here is to show that a mechanism for adaptation and evolution of species is an undeniable fact.

Born again Christian,
I had hoped that a creationist would raise that point. Evolutionary "theory" is the law of natural selection i.e. the means whereby evolution occurs. Evolution itself is not a theory it is a proven fact. The biodiversity on the planet can only have come about as a result of evolution. There are countless entire fossil records showing the evolutionary development of species. The physiological similarities between species for example man and primates-inability to synthesise vitamin c, the presence of a coccyx- could only have occured if there were a shared ancestry. Evolution is a fact-99% of biologists accept that and nothing creationists have done or will do can ever challenge that.

Anonomous-A lot of your views aren't relevant to the specific point I made. I am saying that if micro-evolution is a fact, which clearly it is then there exists within nature an evolutionary mechanism. That being the case creationists have to stop arguing that evolution doesn't occur. I'm not saying that micro-evolution confirms macro-evolution I'm saying that creationists have to provide a biological mechanism that would prevent evolutionary change from occuring or concede that they have hit a brick wall in their efforts to challenge evolution.

Answer 1

Because they don't want it to be a fact. The human capability to rationalize away anything we don't want to believe is nearly infinite.

Science has pushed the gaps that God can fit into so far back, it is making theologians very uncomfortable. Luckily for them, there are still some gaps, even in the theory of evolution, that they can try to fit God into.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians... is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide. What worries scientists is something else. It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance, even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests."

Answer 2

What laboratory has observed evolution?? It is a slow, hit and miss thing. Mutation occurs with each generation, but for a mutation to catch on and become an evolution, it has to have a benefit to the continuation of the species. No one has seen an amoeba turn into a protozoa, a dog develop into a wark or whatever a dog would evolve into or any other species develop into a species with which it can no longer interbreed (a hallmark of evolution). The evolution creation war was created by a priest to try and destroy a new theory in science. Religion is terrified that science will put it out of business and science is a little worried that religion may be right after all.

Answer 3

You are basicly saying that mirco-evolution proves All evolution. There are a couple parts to the theory of evolution. (I know you claim that it isn't a theory but listen.) The first 3 off the

There is the whole evolution of the solar system. After the big bang the theory is that the only element that was produced from it was hydroogen. Then the hydorgen condenced into stars, other elements formed after the stars blew up. From thoes elements planets astroids and comets formed. I am pretty sure we haven't observed this in a lab or even in space or even have any evidence, because it would take millions of years. So it seems reasonable to some that a 6 day creation could produce the universe. The carbon dating is some evidence for this but it is rejected by most creationists becuase it isn't very acurate.

Then you have chemical evolution. This is the theory that from The inorganic chemicals in the ocean formed together to create cells that reprodce themselves. There is a little evidence of this organic molicules were developed in a lab assuming certain conditions were present. This is also another leap, because although it could have happened, to some this seems as likely as leaprecans being real because of the complexity the most simple cell needs to reproduce.

Next there is evolution of organs like the eye. There are many structures or even protiens that require a bunch of mutiation or a bunch of genes to be expressed to happen all at once. (And couldn't happen in a bunch of intermedial steps). Then there is the fact that even if the mutations happen there is no garentee that it will have offspring or if it does have offspring that the gene will get passed on (although it does have a greater likelyhood of happenening). So creationist agrue that there were certan animals created in the beginning complete. There is some evidence for this evolution because there are homologus structures and DNA of animals are closly related. This isn't nessisarily conclusive. Also the fact that there are species that are extinct and have been acording to carbon tests for thousands of years like the dinosaurs. Creationist get over these problems by saying that dinosuars have existed with man citing man footprints with dinosaurs and some currently exist like the Lochness monster is a dinosaur, and claims of there being dinosuars in the Congo in Africa. And that there is are some fossils showing intermediate steps from on species to another like homo hablis, homo erectus... There are only a few fossils of these and maybe they can be explained like dwarfs (sorry I don't know the politically corect term). They are still human but look vastly different. Also men used to live to age of almoast 1000 years according to the bible who is to say animals didn't also (some dinosaurs are explained as overgrown lizards because they never stop growing.

Lastly is what we know to exist evolution of small changes in hight size type of beak, small jumps from one species of birds. Just because we have this doesn't prove any of the other things. In fact I would think creationists need this in order to prove some of their theorys. I think there is a jewish source that says there were 13 types of clean land animals (this mean they are rumanents and have a split hoof) and we know there are a lot more than that but micro evolution shows it is possible to have so many spicies and a few different types of animals. Otherwise Noah's ark would be tremendously harder to visualize.

Answer 4

You are right, change is observed and is a fact. However, there are 2 unanswered questions.

1. If evolution is random chance and natural selection, then from where came the first something to select. A lot of complex biology had to be in place first.

2. There is no credible theory on the origins of life: stardust, comets, premoridal soup, amino acids, proteins, RNA replicator, etc.

There is a belief, a faith that this may be understood, as there is a belief and faith, that maybe it won't and a creator exists.

Edit: Non descript's answer is true about science gaining knowledge. However, the gaps being identified are becomeing more insurrmountable, not less.

Answer 5

I believe that evolution occurs. I am a creationist! I believe God in his infinite wisdom designed into all living things the ability to adapt to an ever changing environment. My thoughts on the very beginning may differ from yours. But you cannot discount my ideas any more than i can discount yours. That is why i live by faith. You also live by faith weather you believe it or not.When you drive you have faith that the car you pass will not cross the line and kill you. Even though you see daily where that has happened. You have faith. A trait given by god.

Answer 6

You can not put your trust in human knowledge. It is an error of failure. Saying that this earth has been around for billions of years just is not accurate. For one there were and could have been many variances that made layers in the earth's surface seem like more years than they actually are, for example, volcano eruptions , after Mt. St. Helen erupted, they found that the aftermath of layers in the earths surface were formed to look like millions of layers in a very short period of time. Don't Put your faith in humans, Even the smartest is far from perfect. Science is far from perfect.

Answer 7

yes, loads. Drosophila melanogaster (a type of fruit fly, i've probably mis-spelled) and many bacteria have shown spontaneous gene mutations, and the ones that were beneficial hung around, also, what do you call it when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics?

Answer 8

MICRO-evolution has been observed.
MACRO-evolution has not been observed.
No-one disagrees that MICRO-evolution happens. We knew that before darwin! MACRO-evolution is the question.

cheerio

Answer 9

Evolution is voodoo science. It has never been proven, or it would be called a "Law" not a "Theory".

Life can't evolve from non-life, so evolition can't explain how the very first life form came into existence.

Looks like Darwin made a monkey out of you.

HA HA HA HA HA