Ok.... so I was accused of not being direct about what I wanted in my question about evolution evidence.?

Question

So let me correct that. I would like evidence supporting the underlying statement of evolution. Evolution demands that one species becomes another. I want proof demonstrating THAT statement. Nothing about genetic variations, that does not prove evolution. It is more then obvious that there is more then one kind of dog. Don't give me facts showing that. I want proof of one animal BECOMING another, or giving birth to another completely DIFFERENT animal. Is that direct enough?

Squishy, that's an example of a genetic variation, not a new species.

And yes, I have researched evolution, and it states that one animal should be able to become another animal.

eagle, again, horses, mules and donkeys, - variations within a species.

I understand the theory of one animal becoming another over time, but where is the proof backing that statement? That is a hypothesis of what could've happened. It has not been observed.

I'm not trying to prove Creation by disproving evolution. I'm well aware that there isn't sufficient evidence supporting Creation. I'm simply showing that there isn't for evolution either.

Forgiven - you're exactly right. Like I told someone else, if I rolled a hundred dice a hundred times and every time got the same number, would you believe it happened by chance or that the dice was rigged.

Ok, because I keep getting nasty emails, I'm turning that function off. If you have any additional comments, please state them in your answer or edit your answer. Thanks

wasn't you squishy, other people

novangel... my request is very simple and you are making it more complicated then it is. One species becoming another. Simple. Not one species becoming another variation in a species. You are taking what I'm saying out of context, and exaggerating it. Species variation is NOT evidence of evolution, sorry but it just isn't. Either provide evidence of a species becoming another species, let me clarify - as in a different animal, or don't answer.

Schneb - 'mules cannot reproduce'. And you call that evolution??? Isn't the point of evolution to EVOLVE, as in become better, more advanced? How does the mule demonstrate that?

Novangel, you are just trying to excuse yourself based on word play. a fruit fly is a fruit fly regardless of the variations. When I say species, I mean as in a dog is a different species then a cat. Come on now, stop excusing yourself and provide something!!

Novangel, you're funny as you get frustrated. Once again, you haven't been able to prove anything. Thanks, but I think you should stop before you further embarrass and anger yourself.

Answer 1

Where's the proof people? (Only one person has provided some form of a source...) She asked for proof...so give it to her!! Generally when I am giving someone proof...I attach some kind of source I got it from. A link, a book, something!! If you don't want her to keep asking the question, then answer it....that is...if you can. This is all she wants. God Bless You All and to all a Goodnight!!!! I need some coffee.

Answer 2

Every Time They Find a Tyrannosaurus Rex
Its a Tyrannosaurus Rex
Not More Evolved Not Less

Same w/ All The Other Creatures

Brontosauruses

Trilobites (Millions)

Archeopteryx( Like 9 But There all the Same)
What are the odds if evolution was true That Even 9 creatures Would all be exactly the same [evolved]
Two in the same area Maybe
But Two in a Different area(Less than 50/50)
Either More or Less evolved should been the finding just on the 2nd one, But 9, That's Like 10 to The 9th Power
a tenth evolved 20% evolved 30% evolved 110% evolved , But not the same every freaking time

And Many More of other Dinosaurs a Lot More Than 9 were Found Think about it

If I Had a Deck of Cards & Said Draw a card it will Be a 10 of spades & you Did & it Was & I said do it again Another 10 of spades over & over again

Don't Take a scientice to tell ya, The Deck is Stacked, The conclusion is Odvious Unless your a Fool Professing to Be Wise

Hello ......

Answer 3

Here's evidence of evolution:

Your first question:
"Why do you think Christians can't provide evidence supporting Creation, and contradicting evolution."

Your second question:
"I'd like to know what scientific fact that you believe supports evolution."

Now your current question is rapidly evolving:
At first you ask for one species becoming another. By the end, you have gone to a "completely DIFFERENT" animal. If I showed a species, you'd demand a genus, show you a family you'll demand a phylum. You changed the rules midquestion. It is a common Creationist deceit. Ask a reasonable sounding question, then redefine the question so it is unanswerable. You have yet again shown the dishonesty of Creationists.

To throw you a bone, read about the process of speciation between the hawthorn fly and apple maggot, and the coevolutionary speciation in their predatory wasps.

ADDENDUM:
"Either provide evidence of a species becoming another species, let me clarify - as in a different animal, or don't answer."
How can you actually consider that clarification? Again, you keep saying species, but then jump to "a different animal". It's standard Creationist doubletalk. Make it sound simple, but then throw in an unmeetable qualifier. There have been a variety of speciation events in fruit flies, but you don't mean species, since they are still fruit flies. I'll quote you again: "Evolution demands that one species becomes another." I met that standard.

SECOND ADDENDUM:
"Novangel, you are just trying to excuse yourself based on word play. a fruit fly is a fruit fly regardless of the variations. When I say species, I mean as in a dog is a different species then a cat. Come on now, stop excusing yourself and provide something!!"
No. Inability to interbreed defines a species. You redefined the term because it has been shown in a variety of flies and a few worms. Look up the word species rather than make accusations of word play. You'll discover that you have added a nice level of ignorance to to your lies. As I said, you were going to change the standard. True to form, you jumped from species, right past genus, to family . The families canis and felis diverged some 40 - 60 million years ago. This is what I refer to as the safe Creationist lie because it won't be proven in your lifetime. You did exactly what I said you would in my initial answer. Do you really think that you could lie as well as a professional Creationist?

Answer 4

You know, you might get better answers if you posted on the science boards, but I'll give it a go.

Imagine my son is born with a very strangely shaped penis. This penis will not fit in a normal vagina. Your daughter is born with an equally oddly shaped vagina, which will not accomidate a normal penis. Now, say they meet, and fall in love and etc.

They both have a gene which makes weird reproductive organs [which is not hard to fathom, look at the variety of penis sizes in males, and vaginal capacity in women].This is passed to their kids, who in turn pass to their kids [we'd have to get into incest, which is actually genetically safe: If done right. I'm not advocating it, think more animalian though]. Given enough time, the newer generations would no longer be able to chemically [as in artificial insmeination would not work, and if it did, the offspring would be like mules] reproduce with normal people either. They have now become a new species.

The reason you will never be able to watch this in macro organisms is because mutations [which are not all bad] occur slowly. However, if you look at it long sighted enough, it makes perfct sense.

Sorry about the weird image, I should have used dogs, or monkeys.

And it isn't entire species that do the change. It's very tiny groups that need to make the change, so in the example "normal" people would still exist.

EDIT: I'm sorry. I didn't realize my e-mails were rude in anyway. Sorry if I came off as such.

EDIT AGAIN: In response to your last reply, I suggest "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins. If you read it open-mindedly, you could come t the conclusion that the macro-critter [your "Complet object"] is merely a tool, and nothing more.

Answer 5

Mules cannot reproduce.

To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be? This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20 [to the] 200[power], that is a one followed by 260 zeros. This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension.." Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature 1981, pp 51-52

Answer 6

You definitely do not understand the scientific method. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the scientific fact. It is not a proof but a theory. If the facts change, the scientific theory may change as well.

As far as your desire not to stick with the facts. That is all you got. This observation goes down to the macromolecular level. There you will see that there is a difference between stable and unstable compounds.

If you have another theory that explains the facts, let's hear it.

Please do not present an creationism explanation since creationism is not science but a belief.

Answer 7

Although dogs and wolves are not completely different species, they are distinct at a subspecies level, and in that sense are different animals. Moreover, modern domestic dogs and wolves diverged from their common ancestor very recently in evolutionary time.

It is not as though one day a wolf gave birth to a dog. The difference between a wolf and a dog is the result of accumulation and selection of multiple trait differences over thousands of generations.

Answer 8

You're not understanding evolution. One species does not immediatly give birth to another species. The way it works is, if some of the children of a species have a mutation that allows them to live in the terrain better, those ones will more likely survive and go on to pass on their genes. Some of their decendents will have that genetic mutation plus a new one that allows them to live in their terrain even better. Those ones survive and pass on their genes. Eventually you are looking at enough mutations over time to be a whole new species.

Answer 9

Who gives you the idea of evolution changes an animal from one specie to another. The animal just evolve to suit the surrounding better, slowly, over millions of years.

Answer 10

Then why are you asking this in the Religion & Spirituality section of a pseudo-message board?

Visit a library or museum for once.

For the record, animals don't ever give birth to another completely different animal. Obviously, you haven't studied evolution at all. There are more than enough sources out there.