Creationists, why do you claim evolution hasn't been observed, yet here is an example?

Question

Evolution saves Samoan butterfly:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070713-21460500-bc-us-butterflies.xml

In only 10 generations the male Hypolimnas bolina butterfly was able to evolve to a point where they were protected against a parasite.

Answer 1

They want to see new species emerging. For years they denied changes due to natural selection until the principle was thoroughly demonstrated by artificial selection and the cumulative evidence for it became about as undeniable as the fact that the earth is round. Then they retreated and said that proof of evolution would require the emergence of a new species. When that is unquestionably demonstrated they will argue what a species is, using their own words like "kind."

To those creationists who posted here, the word "appears" means "the evidence indicates." It is not an educated guess where your opinion is as good as theirs. It is a direct observation. What word did you use the last time the evidence supported any of your claims? There wasn't one. It's never happened. Your source of information is the bible and that doesn't "appear" to be anything but an ancient myth.

I would take the phrase, "The evidence appears to indicate...," over "The bible asserts and I believe because it's God's word that..." any day. Any thinking, rational, scientific minded person would. I will conclude by admitting that this *is* the religion and spirituality section, not science. The two are quite irreconcilable on this matter. So I'll say something spiritual. Hare Krishna and Shalom.

Answer 2

I haven't begun to look an instance of a species evolving into an additional species and being in a position to provide feasible offspring. This is macro. Macro is not only plenty of little steps to difference constitution. It is plenty of little steps to difference the species thoroughly, in order that it may well now not mate and feature feasible offspring with the long-established species however can mate with an additional of the brand new species and create feasible offspring. This is what we imply after we say it can not be located. If viable it might take too lengthy for any individual to be round to understand it occurred. Bacteria evolving is something. Hybridizing vegetation could also be off the desk so far as I am involved. You can hybridize a wide variety of lifeforms. They can not reproduce. It does not subject. No replica, not more evolving. No extra surviving as a species in any respect. This isn't mendacity. This is you and each and every one else pronouncing that we're mendacity, on the grounds that you don't fully grasp our stand factor. No one is pronouncing that matters do not difference and adapt. We are pronouncing they do not difference adequate to do what's critical to be liable for the origins of all lifestyles.

Answer 3

Curious how Creationists' language evolves to counter whatever evidence we show them. And when they can't find any holes in the evidence, they attack the way scientists use language.

If they understood either, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Great story, btw. This example highlights a crucial point, that it's environmental pressure which drives evolutionary change and that change can occur rapidly.

Answer 4

Your faith is strong, young believer.
Read the article again.
The operative word is "appears", as in evolution appears to have played a role. This means they think it may have played a role....an educated guess.
This proves nothing but the fact that someone believes evolution may have played a role.
You show us your strong faith by accepting an article saying something appears to have happened as a statement of fact.
By the way, did one species evolve into another here?
Thought not.
What we saw was a species adapting to its environment. We are all born with the ability to adapt. Some people like to refer to this as the appearance of evolution.
Others will accept that statement as a statement of fact....You did.
Nice try.

Answer 5

This proves nothing but the fact that someone believes evolution may have played a role.
The word "appears" means "to give a certain impression."

You are showing that you have faith in this, though there is no real proof........hey, isn't that what Christians do? Isn't that what atheists do?
There is no REAL proof that God exists. There is no "real" proof that He doesn't.

Answer 6

Here's a better discussion from a writer who understands science, and discusses the mechanism.

Answer 7

it seems that they think that if every tiniest detail hasn't been documented, maybe something else happened. like you know, god magicked something up. because there's heaps of evidence that that happens... right? they still think there are angels pushing the planets around. maybe it'll sink in in another 150 years.

Answer 8

That's not evolution. Now if it grew legs or arms then I might sit up and take notice

Answer 9

Thanks for sharing this! Its a very interesting article. Thanks to you too, novangelis. As a bird and insect enthusiast I can very easily accept evolution. I see it in action. These people that deny it must really work hard to keep themselves blind.

Answer 10

this is the puzzle of the day/century