How do evolutionists answer?

Question

How do evolutionists answer to the fact that DNA proves that no species has ever evolved from another? The best that DNA can do is say that species have changed to meet the ever changing environment and to better meet survival of the species.

I suggest you do serious research on this question before you make unfounded statements. Several major medical schools/research facilities have made this statement and have the evidence to back it up.

Just for the information, i made no statement about my belief or disbelief in a God. In fact, I do not agree with most of the propoganda that Creationists put out and absolutely do not believe in a literal intepertation of the Bible.

By the answes given, it is readily apparent that most (one exception) are letting their feelings on a matter override what learned science has shown. Both sides, Creationists and Evolutions are so set in their thinking that no one can be correct. This is stifling intelligent research work and discussion because the scientists are afraid (just as in times past ie Galieo et al) to publizise their VIEWS because one side or the other will take what they say as the gospel instead of inciting even more intelligent research.

If one reads the comments made, anyone can readily see that I have made my point.

It is time to forsake the argument on purely religious or non-religious grounds and encourage science to what it does best------------RESEARCH THE TRUE BEGINNINGS OF LIFE.

Answer 1

Ok Bob, I know I'm wasting my time here because you have already made up your mind, and selected the sources you consider valid and disregard everything else. It is a farce that you even bother to ask a question as you make it abundantly clear that you are a completely unreasonable person. But I feel compelled to answer it anyway, because I'm just so damn hopeful.

How do evolutionists answer to the fact that DNA proves that no species has ever evolved from another? They don't because that is not a fact. Actually it's not even a theory...it's not even a hypothesis entertained by any honest and unbiased scientists. In fact DNA gives nearly unending support to the theory of Darwinian evolution.

You will be wanting to retract the second leg of your question because it is actually in agreement with your reviled "evolutionists", in fact that is the major point we are trying to make. And I'm sure you would rather change your position that agree with me. If you agree that DNA shows that species have changed to meet the demands of their environment...you are an "evolutionist". Sorry, that's all we're trying to say.

Change to fit environmental pressures IS evolution by natural selection. Those itty bitty changes that you are willing to admit are shown by even your ridiculous "medical institutions" (which I would put money on are Private and Christist) those little changes, plus time...equals evolution, all of it. From bacteria to your Uncle John, that's the story. Small, blind, incremental changes due to mutations in DNA, that's it, that's evolution. So you're going to want to back off of admitting that DNA shows evidence of morphological change to the enviornment, because if you say that...you agree with me.

Answer 2

(Shakes head and sighs) Creationist...Creationist...

Can anyone one of you construct an argument without numerable logical fallacies? First DNA cannot prove one species evolved from the other...Why? Because Genetic "mutations" occur when species evolve from the other, hence the DNA will be somewhat different. Furthermore we are not able to abstract DNA from bone fossils. To solve this problem we must look at current species
"Genetic Code," to note similarities and/or differences. The reason Biologist think all life is related is that all organisms
(with minor exceptions) use the same genetic code. The total sequence of genes in your body and the sequence in a frog`s are different. The striking fact, is the gene that codes for a given amino acid in a frog codes for that very same amino acid in people.....

Lets forget about DNA and all the overwhelming fossil evidence, and focus on another prudent fact. All human babies in the embryonic stage develop and lose
"Gill Slits." Biologist term this characteristic "Vestigial Organs" they are characteristics organisms have but no longer need from pre-evolutionary lifeforms. Can any Creationist answer the question as to why earth based organisms "Humans" develop and lose Gills? I think not!

Answer 3

You are slightly mistaken. DNA does not "prove" that no species has ever evolved from another. That proof would involve more information than we find in DNA. DNA fails to prove conclusively that one species ever evolved from another -- that's a different statement.

What you are talking about is the fact that any given living species's genome, which we can examine, is different from any other living species's genome, which we can examine, by substantially more than the variation within either species. It's true that we do not find in DNA any direct information about along what paths evolution might have occurred - we have no series of intermediates between the species to examine. We normally don't even have direct-ancestor-species DNA to examine.

As you say, genomes tell us that species change over time to adapt to a changing environment. The question is begged: changed from what? And the answer that is dictated by reason and the principle of parsimony (what science uses when there is too little experimental info) is, changed *from some ancestor.* Okay, what ancestor? When we find 2 species with genomes that are highly similar, reason and the principle of parsimony tell us that by far, the most probable scenario is that both species evolved from a common ancestor... we can then say a little bit about the probable genetics of the common ancestor species from which modern species most likely evolved.

The common ancestor DNA itself is basically never available for examination, and the increments of change leading to speciation are basically never available for examination. However, there is no conclusion more logical, reasonable, parsimonious, and thoroughly well-supported by related observation, that we can draw, than the conclusion that species must evolve from one another. It would, frankly, be dumb to draw any other conclusion based on the observations we can make. There are all kinds of subtle differences in theories we make about exactly how, and how fast, and from which ancestor, etc, a species evolved. But we certainly would find absurd the idea that it changed adaptively over time yet somehow, didn't evolve from any other species.

Answer 4

The fact of the matter is that in the 1800's when Charles Darwin made his trip to the Galapagos Islands he came across several things that were not ever seen before.
And as a Modern Innovative thinker of the time. He presented a serious of circumstances that he presented as facts. In fact they were just what they are considered today the Theory of Evolution.
Sorry to say that not many years after Darwin made his infamous trip there was yet another trip made by Professor Agassiz who was not only Charles Darwin's mentor but was his teacher and professor as well.
Agassiz followed in the footsteps of Darwin and seen the exact same phenomenon as Darwin. The one thing that stands out is that his findings were in complete disagreement with Darwin.
His conclusion was that Darwin presented a series of events to a young progressive bunch of Victorian Aristocrats that were not only naive but were open to what were presented as new innovative ideas to a gullible individuals, who then accepted these findings as facts.
I am sorry I do not have the research paper in front of me that I wrote on this subject several years ago, I am trying to give you as much information from memory, as I can remember.
Don

Answer 5

"How do evolutionists answer to the fact that DNA proves that no species has ever evolved from another?"

See the link below.

Now, where is your evidence to support your claim?

"The best that DNA can do is say that species have changed to meet the ever changing environment and to better meet survival of the species."

Wow, imagine that. What exactly do you think evolution is?

Answer 6

"Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution." I believe you are correct. However, that doesn't justify the use of the God of the Gaps argument. Your claim that "evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their 'God-of-the-gaps'" is also quite unfounded. Yes, evolutionary biologists do somewhat "rely on unsupported assertions"--but the difference between what they're doing and GOTG is that that isn't the 'be all, end all' to their discussion. That is, they search for evidence that justifies their position. People who use GOTG in its "truest" form is saying this: We don't know, therefore God was responsible. And they leave it at that. No further study needed. Why should there be further study, when God the Almighty was responsible? He has his own answers, after all, and we probably weren't meant to find them. Isn't that what GOTG truly is? That's why your analogy doesn't work here. ADD: Pangloss's explanation is extremely valid here. Although I am sort of arguing from ignorance (i.e., I'm not an evolutionary biologist), one thing that I do have hefty knowledge in is logical fallacies. And your quote mining and assumptions that evolutionary biology is merely "unsupported assertions" proves your arguments are fallacious.

Answer 7

The extent of nuclear DNA diversity in both human and African ape populations is clearly proven and the links are compelling; and with evidence from palaeoanthropology, archaeology and molecular biology evolutionists can easily prove that species have common ancestors. DNA tracings is only one set of proofs linking us to the past.

Answer 8

I think the point of your question is that we have never witnessed the DNA of one species turn into another. The best we have observed is that the DNA is modified slightly due to adaption to the environment.

The answer is that the time periods are so long, we have to infer that is what happened.

Answer 9

Someone has been lying to you. DNA adds quite a bit of evidence for common descent. For instance,, the same broken pseudogene for producing citric acid is found in all primates, including humans. That makes sense for a line that was arboreal and ate fruit (and therefore never felt the lack of the working gene), but it makes no sense for them all to be carying the exact same broken gene unless they all descended from the same ancestor.

For more information and much more molecular evidence for evolution, see the link under Source.

Answer 10

did you know we share about 98% of our dna chimpanzees?



"The best that DNA can do is say that species have changed to meet the ever changing environment and to better meet survival of the species" You know this is evolution right?