Dr. Carson on Evolution: ‘No One Has Ever Demonstrated One Species Changing to Another Species’

cnsnews ^

[UCANSEE2]

Where in all this did I say I believed in the popular (albeit wrong) view of evolution ?

[UCANSEE2]

Hey if you want to believe in evolution because of a butterfly it is your choice.

I went back through the recent posts between us, and I think I see the problem.

I said I didn't want to argue the point (of evolution) and you must be thinking I meant SHUT UP _ I"M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG.

I didn't. What I meant was that I agreed with you that there were no transitional species examples found ,

[buffaloguy]

It probably was from an old speech and I think is of little significance.

I read about the speciation about 10 or 15 years ago and was surprised to learn that new species had been seen to develop in the lab. It was either six or eight new species.

I had the impression most of the new species had developed by accident in populations which had been sequestered from the main population for a long time. I have no idea where I read that but it was a fairly reliable source, a publication that was actively read by biologists.

The question of creating new species is not one that is a burning issue to biologists. They have much more important work that needs doing, much of which saves lives. It is a question that may well be considered a “parlor game”.

Continued reliance on Darwin as the straw target is not a legitimate argument. The knowledge of biology at this point is perhaps many billion of times what it was in Darwin’s time. A trillion times might also be a plausible number.

I am not a “Darwinist” by any stretch of the imagination but subscribe to intelligent design. God sees everything in the past, present and future and he does see the outcome of evolution with accuracy because he invented it.

If you know the outcome of a very large series of transactions, the series cannot be said to be random.

And I agree with you: “Cruz or Lose”.

[buffaloguy]

Using the phrase “Explosion of new species” during the Cenozoic era is not at all inappropriate and it is a great argument for evolution.

And I am aware of the possible collapse of the Van Allen belt and I have a rather fashionable chapeau of lead ready to go. A bit heavy and I had trouble attaching the bull horns to the headpiece, but it is ready to rock and roll....LOL

[ZULU]

Coy wolves right in front of us right now. Carson is one of my three choices for President, but he should stop opining on personal issues. Now I know why the Fundy Wackos support him.

[CottonBall]

“Cruz better be ready to address his faith.”

Oh, I’m sure he’s ready. The gotcha question in the 1st debate about whether he heard from God could’ve branded him faithless (if he said no) or crazy (if he said yes). He masterfully said he read scriptures. No gottcha allowed!

[CottonBall]

“LSM is finding more on Carson in a couple of months than eight years on Obama.”

Wonder why they haven’t gone all out on Trump yet.

[Carry_Okie]

Dr. Carson on Evolution: ‘No One Has Ever Demonstrated One Species Changing to Another Species’

Au contraire Dr. Ben, it's done all the time... by renaming or reclassifying them.

Taxonomy is a mess these days, as computer models positing what "evolved" from what rule the day as to which plants or fungi are related. In the process, keeping track of it all is very expensive for users and less applicable to the organisms in question. Over the last fifteen years, perhaps 10% of the species on my property have had name changes. It's really annoying.

[ealgeone]

They know he’s not a true conservative.

[CottonBall]

Oh yeah all those liberal policy papers, like deporting illegals, getting jobs back to Americans, cutting taxes, slashing the size of government, bringing companies back here, helping veterans....LOL!

The media knows Trump is the ONE candidate that can take them on and win repeatedly, (not in just one debate). He already has in a myriad of ways.

[rfreedom4u]

Evolution is a theory. Nothing more.

[BroJoeK]

rfreedom4u: "Evolution is a theory. Nothing more."

JohnBrowdie, post #4: "he's correct. he's simply pointing out that the fossil record merely proves in-species variation, and that is, by definition, NOT evolution."

Blood of Tyrants post #9: "If evolutionists knew nothing about dogs an were presented with a skeleton of a chihuahua and a Great Dane, they would swear that they were different species."

John Browdie post #10: "Darwin and his finch beaks were examples of in species variation, and not evolution.
In fact, it's ironic that 'The Origin of Species' utterly failed to address the origin of a single species."

bray post 22: "There is no fossil evidence of a transitional species."

buffaloguy post #25: "There are 8 species which have been created in the lab.
His information is out of date."

BigEdLB post #36: "Cool with intelligent design.
But the Earth is 4.5 Billion.
And the universe is 13.7 billion. Physics.
God made the place, but He is like a beautiful Gardner.
Evolution has holes."

lentulusgracchus post #50: "Microfossil records for the Cenozoic show sudden mutations of extant forms into new forms under the influence of..."

bray post #53: "And an egg turns into a chicken.
That is not a transitional species."

tacticalogic post #55: "But no one has ever demonstrated the Earth aging for 4.5 billion years.
You have to see it happen, or it doesn't count." (assumed </sarc>)

Popman post #56: "There are lots of examples of micro evolution, where there a minor changes in a species like the shape of its beak, feather color, average size due to environmental and behavior changes over a relative short time..."

bray post #58: "How many millions of transitional fossils would there have to be from snail to horse and there are none.
I imagine your claim is just as false."

bray post #59: "Adaptations are not changing species. Show us a dog/horse and then we will become believers."

UCANSEE2 post #61: "Most of what is called evolution is merely adaptation. For instance, if you put man into a weightless environment for a long time, the calcium..."

Ghost of Philip Marlowe post #69: "They are not new species created from genetic mutation.
They are the result of cross-breeding."

greysard post #75 quoting: "...scientists have now observed the actual emergence of new species."

RinaseaofDs post #88: "There is a mountain of evidence for adaptation, and literally zero for evolution."

firebrand post #90: "That is because the definition of species precludes such a change."

wbarmy post #94: "SO some scientist somewhere theorized that hypothesis, but there is no evidence that one microfossil is the descendant of another microfossil.
There is absolutely no way to prove that."

tacticalogic post #97: "Dr. Carson's argument is a simple, flat-out rejection of inductive logic.
Inductive logic is a valuable tool for dealing with situations where you do not and cannot have enough information to reach a deductive conclusion."

xzins post #100: "The dumbed down population simply needs to be told that we have remains for everything from Australopithecus to neandertal developing into modern man, and..."

buffaloguy post #123: "I read about the speciation about 10 or 15 years ago and was surprised to learn that new species had been seen to develop in the lab.
It was either six or eight new species."

rfreedom4u post #131:: "Evolution is a theory. Nothing more."

********************************************

By now, everyone here should understand, the debate is really over definitions of various words, words like: evolution, adaption, creation, species & kinds.
But even more basic is the definition of the very words: science, hypothesis, theory, proof & confirmation.

When posters here say, "there is no proof of evolution", that's because evolution is a scientific theory, and theories in science are never "proved", they are confirmed.
Even a "fact" is not "proved", it is observed scientifically.
Science calls a confirmed observation a fact.
Science calls a confirmed hypothesis a theory.

So evolution is a confirmed scientific theory which explains literal mountains of confirmed observations, aka facts.

But let's start here: does science / evolution "disprove" Genesis 1:1 when it says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
No, science itself neither "disproves", nor asserts, nor argues against, nor theorizes, nor observes the absence of God in Creation or anywhere else.
Science merely ASSUMES by definition of "science", that every scientific explanation must be based on natural causes of natural processes, without referring to any supernatural interventions.
So, when science says "evolution resulted in all the species we see today" does that mean God didn't create them?
No, it just means that evolution is one natural explanation for how God created the heavens, earth & creatures.

The good Dr. Carson & others here say, "there are no transitional fossils", but of course there are -- every fossil, every individual, is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
So people say, "but you're talking about adaption, not evolution."
But those words describe exactly the same thing, with "adaption" usually applied to short term changes and "evolution" to more longer terms.

So, people say, "species don't adapt or evolve into new species" but here we get into definitions of not only "adapt" & "evolve", but also: what is a "new species" versus, "new genus", "new sub-species", "new breed or variety"?

The fact is, if you take two interbreeding populations of the same species and separate them in different environments over very long periods of times, what will happen is that each population will adapt differently until by some scientific definition, they become different breeds of the same species.
Maintain the experiment for longer times, and those different breeds will separate further to become new sub-species.
What's the difference between a breed and sub-species?
It's simply a matter of scientific definition.
I.e., breeds, like human races, readily, enthusiastically interbreed with each other, while different sub-species begin to shy away.

Analysis of breeds and subspecies such as humans and Neanderthals show that all have nearly identical DNA structures, while in different species or genera of the same family, we see significant DNA changes.

So, if we could run this experiment for very long periods of time, depending on the type of species, the DNA changes would become so significant that species would first refuse to interbreed in the wild, and eventually be physically unable to interbreed, even with artificial insemination.

In today's usage, the term "species" of a common genus means they don't normally interbreed in the wild, but can on rare occasion.
The best known example is Polar Bears and Brown Bears which were classified in separate genera until confirmed natural examples of hybrids were found.
Now they are just different species of the same genus.

Horses and donkey's cannot interbreed naturally, and when forced produce infertile offspring, so they are classified in separate genera.

Bottom line: most or all major evolutionary adaptions happen very slowly, over many generations such that different populations become different breeds, then separate sub-species, species & genera, until interbreeding becomes impossible at which point they are classified as different families, orders, classes, phylua, etc.

So, you'd say, "that's just a theory, right, you have no proof, do you?"
Correct, in science terminology, evolution is a confirmed theory, and that's as certain as science can ever get about such things.
It certainly leaves open the likelihood that some time in the future, new observations will falsify old theories, forcing new hypotheses to be proposed and, perhaps, confirmed.

It's how science works.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Show me the monkey men. :-)

[wbarmy]

What's the difference between a breed and sub-species? It's simply a matter of scientific definition.

And that is where you try to slide int he falsehood, or the "difference" between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

There is a defining point which can be used to show difference in species or type or genus or whatever word you try to use to confuse.

Can the species breed and is there a change in the blood chromosome count or makeup. Once you have a change in the chromosome count, you have a new type. And there has never been an offspring with a different chromosome count. There are no "hopeful" monsters.

Without that change in the blood, there is no real evolution, the change of one species into another.

[lentulusgracchus]

So, when science says "evolution resulted in all the species we see today" does that mean God didn't create them? No, it just means that evolution is one natural explanation for how God created the heavens, earth & creatures.

---

Science properly understood was and is a Christian cultural phenomenon. The early investigators undertook their work as an investigation of the mysteries of God (much as the doctors of Islam undertook to understand God mathematically, and produced the calculus), and so there is no such thing as purely materialistic and atheistic "science". The word, after all, means "knowing", not "doubting".

That all said, Biblical inerrantists proposing creationism in an attempt to salvage this little thing called morality from the destructive enthusiasm of epiphenomenalist Charlie Mansons err nevertheless, and their floundering around appetizes the materialists like blood in the water. Better to answer the amoral pleader with a question (if that isn't quite kosher, he's in no position to complain), and ask him, "Well, if you were a Being capable of producing a Universe, Who was present at the beginning of Time, how would you explain the Creation to a bedouin shepherd?" The dreamer of Patmos got it just about right ("Fiat lux!"); now how'd he do that? My answer is simple: He didn't guess, he was told.

[BroJoeK]

wbarmy: "Can the species breed and is there a change in the blood chromosome count or makeup."

Interbreeding is not a matter of "yes" or "no", there are varying degrees of "interbreed-ability" and they are a large part of what makes different "breeds", versus "sub-species", "species", "genera" or "families".

• Breeds of, for examples, humans (races) or dogs all interbreed easily, even eagerly.
  Their offspring are sometimes the best of both and normally fertile.

• At the level of sub-species interbreeding still happens in the wild, but perhaps with less frequency.
  Here we might think of dogs & wolves or humans & Neanderthals.

• At the level of separate species within the same genus, differences have now grown to the point where interbreeding in the wild is quite rare.
  Here the example of Polar Bears & Brown Bears illustrates the point: classified in different genera previously, they were reclassified in the same genus (Ursus) as different species once it was confirmed they do occasionally interbreed in the wild.

• At the level of different genera in the same family, the differences are so great that interbreeding approaches physically impossible.
  Many examples can be cited: horses & donkeys, Asian & African elephants, lions & tigers, humans & chimps.
  Yes, in some cases offspring can be produced by artificial insemination, but these are nearly always bizarre, infertile or otherwise unsustainable.

• At the level of different families in the same order, there are no examples of interbreeding among more advanced creatures, that I know of.
  But we should mention that amongst lower, simpler biological orders interbreeding may be less difficult than, for example, among primates.

You mentioned human/chimp chromosome count -- humans have 23, chimps 24 -- as a major factor.
Physically what happened was two smaller chromosomes fused in pre-humans, making a larger combined chromosome #2, restricting interbreeding -- even though overall human & chimp DNA is about 97% the same -- and making human linage separate from that point forward.

For more on the human-chimp genome project, see here.

[BroJoeK]

lentulusgracchus: "The dreamer of Patmos got it just about right ("Fiat lux!"); now how'd he do that?
My answer is simple: He didn't guess, he was told."

Agreed, "Let there be light".

[wbarmy]

If you are using interbreeding in the wild as a species marker, than you are evading the point. They can still breed together, therefore they are the same kind. There is no chromosomal change.

The genera category still allows fro breeding together, the chromosomal makeup is still the same, although there is physical difficulty in the breeding. They have actually lost information in their divergence, not gained information.

At the families category, there is ACTUAL chromosomal change, there is an actual difference, therefore no breeding is possible. The egg and sperm will not even combine to form a fetus.

The change from genera to families is the real change, and there is no experimental evidence to show it could happen. Scientists in all of the biological fields fight the Goldschmidt “hopeful monster” theory.

[fortheDeclaration]

It is how 'science falsely so-called' works.(1Ti.6:20)

You just create the definitions you want.

Science is testable, evolution isn't.

The beginnings can't be tested, only believed, so both creation or evolution are accepted by faith (Heb.11:3)

[BroJoeK]

wbarmy: "If you are using interbreeding in the wild as a species marker, than you are evading the point.
They can still breed together, therefore they are the same kind.
There is no chromosomal change."

Perhaps no chromosomal change, but lots of DNA modifications which can make offspring non-viable & unsuccessful.
But, to your point: I am "evading" nothing, simply reporting how science classifies various creatures.
In their classification schemes, interbreed-ability is a major factor determining whether two different populations are of the same genus, species, sub-species or breed.
Other factors include the percent similarity of their DNAs.
Thus animals which readily and successfully interbreed (i.e., domestic dogs) are classified in the same species, regardless of how different some may look from others.

By the same logic, when scientists discover mutations in petri-dish critters, and note those new mutations prevent interbreeding with others, then they say a new species has evolved.
Why is it a new species, is it hugely different from before?
No, but since it no longer interbreeds, that makes it a new species.

In the biological family of Bovidae, bison/buffalo and cattle are separate genera, which do not normally interbreed.
However, they can be forced and do produce viable offspring, since both bison and cattle have 60 chromosomes.
However, another Bovidae genus, African Cape Buffalo, are not interbred, because they have just 52 chromosomes, so would be unlikely to produce viable offspring.

Finally, your use of the word "kind" here is interesting, since you toss if off with great certitude as to just what that Biblical term actually means.
In fact, there is no definition, either in the Bible or outside it, as to exactly what "kind" means.
And certainly, if we use the standard of ancient people's common sense, then American bison, European cattle and African Cape Buffalo would all be different "kinds" even though genetically bison & cattle can be interbred, while Cape Buffalo are not, due to their different number of chromosomes (52 vs 60).

wbarmy: "The change from genera to families is the real change, and there is no experimental evidence to show it could happen."

First of all, just so we're clear on this point: the fact that two different species have the same number of chromosomes in no way makes them closely related, or able to interbreed.
To cite just two examples, gorillas and potatoes have the same number of chromosomes (46), but are in no other sense closely related.
Likewise, humans and certain antelopes have 44 chromosomes, but certainly cannot interbreed.

Making that point again: In the elephant family Indian & African genera have the same number of chromosomes (56) but cannot be successfully interbred.
The closely related Mammoth genus had 58 chromosomes.
Point is: chromosome count is not the be-all & end-all of biological classifications.

Second, there are examples throughout nature of similar species with different numbers of chromosomes, of which I've mentioned already cattle-bison-Cape Buffalo.
Among primates, humans have 46, apes 48, some monkeys 54 but others 42, showing that the splitting or uniting of chromosome strands can happen naturally.
In the biological genus of equus (horses, donkey's, zebras), horses have 64 chromosomes, while donkeys have 62, their mule offspring end up with 63 and are usually infertile.
So genus Equus includes another example of closely related species with sometimes different chromosome counts.