Wired: “Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists”

AiG ^ | November 21, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Scientists have watched as a new species is “born”—or is that “evolved”?—on one of the Galapagos Islands, home of Darwin’s famous finches...

[DannyTN]

See post 40.

[metmom]

Exactly, and yet they can not even yet produce a single living cell from scratch.

They expect us to believe that something happened by accident that they can't even do on purpose, and then when they can do it on purpose, continue to insist that intelligent design is not how life came into existence but it arose by itself, when they still never demonstrated that it could on its own.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Ira_Louvin]

When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that “microevolution” could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.

The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, “If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free.” Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.

So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! You’re almost there!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/

[Stultis]

Genetic variation within the bird kind, then reproductive isolation.

Whoa! "the bird kind?" All birds represent a single created kind? So a hummingbird, an ostrich and a penguin are all related by common ancestry!? But humans and apes aren't?!

[GodGunsGuts]

Good eye, I should have said finch kind.

[fish hawk]

Fine if you believe “time” is a creator. Not a very substancial God though. Send me the proof just as soon as you get it so I can evolve.

[Ira_Louvin]

Nice attempt at setting up the straw man, but the evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life..

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421

however, Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.

[fish hawk]

Let me point out a fact. Many, and I mean many scientist that are a lot smarter than you, believe in God and creation. From astronomers to chemist to etc. etc. If Darwins theories were true one would think that these smart people would all believe in evolution. 100% of them. What do they know that you haven't found out yet? I read about one doctor who dropped Darwin and took up God after studying the human eye. But even easier than that, “matter cannot create matter”. (but God can)

[tongass kid]

Your belief depends on the definition of micro evolution. The term was introduced as an explanation for the variation in kind. Others have used the term to explain other events seen in nature. If you believe that micro evolution is variation in kind then there is not macro evolution as per the definition of micro evolution. In order to understand your leap from micro evolution to macro evolution we will need to understand your definition of micro evolution. I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection. The term micro evolution is more problematic. Thanks,tk

[metmom]

So what do you do about this?

Twin Strands Of DNA Seek Each Other Out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961038/posts

DNA tends to resist change. That makes evolution more improbable.

[metmom]

FRevos know more than any other person with a worthless degree, dontcha know?

Even those morons at Berkeley don’t know any better because THEY think that origins are connected with the ToE.

The rest of the world just needs to get with the act and see that FRevos are right cause they’re so much smarter than everyone else.

Just because FRevos don’t think there’s a connection between origins and the TOE, by gosh, there isn’t. It’s not even a matter of opinion, it’s a FACT!

[Ira_Louvin]

Trying to set up the same straw man as before still will not work.

As far as your list of “scientist” How many Steve’s are on your list?

“Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.”

So far project “Steve” has 1120 Steve’s who accept the evolutionary theory http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

[Ira_Louvin]

Micro evolution is a term that was made up by creationist to explain away the fact of observed evolution in the lab. The only difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is the amount of time involved.

[Ira_Louvin]

Improbable is not impossible, given the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old the improbable becomes more possible.

[fish hawk]

Most of these Evolutionist ignore the warning of Richard Feynman: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and YOU are the easiest person to fool. (mainly because their heads are full of philosophies instead of facts and proof and the other fact that most of them are egocentric and consider themselves elite)

[Stultis]

I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection.

Um, no. No, we can't.

In fact I've never once seen this proposed or employed as a definition of "macroevolution".

It isn't even coherent. For instance there's no way to operationally define "materialism," since it concerns philosophical views which may or may not be in the mind of the scientist; and which, even if present, may well have no effect whatever (and certainly no predictable or necessary effect) on how that scientist actually does science, e.g. how they employ and test scientific theories and principles.

The most common definition of macroevolution is "evolution above the species level," and therefore microevolution is evolution below the species level. IOW, if new species arise, then that's macroevolution by definition. If biological change occurs, but without breaking the species barrier, then that is microevolution by definition.

Creationists won't accept this definition (because few believe in fixed species, therefor this definition would make them macroevolutionists!) but it is nevertheless the most objective and widely accepted definition.

[tongass kid]

Stay tuned I believe that we are receiving post from others that would like to add the understanding of micro and macro.

[tongass kid]

Thank you for your response. I believe there may be others that may want to post definitions of micro and macro. This perhaps could be an interesting discussion. It is at least a reminder that various terms are used by posters without general agreement to their definitions. Thanks,tk

[tongass kid]

The term micro was first used by Leavitt in 1909 and macro was first used by Filipchenko in 1925. I do not understand how you equate the terms with creationist when in fact they were not coined by creationist. Your definition of micro and macro is essentially the same as what I stated. The term materialism used in this conversation refers to scientific materialism, first used by Thalis to describe natural events seen in nature without the use of supernatural causes. There is nothing new with these three terms, micro, macro or materialism.Thanks, tk