According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which you can't demonstrate because you do not have the cred.

Of course I can. Any 4 year old with Google can demonstrate that you are lying.

 

[Syriusly]

If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.

Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.

What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.

Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Of course that is what simpletons like you believe.

You believe because lots of people buy the Bible.....well that makes 'Creation' real.

And by the way- when a Christian is speaking of 'Creation Science' it is just a mealy mouth way of saying "Our Christian God created it" with no basis in science or fact- but your belief in fairy tales.

 

[Syriusly]

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

I noticed the internet fairy tale believer didn't respond to this great article I cited- anyone surprised?

Great article.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

 

[deanrd]

Dogs can be bred for traits. We know dogs came from wolves. Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough. The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua. Obviously through artificial insemination. Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation. It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
The transitions are all through nature. Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile. Typical among species that have diverged. The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.

Usually Republicans come up with "kind". A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.

And that is one of my questions.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.

Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?

I explained it in a previous post. What is wrong with you? Can't even a simply explanation "take"?

A mule isn't a new species. The separate species are the donkey and the horse. A million years ago, there wasn't two, just one. And the fact that the mule even exists is the proof of divergence.

It can't be explained any more simple. Either you learn or you refuse. It's just that simple.

 

[Syriusly]

Dogs can be bred for traits. We know dogs came from wolves. Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough. The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua. Obviously through artificial insemination. Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation. It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
The transitions are all through nature. Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile. Typical among species that have diverged. The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.

Usually Republicans come up with "kind". A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.

And that is one of my questions.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.

Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?

I explained it in a previous post. What is wrong with you? Can't even a simply explanation "take"?

A mule isn't a new species. The separate species are the donkey and the horse. A million years ago, there wasn't two, just one. And the fact that the mule even exists is the proof of divergence.

It can't be explained any more simple. Either you learn or you refuse. It's just that simple.

Well the anti-Evolutionists aren't really interested in 'fact-facts' they are interested in "Creationist" talking points.

I have posted examples of observations of speciation that has been observed- and crickets.

I don't care if people want to believe that a fairy created Adam and Eve....but I do object to that belief being called 'science'

 

[james bond]

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans.

Haha, nice hedge....

"It is demonstrabmy false that theyvwere the first humans."

"I said perfect"

"What the fuck does that mean?"

"You just don't get it"

What is "demonstrabmy" and "theyvwere?" Internet atheists make up new stuff all the time.

That's nice. By the way, you are spreading demonstrably false lies.

You're making stuff up right now and don't know what you are talking about. There was an unimpeachable witness.

The other story is of a fish that came out of the water and started to walk.

There was no witness to something that we can prove did not happen.

Nobody thinks a fish came out of the water and started walking. You would get laughed out of a 6th grade science class for saying that.

Why do you think it is I who makes this up? None of this is accredited to me.

Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science. Every living creature is related and came from a common ancestor.

Creation and Genesis is based on the Bible. It is God's word and the truth. Even the dictionary associates truth with God. The Bible is backed up by science even though it isn't a science book. God created the universe, earth, all living things. The evidence is that life only begats life.

 

[james bond]

if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

 

[bripat9643]

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

Libraries are humoring believers. They'd get a million complaints if they put the Bible in the fiction section where it rightfully belongs.

 

[james bond]

And that is one of my questions.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.

Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?

Instead of arguing nonsense, why don't you show us how YOU are "led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue." How does a mule which can't reproduce and isn't a new species do that?

All of that macroevolution stuff is BS.

 

[harmonica]

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

 

[harmonica]

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

I've got some swamp land and crap to sell you at a high price
a fully formed man just ''appeared''!---who is the simpleton??
...you don't get it do you?
it is much more easier/believable for a single cell to be created than a complex human with millions of cells .....
....talk about living in a fairytale/magic land

Not when a protein, the building block of all living organisms, can't be created OUTSIDE a cell. It's impossible.

are you trolling?
so it's impossible for a single cell to appear--but possible for millions to appear in a complex human???!!!!

You don't make much sense. I said a protein cannot be created OUTSIDE a cell. Do you know what a protein is? I just explained it.

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a cell/protein/ whatever was not ''created''/etc without god......but--you believe a human being could be created
ridiculous

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the Star Trek transporter --which is ridiculous
Energize!

 

[james bond]

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

 

[harmonica]

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

Energize....

 

[harmonica]

LOL nothing is 'better explained by creation'- it is just simpler and easier for simpler people.

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

 

[james bond]

stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the Star Trek transporter --which is ridiculous
Energize!

Not only you know nothing about evolution and the Bible, but the Star Trek transporter is science fiction. You can yell, "Energize!" all you want but won't go anywhere ha ha. Just keep sitting on your dumb *ss.

 

[harmonica]

stop the crap---if you are anti-evolution, you must believe a fully formed human appeared from nothing like the Star Trek transporter --which is ridiculous
Energize!

Not only you know nothing about evolution and the Bible, but the Star Trek transporter is science fiction. You can yell, "Energize!" all you want but won't go anywhere ha ha. Just keep sitting on your dumb *ss.

a man just ''appeared''...this is the bible and you !! just like the trasporter
yes--we believe that one ....

 

[Weatherman2020]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

The anti science folks believe nature naturally evolves into the more complex, and mutations are a benefit.

 

[james bond]

It's the internet atheist who are simpletons and are wrong. They got humans from fish and humans from apes and the universe from multiverses while the Bible continues to be the best selling book on the planet bar none.

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

 

[harmonica]

Superman comics also sell well.

Not as well as the Bible which is listed as non-fiction.

..we still have controversy about the JFK assassination of 1963--with video!!
..and you believe something written how long ago?? thousands of years ago when they believed all kind of crap like the earth was flat/witches/etc

What does JFK's assassination have to do with God? You are a weirdo!

let me explain it then!!
if there is controversy about an event/writings/etc less than 60 years ago, you want people to believe something written thousands of years ago??
the MSM today puts out crap ......the bible cannot be believed in anyway

Which is more likely? You came from a fish that grew legs and feet and turned into an amphibian. And later turned into an ape that turned into an ape-human. Yet, ape-humans cannot breed just like mules. So, how could they even multiply? And why did they lie about Lucy (first ape-man), Piltdown Man (fooled an entire generation) and Nebraska man? Or the universe came from invisible particles that expanded from some metaphysical space.

Or God created earth, space, day/night (time), light, atmosphere, dry land and plants, sun, moon, stars and other planets, sea creatures and birds, land animals and man in 7 days? He rested on the Sabbath.

it would be more likely/more believable god created man through evolution..this is more ''god like''
..evolution is more believable than a fully formed man just ''appearing''
..as I've stated in other threads, a lot of people do not think in realistic ideas/terms/etc