Yes, 'evolution' is a result of chance, and deliberately breeding animals a certain way is deliberate, but the same sorts of factors are involved.

Change within a species, via artificial breeding, shows us that natural change is possible. In nature it's usually a slower process, of course, but I still think that it's basically the same process.

The point of evolution is that change happens. Non-evolutions do not argue "God is directing the changes" - they argue "there is no change". My question is how anybody who has ever been to a natural history museum can not see those changes clearly evident. Or do they believe that all fossils and skeletons are fake?

If you're going to argue that "there ARE changes going on but God is directing them" then that is a completely different situation to discuss. That is Intelligent Design. That's not creationism.

So the question is if anybody here does believe in creationism - i.e. that all creatures here on earth today were created in their current form, from scratch, by God. If so, I'd like to be able to discuss the topic with you.

I'll create a separate thread on Intelligent Design if we wish.

OK here's an example article I wrote, to show why Creationism is an invalid argument. I am interested in anybody who would say that this did not happen.

-------------

Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, and at the time it was a great discovery that helped save countless numbers from death. But bacteria was quick to evolve.

At first, the penicillin was extremely effective against bacterial infections. Where before a slight scrape of a rusty nail or injury might lead to death, penicillin soon became the easy way to make sure that injuries didn't become infected.

However, natural selection kicked in. Natural selection is when individuals in a species are naturally more suited to live in the chosen environment - and therefore breed more and survive better than their weaker neighbors.

In the case of bacteria, natural selection meant that while most bacteria were killed off by the penicillin - a few lucky ones found they were able to survive it. Those bacteria then created more bacteria, and soon a new species of bacteria was developing - one that didn't mind a penicillin environment at all.

What used to be a 'very rare mutation' of a normal bacteria strain is now THE normal makeup for the new, penicillin-resistant strain. Evolution and natural selection both were responsible for how bacteria and penicillin have interacted in the past 85 years and the changes that have resulted.

Here's another example of within-our-lifetime evolution.

In 1937, a batch of sockeye salmon were added to Lake Washington in Seattle. By 1992, the fish had formed into two distinct groups that looked different from each other and would not interbreed. This is the definition of separate species, and indeed scientists have given one of the fish groups a new name!

While all of the initial fish were from the same species, when they arrived in Lake Washington, one portion of the school decided to settle near a beach. They laid their eggs along the beach and began to evolve to fit in well with their beach-side existence.

The second group chose instead to move into the nearby river that feeds the lake. Because their breeding ground was in a fast-moving river, their breeding techniques as well as their appearance both began to change to suit this different environment.

In only just over 50 years, those two environments were having a serious effect on the two groups of fish. Not only were physical changes obvious between the two groups, but also the groups did not interbreed at all any more. The river-breeding fish did not try to intermingle with the beach-breeding fish.

The salmon are now the object of much research, as scientists track the changes between them, and watch as the two groups become more and more distinct from each other.

i guess i believe in intelligent design.

i think the important difference between breeding and evolution is that we breed do our needs whereas (darwinian) evolution follows environmental factors by chance.

i don't deny the changes are there to be witnessed as in your examples, but i don't think there is enough time to produce the variety of life we see without some intelligent input.

I think that there does appear to be an intelligence in or behind the universe. Maybe it's God, or maybe it's survival of the most fitting and is just a version of 'begging the question'.

OK so far there appear to be no creationists out there. We can certainly talk about Intelligent Design then - but please if a creationist visits this thread PLEASE post your thoughts because I'd love to talk.

OK, so Intelligent Design. Let's talk about the dog family because we all know what dogs look like, it's an easy thing to visualize. We also all know that dogs all came from "common dog stock" - i.e. at one point there weren't dachshunds and dalmatians and so on. There was just a "dog" that we then bred for different uses. We bred sheepdogs to herd sheep, foxhounds to go after foxes and so on.

We have a ton of fossil records for dogs and wolves. We know that about 20 million years ago was when we had a recognizeable "dog" creature, and that later on different groups in different areas evolved into wolves, human-loving dogs, etc.

So can we agree that 20 million years is a VERY long period of time, and that surely in 20 million years, dogs could - depending on where they happened to live - develop different traits? I don't mean like one dog in one spot "changed". I mean that a group of dogs living in Alaska might have the less furry ones die off, and the more furry ones survive, and that after 20 million years, only really furry ones would be around ...

20 million years ag owas there only one dog creature, or only one that we know about? "Intelligent Design = bred by humans. Are wolves a feral cast off from human tampering, or an original wild animal? Can DNA trace all canine back to one specific ancestor? Can the same be assumed for the felines? Are the Tiger, Lion, Cougar, Minx, Cheetah, Leopard and common household tabby all related to one common ancestor, or were there multiple felines aeons ago that each descended from?
Almost too many unknowns/variables to answer any questions from your above example.

I have seen, somewhere, an artist's impression of the creature that was believed to have been ancestor to all cats, dogs, bears, etc. I'll try to find out where it was.

I found this:

'Dogs, ungulates (hoofed mammals), cats, bears, weasels, raccoons, civets and hyenas all share a common ancestor. Thus, the wolf and the animals it preys upon (the ungulates) evolved from a common ancestor from which they both inherited their intelligence and their ability to run swiftly for long periods of time. This common ancestor lived about a hundred million years ago.'

It's from this page;
http://canidae.ca/EVOLUTIO.HTM

I don't know who the author is, but it seems well-researched. Have a look for yourselves and see what you think.


This site, which I haven't checked out, looks as if it might be interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html