simple present tense and present continuous tense

This sentence is taken from bbc.co.uk:

"The obesity epidemic is spreading much faster than previous data suggested".

Can I use just simple present tense in this context? Like this:

"The obesity epidemic spreads much faster than previous data suggested"

Thanks

The first sentence implies a condition that is current. The time frame for the second is vague and requires a lead-up to provide an appropriate context.

When do we should the second sentence form? In what condition?

Usually I see a clear situation from the grammar book I read, such as: "I am reading a book" or "I am watching a movie" etc. But, in the above example, it is not so clear to me as an English learner.

Thanks.

I think I am more and more confused with simple present and present continuous tense. The following example also taken from the bbc.co.uk:

"Mr Yushchenko predicts the elections will be one of the most democratic ever held in the former Soviet republic."

My opinion, the use of present continuous tense is also appropriate:

"Mr Yushchenko is predicting the elections will be one of the most democratic ever held in the former Soviet republic."

Your comment please?

I will give you more example:

"The SANS Institute is predicting that security threats are shifting away from holes in operating systems and Internet-based attacks to ones that pray on applications and network devices."

Look at the example above. The writer uses "....is predicting..." not "...predicts...".

Compare to my previous example, what are the differences between them? (taken from bbc.co.uk):

"Mr Yushchenko predicts the elections will be one of the most democratic ever held in the former Soviet republic."

Thanks a lot.

For actions which are occurring semantically in the present, one normally uses the present progressive rather than the simple present in English. This is because the simple present is generally used for indicating timeless, habitual, or potential actions or, when used with some time expression, for indicating actions in the future, rather than actions that are truly occuring at specifically the present proper.

>>I will give you more example:

"The SANS Institute is predicting that security threats are shifting away from holes in operating systems and Internet-based attacks to ones that pray on applications and network devices."

Look at the example above. The writer uses "....is predicting..." not "...predicts...".

Compare to my previous example, what are the differences between them? (taken from bbc.co.uk):

"Mr Yushchenko predicts the elections will be one of the most democratic ever held in the former Soviet republic."

Thanks a lot.<<

No difference in isolation. But some context might require one to be preferred over the other, possibly changing the intended meaning.

I need someone to verify the following question. ...
Who would you like the flowers sending to?
As far as i know its incorrect to use the continuous tense in the way the sentence has been constructed.... wouldnt it be correct to say.. who would you like the flowers sent to?

Yes.

What's your name?

Travis wrote:
<<For actions which are occurring semantically in the present, one normally uses the present progressive rather than the simple present in English. This is because the simple present is generally used for indicating timeless, habitual, or potential actions or, when used with some time expression, for indicating actions in the future, rather than actions that are truly occuring at specifically the present proper.>>

My reply:
Actually, such vagueness is in itself contradictory. If it is Timeless, why it is used also "when used with some time expression", or indicating actions in the future? If it is Habitual, why it is also "potential"? But in explaining English tense, people have been taking confusion as the logic.

The vagueness is so loose that it can apply to many tenses. For instance, if I have a habitual action "I walk to work every day", does it not include "I WALKED to work yesterday"? Should yesterday's walk be not the habitual action, on what ground will I claim "I walk to work every day"? Actually, by habitual action, one accepts "I HAVE ALWAYS WALKED to work in the past, and perhaps WILL WALK to work in the future". That is to say, you can use many tenses to express a so-called habitual action.

Of course, Present Progressive can also be used to express habitual actions. If you search exact match for "is walking ** every day", you may find many results:
Ex: He is walking a mile every day.....
Ex: And now my dad is walking 3 miles every day.....
Ex: Vatinius is walking a mile every day.....
== You may also try to search "am/are walking ** every day".

Obviously, we don't know the ABC of English tense.

Please compare "is walking ** every day" examples in my previous post with "been walking ** every day" in the following:
Ex: I've been walking eight miles every day now.
Ex: I have been walking a mile every day now at our local community center.
Ex: Has been walking to work every day for years now, even for early mornings and late nights.
Ex: Kate and I have been walking 2.5 - 3 miles every day which has felt wonderful.
Ex: I have been walking or jogging 1-2 miles every day for almost two years.
Ex: I have been walking 3 miles every day now for the past week.

Any difference between Present Progressive and Prefect Progressive? Not likely. Tell me please if there is difference.

Next time if you want to say something in Present Progressive, say it instead in Perfect Progressive, and nobody will question about the tense or misunderstand the situation. Do you know why?

You don't believe me? I will give an example. Grammar hand books claim that, with Since, we should use Perfect Progressive:
Ex: We have been living here since 1987.
But English native speakers tacitly tolerate themselves to use Present Progressive to work with Since:
Ex: We are studying historical GHG emissions since 2000 and some of us are starting studies about vulnerability of agriculture and water resources to climate change. I developed my DSc. in Ethics, Equity and International Negotiations on.....
Ex: Pupils in Year 6 are studying Britain since the 1930s and had looked at the main events in.
Ex: We are studying desmans in Portugal since the end of 80's. The species is considered Vulnerable by the IUCN and by our national Red Data Book. The main priority was distribution, habitats and the inventory of threats, but we already.....
Ex: the writer goes into details about perseption theories and how other countries are studying UFOs phenomena since the 40s.

Many native readers would argue it is a "foreign use", and there was no proof the examples such as above are forged by native speakers. As native English speakers, they claimed they would not use Present Progressive with Since. Then in reluctance I had to pick up some examples below:
Ex: I would say that they are doing well protecting our country since 911. I would not support backing off government powers in this regard until solid evidence of abuse on a systemic level starts showing up.
Ex: I've noticed a real change in the way businesses are taking a change since 911.
Ex: Politicians are working fast since 911 to change laws affecting every person on the earth so the New World Order becomes a reality.
== I also assumed at first that English native speakers would not use this pattern here, merging Present Progressive with Since. But I noticed, soon after 911, a campaign titled "What are you doing since 911?" that aimed to help each other in New York. After all, they know how to use the pattern. It is a correct use of Present Progressive.

Now, do you see a confusion or a pattern in all these examples I have been listing? Of course there is a pattern, which I have repeatedly posted here, as often as one claims Simple Present is used to express habitual action.

New_boy wrote:
<<This sentence is taken from bbc.co.uk:
"The obesity epidemic is spreading much faster than previous data suggested".>>

My reply:
I have located the possible context of the example you have posted. I searched exact match of your example and here is the context:
<<The obesity epidemic is spreading much faster than previous data suggested. NEW FIGURES published in the International Journal of Paediatric Obesity show that in the European Union by the end of the decade thirty eight per cent of children will be overweight while in North and South America the number will be almost fifty per cent.>>
Notice the "NEW FIGURES" in the quote. I hope you see there is a new trend implied here. This is why they use Present Progressive.

Your another example:
<<The SANS Institute is predicting that security threats are shifting away from holes in operating systems and Internet-based attacks to ones that pray on applications and network devices.>>
Even without a possible context, I hope you see there is a new trend implied here. This is why they use Present Progressive.

After 911, people are exploring a new trend of living. This is why they use Present Progressive: "What are you doing since 911?"
Many university departments will launch a new project in exploring something. This is why they use Present Progressive: "We are studying historical GHG emissions since 2000....."
After sickness, one may pick up a new kind of habit, and this is why one says "I am now walking one mile every day".

Of a present action, Present Progressive depicts the new part, while Perfect Progressive describes the old part. After all, the two tenses have a clear contrast. However, as the listener usually doesn't know how long a present action will last, it is rather subjective for a speaker himself to decide whether the action is at its newness or oldness. The listener will therefore be hardly able to objectively challenge the validity of Present Progressive or Perfect Progressive. All of them are a present action:
Ex1: I am walking one mile every day.
Ex2: I walk one mile every day.
Ex3: I have been walking one mile every day.
They are of little difference and sometimes interchangeable. To boost my will power, I say Ex1 to you. If you accuse me of being lazy, I use Ex3 to rebut. Since nobody knows how long this habit will last, there is no standard to judge whether new or old. Using progressive forms here is rather subjective.

The theory behind newness/oldness is Time. We don't know exactly when the present action starts or ends. There is often a vagueness:
-- If John is marrying [Present Progressive] next Sunday, does the marriage include the prearrangements or not? I think it does. If he is now preparing the things relating to the marriage, it can be said he is actually doing the marriage. It is more of a present action than a future one. In other words, the marriage is more than just next Sunday.
-- If you have been traveling [Prefect Progressive] Europe and the journey is nearly finished, can you tell exactly when the travel is ended? Is it the moment you step on the plane flying home? Or is it the moment you arrive home? Does the travel not include the aftertaste or travel-related tiredness at all? Or does it include the travel photo print-out?
These are moments we use Present Progressive or Perfect Progressive respectively.

The newest action is the one right under our nose. Therefore we often use Present Progressive in speech to describe the present action we now see -- if we have the luxury of time. At the same time, however, in order to save time, we usually skip the progressive form and use Simple Present only, as the two forms deliver little difference. Very often, we even skip the subject. But this is when pragmatism sets in. They protest: "We use only Present Progressive to say a progression at present. Simple Present is used to say a habitual action!" Then the vicious circle starts spinning around students again.

Simple Present is used to expressed present time. A Simple Present action is a present action. This is a fair description.

Claiming Simple Present expresses timeless is at one's wit's end. Every message or writing is dated and can be dated. But from such a message a man has taken out a Simple Present sentence and claimed that it is timeless or without date. Is it really timeless? Of course not. Why would the man do it? Nobody knows. It is a mysterious way of explaining Simple Present, which can fool many young students. The question is, can the forgery fool you?

I think there are certain instances where it's normal to use the present simple with 'since'. This is when you are surprised to encounter someone doing something that you have not known them to do before. For example 'Since when do you eat salad?' if you see someone who tended to live on junk food eating a healthy leafy meal. But you wouldn't say either 'Since when have you been eating salad/are you eating salad?' in this instance. 'Since when have you eaten salad?' sounds ok though, I think.