Evolution happens

[Whyayeman]

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

- New Scientist 9th June 2008

Another well documented demonstration of evolution at work. This is Richard Lenski's work in which he bred 40,000 generations from a single bacterium and ended up with a demonstrably new species.

That is evolution, proved and published.

 

[Ophiolite]

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

- New Scientist 9th June 2008

Another well documented demonstration of evolution at work. This is Richard Lenski's work in which he bred 40,000 generations from a single bacterium and ended up with a demonstrably new species.

That is evolution, proved and published.

Sadly, all this will generate is the profoundly ignorant, "but they were still bacteria". Sometimes I just want to cry.

 

[Frank Robert]

So called science is now accepting that gender is a choice that people can make. Not only that, some scientists are being persecuted because they state that there are only two sexes.

You are confusing soft sciences with hard sciences.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's not evolving. It's adapting.

See:
What's the difference between adaptation and evolution?

 

[Whyayeman]

See:
What's the difference between adaptation and evolution?

This is just some opinion. There is nothing scientific about it.

The Coca Cola bottles are a distraction.

 

[honestal]

Given your highly questionable selective quotation of Darwin you will understand if I have zero confidence in the value of your latest quote.

I think it's true, and right, and honest, that no matter what else Darwin says, it doesn't nullify his admission that to believe that the human eye evolved is--his words, not mine--"absurd in the highest degree."

What it really shows is that humans will oftentimes go to "absurd" lengths in order to not believe something they don't want to believe.

The following is a perfect example--and speaks volumes:

A famous math scientist, who was an evolutionist, once said, in response to the fact that there is no mathematical possibility that a DNA molecule can come into existence by chance:

"If it comes to believing in a mathematical impossibility or a creator, I will believe in a mathematical impossibility."

To use the words of Darwin--It is "absurd in the highest degree" to believe in something happening that you know can't possibly happen.

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things..." {Jeremiah 17:9}

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it's true, and right, and honest, that no matter what else Darwin says, it doesn't nullify his admission that to believe that the human eye evolved is--his words, not mine--"absurd in the highest degree."

What it really shows is that humans will oftentimes go to "absurd" lengths in order to not believe something they don't want to believe.

The following is a perfect example--and speaks volumes:

A famous math scientist, who was an evolutionist, once said, in response to the fact that there is no mathematical possibility that a DNA molecule can come into existence by chance:

"If it comes to believing in a mathematical impossibility or a creator, I will believe in a mathematical impossibility."

To use the words of Darwin--It is "absurd in the highest degree" to believe in something happening that you know can't possibly happen.

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things..." {Jeremiah 17:9}

Except that I showed that wasn't what he said. You, or whoever got that quote from, has taken the quote out of context in a classic quote mine.

 

[honestal]

I'm not going to buy DVDs from a Creationist to try and 'hear the other side'.

I fully understand that.

But you can go to youtube and watch it for free:

Please, just give him a few minutes of your time. (Try giving him 10 minutes. Surely that isn't too much to ask.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I fully understand that.

But you can go to youtube and watch it for free:

Please, just give him a few minutes of your time.

No, because I know what he's going to say, since it'll be the same points that have been made by Creationists a thousand times before to try and refute the theory of evolution and they fail each time. There is nothing new under the sun, and there is nothing new that Creationists can give to say that evolution is not scientific unless God himself were to come down and go "Hey, just so you know: the theory of evolution is completely wrong."

 

[Ophiolite]

I think it's true, and right, and honest, that no matter what else Darwin says, it doesn't nullify his admission that to believe that the human eye evolved is--his words, not mine--"absurd in the highest degree."

What it really shows is that humans will oftentimes go to "absurd" lengths in order to not believe something they don't want to believe.

The following is a perfect example--and speaks volumes:

A famous math scientist, who was an evolutionist, once said, in response to the fact that there is no mathematical possibility that a DNA molecule can come into existence by chance:

"If it comes to believing in a mathematical impossibility or a creator, I will believe in a mathematical impossibility."

To use the words of Darwin--It is "absurd in the highest degree" to believe in something happening that you know can't possibly happen.

"The human heart is the most deceitful of all things..." {Jeremiah 17:9}

I see two possibilites:
1. You have failed to understand that Darwin did not believe the evolution of the eye to be absurd. Describing it as such was a rhetorical device to set up the reveal - the power of natural selection can account for this superficially absurd feature. Your selection of those words and separation of them from those that are intimately and directly connected to them is simply wrong.
2. You do understand that you assertion is fatuous and are simply pushing anything to support your belief.

I sincerely hope that the first explanation is the correct one. I have nothing anything ignorant people, for we are all ignorant.

Natural selection is so powerful that the eye has evolved multiple times. That would have intrigued Darwin, but I doubt it would have surprised him.

 

[Frank Robert]

This is just some opinion. There is nothing scientific about it.

The Coca Cola bottles are a distraction.

Unlike creationists opinions of adaptation, the article provides the scientific definitions of adaptation and evolution. Do you have a link to scientific definitions of adaptation and evolution that are not opinions in your estimation?

 

[Ophiolite]

Unlike creationists opinions of adaptation, the article provides the scientific definitions of adaptation and evolution. Do you have a link to scientific definitions of adaptation and evolution that are not opinions in your estimation?

Those are hardly scientifc definitions of the terms. They are more akin to informal dictionary definitions. (Indeed, definition is too kind a term to apply to them.) In the context of this thread it is clear the topic is biological evolution and biological adaptation.

Prior to Darwin adaptation was thought to be a filtering process in which created organisms failed to reproduce because they were not well adapted to their environment. Those that survived were already better adapted to it. As the fossil hunters failed to find fossil forms of extant life this explanation was recgonised as inadequate.

Darwin and Wallace came to the rescue, showing how natural selection could provide the filter. The Modern Synthesis and the other tweaks, such as punctuated equilibrium leave the basic concept intact.
Adaptation is change to organisms that better fit them to their environment and this change occurs through the medium of natural selection and its ancillary facets.

Those are not definitions, but I suggest they are more robust and relevant than those in your linked article. All that said, I'm not entirely sure what point you were originally trying to make. Could you restate it for my benefit please?

 

[Frank Robert]

Those are hardly scientific definitions of the terms.

I originally responded
That is your opinion.
Edit: I originally responded your comment thinking it was the someone else. I apologize for being sloppy.

I admit that the definitions in the article basic and not as robust as yours but I mistakenly though I was responding to someone who had little or no knowledge of evolution and going into detail would be a waste of time.

 

[zoidar]

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

- New Scientist 9th June 2008

Another well documented demonstration of evolution at work. This is Richard Lenski's work in which he bred 40,000 generations from a single bacterium and ended up with a demonstrably new species.

That is evolution, proved and published.

Couldn't he keep doing this some billion times so it evolved into an ant? At least that would be the end of the discussion.

 

[Whyayeman]

Couldn't he keep doing this some billion times so it evolved into an ant? At least that would be the end of the discussion.

You seem to have misunderstood. The work produced a rigorous result in which one species evolved into another over 40,000 generations. That is evolution. Proof that evolution happens.

 

[klutedavid]

Evolution happens.
It has been happening a long time, and will happen as long as life continues to exist.

Evolution is not atheism. Nor does it invalidate christianity.
Much of the early work on understanding evolution was done by christians.

From one species to another species?

For example, say a four legged species running around on land and becoming another species altogether, say a different species with fins?

Or are you talking about wolves turning into dogs?

The definition of what a species represents becomes difficult.

 

[Whyayeman]

The definition of what a species represents becomes difficult.

You don't know what a species is? The vast majority of species don't either; quite possibly all of them but one. And it does not much matter, because species do not evolve; individuals evolve.

Numerous models indicate how this happens and how speciation can occur through selection. If your thing is the evolution of the domestic dog from wild ancestors I think you have to consider it at least possible. How else could it have come into existence?

 

[zoidar]

You seem to have misunderstood. The work produced a rigorous result in which one species evolved into another over 40,000 generations. That is evolution. Proof that evolution happens.

Sorry, I will tell you I can't brag with my science skills. I like science though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Much of the early work on understanding evolution was done by christians.

"Dogs into cats is a slam dunk for YECism" ... really?

You have a skewed view of YECism.

 

[Astrid]

And? Evolution does not rest on quotes from just two people.

Ah, but disproving it does?