Evolution Experiment: Creationists, Choose their Fate!

[PsychoSarah]

Are you a creationist? Are you skeptical of the theory of evolution? Do you think it has never been observed and all the experiments and observations are either interpreted incorrectly or are the product of a global conspiracy? Well, now's your chance to be involved in an evolution experiment yourself!

The experimental subjects are Triops, little crustaceans that have generation times of less than a month.

"But Sarah, I don't want to take care of any gross looking vermin". No worries, I'm going to take care of these guys for you.

"But Sarah, I actually do want some Triops and to do the experiment directly with my own hands". No problem, Triops are very easy to care for, and the great part about experiments is that they are repeatable. So, as long as you do what I do, you'll get results!

"So Sarah, exactly how are we involved in the experiment?" An excellent question. What you'll be doing is acting as "natural selection". You decide what traits should "improve survival", and which ones won't. This will be determined by vote: make a post with the 2 traits you want our experimental population to develop, and I'll change the conditions to those which would result in that trait being favored gradually enough that we don't just kill off the whole population.

Here are the traits you can select, and be sure not to pick contradictory ones!
Longer tails
Shorter tails
Wide bodies
Narrow bodies
More color
Less color

"But Sarah, they'll still be Triops, and that's not evolution". I'm not going to argue about what evolution is with anyone in this particular thread; however, this experiment will continue until the experimental population and the control population are recognizably distinct from each other, or when the control population and the experimental population can no longer interbreed. "How long do you think that'd take, Sarah?" Years; I'm prepared to continue this experiment for a decade, posting the current progress every month on this site. This is probably going to be an aspect of my master's thesis.

"Sarah, are any Triops going to be killed because they don't have the traits we asked for?" Nope, the ones that don't exhibit the traits are put into a third tank. They can't be put into the control tank, though, because that'd likely skew the gene pool of that population to favor the opposite qualities of the experimental tank, which would make the results in the experimental tank seem more drastic than they really were. However, in case the control tank does have some genetic anomalies, I am going to carefully measure members of the first 2 generations to make sure the original average bodies are recorded.

So, any creationists want to have some fun with evolution?

 

[Strathos]

Breed them for super intelligence until they take over the world

 

[gaara4158]

So, what would a creationist's hypothesis be? Traits selected for will never be reflected in future generations?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Do you think it has never been observed and all the experiments and observations are either interpreted incorrectly or are the product of a global conspiracy?

If I'm that far into conspiracy theories, I'm sure I can go a bit further and claim that your crustaceans have been genetically programmed to act the way you want them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I'm that far into conspiracy theories, I'm sure I can go a bit further and claim that your crustaceans have been genetically programmed to act the way you want them.

Ha, you'd be shocked how many people I have encountered that think there is a global conspiracy to hide evidence for creationism and promote the theory of evolution. But good sir, if you are a creationist and want to participate in this experiment, please do pick 2 traits you'd like to see the Triops have.

Plus, anyone that doubts my honesty on reporting the results is free to repeat the experiment for themselves; Triops are very easy to care for. They can tolerate ridiculous pH ranges, and are bottom feeders that'll eat just about anything you put in their tank and be fine. They especially like carrots.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, what would a creationist's hypothesis be? Traits selected for will never be reflected in future generations?

Hmm, my personal guess on that would be that the experimental population will only be able to get so different from the original population until the change stops? That's how I interpret "change within kinds".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Breed them for super intelligence until they take over the world

-_- that wasn't an option and you aren't a creationist. Plus, it would be very difficult to select for that trait in a species that has a lifespan of less than half a year.

 

[Speedwell]

Ha, you'd be shocked how many people I have encountered that think there is a global conspiracy to hide evidence for creationism and promote the theory of evolution. But good sir, if you are a creationist and want to participate in this experiment, please do pick 2 traits you'd like to see the Triops have.

Plus, anyone that doubts my honesty on reporting the results is free to repeat the experiment for themselves; Triops are very easy to care for. They can tolerate ridiculous pH ranges, and are bottom feeders that'll eat just about anything you put in their tank and be fine. They especially like carrots.

You would really knock creationism in the head if you could produce a new species.

 

[jax5434]

Are you a creationist? Are you skeptical of the theory of evolution? Do you think it has never been observed and all the experiments and observations are either interpreted incorrectly or are the product of a global conspiracy? Well, now's your chance to be involved in an evolution experiment yourself!

The experimental subjects are Triops, little crustaceans that have generation times of less than a month.

"But Sarah, I don't want to take care of any gross looking vermin". No worries, I'm going to take care of these guys for you.

"But Sarah, I actually do want some Triops and to do the experiment directly with my own hands". No problem, Triops are very easy to care for, and the great part about experiments is that they are repeatable. So, as long as you do what I do, you'll get results!

"So Sarah, exactly how are we involved in the experiment?" An excellent question. What you'll be doing is acting as "natural selection". You decide what traits should "improve survival", and which ones won't. This will be determined by vote: make a post with the 2 traits you want our experimental population to develop, and I'll change the conditions to those which would result in that trait being favored gradually enough that we don't just kill off the whole population.

Here are the traits you can select, and be sure not to pick contradictory ones!
Longer tails
Shorter tails
Wide bodies
Narrow bodies
More color
Less color

"But Sarah, they'll still be Triops, and that's not evolution". I'm not going to argue about what evolution is with anyone in this particular thread; however, this experiment will continue until the experimental population and the control population are recognizably distinct from each other, or when the control population and the experimental population can no longer interbreed. "How long do you think that'd take, Sarah?" Years; I'm prepared to continue this experiment for a decade, posting the current progress every month on this site. This is probably going to be an aspect of my master's thesis.

"Sarah, are any Triops going to be killed because they don't have the traits we asked for?" Nope, the ones that don't exhibit the traits are put into a third tank. They can't be put into the control tank, though, because that'd likely skew the gene pool of that population to favor the opposite qualities of the experimental tank, which would make the results in the experimental tank seem more drastic than they really were. However, in case the control tank does have some genetic anomalies, I am going to carefully measure members of the first 2 generations to make sure the original average bodies are recorded.

So, any creationists want to have some fun with evolution?

Uhm...evolution is blind correct? So if you are intelligently selecting for certain traits then you are actually trying to prove Intelligent Design. Is that what you are shooting for?

Also, though I am far from expert, I have never came across a "third tank" theory of evolution. But if it does exist it would still require intelligent selection to determine which individuals were candidates for it.

I do not think your experiment can really prove, or even support, purposeless non directed evolution

God Bless
Jax

 

[Audacious]

Uhm...evolution is blind correct? So if you are intelligently selecting for certain traits then you are actually trying to prove Intelligent Design. Is that what you are shooting for?

Also, though I am far from expert, I have never came across a "third tank" theory of evolution. But if it does exist it would still require intelligent selection to determine which individuals were candidates for it.

I do not think your experiment can really prove, or even support, purposeless non directed evolution

God Bless
Jax

Natural selection happens at a relatively slow rate, and makes changes over dozens, hundreds, even thousands of generations. In nature, there is no plan; it's just kind of what happens.

The fact that genes/alleles/etc are changeable enough that you can force certain traits to develop over time, though, shows that evolution happens; because that is an act of the change of which evolution predicts.

I don't get it, though: if there's a designer, how come it/he/she couldn't have designed natural selection? It's a fairly elegant mechanism.

 

[jax5434]

Natural selection happens at a relatively slow rate, and makes changes over dozens, hundreds, even thousands of generations. In nature, there is no plan; it's just kind of what happens.

The fact that genes/alleles/etc are changeable enough that you can force certain traits to develop over time, though, shows that evolution happens; because that is an act of the change of which evolution predicts.

I don't get it, though: if there's a designer, how come it/he/she couldn't have designed natural selection? It's a fairly elegant mechanism.

I was not commenting on evolution so much as the proposed experiment. The experiment as proposed would require a guiding intelligence (the experimenter) to determine what traits were to be selected for, to determine the end purpose (speciation) and to purposefully isolate the preferred breeding populations. None of these things are true for evolution "in the wild". The experiment as proposed could at best demonstrate that a guiding intelligence might possibly drive evolution thru harsh intelligent selection. That is not the random chance and mutation the TOE presents.
Almost all Christians accept micro-evolution as self evidently true. Macro evolution is where the disputes come in. Natural Selection and random mutations are also obviously true. What is in doubt is whether in combination they have the creative power to account for the diversity of life we see.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Audacious]

I was not commenting on evolution so much as the proposed experiment. The experiment as proposed would require a guiding intelligence (the experimenter) to determine what traits were to be selected for, to determine the end purpose (speciation) and to purposefully isolate the preferred breeding populations. None of these things are true for evolution "in the wild". The experiment as proposed could at best demonstrate that a guiding intelligence might possibly drive evolution thru harsh intelligent selection. That is not the random chance and mutation the TOE presents.
Almost all Christians accept micro-evolution as self evidently true. Macro evolution is where the disputes come in. Natural Selection and random mutations are also obviously true. What is in doubt is whether in combination they have the creative power to account for the diversity of life we see.

God Bless
Jax

Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a larger timescale. Accepting one without accepting the other is just silly.

Edit: In other words, micro evolution creates macro evolution. They're not separate things, and science certainly doesn't act like they are.

 

[jax5434]

Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a larger timescale. Accepting one without accepting the other is just silly.

Micro evolution does not inexorably lead to speciation. Look at all the diversity in domesticated dogs. Yet they are all the same species. Or there are a number of papers online about Darwin's Finches beak sizes which vary with environmental factors.
God Bless
Jax

 

[Audacious]

Micro evolution does not inexorably lead to speciation. Look at all the diversity in domesticated dogs. Yet they are all the same species. Or there are a number of papers online about Darwin's Finches beak sizes which vary with environmental factors.
God Bless
Jax

Dogs and wolves are the same species. But over time, speciation will still occur. We have every reason to think that it will and no reason to think it won't.

We've witnessed speciation already, actually.

 

[jax5434]

Yes they are. But Wolves are not domestic dogs. Look at the diversity within domestic dogs. Diversity that is the product of 10,000 years or more harsh, intelligent, goal directed selection. Yet there has been no speciation. The evidence of animal breeding programs, which are essentially ongoing evolutionary experiments is that while there is tremendous diversity within a species that diversity seems to stop short of speciation. I would submit that thousands of years of intelligent selection is equal to the much gentler pressure of natural selection.
This is not to say that evolution is not true. Just that, for it to be true, it needs a better drive train than random mutation and natural selection.
But to get back the subject of the post do you have any specific disagreements with my objections to it?
God Bless
Jax

 

[Waggles]

So, any creationists want to have some fun with evolution?

Didn't we see all this in a 1950's B grade sci-fi movie?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was not commenting on evolution so much as the proposed experiment. The experiment as proposed would require a guiding intelligence (the experimenter) to determine what traits were to be selected for, to determine the end purpose (speciation) and to purposefully isolate the preferred breeding populations. None of these things are true for evolution "in the wild". The experiment as proposed could at best demonstrate that a guiding intelligence might possibly drive evolution thru harsh intelligent selection. That is not the random chance and mutation the TOE presents.

What nature selects for isn't random either; it's what survives and reproduces the best. While artificial selection undeniably works faster than natural selection, due to the fact that I could exclude any from breeding which don't meet very specific trends, I cannot change mutation rate at all.

Additionally, natural selection can be just as harsh as artificial selection in times of mass extinction, which is why intense diversification tends to follow extinction events. I'd just rather move the Triops to another tank than outright kill 90% of them.

Almost all Christians accept micro-evolution as self evidently true. Macro evolution is where the disputes come in. Natural Selection and random mutations are also obviously true. What is in doubt is whether in combination they have the creative power to account for the diversity of life we see.

God Bless
Jax

So... are you going to pick 2 traits you want to see or not? Seriously, at this rate, I'm either going to have to pick myself or just 1 person will get their choice in.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Are you a creationist? Are you skeptical of the theory of evolution? Do you think it has never been observed and all the experiments and observations are either interpreted incorrectly or are the product of a global conspiracy? Well, now's your chance to be involved in an evolution experiment yourself!

The experimental subjects are Triops, little crustaceans that have generation times of less than a month.

"But Sarah, I don't want to take care of any gross looking vermin". No worries, I'm going to take care of these guys for you.

"But Sarah, I actually do want some Triops and to do the experiment directly with my own hands". No problem, Triops are very easy to care for, and the great part about experiments is that they are repeatable. So, as long as you do what I do, you'll get results!

"So Sarah, exactly how are we involved in the experiment?" An excellent question. What you'll be doing is acting as "natural selection". You decide what traits should "improve survival", and which ones won't. This will be determined by vote: make a post with the 2 traits you want our experimental population to develop, and I'll change the conditions to those which would result in that trait being favored gradually enough that we don't just kill off the whole population.

Here are the traits you can select, and be sure not to pick contradictory ones!
Longer tails
Shorter tails
Wide bodies
Narrow bodies
More color
Less color

"But Sarah, they'll still be Triops, and that's not evolution". I'm not going to argue about what evolution is with anyone in this particular thread; however, this experiment will continue until the experimental population and the control population are recognizably distinct from each other, or when the control population and the experimental population can no longer interbreed. "How long do you think that'd take, Sarah?" Years; I'm prepared to continue this experiment for a decade, posting the current progress every month on this site. This is probably going to be an aspect of my master's thesis.

"Sarah, are any Triops going to be killed because they don't have the traits we asked for?" Nope, the ones that don't exhibit the traits are put into a third tank. They can't be put into the control tank, though, because that'd likely skew the gene pool of that population to favor the opposite qualities of the experimental tank, which would make the results in the experimental tank seem more drastic than they really were. However, in case the control tank does have some genetic anomalies, I am going to carefully measure members of the first 2 generations to make sure the original average bodies are recorded.

So, any creationists want to have some fun with evolution?

Satan can cause change too. Just like he made all the fossils.

 

[jax5434]

Evolution selects for nothing. To say it selects "for something" is to imbue it with a purpose it does not possess. Your experiment begins with a specific end in mind. Something that never happens in nature. You have controls in place which, again, never occurs in nature. You are also removing unwanted individuals from the potential gene pool for no reason other than that they do not advance your goal something evolution does not do.
Additionally the choices you offer would not indicate speciation. I can point to dogs with longer or shorter tails, narrow or wide bodies, and different colors yet they remain a single species.
Without speciation no evolution has occurred.
If you were to ask whether or not you will achieve speciation my guess would be no; based on the thousands of years of selective breeding of Dogs, Horses, Cattle, Cats and Sheep. Essentially the experiment you are proposing has already been done with negative results for evolution. So no, I will not be making any choices
God Bless
Jax

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution selects for nothing. To say it selects "for something" is to imbue it with a purpose it does not possess. Your experiment begins with a specific end in mind. Something that never happens in nature. You have controls in place which, again, never occurs in nature. You are also removing unwanted individuals from the potential gene pool for no reason other than that they do not advance your goal something evolution does not do.
Additionally the choices you offer would not indicate speciation. I can point to dogs with longer or shorter tails, narrow or wide bodies, and different colors yet they remain a single species.
Without speciation no evolution has occurred.
If you were to ask whether or not you will achieve speciation my guess would be no; based on the thousands of years of selective breeding of Dogs, Horses, Cattle, Cats and Sheep. Essentially the experiment you are proposing has already been done with negative results for evolution. So no, I will not be making any choices
God Bless
Jax

As of right now, I will not address any posts or their content unless they include 2 traits they want to see the experimental population have. Participate in the experiment or get lost until it starts, these posts are clogging up the thread.