proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

Science is like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. If you do not like what is on the menu today then stop back tomorrow. Everything will be new and you can have a whole new selection to choose from. IF you do not offer people new choices you will soon be out of business.

And yet, you enjoy the benefits from science, every hour of every day of your life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no double talk. It's just basic understanding of the difference between the phenotype versus the genotype of an organism. I mean, you *do* know the difference, don't you?

Especially when considering a basic definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. The basic definition of evolution applies to the genotype. There is nothing that mandates changes to phenotype. It just happens in some cases and clearly not as much in others.

Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype. Its always clearly distinguishable for what it is. Yet direct empirical observations have shown you the simple act of interbreeding can not only change its phenotype, but change its breed type as well. Its genotype if you like as the Chinook is easily distinguished genetically from all others.

You are asking me to ignore direct empirical observation of direct changes in forms for a process you have never actually observed and is supposed to take millions of years when i can see it repeatedly in my life time.

I am simply asking you to apply this direct empirical observation of how forms change to the fossil record. I am not asking you to accept something never seen with your own eyes, nor anyone's eyes as you are asking.

And I am the unreasonable one???????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet, you enjoy the benefits from science, every hour of every day of your life.

Science, not PR, there's a difference.

 

[gaara4158]

Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype. Its always clearly distinguishable for what it is. Yet direct empirical observations have shown you the simple act of interbreeding can not only change its phenotype, but change its breed type as well. Its genotype if you like as the Chinook is easily distinguished genetically from all others.

The Chinook is not the basis of the theory of evolution. Your fixation on this particular breed is puzzling.

A Mastiff is a Mastiff and a Husky is a Husky. And yet they are related, and you have no problem with that. They are descended from wolves, and you have no problem with that. And yet, you deny that there must have been transitional forms between the wolf and the Mastiff, the wolf and the Husky. How do you think these breeds came about?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your question is a poorly phrased run-on sentence. Take some time to re-word it and ask again later.

Nevermind, the double-talk and avoidance is getting tiresome anyways.... enjoy your ignoring the empirical data for things never seen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Chinook is not the basis of the theory of evolution. Your fixation on this particular breed is puzzling.

A Mastiff is a Mastiff and a Husky is a Husky. And yet they are related, and you have no problem with that. They are descended from wolves, and you have no problem with that. And yet, you deny that there must have been transitional forms between the wolf and the Mastiff, the wolf and the Husky. How do you think these breeds came about?

The Chinook is what you believe evolution to be. Your ignoring this clear change in form from interbreeding instead of never observed mutation is what is puzzling......

The forms between are not transitional as you would have them be. They are one and all the same species...... So perhaps you should rethink those in the fossil record? Just a suggestion based upon the empirical data, mind you.

I think they came about through interbreeding, not any form of mutation or evolution. That you refuse to apply the empirical evidence to the fossil record is something you must learn to live with. Apparently you have learned to ignore how new forms actually appear within the species, instead proposing some mythical process never observed instead. I simply ask you to apply how you know those new forms appeared in the species to the fossil record. Nothing unreasonable or non-scientific. You refuse to do so, even though you seem to be aware just how those new forms came about, and know it required no evolution at all. I find that to be very unscientific, since its the only time you have observed changes in form. Every Mastiff born undergoes mutations. Every Husky born does so as well. Yet they dont change forms. Only when those two mate does a new form appear. Why do you find it necessary to refuse to apply this observed change in form to the fossil record?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes you offered the argument B362 and they gave you the counter argument xy2z. We can save time if we just assign a number to the argument and the counter argument.

The watchmaker argument actually goes back to Isaac Newton back in the 1600's: "that the physical laws he had uncovered (René Descartes), revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God." William Dembski's intelligent designer is just a variation of the watchmaker argument.

More recently Hoyle claimed that that the chance of a random mutation is so slim as to make the whole argument meaningless. Their response to that is "not true, not true, not true" and they offer nothing in the way of a counter argument to show that his math is not substantial.

I just ask them to apply how they observe new forms to appear... Mastiff mates with Husky to the fossil record. They claim mutations, yet despite every mastiff puppy born with mutations it always remains a Mastiff. Despite every Husky puppy born it remains a Husky. They have only observed actual physical change of forms when those two interbreed.

Yet despite the empirical evidence they insist I ignore this for those mutations that have never made a new form. And they say we are unscientific, yet they are the ones refusing to apply direct empirical changes to forms to the fossil record. I claim fossil A mated with fossil B and fossil C appeared suddenly in the record. That fossil A always remained fossil A as did fossil B remain fossil B. Just as Husky remains Husky and Mastiff Mastiff. That the Chinook appears suddenly, fully formed, just as fossil C did.

I am not even asking they accept creation, just accept how we observe new forms to actually arise. Got to get them to admit to the little falsifying changes to thier theory before you can move on to the big stuff. Not that I expect them to admit to what they see in front of their face. Or to use deductive reasoning and apply what they observe to the fossil record.

 

[HitchSlap]

Having actual observation and testing that shows something changing into something it isn't already.

That's exactly what convinced me!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's exactly what convinced me!

Thats what convinced me too! When I saw Mastiff and Husky mate and give birth to the Chinook, which appeared where it was never found before. Why an actual observable change in form, and yet the Husky and Mastiff puppies despite all their mutations remained Husky and Mastiff. Just like in the fossil record.

 

[pitabread]

They claim mutations, yet despite every mastiff puppy born with mutations it always remains a Mastiff. Despite every Husky puppy born it remains a Husky.

I asked you this before and you never answered: Do you believe that individual 'pure bred' dog breeds were originally created?

Where did Huskies and Mastiff's come from?

 

[rjs330]

I get to be "accusatory" because all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, yet you repeat the same stuff that so many people have already corrected you on.



Exactly as evolution expects. You are pretending evolution would expect crockoducks. It wouldn't.



Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions, and just about everything we know and understand about genetics, like phylogenetic trees etc.



Evolution predicts one very specific pattern.
And it is a pattern that would NOT result from distinct "creation" events (unless extra special care is given to have that pattern emerge on purpose).

And it is exactly that pattern that we find in living things.
Any other pattern would have falsified evolution.

ps: that pattern is the nested hierarchy, but you know that off course, as that too, has been explained to you countless times.

A correction to be accurate has to be factual. Any so called correction is based on the assumptive reasoning of evolution and thus not a factual correction. To keep repeating that we have evidence when you really do not is not correcting anything. It merely continuing to propogated the same old song and dance about how evolution from a common ancestor is fact when it's only an assumption based in supposition. We still have yet to see an observation and testable evidence that it occurred.

 

[pitabread]

Your mutations to every Mastiff and every Husky has never even changed its genotype.

Perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with the concept of a genotype: Genotype - Wikipedia

And I am the unreasonable one???????

Your posts generally demonstrate a clear gap with your knowledge of the subject of which you continue to attempt to critique. Which isn't a problem if you take steps to rectify it.

Otherwise expecting to be able to critique a scientific topic without first understanding what that topic is about is quite unreasonable. Downright silly even.

 

[rjs330]

I get to be "accusatory" because all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, yet you repeat the same stuff that so many people have already corrected you on.



Exactly as evolution expects. You are pretending evolution would expect crockoducks. It wouldn't.



Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions, and just about everything we know and understand about genetics, like phylogenetic trees etc.



Evolution predicts one very specific pattern.
And it is a pattern that would NOT result from distinct "creation" events (unless extra special care is given to have that pattern emerge on purpose).

And it is exactly that pattern that we find in living things.
Any other pattern would have falsified evolution.

ps: that pattern is the nested hierarchy, but you know that off course, as that too, has been explained to you countless times.

The pattern we see is one of common design. All living things are made of common design and screams intelligent design. The intelligent design that created an amazing nature to can exist and continue and adapt throughout the Earth's history in order for life to exist and continue. It all points to common intelligent design.

 

[rjs330]

That would falsify evolution.

That would prove evolution because that is evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[HiEv]

Together, you

Who? Me?!?

called baby and adults of the same exact species separate species, all to support your theory that speciation occurs.

No, that wasn't the reason at all. The reason is simply that that's where the evidence used to point. As new evidence came in, the explanations changed to closer match reality.

Your claimed based upon similarity fails since those babies and adults were almost exactly similar. I mean please, is that your best response?

I am saying if you cant even get babies and adults of the same species correct that are almost identical, what makes you assume they got all those subspecies they have classified as separate species correct?

... BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!

That's hilarious.

So, your argument is, science was wrong once, found its error, corrected itself, and therefore we should throw the whole thing out?!?

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!

Jack Horner, guy you showed in the video still supports evolution despite all that, so why should anyone else throw it out?

Honestly, the fact that science is capable of finding errors like that and correcting them should be a point in favor of it being true, and not merely dogma, and yet you want to try to paint that as evidence against evolution?

That really cracks me up.

Nothing discovered there did even the tiniest thing do dismount evolution from being the best scientific explanation for the evolution of species in the fossil record.

When science found that the religious views of geocentrism were wrong, religious leaders had Galileo imprisoned for the rest of his life for opposing their views of the world. When science found that a part of its explanation was wrong in your example, this guy gets to do talks in front of large audiences explaining how this wonderful new discovery came about.

Which one of these sounds like they're open to the evidence that they're wrong? And if you're not open to evidence that you're wrong, you'll never be able to correct erroneous beliefs.

All you've highlighted here is the strength of the scientific method.

Yah, lets cut open its bones and see how that claim pans out...... Again, you proved my point, if its slightly different its a new species, without any consideration as to if its just a subspecies. Because the discoverer of a subspecies doesnt get their name written in the books....

I'm sorry, but this is word salad.

Science works on the evidence and we let that evidence lead us to the most parsimonious conclusion. If the evidence is that species A lived at time X, and species C lived at time X+2, and we find species B (which has a mix of traits from A and C consistent with earlier progression) at time X+1, then the most reasonable conclusion is that B is an intermediary fossil between A and C. The fact that such a species was predicted to exist at that time by evolution makes it evidence for evolution.

If new evidence comes out in the future that changes that, then we adapt our understanding to match that evidence. Not the other way around.

If it later turns out to be a subspecies, we take that into consideration and change our views. But we can only work with the evidence available to us.

Considering the fact that fossilization is a rare event, we will likely always have many holes in our knowledge. That does not mean that the big picture is wrong, only some minor details.

Ignore history at your peril.

The Spiral Nebulae and the Great Debate | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe

"In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk.[17] In a treatise in 1755, Immanuel Kant elaborated on Wright's idea about the structure of the Milky Way. At the time, the existence of other galaxies had not been discovered."

At the time all was thought to be contained in the Milky-Way.

That's not a conclusion that's stated anywhere in your quote.

Also, you claimed that there were "tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe". I asked you to cite one. You still failed to do that.

Also, Kant referred to "extragalactic nebulae" (nebula which exist outside of our galaxy) as "island universes". One should not confuse this archaic terminology for claiming that the Milky Way is a "universe" in the way that we mean the term "universe" today.

Heck, the very article you cited says that there were two views, neither of which thought that the universe was merely the Milky Way:

"The two sides of the argument over the spiral nebulae had to do with the size of the Milky Way and its relationship to the universe as a whole. On the one hand, some astronomers argued that the Milky Way was a large part of the entire universe, and that the spiral nebulae were just one other type of gas cloud inside of our Galaxy. On the other hand, some astronomers argued that these spiral nebulae were 'island universes' like the Milky Way, and they were simply so far away that their stars were not resolved into point sources of light but were instead blurred together so they looked like a nebula. This argument culminated in a debate between two astronomers in 1920 that is now referred to as the 'Great Debate.'" (emphasis mine)

So no, your own source disagrees with your claim about what it says.

Your lies wont change history.....

...says the person lying about history.

Because you dont even know the history of your own evolutionary theory.

All you ever read is what they say today. You fail to realize that for years the colecanth was touted to be the transitory example of water to land animals. You dont hear it today because the living one falsified it.

Source for the claim that "for years the colecanth (sic) was touted to be the transitory example of water to land animals"? I'm actually pretty darn familiar with both evolutionary and creationist history, since I've been studying it for about 30 years, and this is the first time I've ever encountered this claim. I could've simply missed it, but I'm not going to believe you merely because you say so. Where is your evidence of this claim?

Seriously, I'm aware of no scientists in the field of evolution who ever claimed that coelacanths were the transitional species between water and land animals. If you want to convince me, don't merely tell me you're right, show me that you're right.

Furthermore, even if they had been called that transitional species, their continued existence wouldn't disprove that, in the same way that the continued existence of Europeans doesn't disprove the claim that Americans originally came from Europeans. Species can split, where some evolve along one path, while others remain pretty much the same. This is not at odds with the theory of evolution at all. So living coelacanths wouldn't "falsify" that claim, as you seemed to be suggesting.

So now you want me to believe that the monkeys tail was fully formed? Or the modern eye?

(facepalm)

Let me ask you, is the eye of a nautilus "fully formed"? It basically works like a pinhole camera, since it has neither a cornea nor a lens, but it works.

How about the "pit eyes" of planaria and some snails, are they "fully formed"? They're basically a cup with some photoreceptors on the back, but they work.

How about the "eyespots" on euglena, are they "fully formed"? They sense light, so they work.

This is what I mean when I say all animals are "fully formed". The parts work.

The fact is, we have living examples of organisms which show the potential path of the evolution of the eye, where it is "fully formed" at every step. Which demonstrate how the transitions from one to the next worked. Your utter ignorance of the steps which lead to the modern eye is not proof that it didn't happen. And the fact is, there isn't one "modern eye", but the eye apparently evolved many times, independently, in different ways. The "modern eye" of an insect isn't the same as the "modern eye" of a human.

Of course there were transitional steps between any two random points along that evolutionary lineage, but the intermediate steps were all functional.

By fully formed I mean you see no transitional forms between one and the next, excepot those you incorrectly classify as transitional.

That's not what "fully formed" means. Seriously, look at the words that make up that phrase. They don't mean "skipped evolutionary steps", they mean "fully formed into a working structure".

And I love how you get to redefine anything which science counts as a transition as "incorrectly classified as transitional". Sounds like you've just set up a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I can't think of any examples of something which skipped evolutionary steps, so please, do tell me, what feature do you need me to explain to you? Please try to stick to a bony example, like the monkey's tail, since squishy parts like the eye don't fossilize well.

Really? Show me the gradual in the Cambrian explosion? Or the gradual from one layer to the next?

The Cambrian explosion took place across a period of 20 to 25 million years. That's tons of time for gradual evolution of rapidly reproducing organisms. It's only "sudden" in geological time. Humans appeared in a fraction of that time from the earlier hominids.

Honestly, what do you think your argument is here? That scientists are too stupid to notice or account for the Cambrian explosion, so they just ignore it? No! It's well understood and fits well within the evolutionary model!

You have no actual argument here which doesn't boil down to a basic ignorance of the actual position of the theory of evolution on the topic.

I am sorry, forgive me, I didnt realize you had DNA from dinosaurs that you could compare to those alive today to make such a claim of sharing markers......

Well, then maybe you should go and learn some basic biology. You might learn that all birds today are living dinosaurs.

Origin of Birds - Wikipedia
"The scientific question within which larger group of animals birds evolved, has traditionally been called the origin of birds. The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era." (emphasis mine, literally the second sentence there)

Regardless, we're talking about the transition from fish to land animals, so every land animal alive is a descendant of the Tiktaalik side of the equation (not just dinosaurs), and every bony fish is a descendant of the side of the equation that stayed in the seas. This is how we have existing DNA to test for shared markers.

You shouldnt beliueve everything you are told by PR specialists. Do your research and you will find that E coli could always metabolize citrus. The only thing that changed was that abiklity was changed to dominance so it could metabolize it fully.

LOL. You should learn to read more cautiously if you're going to criticize.

The article didn't say that E. coli couldn't metabolize citrate period, it said that E. coli couldn't metabolize citrate aerobically. Yes, E. coli could always metabolize citrate anaerobically, but with oxygen present, it can't. That's a crucial distinction you failed to notice there.

And no, it wasn't merely changed so it could "metabolize it fully". You should fire the PR guy that sold you that load of moldy baloney.

I thought you said earlier that dogs remain dogs, peas, peas and fruit flies fruit flies? I think you already answered that, but are just double-talking now so you can change your mind later if necessary. Since they still call it E coli, I guess it does mean its still E coli.

And I didn't say it wasn't E. coli either. But I'm showing you that one of the major markers of what defines it as "E. coli" changed due to evolution. So it's less like the typical E. coli. How many more changes until it stops being E. coli and transitions into being a separate species? That question was my point.

But could always metabolize citrus. It simply adapted due to the fact it was given no other food source.

"The most striking adaptation reported so far is the evolution of aerobic growth on citrate, which is unusual in E. coli,"

Unusual, not non-existant.

But this trait was nonexistent in the particular strain they started with. This was verified genetically from the periodic samples they took. It was only due to mutations and evolution that this trait became common within this population.

So YOU say.
"Two distinct variants, S and L,"

Hmm, variants, can we all say subspecies?

Even your so called experts dont go as far as you.

I don't think you understand what evolution is. Even a new subspecies is still an example of evolution.

Again, evolution is a change in the frequency of traits within a group of organisms over generations. This is a trait that did not exist in the seed population, but became completely dominant in the population in about 20,000 generations after it first began to appear.

Just search the article and you'll see it repeatedly refers to the "evolution of Cit+". So, in fact, the experts did go as far as I did.

You said E. coli remains E. coli, and I asked you, "how do you determine what is or isn't E. coli?" and gave you this example where the line starts to get fuzzy. You still haven't answered me how it would have to change to stop being E. coli.

"Phylogenetic analysis of clones of the two types isolated from different generations demonstrated that the S and L types belonged to distinct, co-existing lineages in the population, and might be undergoing incipient speciation."

And pigs misght fly too if they had wings.

LOL. You're literally handed an example which shows a defining trait of a species evolving away, and you can't even admit that it's leaning towards speciation.

And yet, you can't even define what changes would have to occur for that to count as a new species. How many traits have to go away or change before you'd call it a new species?

Because in every respect those E coli are the same except for one gene being expressed as a dominant gene.

That's not what's happening at all. First of all, it's not one gene, there were three mutations, starting with the rnk-citT module, then later including mutations to dctA and gltA. And it wasn't "expressed as a dominant gene", it was turned on in a situation where it would normally be turned off, and the other two mutations improved the ability of the bacteria to metabolize citrate in an aerobic environment.

I'd recommend going back to re-read the article if you want to understand what it actually said.

Ahh, you mean you interpret a tiny change as meaning entire new species can arise, even when the authors clearly stated that this might be leading to speciation, but didnt show speciation was possible.

If a defining trait of a species evolving away isn't an indication that speciation was possible here, I don't know what is.

Oh yeah, all of the other examples of speciation we have.

I mean even if bacteria dont evolve it proves evolution, thats how desparate its become....

Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years

(facepalm)

The fact that you don't understand local maximums is not evidence against evolution, nor is it any sign of how "desparate" (sic) anyone is.

Imagine evolution as a three dimensional graph where there is an X trait and a Y trait, and the Z (up-down) axis represents the fitness level:

Now, if your species evolves "uphill" towards better fitness, it can get stuck in that local maximum. This is because any slight change from that local maximum decreases fitness. So that species in that local maximum remaining largely the same is a prediction which is made by the theory of evolution.

This is why the fact that some organisms, especially ones in particularly stable environments with little to threaten them, may change little or not at all, even if potentially better designs may exist. Examples of this are wholly consistent with, and thus evidence for, evolution.

The fact that you think this is silly just underlines how little you understand about what the theory of evolution actually says and what counts as scientific evidence.

 

[rjs330]

Single creatures don't evolve.
Populations do. And things like wings don't evolve in a single generation.

So, no.

Didn't think so.

 

[rjs330]

Just answer the question first; yes or no? Otherwise I suspect your goalpost will move.

No moving goal posts here. Show me a creature where that happened. Someone already beat you to the punch by saying it didn't.

 

[pitabread]

That would prove evolution because that is evolution from a common ancestor.

Not in a single generation it wouldn't. Evolution of something like birds happened over numerous, successive generations.

 

[rjs330]

So, you want to observe a process that takes many lifetimes to unfold?

So we haven't and are not observing the process even now. That's what I am saying the only reason you can make the claim that it happens is because it supposedly takes so many years. It's kind of difficult to show something is in error when it takes so long to happen no one can say it didn't.