proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

*sigh*

The process is observable. The only main difference between observing it for a decade (the length of time of Sarah's experiment)versus millions of years would be the relative number of compounded changes.

But the generation-to-generation process is exactly the same.

Or to put it another way, it's like a person walking across the street versus a person walking across town. The act of walking doesnt change, only the distance travelled.

So how do you know that evolution from a common ancestor is true if you can't observe it? It's so nice to have a theory that says "we can't actually observe this, but we believe it any way.". Which is not actually science. Since science must be testable and observable.

 

[rjs330]

Uh, why would they have to change that drastically? For your information, crustaceans are all part of an extremely diverse subphyllum, and it includes items as different from Triops as barnacles. To give you a better idea of how many organisms can be in just 1 subphyllum, all vertebrates are in the same subphyllum. You're asking for a change more drastic than a wolf population evolving into a dolphin population. I would disprove evolution if something like that happened in 10 years.

Because that is evolutions claim. Drastic changes. Yet there is no evidence of if hat ever really happening. All fossil records show large quantities of various types of creatures all appearing at the same time.

 

[ananda]

According to scholars, the Visuddhimagga is one of the extremely rare texts within the enormous literatures of various forms of Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism to give explicit details about how spiritual masters were thought to actually manifest supernormal abilities.

Abilities such as flying through the air, walking through solid obstructions, diving into the ground, walking on water and so forth are performed by changing one element, such as earth, into another element, such as air.

Visuddhimagga. The Visuddhimagga (Pali; English The Path of Purification), is the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in the 5th Century in Sri Lanka.

My friend 400 years after Christ. These miracles seems debatable to me and with exception to 2, are not similar to christian miracles.

The Visuddhimagga is only a Buddhist commentary on the far more ancient Buddhist scriptures. The Buddhist scriptures themselves describe various meditations (e.g. on the elemental factors - space, fire, air, water, earth) and their resultant miracles.

E.g. A master of water meditation will be able to walk on water; a master of earth meditation can multiply his body; a master of the various elements allows the master to control the unbalanced elements in a person, bringing them healing; etc.

 

[rjs330]

Except in my evolution experiment. Yeesh, I even designed it in such a way that anyone with the time could do the same experiment as me.

How does your experiment show evolution from common ancestry? Will they eventually turn into something besides crustaceans?

 

[bhsmte]

The theories keep changing to match the results in scientific tests and discovery. It's why Darwin's original theory is not followed by most who actually believe in evolution theory as it stands today.

i.e. test results bit them, so they changed their theory on what kind of stick it is.

LOL

You just mentioned a definitive strength of science. Science is willing to adapt to new and better evidence and adapt.

Where do you think modern medicine would be today, if they didn't adapt to new evidence?

I know certain theists, are not willing to acknowledge knew evidence, because it is more important to them, to protect their belief, than acknowledge well evidenced reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does your experiment show evolution from common ancestry?

-_- I'm not a supporter of UCA, so no comment here. The experiment isn't designed to test that.

Will they eventually turn into something besides crustaceans?

-_- not in my lifetime would they change that much.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because that is evolutions claim. Drastic changes. Yet there is no evidence of if hat ever really happening. All fossil records show large quantities of various types of creatures all appearing at the same time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because that is evolutions claim.

Evolution does NOT claim that it would happen in just 10 years.

Drastic changes. Yet there is no evidence of if hat ever really happening.

There is plenty of evidence of it happening, it just happens too slowly for you to observe it in your lifetime.

All fossil records show large quantities of various types of creatures all appearing at the same time.

The fossil record does not do that. I think you might be referring to the Cambrian explosion here. The shortness of time is relative to the age of the planet, not short in terms of ourselves, given that the Cambrian explosion lasted 30 million years. Furthermore, while almost all animal lineages appeared during that time frame, this doesn't apply to plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How about I pick. I pick feathers. I want you to produce beetles with feathers.

-_- Triops are not beetles, and I gave a list of traits in the first post of the relevant thread to choose from. Feathers are a trait that is exclusive only to a specific line of vertebrates; it would disprove evolution if the Triops developed feathers.

Feathers are a structure derived from mutations on the genes that produce scales. Triops don't have scales.

 

[Almost there]

LOL

You just mentioned a definitive strength of science. Science is willing to adapt to new and better evidence and adapt.

Where do you think modern medicine would be today, if they didn't adapt to new evidence?

I know certain theists, are not willing to acknowledge knew evidence, because it is more important to them, to protect their belief, than acknowledge well evidenced reality.

Regarding the first two sentences. You and I agree and, yes, that is my point regarding science. And yes, some theists are not willing to acknowledge new evidence. I give you that.

FWIW, I just left a southern gospel band that travelled around to small southern baptist churches. Forget about evolution. The RELIGIOUS dogma in some of those places is a thing to behold. I tried to reason with some of these folks regarding some of their doctrines and they simply refused to listen. And yet they could not support their position because, even if they were in their 80's, it is what they were taught in Vacation Bible School as a child and they never studied it further. And they were taught by a person coming from the same position. And so on and so forth.

So yeah, YOU BET there is dogmatism on this issue on the part of some theists. I agree. I just submit that I see a lot of it on BOTH sides.

 

[xianghua]

Why would anything true about one process have to be true about the other?

again: because they both shared systems that if you will remove some of their parts they will not function anymore. so this is a good analogy.

 

[gaara4158]

again: because they both shared systems that if you will remove some of their parts they will not function anymore. so this is a good analogy.

No, you keep saying that but every time I ask you to prove it you just revert back to the analogy. An analogy isn’t proof, it’s an assertion. You. Need. Proof.

 

[xianghua]

Feathers are a structure derived from mutations on the genes that produce scales. Triops don't have scales.

this is another interesting question. how many mutations required to evolve a minimal feather from a scale? someone can test such a change? even if we are talking about a single gene (actually much more) we are dealing with about 4^1000 different possible combinations. so what is the chance that those 2 traits are near each other in that huge sequence space?

 

[xianghua]

No, you keep saying that but every time I ask you to prove it you just revert back to the analogy. An analogy isn’t proof, it’s an assertion. You. Need. Proof.

again: if you think the analogy is wrong then you should explain why its wrong. but you cant just say that its wrong and that's it. the fact that a car cant reproduce doesnt has any connection to the fact that both are ic.

 

[HitchSlap]

again: because they both shared systems that if you will remove some of their parts they will not function anymore. so this is a good analogy.

Dr. Miller proved this was untrue in the Dover trial.

 

[Speedwell]

again: if you think the analogy is wrong then you should explain why its wrong. but you cant just say that its wrong and that's it. the fact that a car cant reproduce doesnt has any connection to the fact that both are ic.

You are the one who claims that evolution cannot produce biological systems which are "irreducibly complex." You are the one who has to demonstrate that there are in fact biological systems which are irreducibly complex. Not by analogy, but directly, with empirical evidence.

 

[gaara4158]

again: if you think the analogy is wrong then you should explain why its wrong. but you cant just say that its wrong and that's it. the fact that a car cant reproduce doesnt has any connection to the fact that both are ic.

It’s not my responsibility to prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself right. Your refusal to do so makes me think you don’t have anything.

 

[xianghua]

You are the one who has to demonstrate that there are in fact biological systems which are irreducibly complex. Not by analogy, but directly, with empirical evidence.

i showed it empirically with minnich experiments on the flagellum. so the burden of proof is in your side actually since it contradict what we know. can you do that?

 

[Speedwell]

i showed it empirically with minnich experiments on the flagellum. so the burden of proof is in your side actually since it contradict what we know. can you do that?

LOL!

 

[Ophiolite]

Because that is evolutions claim. Drastic changes. Yet there is no evidence of if hat ever really happening. All fossil records show large quantities of various types of creatures all appearing at the same time.

I seek to better understand your position and how you arrived at it. To do so I would be grateful if you were to answer the following questions. (Please feel free to ask me any comparable questions, if you wish.)

• What is the extent of your high school exposure to the concepts of evolution in either geology or biology classes?
• Did you complete any undergraduate level biology or geology classes?
• How many collections of fossil groups have you studied and in what detail? (Looking at such groups while wandering in museums does not count.)
• How many fossils have you collected in the field?
• Which standard textbooks on palaeontolgy have you read?
• Approximately how many research papers on palaeontology, published in peer reviewed science journals have you read?
• Specifically how many research papers on the Cambrian explosion, published in peer reviewed science journals have you read?

I'm not trying to trap you here, but if - as I suspect -your answer to most of these is little or none, then I do wonder what makes you feel qualified to express an opinion. In those circumstances it would seem you are merely parroting what you have read with no real understanding of what you are claiming and why those claims are false.

Of course, if your answers indicate a serious knowledge of the field then we can have a serious discussion devoid of trite unsubstantiated assertions.