World Population

sfs said:

But that's not what they say.

Click to expand...

It is exactly what they say, anyone literate can see it, no special knowledge is required.

They do not publish "weak science" separate from declared convictions of a literal Genesis, their take on Genesis is right there in plain site on their own web page.

The Barbarian said:

He's quite honest about this. He suggests that eventually, there might be scientific support for creationism.

Click to expand...

Does he mean more belief in a supernatural creation among scientists, or actual scientific evidence indicating a supernatural creation?

I don't see how the latter could ever happen by definition.

KomatiiteBIF said:

"How about showing an experiment where the assertion of thing one morphing into thing two...The E. Coli is a best case / optimal scenario to demonstrate this as the rate of reproducing a new generation is so short."

How about you start by not making strawmen arguments.

Click to expand...

I think we're done on this topic then since you (and not picking on you because nobody can) show confirmation (of any kind) of the claim that evolution causes one creature to morph into a completely different creature over eons of time (like a land mammal about the size of a cat becoming a 200 ton, 100-ft long whale). Sure, fossils have been linked as alleged transitions between the two, but it's never been observed in nature, never been produced in a lab, so these "links" have never been observed or confirmed in anyway--it's just an imagined connection based upon a set of defined criteria that is also not confirmed or observed as showing a true relationship. Please review the scientific method - you'll note a key element is close observation and this method is described as an 'empirical' method (definition of empirical -> "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." [emphasis added]):
https://www.google.com/search?safe=......0i71j35i39j0i131j0i67j0i131i67.Myd6HPotjpk

Sorry, but no close observation or empirical method as describing the scientific method ever observed evolution creating wholesale new life forms through a series of retained random mutations--that is, it is nothing more than a hypothesis yet to be proven. Also, numerous experiments, like the E. Coli one have been done and they have never successfully demonstrated the kind of power to create the kind of change needed to make wholesale, mass changes. In other words, it has been consistently been shown to not occur; that part is observably true. Period.

I mean honestly. Do you actually think the evolution suggests that bacteria would become non-bacteria in a single decade?

Click to expand...

It's not a factor of time, it's allegedly a factor of mutation rates and these mutations being weeded out between harmful vs beneficial and passing down only the beneficial mutations from generation to generation. Also just for clarification, the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment started in 1988. It has not been a single decade as you have stated, it has in fact been 3 decades, again not that this matters. You leaning on this line of arguments is just more of what I'll call "Oort cloud logic" - as if to say, "well of course nobody can observe or demonstrate evolution, it takes too long and requires things happening with genetic information that have also never been seen, but we believe it is happening so it must be true that it exists"; so I say, "how convenient".

Of course not. So why suggest such a thing? It's dishonest. And you're dishonest for continually making such ridiculous remarks. You have consistently demonstrated your dishonesty over the months that we have talked, and you just continue to wear it on your sleeve, without any remorse.

Click to expand...

Good to see such a scientist of high integrity not consider himself above making ad hominem attacks. Don't worry though, unlike numerous others here I'm not going to report it to the CF police as has been the common practice against me- it's not my intent to report people here just because they disagree with me.

You would like to believe I'm just going around being dishonest and that creationists in general are all dishonest. Unfortunately for you and Steve (sfs), you are both empirically wrong, because you both know folks like Stephen Meyer with the Intelligent Design camp and even some others who have no religious affiliation at all (some atheists--I'm being careful here not to suggest "all atheists"), also do not agree with the hypothesis of evolution. Not believing evolution is not something you can blame as a symptom of being a young earth creationist because there are other groups who also don't buy it and this comes from highly educated, highly experienced, prominent scientists (whether we're talking about the atheist camp, the ID camp, or the young earth creationist camp).

I will also say Stephen Meyers is not a YEC proponent and he has carefully made the point that ID is distinctly not the same as creationism or YEC specifically. He has stated he is a Christian, but believes the earth is not young, so you can't even critique his view against evolution as being somehow influenced by young earth creationists. Now if you say something does not have to be observed or repeatedly demonstrated to be true, then you've just lost all ground to raise a complaint against any assertion made by young earth creationist scientists because, by your own standard, something can be true without having to observe or demonstrate it as such. As I've stated before, creationist models have been created and some cited to give a better explanation of the evidence. And this is not just with Gould in connection to Wise, but others as well and includes a broad spectrum of study like astronomy, geology, biology, etc... So it would seem we have credible individuals, also wanting to do good work, also wanting to glorify God in the work that they do, and doing so on par with any other scientist.

Sorry for your loss.

Remember, ultimately God's word is true so it might not be a bad reference to keep close by when doing research and developing new scientific theories.

sfs said:

I'd still like to know which instances you have in mind.

Click to expand...

These:

Paradigm shift - Wikipedia

Scientific Revolution - Wikipedia

NobleMouse said:

I think we're done on this topic then since you (and not picking on you because nobody can) show confirmation (of any kind) of the claim that evolution causes one creature to morph into a completely different creature over eons of time (like a land mammal about the size of a cat becoming a 200 ton, 100-ft long whale). Sure, fossils have been linked as alleged transitions between the two, but it's never been observed in nature,

Click to expand...

This just shows your continual dishonesty. You wont even acknowledge the fact that in the Lenski experiments, nobody actually expected bacteria to evolve into anything other than derived bacteria in the decade or so that the experiment has been going on.

Can you at least acknowledge this?

You made the strawman argument, dishonestly, and you aren't acknowledging it.

NobleMouse said:

It's not a factor of time, it's allegedly a factor of mutation rates and these mutations being weeded out between harmful vs beneficial and passing down only the beneficial mutations from generation to generation. Also just for clarification, the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment started in 1988. It has not been a single decade as you have stated, it has in fact been 3 decades, again not that this matters.

Click to expand...

Ok, so it has been 30 years. Thats still nothing compared to tens to hundreds of millions of years in which major transitions occur lol. If you said 30 million years, you might actually be saying something of value.

Nobody expects bacteria to become anything other than bacteria in 30 years. And time is a factor with respect to things like mutation rates. No scientists believe that any organism on earth, would ever turn into something completely different, in a matter of 30 years, because nothing evolves at such a rate. Even at a higher turnover of generations and at a higher rate of fixated beneficial mutations, nobody actually thinks that bacteria would become anything other than bacteria in the span of 30 years.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you acknowledge the dishonesty of your strawman argument?





Lets look at your comment again:

"Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria." ~Noble Mouse


This is a sleight comment suggesting that because the bacteria remained bacteria (although derived and morphological superior bacteria than what it evolved from), this somehow is a failure of the theory or a failure by scientists to demonstrate evolution.

But in reality, the theory doesn't suggest that in a mere 30 years, any organism on planet earth ought to evolve into something it is not. Even just speciation, in which bacteria would just become another species of bacteria, unfolds in the natural world on the order of tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

So what was the purpose of the comment? To point out that life doesnt transform into something completely different in a matter of 30 years? Well obviously not, and nobody says that it ought to.

Was the purpose of the comment to point out that nobody has seen a fish evolve legs in the span of 30 years? Well good job, im glad everyone is aware that organisms do not evolve so quickly. Thankfully, this is not actually what the theory suggests ought to happen, to begin with.

So what is the purpose of the comment, but a dishonest strawman response. Irrelevant to the discussion.


If you have a problem with the theory, respond with a real argument. A technical one.


You suggested that there is no such thing as transitionals, Ill just quote you here.

"Lastly, "transitional fossil" as a term only brings to light one's presuppositional belief that one life form morphs into another (given enough time + random mutations + natural selection) - though this has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory to my knowledge. "~Noble Mouse

First off, we already know that transitional fossils are something that span the geologic column, going back 500+ million years. So the fact that bacteria hasn't produced a fossil succession in 30 years, isn't a reasonable argument against the existence of a fossil succession.

Why would anyone ever suggest that seeing a fish evolve legs in a laboratory, was necessary to justify the fact that the fossil succession depicts fish evolving legs? Why would anyone think that this was necessary?

This is just another dishonest comment.

Here is your response, it is a technical one:

How many times have you been told of how tiktaaliks location was predicted, geospatially, temporally (with respect to superposition) and vertically (in strata that was immediately exposed at grade), in the earth, by the theory of evolution, in a remote place in the arctic, before it was ever even found.

If transitional fossils are not real or do not actually exist, then what do you make of predictions like these that are regularly made by the theory? Why is it that we can predict the location of fossils in the earth (anywhere on earth and at any depth), based on our DNA and rates of mutation? If not for the fossil record, being a product of common descent?

And I already know that you wont be able to answer this question. So now I will watch you avoid giving an answer.

NobleMouse said:

Sorry, but no close observation or empirical method as describing the scientific method ever observed evolution creating wholesale new life forms through a series of retained random mutations--that is, it is nothing more than a hypothesis yet to be proven.

Click to expand...

Okay, so how long do you think it would take for this observation to be made? How long do you think it should take to see the "wholesale new life forms" via random mutations? Why do they need to be "random", when if this is an experiment to demonstrate evolution, wouldn't by natural selection make more sense?

Also, numerous experiments, like the E. Coli one have been done and they have never successfully demonstrated the kind of power to create the kind of change needed to make wholesale, mass changes.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why it would require a kind of power, except for the life itself, what other power would need to be shown? I am not sure if the theory of evolution actually involves wholesale mass changes, I thought it required minute changes in increments, which is why it requires huge lengths of time to be possible.

And in case anyone has forgotten (or simply isn't aware of) how evolution is regularly used to predict the localities of fossils (justifying the existence of the fossil succession and transitional fossils), here is a video.

KomatiiteBIF said:

This just shows your continual dishonesty. You wont even acknowledge the fact that in the Lenski experiments, nobody actually expected bacteria to evolve into anything other than derived bacteria in the decade or so that the experiment has been going on.

Can you at least acknowledge this?

You made the strawman argument, dishonestly, and you aren't acknowledging it.

Click to expand...

Given the nature of the experiment and that it is identified as being a long-term evolution experiment, I think it is dubious to suggest [macro]evolutionary changes was not hoped for by Lenski et al.

You keep hoping to make a liar out of me, but if you actually go back and read what I wrote (really, go back and read), you'll find I never made the claim that it was anybody's expectation for bacteria to evolve into something different. My purpose for referencing this experiment was to show that it was an ideal case for demonstrating evolution (you'll see this is what I actually wrote, go there now, it's in post #47 to sfs: "Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria." then again in post #53 to you: "The E. Coli is a best case / optimal scenario to demonstrate this as the rate of reproducing a new generation is so short.").

So, you #1 invented that it was my intent to say the experiment was trying to prove [macro]evolution, then #2 claimed I was a liar because you don't believe this was the goal/expectation. Clearly, what I wrote is that the experiment was a best case / optimal scenario... I said nothing of whether it was the expectation of Lenski or others. That was you.

If this is your habit of believing in things never written, never observed (as I've just now demonstrated), then I am not at all surprised to find that you believe evolution is true as you seem to either intentionally or unintentionally twist and distort what is written/observed.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Ok, so it has been 30 years. Thats still nothing compared to tens to hundreds of millions of years in which major transitions occur lol. If you said 30 million years, you might actually be saying something of value.

Nobody expects bacteria to become anything other than bacteria in 30 years. And time is a factor with respect to things like mutation rates. No scientists believe that any organism on earth, would ever turn into something completely different, in a matter of 30 years, because nothing evolves at such a rate. Even at a higher turnover of generations and at a higher rate of fixated beneficial mutations, nobody actually thinks that bacteria would become anything other than bacteria in the span of 30 years.

Can you acknowledge this? Can you acknowledge the dishonesty of your strawman argument?

Click to expand...

No, you are asking me to lie now and I will not. It is not a straw man argument to hold a scientific belief accountable to the standards of the scientific method. If you cannot prove it then you cannot prove it, but yet many here bluster about that evolution is true, hoping to make others acquiesce to this worldview.

Lets look at your comment again:

"Being a geneticist, you'll be familiar with the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - after 66,000 generations it can survive on citrate, but remains E. Coli... didn't become some other bacteria." ~Noble Mouse

This is a sleight comment suggesting that because the bacteria remained bacteria (although derived and morphological superior bacteria than what it evolved from), this somehow is a failure of the theory or a failure by scientists to demonstrate evolution.

Click to expand...

Yes I wrote it and know it better than you (because I know what I was thinking and what my intent was). So sorry again to hear you have no evidence for your claim and your only method left to defend it at this point is to try to attack the character of others who do not agree with you. I'll be waiting for your comments trying to tear down Stephen Meyer, Todd Wood, Kurt Wise, et al. next.

So what was the purpose of the comment? To point out that life doesnt transform into something completely different in a matter of 30 years? Well obviously not, and nobody says that it ought to.

Was the purpose of the comment to point out that nobody has seen a fish evolve legs in the span of 30 years? Well good job, im glad everyone is aware that organisms do not evolve so quickly. Thankfully, this is not actually what the theory suggests ought to happen, to begin with.

So what is the purpose of the comment, but a dishonest strawman response. Irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Already explained in the prior post.

If you have a problem with the theory, respond with a real argument. A technical one.

Click to expand...

That's a nonsense requirement. How about you prove God exists with a technical argument. See how nonsensical you are being at this point. I see you, but you appear to be sinking. Maybe acknowledging your earlier comments were made in haste and that there are more than just young earth creationists that disagree with evolution would be a good place to start digging yourself back out.

You suggested that there is no such thing as transitionals, Ill just quote you here.

"Lastly, "transitional fossil" as a term only brings to light one's presuppositional belief that one life form morphs into another (given enough time + random mutations + natural selection) - though this has never been observed or reproduced in a laboratory to my knowledge. "~Noble Mouse

First off, we already know that transitional fossils are something that span the geologic column, going back 500+ million years. So the fact that bacteria hasn't produced a fossil succession in 30 years, isn't a reasonable argument against the existence of a fossil succession.

Why would anyone ever suggest that seeing a fish evolve legs in a laboratory, was necessary to justify the fact that the fossil succession depicts fish evolving legs? Why would anyone think that this was necessary?

This is just another dishonest comment.

How many times have you been told of how tiktaaliks location was predicted, geospatially, temporally (with respect to superposition) and vertically (in strata that was immediately exposed at grade), in the earth, by the theory of evolution, in a remote place in the arctic, before it was ever even found.

If transitional fossils are not real or do not actually exist, then what do you make of predictions like these that are regularly made by the theory? Why is it that we can predict the location of fossils in the earth (anywhere on earth and at any depth), based on our DNA and rates of mutation? If not for the fossil record, being a product of common descent?

And I already know that you wont be able to answer this question. So now I will watch you avoid giving an answer.

Click to expand...

Yes, you also have no direct evidence of having observed the time horizon (500+ million years; that is just an assumption you make about the rate of radioisotope decay having been constant with today's rate -> for all you know, creation itself may have caused this), no have observed tiktaalik or any other creature transitioning into something else--you've just made a mental relationship based upon a set of defined criteria, which that defined criteria also has never been observed as actually representing a true evolutionary relationship (it is just circular reasoning). You seem to not know the scientific method, or the definition of dishonest for that matter - you just go about blustering that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is basically an ignorant liar.

Making a prediction that something will exist in a certain place in the geological record does not automatically mean there is an evolutionary relationship. We all know God created life with the ability to adapt, and so a creationist would expect to also life suited for an environment. An evolutionary connection is not the mutually exclusive (only possible) explanation for fossils and where they are located. As Wise pointed out in the video I linked earlier, the majority of fossils follow the same pattern: abrupt appearance, stasis, sudden disappearance and marine/plant life found throughout... and this is what would be expected by creationists as well.

NobleMouse said:

Given the nature of the experiment and that it is identified as being a long-term evolution experiment, I think it is dubious to suggest [macro]evolutionary changes was not hoped for by Lenski et al.

Click to expand...

Well, I am sorry that you are misinformed. Nobody expected any sort of radical transformation of the bacteria. And there is no source that would justify such a "hope" allegedly held by Lenski and his team.

Yes, relatively speaking, it is "long term" in the sense that it is a 30+ year experiment. But this does not mean that anyone expected the bacteria to become something beyond bacteria.

Your perception of the objectives of the experiment is obscured. Perhaps even intentionally.

And you know, you can even read objectives of the research, in the paper itself. You will not find any discussion revolving around a hypothesis that bacteria would become anything beyond bacteria in the course of 30 years.

I am sorry you have made this incorrect judgement about the experiment.

"My purpose for referencing this experiment was to show that it was an ideal case for demonstrating evolution " ~ Noble Mouse

This quote here, suggests that as per the goals and objectives of the research, the researchers failed in not demonstrating what they set out to demonstrate.

This is a perception that is mistaken. I am sorry that you have misunderstood the goals, objectives and predictions made with respect to the research.

Now that we have established that you were mistaken and are not familiar with the research (perhaps intentionally). I do not mind moving on to the next topic.

"Yes, you also have no direct evidence of having observed the time horizon (500+ million years; that is just an assumption you make about the rate of radioisotope decay having been constant with today's rate -> for all you know, creation itself may have caused this)" ~Noble Mouse


As you well know, Noble Mouse, and as you have been told many times before;

the existance of the fossil succession and transitional fossils, are not dependent upon ages of rock. They exist with respect to superposition of strata in the geologic column. Older layers on the bottom, younger layers on the top.

This is why I posted the video of how Tiktaalik was discovered. If you watch it, you will see that, while dates are assigned to the rocks based on radioactive dating, the discovery of tiktaalik, was made with respect to rock locality based on superposition. The discovery of tiktaalik was not derived explicitly from research related to radioactive dating.

So your interest in raising discussions around radioactive dating, is irrelevant.

Do you have another response that is relevant?

" An evolutionary connection is not the mutually exclusive (only possible) explanation for fossils and where they are located."

Ok, so what this statement here is, is a fold. It is you accepting that a fossil succession may exist. Maybe you cant admit to the extent that it exists, but to some extent you are recognizing that it does exist.

Now, lets go back to the video.



Ok, so around 360 million years ago, you have fully formed tetrapods. If you dont agree with radioactive dating, then we can rephrase the statement to say that in the late devonian, we have fully formed tetrapods.

Around 390 million years ago, you have strata dominated by fish. If you do not agree with radioactive dating, we can rephrase this to state that in the early devonian, we have domination of fish.

And in between, 385 to 365, we have fish with tetrapod features such as tiktaalik.

Now lets look at your statement again:

"" An evolutionary connection is not the mutually exclusive (only possible) explanation for fossils and where they are located."" ~Noble Mouse


Ok, so if this transition from fish, to fish-tetrapod hybrid, to tetrapod, is not a product of evolution and common descent in particular...

What is your explanation?

Or do you think it was pure luck, just random chance that tiktaalik just so happened to be in strata in the mid devonian?

For reference:

And remember^, the explanation provided for why fossils are in the order that they are, has to be logically consistent with the fossil succession at large.

For example, someone might say, well God created sea life, before land life, therefore fish exist in superpositionally deeper rocks than tetrapods.

In this case however, we have transitions of land life, transitioning to see life as well. And so, such a response would not be logically consistent.

We also have transitions of primitive non flowering, non-vascular and non-seeding plants, transitioning to flowering, seeding and vascular plants.

So the fossil succession also applies to plants, so it isnt a matter of animals that can run faster uphill or anything like that.

If no evolution and common descent, then what is the explanation that young earthers provide for the fossil succession...aside from simple denial?

There is none.

RC Tent said:

Okay, so how long do you think it would take for this observation to be made? How long do you think it should take to see the "wholesale new life forms" via random mutations? Why do they need to be "random", when if this is an experiment to demonstrate evolution, wouldn't by natural selection make more sense?

Click to expand...

My point of referencing this experiment (see post #69) is not that I have a specific number of years or amount of time I expect. You could give me 1 trillion years and I wouldn't expect it to be observed. The point was that so far this is the most ideal case for observing evolution on a major scale, if it could happen, (it's over 66,000 generations... that's 1.3 ma in the scale of humans having offspring every 20 years on average).

I also never made the claim that mutations need to be random. Why is everyone misquoting me here?? Getting back on the rails... evolutionary theory (Neo Darwinism) makes the claim that the mutations are random and this is what produces the new information needed--not natural selection. The claim is that natural selection keeps the beneficial mutations, but natural selection itself does not make new information--sfs and komatiite can comment if they feel otherwise.

Now, if the inference here is, what if God is doing this and is deliberate, then I would say defer to the Bible. The question begged then is no different than suggesting, what if God is continually testing our righteousness by tempting us to sin (and that is why everyone struggles with sin, even after they are saved)? I would again say defer to the Bible. The Bible says that God does not tempt any man. The Bible says God created life over six days and rested from creation on the seventh. We can try to invoke God to be doing things we want to believe are happening, but if it's not backed by anything in His word (and in this case is contradicted in His word), then it is nothing more than baseless speculation--though good for an amusing discussion.

[QUOTEI don't understand why it would require a kind of power, except for the life itself, what other power would need to be shown? I am not sure if the theory of evolution actually involves wholesale mass changes, I thought it required minute changes in increments, which is why it requires huge lengths of time to be possible.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is the same as yours... evolution does not create (in a single step) wholesale mass changes, but accomplishes such over many incremental changes. Having spent a good deal of time listening to and watching videos on the ID perspective, there are many reasons why evolution (in many small steps) cannot achieve what it claims it can. One video I enjoy by Stephen Meyer linked:


Another, just for reference because you will see a strong parallel between the interaction here on this forum and that between Meyer and Peter Ward (an ardent evolutionist):


Notice how instead of really addressing/engaging in what Meyer is discussing, Ward immediately employs the attack strategy--suggesting ID isn't even a real study, isn't even a real science. In a similar fashion, those here who believe evolution is true follow a similar approach of trying to attack the character of those who disagree with them--it's about intimidation to acquiesce. You and I don't need to be a PhD in biology to be able to see that there are unfalsifiable assumptions made within ToE (and geology for that matter)--there is no actual, tangible way to prove what is believed to be true--this is why it sometimes is referred to as a "blind faith". So when we have multiple, unrelated camps: creationists, intelligent design, and even some atheists who have protested the viability of evolution, it's not because creationists and NobleMouse (me) are all liars, it's because there really are serious issues with the theory as more and more understanding is gained around how life works, what is possible, what is not possible.

I've presented videos and publications by well-credentialed scientists, giving the technical answers that some here prefer to see; but instead, for some reason they want me to present it directly as coming from myself, and because I don't they attack my character. It's an odd request as I never have that expectation of others. My B.S is in Accounting and Masters in Business Administration so if we're talking about say accounting concepts here on this forum (why? who knows) and someone told me that assets should carry a natural credit balance instead of a natural debit balance, then cited the article(s)/video(s) indicating why this is true, I wouldn't come back and say, "no, you do a T-account illustration and a full P&L and Balance Sheet with statement of Cash Flows demonstrating the technical reasons why assets should carry a natural credit balance and if you can't I'll just call you an ignorant liar." I'm really not trying to be offensive, but that just seems psychotic--cheese louise, like take a pill or something.

More than you asked for, but hope I answered your questions.

" The point was that so far this is the most ideal case for observing evolution on a major scale"

Nobody ever suspected that Lenskis experiments would produce non-bacteria via evolution.

It was never meant to be...an experiment demonstrating major transitions of life. There is no text in the research, there are no quotes from Lenski and his team. There is nothing to anyones knowledge that exists, that suggests that anyone believed that the bacteria would become anything but bacteria.

Noble Mouse, this is a deceptive comment.

If someone were trying to prove...large scale evolution, such as that from a fish to a tetrapod, then I would agree that lenskis experiment is not ideal for observation of such a transition.

But nobody ever suggested that lenskis experiments were performed, with the interest of making such a demonstration.

Your argument is analogous to suggesting that...because the book of Genesis doesn't mention Jesus, referencing it is not ideal for acquiring evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Well obviously Genesis alone doesn't really provide evidence for the existence of Jesus, but nobody ever claimed that it was supposed to.

Do you see why your comments are deceptive?

KomatiiteBIF said:

Well, I am sorry that you are misinformed. Nobody expected any sort of radical transformation of the bacteria. And there is no source that would justify such a "hope" allegedly held by Lenski and his team.

Yes, relatively speaking, it is "long term" in the sense that it is a 30+ year experiment. But this does not mean that anyone expected the bacteria to become something beyond bacteria.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point I was making, and I think I clarified my point... but is fine.

Your perception of the objectives of the experiment is obscured. Perhaps even intentionally.

And you know, you can even read objectives of the research, in the paper itself. You will not find any discussion revolving around a hypothesis that bacteria would become anything beyond bacteria in the course of 30 years.

Click to expand...

Again, I made no comment as to the objectives of the experiment, please re-read post #47, #53, and #69. The point was to illustrate that if anything would hint at the possibility of evolution, this was the best case scenario.

I am sorry you have made this incorrect judgement about the experiment.

Click to expand...

Another invention of yours, I had it up on another tab in Google when I wrote about it and made no judgments as to the expectations... just pointing out that even in the best of circumstances, there is no direct/tangible evidence for evolution.

I find it interesting you've made no more peeps about Meyer, ID, Wise, creationists, and other camps that all reject evolution as well. I believe you have dropped that hoping you could just ride what you believed was a loose thread in my posts and try to dismantle me; only to find you just didn't read my posts closely and made inferences of things I never wrote--as if the Lenski experiment was somehow the core of my line of reasoning when in fact it was just one of multiple remarks I made to illustrate one aspect (lack of actual observed evidence and failure to comply with the requirements of the scientific method) of why evolution is not possible.

Do you have anything else, or do we just keep copping away at what you think I meant on things I didn't write?

KomatiiteBIF said:

" The point was that so far this is the most ideal case for observing evolution on a major scale"

Nobody ever suspected that Lenskis experiments would produce non-bacteria via evolution.

It was never meant to be...an experiment demonstrating major transitions of life. There is no text in the research, there are no quotes from Lenski and his team. There is nothing to anyones knowledge that exists, that suggests that anyone believed that the bacteria would become anything but bacteria.

Noble Mouse, this is a deceptive comment.

If someone were trying to prove...large scale evolution, such as that from a fish to a tetrapod, then I would agree that lenskis experiment is not ideal for observation of such a transition.

But nobody ever suggested that lenskis experiments were performed, with the interest of making such a demonstration.

Your argument is analogous to suggesting that...because the book of Genesis doesn't mention Jesus, referencing it is not ideal for acquiring evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Well obviously Genesis alone doesn't really provide evidence for the existence of Jesus, but nobody ever claimed that it was supposed to.

Do you see why your comments are deceptive?

Click to expand...

See post #78

NobleMouse said:

The point was to illustrate that if anything would hint at the possibility of evolution, this was the best case scenario.

Click to expand...

This statement is just ludicrous. As if a 30 year experiment involving e.coli in laboratory beakers, would provide the best possible evidence for the likelihood of macro-evolution occurring over hundreds of millions of years.

Brilliant. You just keep digging that hole.

The paper really has nothing to do with large scale transitions. Why in the world would anyone interpret a research paper that has nothing to do with multi-million year evolution, as the best possible evidence for it?

Just keep digging.

Your statement was also made in conjunction with transitional fossils, for which the paper has nothing to do with.