[_ Old Earth _] ICR - lies, ignorance and misrepresentation

[logical bob]

Check out the front page story on ICR today.

http://www.icr.org/article/5474/

In this experiment, anole lizards on 6 small islands in the Bahamas were given controlled environments. Three islands had a sparse lizard population and three had a dense population. In each set of three, one island had birds that eat lizards, one had snakes that eat lizards and one had no predators.

The scientists wanted to see whether or not predation (nature) was effective at causing (by selecting) different traits to become dominant or to even appear out of nowhere in the lizards.

So what happened?

Natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations, it actually diminished them! In accordance with recent doubts about the supposed power of natural selection, this research showed that in the real world, it may actually accomplish the opposite of what Darwin described.

OK, fine. Interesting stuff. As an afterthought, since ICR said the experiment was published in Nature, I looked it up there too.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100510/full/news.2010.226.html#B1

And guess what? Turns out they left the lizards on the island for just four months. The lizards they examined at the end of the study were exactly the same ones they had put on the islands at the beginning. The purpose of the experiment was to see whether predators or competition between lizards was the more powerful selective force. And the project concluded that natural selection was "driving the population as a whole in a clear direction" - the biggest, toughest lizards were surviving.

So how did ICR come to present this experiment as evidence against Darwinism? ICR thought it significant that no new traits appeared in the lizard population. But since the lizards examined at the end were the same lizards what did they expect? Did they think Darwinian theory required some of them to suddenly acquire new traits within their own lifetimes?

What has caused this confusion? I can think of three possibilities.
1. ICR's writer Brian Thomas didn't bother to read the piece in Nature all the way through
2. He read it but he wasn't able to understand it
3. He read and understood it, but deliberately misrepresented it in the hope that nobody would check

I leave you to decide which is most likely. Either way, you can't believe anything ICR tell you.

 

[Evointrinsic]

thanks for posting this. I read that article from nature a few days ago on another site (I believe it was newscientist.com) and as I was reading this post was like "??!??!?!? whhhhhaaaat? it had nothing to do with evolution"

good find

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hi Bob.

I must take issue with your statement that ICR is ignorant, liars, and misrepresent.
I’m wondering why you haven’t attacked the evolutionists also, because they made evolutionary claims for the exact same experiment duration.
How could they come to such conclusions in four months using the exact same lizards?

Look at this quote from Nature News....
Researchers have confirmed a theory about the driving force behind natural selection in lizards — by taking charge of selection pressures themselves on tiny Caribbean islands.
See? They are making huge claims using the exact same experiment Bob.

Here’s more...
But they managed it. Their reward was a mountain of data on the fate of all the lizards that survived on the islets for the four months of the breeding season. An analysis of those data confirmed the current hypothesis that competition is a more powerful selective force on Caribbean islands than predation. There were no significant differences between the characteristics of lizards(exactly what ICR claimed) that survived or died according to which predators they had to face. But lizards surviving on crowded islands were significantly bigger and tougher (as measured by treadmill stamina) than their counterparts on low-density islands. Competition between lizards was pushing the population as a whole in a clear direction. The research is published online in Nature today.
I think it's important to understand this was a four month period during the breeding season. I assume no new traits were observed in the offspring Bob, which confirms what both the evolutionists and ICR have said.

Here’s what ICR stated...
The only difference that the predators made was that they ate lizards. So, there were fewer of them. On the bird-inhabited island, the lizards did spend more time clinging to the bottom of branches, but this was probably a behavior they already knew. The smaller population ended up with less diversity of body form than their forebears. The group that enjoyed the most variation in traits was the one with no predators and with the most individual lizards.

Thus, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations, it actually diminished them! In accordance with recent doubts about the supposed power of natural selection, this research showed that in the real world, it may actually accomplish the opposite of what Darwin described.

As far as I can see ICR has not lied, misrepresented or manipulated at all Bob.
Unless you can show me that any of these facts are wrong, or outright lies.

ICR is simply stating facts Bob. I understand you do not agree with creation and that is a legitimate position. It’s obviously fair game to question conclusions but let’s try and be consistant.
The evolutionists also came to conclusions which I believe are not legitimate due to the short duration of the experiment.

I believe we get far better results from the actual real world evidence where I assert there has never been any example of a series of graduated transitional fossils showing one animal slowly transitioning into a new completely different animal.
I do not have any problems with micro evolution Bob, because we can observe it happening all the time.
My problem lies with people who claim micro evolution is the same as, or leads to macro evolution in spite of the complete lack of evidence.

I won’t go as far as accusing these evolutionists of being liars, or ignorant etc, that’s hyperbole my friend.
ICR didn’t make any false claims Bob. They may be guilty of using such a short duration experiment to make statements which are otherwise legitimate, but so have the evolution scientists Bob.
We have to be consistent and try not to allow our strong beliefs to cause us to make hyperbolic accusations, that don’t help either side of the debate.

Take care brother.

John

 

[Bronzesnake]

it had nothing to do with evolution"

We agree. And yet the evolutionists claim it has.

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

Look at this quote from Nature News....
Researchers have confirmed a theory about the driving force behind natural selection in lizards — by taking charge of selection pressures themselves on tiny Caribbean islands.
See? They are making huge claims using the exact same experiment Bob.

Not quite, you see, the Theory they are talking about is only about what drives natural selection, not what is the theory of evolution.Even more specifically, is that what condensed population can do to the population itself within that same population (not through successive generations). Just as an additive, although this wouldn't be relevant in the study, an Anole's gestation period is between 60-90 days until they lay 1-3 eggs, then it's another 30 days or so until the eggs hatch. so technically they could see two generations in the course of four months, but that wasn't there goal. There only goal was to see what effects can occur within three separate circumstances. Not genetically changes, not physical changes through generations (as evolution would describe both), but growth and health of the current population.

But they managed it. Their reward was a mountain of data on the fate of all the lizards that survived on the islets for the four months of the breeding season. An analysis of those data confirmed the current hypothesis that competition is a more powerful selective force on Caribbean islands than predation. There were no significant differences between the characteristics of lizards that survived or died according to which predators they had to face. But lizards surviving on crowded islands were significantly bigger and tougher (as measured by treadmill stamina) than their counterparts on low-density islands. Competition between lizards was pushing the population as a whole in a clear direction. The research is published online in Nature today.

I used a few of the bold parts you used for this example. You see, this is a perfect incidence of how one would go about by picking out exactly what this person only wants to see. What is meant by "Confirmed the current hypothesis" isn't meant to prove evolution at all. If you continue reading, the hypothesis is that competition is more powerful as a selective force on the Caribbean Islands than predation is. The hypothesis isn't that The Theory Of Evolution is true or not or that Natural Selection exists. This is also a good example on how quote mining works. However, in this case, you forgot to exclude the parts which fully prove your misconception wrong.

The second bold area is virtually the same as the first. Where as you only picked out "There were no significant differences between the characteristics of lizards" which would actually go against what "evolutionists" say. However, the sentence continues by stating there were no significant differences between the characteristics of lizards that survived or died according to which predators they had to face. By characteristics, they don't mean physical ones. they mean how the lizards act.

The smaller population ended up with less diversity of body form than their forebears. The group that enjoyed the most variation in traits was the one with no predators and with the most individual lizards.

Yes, of course they would. This doesn't go against or for anything. This is simply the data. The population that had predators were less diverse because they couldn't eat all the time. the word "Diverse" is supposed to described the health of the animal vs the physical diversity. Where as the ones who only had competition which each other had more dominant and less dominant specimens. that is the diversity the original article is talking about.

Thus, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations, it actually diminished them! In accordance with recent doubts about the supposed power of natural selection, this research showed that in the real world, it may actually accomplish the opposite of what Darwin described.

Actually, it did neither, because there weren't any successive generations. This is a huge misconception. and a rather amateur one at that. To add to this, evolution doesn't state that everything is in ever-growing stages of complexity, it can often make an organism more simplistic.

As far as I can see ICR has not lied, misrepresented or manipulated at all Bob.
Unless you can show me that any of these facts are wrong, or outright lies.

Done...

ICR is simply stating facts Bob. I understand you do not agree with creation and that is a legitimate position. It’s obviously fair game to question conclusions but let’s try and be consistant.
The evolutionists also came to conclusions which I believe are not legitimate due to the short duration of the experiment.

Um no, they are stating numerous misconceptions of both the experiment and Evolution and Natural Selection as a whole.

Bob doesn't agree with these creationists claims because they just show a significant ignorance about everything that original article made very clear and what evolution means. The reason you dont believe the conclusion was legitimate was due to the fact you dont know what the conclusion states.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the study that was made in the original article, you start going off on fossils, macro and microevolution for some odd reason when we're talking about the study of Natural selection only.

ICR didn’t make any false claims Bob.

Yes they did, both I and Bob have shown you this.

but so have the evolution scientists Bob.

No they haven't. The biologists statements are quite factual and in no way are illegitimate. Try to understand the article a bit better as you clearly show you dont.

We have to be consistent and try not to allow our strong beliefs to cause us to make hyperbolic accusations, that don’t help either side of the debate.

I agree, so stop following the ICR blindly as we have shown you just how devious they can be, intentionally or not. As another additive, evolution is not a belief system there for cannot be added to your sentence anyways. (although that's for another topic, namely this one http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48081)

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo.

So when your people make conclusions using the same experimental parameters it's legitimate, and when creation scientists make conclusions using the exact same experimental parameters they are liars and ignorant?

You seem to be very limited in any ability to be partial by your extreme bias my friend.
If you have any scientific evidence to show the conclusions are wrong then I’d like to see it.
I would absolutely love to discuss the science and conclusions based on the evidence.

The creation scientists are stating that there is no evidence that speciation (one distinct animal slowly transitions over many years into a different completely new animal) regardless of the environmental conditions. Can you show me any proof that this conclusion based on using the scientific method from evidence in the field is incorrect? If so I’d love to continue the discussion.

However, if all you want to do it continue to slam creation scientists simply because you don’t ascribe to creation conclusions based on real science, then I’m not interested in engaging any further.

I’ve said this before – we can’t have an honest discussion, and we cannot learn anything from each other if one side insists on attacking the other simply because they don’t agree with their conclusions.

I don’t engage in attacking evolution sources or scientists, and I could, because I have a respect for evolutionists in spite of the fact I believe the actual evidence absolutely proves evolution to be wrong.
I try to present my best evidence and engage from there.

Once we start attacking the other side’s sources, all we accomplish is getting their backs up against the wall, and from that perspective the debate quickly runs down hill and feelings get upset.
This is not why I am here. What about you?

It never adds anything positive to the discussion when we attack sources and people instead of the evidence and conclusions.
I will not engage in any further discussions where this tactic is used. I most certainly will not lower myself to that level.
I believe my position is strong enough for me to debate and discuss using evidence exclusively.


Take care Evo

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

So when your people make conclusions using the same experimental parameters it's legitimate, and when creation scientists make conclusions using the exact same experimental parameters they are liars and ignorant?

Did you read anything I said? The conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection. The conclusion was that on those specific islands, predation may have less of an effect than competing population. re read this about 50 times or so so you'll fully understand.

If Christian or Creationist scienists gathered the exact same information it would prove the exact same thing. It neither proves nor disproves evolution, mutations or natural selection, but rather a specific part of natural selection in this environment.

You seem to be very limited in any ability to be partial by your extreme bias my friend.
If you have any scientific evidence to show the conclusions are wrong then I’d like to see it.
I would absolutely love to discuss the science and conclusions based on the evidence.

That will not happen because the conclusions are correct. And both Bob and I have shown you that the ICR, as well as you, have have misunderstood this. you simply do not understand what these scientists are trying to conclude in the first place. You are viewing this as a completely different topic all together.

The creation scientists are stating that there is no evidence that speciation (one distinct animal slowly transitions over many years into a different completely new animal) regardless of the environmental conditions. Can you show me any proof that this conclusion based on using the scientific method from evidence in the field is incorrect? If so I’d love to continue the discussion.

Good for them, they can claim that all they want. unfortunately they have no evidence of this, and unfortunately that is for another topic because that statement has nothing to do with what the Biologists are trying to study in the original article.

Perhaps a different situation would make you understand this.

Let's say I am playing Basketball, and I broke my leg somehow. I say "I think I broke my leg, I heard a snap!" and we rush to the hospital and I get a cast because I broke my leg. Then you start arguing that I didn't break my arm and i should stop being a puss.

This is what is going on. we are talking about two completely different things all together. Except you gathered "Broken Bone" out of the whole incident and regardless if i show you the xray of my broken leg, you aren't accepting that I indeed did break my leg.

However, if all you want to do it continue to slam creation scientists simply because you don’t ascribe to creation conclusions based on real science, then I’m not interested in engaging any further.

I actually have no issues what so ever with creationist scientists. If they are able to gather accurate evidence, then everything is fine. I dont give a crap what any scientist believes in, if the evidence is accurate, that is all that matters. I would be incredibly disappointed if you simply left and stopped "engaging any further" simply because you assume that I have some sort of grudge against creationists. Bob and I have shown, extensively, how the ICR failed to represent the original article accurately. It may have been a misconception, it may have been misread, or it may have been to deceive people. It doesn't matter though! Regardless of the reason, the ICR has plainly misrepresented the actual article. We have shown this to the point that it is remarkable how anyone could disagree that the ICR made a mistake.

I’ve said this before – we can’t have an honest discussion, and we cannot learn anything from each other if one side insists on attacking the other simply because they don’t agree with their conclusions.

I agree, so stop doing this. You haven't even addressed any of the examples I've shown that prove that the ICR, in this incident, has misrepresented information. And in any topic you seem to flow away from the actual discussion to make your assumptions that "You, evointrinsic, hate creationists and will never accept their answers" instead of addressing the reasons I've shown, in immense detail, the reason why I dont agree with whichever particular claim I am addressing (in this case how the ICR completely misunderstood the entire article they are discussing).

I don’t engage in attacking evolution sources or scientists, and I could, because I have a respect for evolutionists in spite of the fact I believe the actual evidence absolutely proves evolution to be wrong.
I try to present my best evidence and engage from there.

You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe Bronze, except if you dont provide any evidence that is accurate, than you aren't going to convince any scientist that he or she is wrong. I realize you try and present your best evidence, unfortunately, you tend to not know what your disputing in perfect accuracy. I have never seen a topic where you have responded in a way that accurately depicts what the discussion is about if it is at all scientific. Am I calling you an idiot? no. Am I saying that all Creationists think this way? No. All I am saying is that you need to understand what you are talking about before you try and debate it. You have yet again miscalculated what evolution is, what natural selection is and even what the original post is about! If you make arguments against something that we aren't talking about, how are we supposed to accept evidence against what we are talking about if that "evidence" applies to something else entirely?

I believe my position is strong enough for me to debate and discuss using evidence exclusively.

I'm sure you do bronze, unfortunately that position and "evidence" of yours has nothing to do what we are talking about.

We are talking about dogs where you are trying to debate your positions on cats. I cannot come up with a way to make it any more understandable and simple than this.

 

[logical bob]

John, I don't want to undermine anything Evo has said here but let's keep it simple.

ICR's first false statement was that the purpose of the experiment was to test whether natural selection could produce new characteristics. Anyone who knows any biology realises that natural selection can't and doesn't do that. Natural selection is about who lives and who dies. By definition it can only subtract. It never adds. The scientists were clear that the experiment was to test whether predators or competition between lizards subtracts more.

As you pointed out, ICR then correctly stated that no new characteristics were found in the lizards after they had been left on the islands for four months. This surprises nobody because that couldn't happen.

ICR's second false statement was that this constitutes evidence against Darwinism. Their interpretation of the experiment goes something like this.
1. Put lizards on an island
2. Leave them for 4 months
3. Take the surviving lizards (not their descendants, the same lizards) off the island
4. They haven't changed much
5. Therefore evidence against Darwinism

This is, to put it as charitably as possible, a massive error. The theory of evolution does say that the descendants of the lizards might have new characteristics. It emphatically does not say that the lizards themselves could acquire them.

Any source with any pretensions to science would have some kind of review process to pick up such blatant errors, even if it only consisted of the author running his piece past someone else to make sure he hadn’t made any really obvious howlers. Any editor should check for blatant, epic scale errors before giving an article headline position like this one had. Even if we accept that ICR are publishing in good faith, this clear lack of review or reliability completely discredits everything it says. A science journal that messed up so badly would simply cease to exist – the loss of reputation would be that bad.

I realise you say you don’t attack “evolutionists†out of respect. My point is that ICR is frequently quoted on this site as if it were a reliable source of fact. It's no such thing, and I think it’s only fair to make people who read this stuff in good faith aware of that.

 

[jasoncran]

evo to devo what is this? i read about this today and that some suggest that there is a need for a multilayered toe?

 

[Evointrinsic]

devo? as in de-evolution? I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "multilayerd" theory of evolution? could you explain?

 

[jasoncran]

devo? as in de-evolution? I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "multilayerd" theory of evolution? could you explain?

devo is correct

i will read that when i get to in the book i mentioned to you

at a glance many types of evolutionary theories are needed to explain the whole idea of evolution instead on unilateral toe.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I see, well explain once you have the chance to then the book again was "What Darwin got wrong"? right?

 

[jasoncran]

I see, well explain once you have the chance to then the book again was "What Darwin got wrong"? right?

correct.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo.

Not quite, you see, the Theory they are talking about is only about what drives natural selection, not what is the theory of evolution.

How can you separate these different aspects of the same theory?
Do you believe that natural selection is not part of the evolutionary theory?
In a police investigation there are many aspects. What you’re trying to say it akin to a blood specialists at a crime scene telling a detective that fingerprints are not relevant in a murder investigation.

Even more specifically, is that what condensed population can do to the population itself within that same population (not through successive generations). Just as an additive, although this wouldn't be relevant in the study, an Anole's gestation period is between 60-90 days until they lay 1-3 eggs, then it's another 30 days or so until the eggs hatch. so technically they could see two generations in the course of four months, but that wasn't there goal.

Well how convenient! I was actually going to investigate the gestation period, because the fact that possibly two generations could have been born during the four month period is extremely relevant.
Perhaps not in relation to the evolutionists investigation purposes, but if we can observe new generations and we see that there are no changes then yes, we can come to the same conclusions the creation scientists did.

This is what I was expecting to find.
In the big picture, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations (observed through newborn lizards), it actually diminished them! (Lizards were eaten right?)
In accordance with recent doubts about the supposed power of natural selection, this research showed that in the real world, it may actually accomplish the opposite of what Darwin described.
This is an absolutely legitimate conclusion to have reached now that we have more relevant facts available..

The reality once again is that you don’t agree with creation science conclusions and so instead of providing your own camps scientific evidence, for example did any of the newborn lizards show any changes, or new variations as is expected in evolution? If they did then provide the scientific evidence.
This additional information is extremely important and really brings it all together.

There only goal was to see what effects can occur within three separate circumstances. Not genetically changes, not physical changes through generations (as evolution would describe both), but growth and health of the current population.

Hey I have no doubt that this may have indeed been the evolutionists’ intentions; however the creationists had a different set of criteria to observe.
Surely you don’t have anything against free thought and ideas.

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

Not quite, you see, the Theory they are talking about is only about what drives natural selection, not what is the theory of evolution.

How can you separate these different aspects of the same theory?
Do you believe that natural selection is not part of the evolutionary theory?

We can separate these two aspects because they aren't the same thing. The theory of evolution explains that genetic changes occur through successive generations, where as natural selection is a factor that may influence genetic changes. An apple is a fruit but fruit isn't an apple. however, we can study a specific part of an apple without having to reference fruit entirely.

Natural selection however does not need to be a factor 100% of the time to have a genetic change occur. It is part of the theory of evolution, but it isn't a requirement at all times.

Even more specifically, is that what condensed population can do to the population itself within that same population (not through successive generations). Just as an additive, although this wouldn't be relevant in the study, an Anole's gestation period is between 60-90 days until they lay 1-3 eggs, then it's another 30 days or so until the eggs hatch. so technically they could see two generations in the course of four months, but that wasn't there goal.

Well how convenient! I was actually going to investigate the gestation period, because the fact that possibly two generations could have been born during the four month period is extremely relevant.
Perhaps not in relation to the evolutionists investigation purposes, but if we can observe new generations and we see that there are no changes then yes, we can come to the same conclusions the creation scientists did.

... This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. The Biologists making the study had no intentions to look at genetic changes, there for it was not necessary to gather information on successive generations. There for, it isn't relevant. Because it isn't relevant, some of the statements made by the ICR depicted the original article incorrectly. This is what we are arguing about.

This is what I was expecting to find.
In the big picture, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations (observed through newborn lizards), it actually diminished them! (Lizards were eaten right?)
In accordance with recent doubts about the supposed power of natural selection, this research showed that in the real world, it may actually accomplish the opposite of what Darwin described.
This is an absolutely legitimate conclusion to have reached now that we have more relevant facts available..

First off, because there were no studies on the generation after (assuming that there was even a generation that hatched in time), you cannot possibly say that no new traits or variations were produced. In fact, please post the information stating (in the original article) that the biologists did not find any new variants or physical changes in the successive generation. You see, this is what the ICR did, and this is why their article is misleading. Not only does the original article not say anything about the successive generation having a new trait or variation of some sort, it doesn't say anything about losing a trait or variation. why? because they didn't gather the information on the successive generation because it had nothing to do with their experiment!

Jason, Please tell me you at least understand this (not saying that you are incapable of, i'm just curious to know). right?

The reality once again is that you don’t agree with creation science conclusions and so instead of providing your own camps scientific evidence, for example did any of the newborn lizards show any changes, or new variations as is expected in evolution? If they did then provide the scientific evidence.
This additional information is extremely important and really brings it all together.

I dont agree with the specific "conclusions" that the ICR made because they aren't based on anything that the original article is about. They are misrepresenting what the original article is saying. how can you possibly not understand this?

There only goal was to see what effects can occur within three separate circumstances. Not genetically changes, not physical changes through generations (as evolution would describe both), but growth and health of the current population.

Hey I have no doubt that this may have indeed been the evolutionists’ intentions; however the creationists had a different set of criteria to observe.
Surely you don’t have anything against free thought and ideas.

Do you realize how incredibly ridiculous this statement is?!?!??!?!? Honestly? do you not see how this makes absolutely no sense what so ever?

If the ICR had a different set of criteria to observe then why are they bothering to comment on an article that has nothing to do with what they are trying to observe?!?!??!

Why would the ICR try to come to conclusions over something that the studies the biologists were working on had no part in their conclusions? This makes no sense Bronzesnake. How can you not understand this?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Please Bronzesnake, explain to me how this quote, from the ICR, confirms what you say when you say

Hey I have no doubt that this may have indeed been the evolutionists’ intentions; however the creationists had a different set of criteria to observe.

...

The ICR said:

The scientists wanted to see whether or not predation (nature) was effective at causing (by selecting) different traits to become dominant or to even appear out of nowhere in the lizards.

when the current article and I state:

There only goal was to see what effects can occur within three separate circumstances. Not genetical changes, not physical changes through generations (as evolution would describe both), but growth and health of the current population.

The ICR isn't "observing data" that the scientists didn't, They are claiming that the scientists doing the study were doing something they weren't. Please, explain.


Another quote from the ICR states:

a new experiment published in Nature explored whether nature, in the form of certain predators, could select lizard traits.

The original article has nothing to do with this. how do we know? because the scientist only studied a single generation. new traits and genetic change comes from consecutive generations. reproduction with variation. The study the biologists did was about the variation between a single generation with different environmental factors. the only variation they are talking about is between size and strength due to the more food they acquire and the longer they live without having to consistently hide. These aren't new traits!

The ICR also states:

The group that enjoyed the most variation in traits was the one with no predators and with the most individual lizards.

No, none of the population had any variation in their traits by the end of the experiment. Why? Because new traits don't suddenly appear in the same generation! You need successive generations for this to happen.

Thus, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations, it actually diminished them!

No... There were no new traits or variations in the Anoles because there no successive generations. There for, it didn't gain or diminish traits either.

What the ICR, and you, don't seem to understand is that the scientists are not focusing on Natural selection as a whole, but an individual section of Natural selection on those islands only.

Natural selection by predation did not produce new anole lizard traits, let alone a new organ or whole creature.

Of course it didn't, because there was no succeeding generation!!!! That was not the intent of the study! does this honestly not make any sense to you and the ICR?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo.

We can separate these two aspects because they aren't the same thing. The theory of evolution explains that genetic changes occur through successive generations,

I didn’t say they were the same thing.
I’m saying each are aspects of a broad theory of evolution, which of course they are.

where as natural selection is a factor that may influence genetic changes.

No arguments here.

An apple is a fruit but fruit isn't an apple. however, we can study a specific part of an apple without having to reference fruit entirely.

This is relevant how?

You stated “The conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection. The conclusion was that on those specific islands, predation may have less of an effect than competing populationâ€
I am saying these evolution scientists are indeed engaging in a study which inevitable goes towards trying to “prove†macro evolution. You don’t seem to comprehend that every experiment that evolution scientists carry out are based on their faith – their belief in evolution, and so there are many distinct areas of study. So when you say the conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection, it makes you look uninformed or even perhaps dishonest, which I don’t believe. I believe you are not being purposefully dishonest, I believe that you just don’t understand some of the parameters of the entire hypothesis.

The information gathered through this experiment will go towards an entire scientific effort to corroborate the hypothesis of evolution. You were trying to separate one aspect of evolutionary science and the inference was that during this specific experiment, the evolution scientists studies and conclusions are credible, but the creation scientists studies and conclusions are not, and that is revealing because it shows a general bias against creation science and not based on any legitimate evidence, but rather exclusively because you do not ascribe to creation science.

OK Evo, can we decease in using rude and inflammatory statements such as this...

Did you read anything I said? The conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection. The conclusion was that on those specific islands, predation may have less of an effect than competing population. re read this about 50 times or so so you'll fully understand.

I am trying very hard to show you respect even though I strongly disagree with your beliefs, I would appreciate the same courtesy please. I do understand that you are becoming more and more frustrated because you've stopped engaging in any relevant scientific discussion and are focusing entirely on angry statements and accusations in what appears to be almost compulsive and obsessive.

Bronzesnake wrote: You seem to be very limited in any ability to be partial by your extreme bias my friend.
If you have any scientific evidence to show the conclusions are wrong then I’d like to see it.
I would absolutely love to discuss the science and conclusions based on the evidence.

That will not happen because the conclusions are correct. And both Bob and I have shown you that the ICR, as well as you, have have misunderstood this. you simply do not understand what these scientists are trying to conclude in the first place. You are viewing this as a completely different topic all together.

So, you’re telling us that you are unwilling to debate using science but rather, you will continue to compulsively and obsessively attack sources and scientists?
This is actually very powerful evidence showing you don’t feel your evidence is strong enough to stand on its own.


Bronzesnake wrote: The creation scientists are stating that there is no evidence that speciation (one distinct animal slowly transitions over many years into a different completely new animal) regardless of the environmental conditions. Can you show me any proof that this conclusion based on using the scientific method from evidence in the field is incorrect? If so I’d love to continue the discussion.

Good for them, they can claim that all they want. unfortunately they have no evidence of this,

Of course they have evidence Evo.
Lack of evidence is very good proof that evolution didn’t happen.
If I told a detective that I killed a man in self defence because he aimed a gun at me, and the detective examines the crime scene and finds no gun, that is powerful evidence that I murdered a person as opposed to killing him in self defence.
Scientists use this method all the time Evo, you didn’t know this?

Let's say I am playing Basketball, and I broke my leg somehow. I say "I think I broke my leg, I heard a snap!" and we rush to the hospital and I get a cast because I broke my leg. Then you start arguing that I didn't break my arm and i should stop being a puss.

This is what is going on. we are talking about two completely different things all together. Except you gathered "Broken Bone" out of the whole incident and regardless if i show you the xray of my broken leg, you aren't accepting that I indeed did break my leg.

What a ridiculous analogy. You’re trying to have us believe that this experiment had nothing to do with evolution simply because the experiment focused on a single aspect of the overall hypothesis.
A better analogy would be like saying an examination of the style of a specific Van Gough painting had nothing to do with Van Gough.

Bronzesnake wrote:I’ve said this before – we can’t have an honest discussion, and we cannot learn anything from each other if one side insists on attacking the other simply because they don’t agree with their conclusions.

I agree, so stop doing this.

Another ironic and seriously weak attempt at removing yourself from any responsibility in not only being involved in the tactic, but by continuing to use the tactic, then attempting to make it seem as though I have been doing it. please point out any of my similar attacks on say, talk origins.
Nice try but no cigar.

You haven't even addressed any of the examples I've shown that prove that the ICR, in this incident, has misrepresented information.

So what exactly do you believe you are responding to?

In any case. I simply will not reply to any more of these false accusations.
I've shown all here who are following that this tactic is being used and will obviously continue to be used because there is no other effective counter argument for creation science.
If you have any relevant scientific evidence I am more than happy to address it.
Otherwise you can keep on attacking and misrepresenting all you like, hey knock yourself out because this is my last response to it.

John

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo.
Finally a real discussion! :P

The original article has nothing to do with this. how do we know? because the scientist only studied a single generation. new traits and genetic change comes from consecutive generations.

That’s not true Evo, there was at least one new generation born during the experiment and possibly two. I’m waiting for a ICR scientists to get back to me in relation to this experiment. So there was a consecutive generation. Changes must be observable sometime Evo.
Are you suggesting that nothing happened to show any evolutionary change in the new born lizards?
Because if you are, then you are actually legitimizing the ICR observations.

Evolution would have us believe that environmental conditions are the driving force behind the theory.
So this experiment was set up to observe and to look for any changes.
No real physical changes were discovered except for perhaps size and strength, which no one is arguing against. This is exactly what we expect it’s called micro evolution.

My question to you is how long do we have to wait, how many generations from these original lizards do we have to wait for before we begin to see any changes? Three? Five? Seven? Eleven? Six Hundred thousand? If these environmental conditions are actually responsible for evolutionary change, then why didn’t it work during this experiment?

The offspring were virtually identical to their parent which is exactly what we always observe in nature Evo. ICR is simply reinforcing this fact by pointing out that there was no discernable evolutionary addition to the genetic information. In fact, the lizard population actually decreased during some of the experiments and that is not good for Darwinian evolution!

Why haven’t these lizards developed a poisonous film over their bodies for example, which would force their predators select other meals?

Now I can predict your reply, you’ll say that this experiment was too short for any of these conclusions to be reached, however Gould and Eldridge for instance, have abandoned Darwinian evolution because it cannot, and has not been observed in the fossils.
So, they came up with an alternative explanation and they stated that changes did happen abruptly, and very quickly, and so in light of this concept, it is perfectly credible for scientists to come to these conclusions using a short term experiment such as this one where offspring were born and observed Evo.

As you know we have studied long term life forms in many varied environmental conditions and we have not observed any macro changes (other than those inferred examples which are illustrated), and so now we are responding to P.E. and are discovering that there are no macro changes involved here either.
Very legitimate conclusions Evo.
The only apparent issue you truly have is that, again, you just can’t come to understand there are alternate explanations other than your own.

reproduction with variation. The study the biologists did was about the variation between a single generation with different environmental factors. the only variation they are talking about is between size and strength due to the more food they acquire and the longer they live without having to consistently hide. These aren't new traits!

I agree, no new traits, as is exclusive in every instance.

What the ICR, and you, don't seem to understand is that the scientists are not focusing on Natural selection as a whole, but an individual section of Natural selection on those islands only.

What you don’t see understand is this experiment was used to hypothesis of evolutionary biology in general!
The actual scientists who did the experiment say this experiment is “central to evolution†so perhaps you need to withdraw that idea Evo.

Here’s a quote from the actual scientists who ran the experiment...

It is not clear that this result says anything about natural selection in species other than anoles, Calsbeek explains. But for him, that isn't the point — his work pushes forward the project of experimentally testing the hypotheses of evolutionary biology, a field that isn't well known for working with real organisms. "This represents one of the first large-scale experimental manipulations of a process that is central to evolution," he says. "This really is a hard experimental science. You can manipulate agents of selection and test hypotheses about how the process works."

That pretty much puts the kybosh on your assertions that the scientists are not focusing on Natural selection as a whole

ICR wrote: Natural selection by predation did not produce new anole lizard traits, let alone a new organ or whole creature.

Of course it didn't, because there was no succeeding generation!!!! That was not the intent of the study! does this honestly not make any sense to you and the ICR?

They did produce at least one new generation and possibly two by your own admission, so why do you keep making these incorrect statements?

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

Hello Evo.

We can separate these two aspects because they aren't the same thing. The theory of evolution explains that genetic changes occur through successive generations,

I didn’t say they were the same thing.
I’m saying each are aspects of a broad theory of evolution, which of course they are.

... You do realize this was directed at the question "How can you separate these different aspects of the same theory?"

If the theory of evolution explains that genetic changes occur through successive generations, and natural selection doesn't explain that, then that is how we can separate them. That is all that I am addressing. I'm not claiming you said they were the same thing or that they don't have any relation at all am I? I simply am stating we can study one single aspect of a very large and intricate theory without having to involve other aspects of the theory within that particular study.

where as natural selection is a factor that may influence genetic changes.

No arguments here.

If these are obviously different things, and you agree to this, than why are you asking questions like "How can we separate the two concepts?"

An apple is a fruit but fruit isn't an apple. however, we can study a specific part of an apple without having to reference fruit entirely.

This is relevant how?

It is an analogy of the issues you are attempting to bring up. Natural selecting (apple) is part of the whole theory of evolution (Fruit) but natural selection (apple) isn't all of evolution (fruit). We can study a specific part of Natural selection (an apple) without referencing Evolution (fruit) entirely.

You stated “The conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection. The conclusion was that on those specific islands, predation may have less of an effect than competing populationâ€
I am saying these evolution scientists are indeed engaging in a study which inevitable goes towards trying to “prove†macro evolution. You don’t seem to comprehend that every experiment that evolution scientists carry out are based on their faith – their belief in evolution, and so there are many distinct areas of study. So when you say the conclusions had nothing to do with proving evolution or even natural selection, it makes you look uninformed or even perhaps dishonest, which I don’t believe. I believe you are not being purposefully dishonest, I believe that you just don’t understand some of the parameters of the entire hypothesis.

We don't need anymore proof of macro evolution, we already have tons of that. The study only refers to what area between 3 different incidences is more or less dominant on this set of islands only. The study isn't going to be used anywhere else because it only applies to those islands. It cannot apply to inland species because its a completely different habitat for them. because it can't apply to other aspects of natural selection it cannot apply to the entire aspect of speciation. I have no idea where you are coming up with these conclusions at all. Especially since the study doesn't focus on variation (which is a massive requirement for evolution, rather than specifically macro evolution). You are still assuming, for whatever reason, that the study presented by these biologists has something to do with genetic changes. which it doesn't as both Bob and I have proven over and over and over again. this is why I said "read this 50 times until you understand" because you are just stating the same thing over and over again without fully realizing that this study has nothing to do with what your referring to.

The information gathered through this experiment will go towards an entire scientific effort to corroborate the hypothesis of evolution. You were trying to separate one aspect of evolutionary science and the inference was that during this specific experiment, the evolution scientists studies and conclusions are credible, but the creation scientists studies and conclusions are not, and that is revealing because it shows a general bias against creation science and not based on any legitimate evidence, but rather exclusively because you do not ascribe to creation science.

no, it wont. You see, when something as specific as "on these islands only" and "only within these 3 situations of natural selection" than it can't spread out like wild fire through all of evolutionary biology. The only conclusion that occurred in this study was that competition on these islands is a larger factor than predation when it comes to growth within a specific population (without successive generations). The creation scientists don't have any studies in this article, they are merely making an interpretation of another study. The conclusion these same creation scientists make are obviously false, you still have yet to address any of these issues. For example, you have completely overlooked my last post with all the quotes from the ICR's article that show that they misinterpreted the original article. Tell me how none of those are misinterpretations. tell me, please.

I do understand that you are becoming more and more frustrated because you've stopped engaging in any relevant scientific discussion and are focusing entirely on angry statements and accusations in what appears to be almost compulsive and obsessive.

you've got to be kidding me, is my last post completely invisible to you? This is the topic we are talking about, you are the one that seems to fly off of it and work around it, but that also seems to be invisible to you. If you haven't noticed, there is no scientific discussion (in the sense of factual evidence) in this entire topic, this topic is only talking about how the ICR isn't making accurate claims and how the claims they are making don't apply to the original article.

You seem to be very limited in any ability to be partial by your extreme bias my friend.
If you have any scientific evidence to show the conclusions are wrong then I’d like to see it.
I would absolutely love to discuss the science and conclusions based on the evidence.

Both Bob and I already have done this, why aren't you addressing what we have stated?

So, you’re telling us that you are unwilling to debate using science but rather, you will continue to compulsively and obsessively attack sources and scientists?
This is actually very powerful evidence showing you don’t feel your evidence is strong enough to stand on its own.

Uh no... We have already given our reasons, but you aren't responding to them. This topic isn't an attack on sources or "scientists", it is absolutely 100% proving that the claims and words within the ICR's article is misleading. How can you not see my previous post? honestly, how can you not see how all those quotes are absolutely incorrect? or at the very least, on topic?

Bronzesnake wrote: The creation scientists are stating that there is no evidence that speciation (one distinct animal slowly transitions over many years into a different completely new animal) regardless of the environmental conditions. Can you show me any proof that this conclusion based on using the scientific method from evidence in the field is incorrect? If so I’d love to continue the discussion.

Good for them, they can claim that all they want. unfortunately they have no evidence of this

Of course they have evidence Evo.
Lack of evidence is very good proof that evolution didn’t happen.
If I told a detective that I killed a man in self defence because he aimed a gun at me, and the detective examines the crime scene and finds no gun, that is powerful evidence that I murdered a person as opposed to killing him in self defence.
Scientists use this method all the time Evo, you didn’t know this?

You do realize this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand? This topic isn't "does evolution have proof?" It is however a topic that is about "Did the ICR misrepresent what they said in this specific article?"

I could show you hundreds of ways that prove evolution, but that isn't for this topic, so why would I go about by showing you it? If you want to address this issue then go here and reply. viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48081

Let's say I am playing Basketball, and I broke my leg somehow. I say "I think I broke my leg, I heard a snap!" and we rush to the hospital and I get a cast because I broke my leg. Then you start arguing that I didn't break my arm and i should stop being a puss.

This is what is going on. we are talking about two completely different things all together. Except you gathered "Broken Bone" out of the whole incident and regardless if i show you the xray of my broken leg, you aren't accepting that I indeed did break my leg.

What a ridiculous analogy. You’re trying to have us believe that this experiment had nothing to do with evolution simply because the experiment focused on a single aspect of the overall hypothesis.

No, how could you possibly have not understood such a simplistic analogy? The analogy has nothing to do with evolution. It's saying that although we've shown what's gone on, you've only picked out certain aspects of it and misinterpreted it and are now saying that something completely different is going on.

You haven't even addressed any of the examples I've shown that prove that the ICR, in this incident, has misrepresented information.

So what exactly do you believe you are responding to?

A series of statements that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

In any case. I simply will not reply to any more of these false accusations.

You haven't started to reply to any accusations bob or I have made about the ICR. you have yet to post any relevant data to address anything other than your own misconceptions.

If you have any relevant scientific evidence I am more than happy to address it.

This isn't about scientific evidence! This is about incorrect claims. We are not refuting that the ICR has incorrect data, we are refuting that the ICR has misrepresented the original article. This is what I have been telling you this entire time. you are trying to argue a different topic!

This is what I want you to do. If you are incapable of doing this, than we can assume you have no evidence to back up your side of the argument.

Thus, natural selection of these lizards by predation not only did not produce new traits or variations, it actually diminished them!

No... There were no new traits or variations in the Anoles because there no successive generations. There for, it didn't gain or diminish traits either.

Finish this sentence. "The ICR was correct in their statement that 'natural selecting of these lizards by predation not only did not procude new traits or variation, it actually diminished the.' because..."

 

[Evointrinsic]

The original article has nothing to do with this. how do we know? because the scientist only studied a single generation. new traits and genetic change comes from consecutive generations.

That’s not true Evo, there was at least one new generation born during the experiment and possibly two. I’m waiting for a ICR scientists to get back to me in relation to this experiment. So there was a consecutive generation. Changes must be observable sometime Evo.
Are you suggesting that nothing happened to show any evolutionary change in the new born lizards?
Because if you are, then you are actually legitimizing the ICR observations.

I can assure you there wasn't two successive generations. That would mean that the newborns would have to have hit sexual maturity, breed and produce offspring all within the same first day they arrived. their may have been one addition generation but because the biologists weren't focusing on that aspect of evolution, it really has no relevance ever.

On to the actual issue though. The biologists working in this study had no intentions of gathering information on the changes in successive generations. That is why no information (in the original article) make any conclusions on that matter. I, nor the biologists in the original study, have any comment what so ever on the changes in the next generation. That is not what they were attempting to observe.

Evolution would have us believe that environmental conditions are the driving force behind the theory.
So this experiment was set up to observe and to look for any changes.
No real physical changes were discovered except for perhaps size and strength, which no one is arguing against. This is exactly what we expect it’s called micro evolution.

All except that last sentence made perfect sense! It isn't micro evolution because that would infer that the conclusions the biologists have accumulated were that of changes in the next generation, which they weren't, the changes we see in size and strength are that of the original population. This is not a case of Micro evolution. This is, however, a case of environmental factors having an impact of a population. Evolution only occurs when successive generations are born. You know this, I know you know this. However, all the information that was gathered, was that of the original population, not of the successive generation. If the original study was meant to focus on that then they would have added another month or so so that the eggs were able to hatch. But in the case of 4 months, we would have very few, if any, hatch.

My question to you is how long do we have to wait, how many generations from these original lizards do we have to wait for before we begin to see any changes? Three? Five? Seven? Eleven? Six Hundred thousand? If these environmental conditions are actually responsible for evolutionary change, then why didn’t it work during this experiment?

It only takes one additional generation to have new changes genetically. Physical changes, however, all depend on the genetic change. The environmental conditions are influential to evolutionary change, but not 100% responsible. They didn't work in this experiment because this experiment wasn't supposed to be judging evolutionary change.

The offspring were virtually identical to their parent which is exactly what we always observe in nature Evo. ICR is simply reinforcing this fact by pointing out that there was no discernable evolutionary addition to the genetic information. In fact, the lizard population actually decreased during some of the experiments and that is not good for Darwinian evolution!

Would you please be able to show me this information in the original article please? A decrease in population has nothing to do with evolution, it only has to do with natural selection. If a population decreases, that would actually confirm natural selection. If an organism is out of place in it's environment, then it most likely will die off. However, the experiment doesn't say that the population decreases in all 3 circumstances, only the two. So it is rather misleading to say, in a general sense, that the population decreased. Because, in all 3 circumstances, the population only decreased in two. This, however, is irrelevant anyways because of the mention of genetic changes, which wasn't documented in the first place because that was not the intent of the study.

Why haven’t these lizards developed a poisonous film over their bodies for example, which would force their predators select other meals?

Because there was no evidence of a second generation in the original article. That, and such a drastic mutation wouldn't suddenly occur in a single generation, but rather many generations gradually.

Now I can predict your reply, you’ll say that this experiment was too short for any of these conclusions to be reached, however Gould and Eldridge for instance, have abandoned Darwinian evolution because it cannot, and has not been observed in the fossils.

Bronze, there will be, in every single theory, law, and hypothesis of science, another scientist will disagree with it in some sense and to some degree. Gould even wrote a book about Evolution as a fact and a theory. Not only that but, in Gould's words, he states:

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

I've already addressed this in another topic (I believe it was of your same statement as well, although it may have been someone else). Regardless, this has nothing to do with the original article and it's studies.

Alas, to further explain that point, Gould says:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.

So, they came up with an alternative explanation and they stated that changes did happen abruptly, and very quickly, and so in light of this concept, it is perfectly credible for scientists to come to these conclusions using a short term experiment such as this one where offspring were born and observed Evo.

It would have been acceptable for the ICR to make such claims if the original article had data in which the ICR is referring to. The fact is, the original article has no data and never once says that "successive generations had no change at all".

As you know we have studied long term life forms in many varied environmental conditions and we have not observed any macro changes (other than those inferred examples which are illustrated), and so now we are responding to P.E. and are discovering that there are no macro changes involved here either.
Very legitimate conclusions Evo.
The only apparent issue you truly have is that, again, you just can’t come to understand there are alternate explanations other than your own.

If there was a macro evolutionary change in just one successive generation, that alone would completely falsify evolution. However, the original study has no information on whether or not the second generation had any change or didn't. There for, it is irresponsible for anyone to claim that they did.

reproduction with variation. The study the biologists did was about the variation between a single generation with different environmental factors. the only variation they are talking about is between size and strength due to the more food they acquire and the longer they live without having to consistently hide. These aren't new traits!

I agree, no new traits, as is exclusive in every instance.

There were no new traits because the biologists weren't looking for new traits in the next generation. Why is this difficult to comprehend exactly? Not only that, but there is not evidence in the original article that shows another generation even was there! For there to be new traits there has to be a second generation. Even if there was one the biologists weren't going to pay attention to if they had new traits or not because that's not what their study is about.

What the ICR, and you, don't seem to understand is that the scientists are not focusing on Natural selection as a whole, but an individual section of Natural selection on those islands only.

What you don’t see understand is this experiment was used to hypothesis of evolutionary biology in general!
The actual scientists who did the experiment say this experiment is “central to evolution†so perhaps you need to withdraw that idea Evo.

Yes, because natural selection is part of evolution! of course it's going to be central to evolution then. but the study isn't about mutations through generations, it is about which environmental factor has more of an effect on a certain population. By effect I dont mean additive trait or a subtraction of one, I only mean of the specimens in that population.

Here’s a quote from the actual scientists who ran the experiment...

It is not clear that this result says anything about natural selection in species other than anoles, Calsbeek explains. But for him, that isn't the point — his work pushes forward the project of experimentally testing the hypotheses of evolutionary biology, a field that isn't well known for working with real organisms. "This represents one of the first large-scale experimental manipulations of a process that is central to evolution," he says. "This really is a hard experimental science. You can manipulate agents of selection and test hypotheses about how the process works."

Yes, and I realize, except the experiment has nothing to do with successive generations or what mutations or traits occurred or didn't through those generations! It only has to do with the changes in the population. that is it.

That pretty much puts the kybosh on your assertions that the scientists are not focusing on Natural selection as a whole

no, actually it doesn't. that same quote shows that their intention was to see how natural selection plays a part.

It is not clear that this result says anything about natural selection in species other than anoles.

It is not natural selection as a whole, but only directed towards the anoles.

ICR wrote: Natural selection by predation did not produce new anole lizard traits, let alone a new organ or whole creature.

Of course it didn't, because there was no succeeding generation!!!! That was not the intent of the study! does this honestly not make any sense to you and the ICR?

They did produce at least one new generation and possibly two by your own admission, so why do you keep making these incorrect statements?

I said their may possible be at least one new generation, but the original article never speaks of this at all. Not only that, but the gestation periods and incubation periods are both conservative numbers, for the sake of argument. meaning that even if there were hatchlings, very few would have actually hatched and even if the biologists were trying to study new traits, which they weren't, they wouldn't have used only a small percentage of the entire populations hatchlings, they would have used all of them to get accurate data. But we dont find this data because the study isn't based on finding new traits or mutations!

The sole purpose for this study is to see which effects the current population of the Anoles. snakes, birds, or competition.