[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

since neither you nor i are scientists

Actually, I was for many years. I was an ergonomist, and I taught biology before and after that.

i gave you links to the best yec's - they are scientists - their material is excellent

The YECs I cited are actually biologists and paleontologists, who know the evidence, and cite it.

in fact they being scientists would understand the science better than you do - and imo better than evolutionists do

I actually have degrees in biology and in systems, so it's not surprising that I know it better than they do. As you see, even knowledgeable YECs admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolution.

Again, I would of course be happy to see what you think convincing evidence for YEC might be. What do you have?

 

[Truthfrees]

Actually, I was for many years. I was an ergonomist, and I taught biology before and after that.



The YECs I cited are actually biologists and paleontologists, who know the evidence, and cite it.



I actually have degrees in biology and in systems, so it's not surprising that I know it better than they do. As you see, even knowledgeable YECs admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolution.

Again, I would of course be happy to see what you think convincing evidence for YEC might be. What do you have?

how does being an ergonomist with degrees in biology qualify you as a creation vs evolution scientist?

if your yecs believe in evolution they are not true yecs - they shouldn't actually be claiming to be yecs - that is misleading

so this remains an issue between real creation scientists vs evolution scientists - and we each chose who makes the most sense

from reading your posts to others who presented creation science to you it shows me that you do not understand creation science - you do understand evolution science - but evolution science has gaping holes in it which others tried to point out to you but you couldn't see what they were saying - so they finally gave up trying to help you see

 

[Moseme]

Actually, I was for many years. I was an ergonomist, and I taught biology before and after that.



The YECs I cited are actually biologists and paleontologists, who know the evidence, and cite it.



I actually have degrees in biology and in systems, so it's not surprising that I know it better than they do. As you see, even knowledgeable YECs admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolution.

Again, I would of course be happy to see what you think convincing evidence for YEC might be. What do you have?

I went to school and took a lot of biology classes in the process of getting a degree in psychology. Evolution is a very flawed "theory" that people only continue to stick with out of pride. The prideful "intellectual" hates to admit that they were ever wrong and will flat out ignore any evidence that suggests that they ever were wrong. A person just can't argue with this prideful mindset and ever accomplise anything. I dont know why this thread has gone on as long as it did.

 

[Barbarian]

I went to school and took a lot of biology classes in the process of getting a degree in psychology.

You need very little biology to get a degree in psychology. I had to get a minor in psychology to become an ergonomist. I was initially in pre-med,but the draft got me and then I got married, so things went another way.

Evolution is a very flawed "theory" that people only continue to stick with out of pride.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Which of the four points of Darwinism, do you think are flawed? I'm guessing you don't even know what they are. Most people who don't like evolution know very little about it. So I would be interested to know which of his points have been falsified. What do you have?

The prideful creationist hates to admit he didn't know, and will flat out ignore any evidence showing that he was wrong. A person can't argue against this prideful mindset, but one can lay it out for other people to see, so that they might look at the evidence and make a rational decision.

Again, let us know which of Darwin's four points you think has been refuted. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

how does being an ergonomist with degrees in biology qualify you as a creation vs evolution scientist?

I know the evidence. I've studied anatomy, comparative anatomy, systematics, chemistry, physics, genetics, physiology, paleontology, and so on.

There is no such thing as a "creation vs evolution scientist." All biologists know the issues. As the great Christian biologist Theo Dobzhansky wrote, nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution.

if your yecs believe in evolution they are not true yecs - they shouldn't actually be claiming to be yecs - that is misleading

They don't believe evolution is true. They just openly admit that the evidence is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, even as they prefer their particular interpretation of scripture. Dr. Wise, for example, says that he thinks that there might someday be a way to interpret the evidence that supports creationism.

from reading your posts to others who presented creation science to you it shows me that you do not understand creation science - you do understand evolution science

[/QUOTE]

There is no "creation science." Creation requires faith. Science requires evidence.

but evolution science has gaping holes in it

[/QUOTE]

As you have seen, all the supposed holes were just assumptions by people who didn't even know what the evidence is.

But if you want to show us something, I'll be happy to take a look at it. What do you have?

 

[Truthfrees]

I know the evidence. I've studied anatomy, comparative anatomy, systematics, chemistry, physics, genetics, physiology, paleontology, and so on.

There is no such thing as a "creation vs evolution scientist." All biologists know the issues. As the great Christian biologist Theo Dobzhansky wrote, nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution.


They don't believe evolution is true. They just openly admit that the evidence is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, even as they prefer their particular interpretation of scripture. Dr. Wise, for example, says that he thinks that there might someday be a way to interpret the evidence that supports creationism. There is no "creation science." Creation requires faith. Science requires evidence.
As you have seen, all the supposed holes were just assumptions by people who didn't even know what the evidence is.

But if you want to show us something, I'll be happy to take a look at it. What do you have?

well this explains why you don't see what others are talking about - check out the scientists i gave you a few posts back - maybe they can help you - otherwise i don't see any point in continuing discussing evidence for creation with you when others have already done such an excellent job of doing so

 

[Moseme]

You need very little biology to get a degree in psychology. I had to get a minor in psychology to become an ergonomist. I was initially in pre-med,but the draft got me and then I got married, so things went another way.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Which of the four points of Darwinism, do you think are flawed? I'm guessing you don't even know what they are. Most people who don't like evolution know very little about it. So I would be interested to know which of his points have been falsified. What do you have?

The prideful creationist hates to admit he didn't know, and will flat out ignore any evidence showing that he was wrong. A person can't argue against this prideful mindset, but one can lay it out for other people to see, so that they might look at the evidence and make a rational decision.

Again, let us know which of Darwin's four points you think has been refuted. What do you have?

Actually I do know Darwin's four points. Just because only a few biology classes are required for psychology as opposed to anatomy, sociology and actual psychology classes, does not mean that I didnt take alot.
1. Individuals of a species is not identical. This can only be completely true for species that reproduce sexually. Where as most species who reproduce asexually would in fact have identical genes.
2. Traits are passed from generation to generation. And as traits are passed from generation to generation the traits that are not passed are then lost. If survival dictates that only individuals with certain traits can live then those with other traits will most likely die before passing their traits on and that species will have lost those traits forever. That is how natural selection works.
3. More offspring are born than can survive.
4. Only the survivors of the competition for resource will reproduce.

As you can see the points themselves are very simple. The last 3 points create a system in which a species will lose traits and become a more genetically simple species, eventually if this species is kept in isolation from others of its kind it will all be inbred as far as genetiv diversity goes. And it is not the same system that evolutionists try to present where each generation is more complex than the last. The last three points are completely misrepresented by evolutionists. And the first point would have been completely untrue for the asexually reproducing unicellular ancestors that evolutionists say we all have in common.

And you took your biology classes before being drafted? Are you aware of how much our understanding of biology has changed since the Vietnam war? No wonder you believe in evolution. Try to look at a textbook from this decade at least. Just not a government sponsored text book since we cannot trust them not to use propaganda.

 

[Barbarian]

well this explains why you don't see what others are talking about - check out the scientists i gave you a few posts back - maybe they can help you

If you think they bring up important evidence, by all means do what I did with other scientists; show us what they said, here. If you don't know enough to understand what they are writing about, how do you know it's right?

otherwise i don't see any point in continuing discussing evidence for creation with you when others have already done such an excellent job of doing so

I'm just pointing out that you haven't brought up any evidence for creationism. As you probably know, evolution is evidence for creation; it's just not the way you'd want it to be.

Actually I do know Darwin's four points. Just because only a few biology classes are required for psychology as opposed to anatomy, sociology and actual psychology classes, does not mean that I didnt take alot.
1. Individuals of a species is not identical. This can only be completely true for species that reproduce sexually. Where as most species who reproduce asexually would in fact have identical genes.
2. Traits are passed from generation to generation. And as traits are passed from generation to generation the traits that are not passed are then lost. If survival dictates that only individuals with certain traits can live then those with other traits will most likely die before passing their traits on and that species will have lost those traits forever. That is how natural selection works.
3. More offspring are born than can survive.
4. Only the survivors of the competition for resource will reproduce.

Close. The key is that every organism is slightly different than parents. And some of these differences will affect the survival of the individual. So any new changes can (usually they don't; most mutations don't do much of anything different) improve the likelihood of survival or decrease the likelihood of survival. Those new differences tend to become widespread in the population, perhaps leading to the disappearance of other traits.

Darwin's problem was that if inheritance is in the blood (as most scientists of the time assumed) then a new trait would be like mixing a drop of red paint into a barrel of white; it would be quickly swamped by all the existing organisms with the old trait. Then Mendel discovered that it was more like sorting bead than like mixing paint, and Darwin's theory was saved.

Of course, Watson and Crick, when they worked out the mechanism of heredity, showed how new traits can appear. And that confirmed Darwin's four points.

The last 3 points create a system in which a species will lose traits and become a more genetically simple species, eventually if this species is kept in isolation from others of its kind it will all be inbred as far as genetiv diversity goes.

Would be, if it weren't for mutations. But mutations occur constantly and increase genetic information in a population.

This is how a small founder population, with relatively low information, will increase information over time, and evolve to be different than the original population. This is well-documented.

And you took your biology classes before being drafted? Are you aware of how much our understanding of biology has changed since the Vietnam war?

Before and after. And during. My duties in the AF required being up to date on biology. But what we're talking about here, was settled well before I was drafted.

No wonder you believe in evolution.

I believe in God. I observe evolution happening. One requires faith; the other requires evidence. Perhaps you've confused the fact of evolution with a consequence of evolution like common descent.

Try to look at a textbook from this decade at least.

I retired just a few years ago, and one of the things I did before I retired, was review biology textbooks. Have you read a biology textbook lately? Many of the things you seem to be unsure about, are now well discussed in those textbooks.

Far as I know, there aren't any government biology textbooks. All are by private companies. I am concerned that some publishers don't use working scientists to write their books, and that does bring in errors. Most of those errors are things real scientists find frustrating or hilarious.

One textbook actually suggested the necks of giraffes were the result of natural selection alone. And that's a huge problem, because it assumes some kind of teleological effect. In reality, it was a matter of allometric growth before natural selection kicked in. That kind of thing.

The other thing that you might have missed, is epigenetics, which tends to explain sudden, but limited adaptation over a generation or two. Also, the discovery that many new genes come about by mutation of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") rather than by gene duplication and mutation, which used to be thought was almost exclusively the source of new genes.

 

[Moseme]

If you think they bring up important evidence, by all means do what I did with other scientists; show us what they said, here. If you don't know enough to understand what they are writing about, how do you know it's right?



I'm just pointing out that you haven't brought up any evidence for creationism. As you probably know, evolution is evidence for creation; it's just not the way you'd want it to be.

Close. The key is that every organism is slightly different than parents. And some of these differences will affect the survival of the individual. So any new changes can (usually they don't; most mutations don't do much of anything different) improve the likelihood of survival or decrease the likelihood of survival. Those new differences tend to become widespread in the population, perhaps leading to the disappearance of other traits.

Darwin's problem was that if inheritance is in the blood (as most scientists of the time assumed) then a new trait would be like mixing a drop of red paint into a barrel of white; it would be quickly swamped by all the existing organisms with the old trait. Then Mendel discovered that it was more like sorting bead than like mixing paint, and Darwin's theory was saved.

Of course, Watson and Crick, when they worked out the mechanism of heredity, showed how new traits can appear. And that confirmed Darwin's four points.



Would be, if it weren't for mutations. But mutations occur constantly and increase genetic information in a population.

This is how a small founder population, with relatively low information, will increase information over time, and evolve to be different than the original population. This is well-documented.



Before and after. And during. My duties in the AF required being up to date on biology. But what we're talking about here, was settled well before I was drafted.



I believe in God. I observe evolution happening. One requires faith; the other requires evidence. Perhaps you've confused the fact of evolution with a consequence of evolution like common descent.



I retired just a few years ago, and one of the things I did before I retired, was review biology textbooks. Have you read a biology textbook lately? Many of the things you seem to be unsure about, are now well discussed in those textbooks.

Far as I know, there aren't any government biology textbooks. All are by private companies. I am concerned that some publishers don't use working scientists to write their books, and that does bring in errors. Most of those errors are things real scientists find frustrating or hilarious.

One textbook actually suggested the necks of giraffes were the result of natural selection alone. And that's a huge problem, because it assumes some kind of teleological effect. In reality, it was a matter of allometric growth before natural selection kicked in. That kind of thing.

The other thing that you might have missed, is epigenetics, which tends to explain sudden, but limited adaptation over a generation or two. Also, the discovery that many new genes come about by mutation of non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") rather than by gene duplication and mutation, which used to be thought was almost exclusively the source of new genes.

I don't believe you. Throughout this entire thread you have moved in circles first posting some other person's words then when challenged on that talk about all of this extra stuff never answering the questions asked and never providing any evidence except for the words of another man (which is the philosophical fallacy of trying to argue from authority) and those words have nothing to do with the questions asked. On top of that you have yet to point to any experiment as evidence. But forget all of that, I have a real question.

Why is this so important to you that you have to continue to push a dying theory every day for over a month? I had more to say but I can't. I just want you to know that obvious disagreements aside. I love you and if you ever want to talk about something other than this send me a message and I'll try to check often.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't believe you.

Doesn't matter. Reality is remarkably resistant to disbelief.

Throughout this entire thread you have moved in circles first posting some other person's words then when challenged on that talk about all of this extra stuff never answering the questions asked and never providing any evidence except for the words of another man (which is the philosophical fallacy of trying to argue from authority)

I don't think so, but if you'd like to bring up an example or two, I'd be pleased to show you the evidence again. The fact that your fellow YE creationists admit the evidence is just an indication of how well-documented it is.

and those words have nothing to do with the questions asked. On top of that you have yet to point to any experiment as evidence. But forget all of that, I have a real question.

Science works by observation. Experiments may be required do do those observations. Would you like to learn about some experiments that verify evolution?

Why is this so important to you that you have to continue to push a dying theory every day for over a month?

I'm just showing you the facts. The theory, as you learned, is more accepted and robust now than it was even a few years ago. On the other hand, the new doctrine of YE creationism is slowly dying. Would you like me to show you that?

You're no less a Christian than those who do accept evolution, and I appreciate that you do understand that one's view of evolution has nothing to do with one's faith in God.

Again, if you think I failed to answer any questions or provide evidence for them, let me know, and I'll respond for you.

 

[Truthfrees]

If you think they bring up important evidence, by all means do what I did with other scientists; show us what they said, here. If you don't know enough to understand what they are writing about, how do you know it's right?


I'm just pointing out that you haven't brought up any evidence for creationism. As you probably know, evolution is evidence for creation; it's just not the way you'd want it to be.

neither have you - you make grandiose claims - others show you where you are wrong and you keep on going like you didn't understand what they said - your man-made theory is dead old unprovable - God's creation is correct - but you love evolution so i leave you to it - it doesn't matter to me if you believe in evolution and think the bible is allegorical non-literal - if you want to come from slime/primordial ooze/monkeys/etc that is fine with me - for the rest of us here who have been trying to talk to you our Creator is God Almighty Who made time space matter and all life -

 

[Moseme]

Doesn't matter. Reality is remarkably resistant to disbelief.


I don't think so, but if you'd like to bring up an example or two, I'd be pleased to show you the evidence again. The fact that your fellow YE creationists admit the evidence is just an indication of how well-documented it is.

Science works by observation. Experiments may be required do do those observations. Would you like to learn about some experiments that verify evolution?


I'm just showing you the facts. The theory, as you learned, is more accepted and robust now than it was even a few years ago. On the other hand, the new doctrine of YE creationism is slowly dying. Would you like me to show you that?

You're no less a Christian than those who do accept evolution, and I appreciate that you do understand that one's view of evolution has nothing to do with one's faith in God.

Again, if you think I failed to answer any questions or provide evidence for them, let me know, and I'll respond for you.

I said I didnt believe you not that I didnt believe reality. To different things there and it would be pretty prideful to suggest that you corner the market on how reality gets interpreted.

Also I'm not young earth and I am not fighting for the young earth theory. I am fighting against the theory of evolution.

I would love for you to share some experiments with me but in your own words I dont want to have to follow links and I only need the main parts of the experiment. If they have any merit I'll research further.

I am not asking what you are doing but why you are doing it. It would take strong motivation to continuely argue about such an insignificant topic.

I take it that you are at least in your 60s from having served in Vietnam. Which by the way thanks I hope you were treated decently when you came back. I heard from several vets that it wasn't the case for them. Can I ask if your wife is still alive?

 

[Barbarian]

I said I didnt believe you not that I didnt believe reality.

Reality is what you're fighting here.

To different things there and it would be pretty prideful to suggest that you corner the market on how reality gets interpreted.

It all comes down to evidence.

Also I'm not young earth and I am not fighting for the young earth theory. I am fighting against the theory of evolution.

You might as well fight the theory of gravitation. In fact, evolution is somewhat more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we're still not exactly sure why gravity works.

I would love for you to share some experiments with me but in your own words I dont want to have to follow links and I only need the main parts of the experiment. If they have any merit I'll research further.

Start with some of these, then...

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home​

Date: April 18, 2008 Source: University Of Massachusetts, Amherst Summary: In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment...

www.sciencedaily.com

Experimental evolution of Ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential​

Barry G. Hall​

FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 174, Issue 1, May 1999, Pages 1–8

Experimental evolution of Ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential

Abstract. The ebg (evolved β-galactosidase) operon of Escherichia coli has been used since 1974 as a model system to dynamically study the evolutionary pro

academic.oup.com

The House mice of the Faroe Islands: a study in microdifferentiation​

R. J. Berry M. E. Jakobson Josephine Peters
First published: May 1978

https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1978.tb03314.x

There are many examples of speciation. Would you like to see some of them?

I am not asking what you are doing but why you are doing it. It would take strong motivation to continuely argue about such an insignificant topic.

I'm a very patient guy...

I take it that you are at least in your 60s from having served in Vietnam. Which by the way thanks I hope you were treated decently when you came back. I heard from several vets that it wasn't the case for them. Can I ask if your wife is still alive?

We celebrated our 50th anniversary a while back. In 1965, she was sitting in the front row of the first class, the first day, I attended college. I was completely blown away with her. Beauty in her face and intelligence and fire in her soul. Never looked back.

Built her a crafting shed for the anniversary. Actually, she didn't allow me to roof or frame it, but I got to finish it out. She thinks I'm an old man.

She loves pandas.

 

[Moseme]

Reality is what you're fighting here.

It all comes down to evidence.


You might as well fight the theory of gravitation. In fact, evolution is somewhat more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we're still not exactly sure why gravity works.

Start with some of these, then...

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home​

Date: April 18, 2008 Source: University Of Massachusetts, Amherst Summary: In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment...

www.sciencedaily.com

Experimental evolution of Ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential​

Barry G. Hall​

FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 174, Issue 1, May 1999, Pages 1–8

Experimental evolution of Ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential

Abstract. The ebg (evolved β-galactosidase) operon of Escherichia coli has been used since 1974 as a model system to dynamically study the evolutionary pro

academic.oup.com

The House mice of the Faroe Islands: a study in microdifferentiation​

R. J. Berry M. E. Jakobson Josephine Peters
First published: May 1978

https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1978.tb03314.x

There are many examples of speciation. Would you like to see some of them?


I'm a very patient guy...

We celebrated our 50th anniversary a while back. In 1965, she was sitting in the front row of the first class, the first day, I attended college. I was completely blown away with her. Beauty in her face and intelligence and fire in her soul. Never looked back.

Built her a crafting shed for the anniversary. Actually, she didn't allow me to roof or frame it, but I got to finish it out. She thinks I'm an old man.

She loves pandas.

That shed is sweet.

Like I said its pretty prideful to think that you corner the market on reality. We could just as easily say that you are fighting reality and we all agree that the "evidence" that you discuss is pretty terrible.

Now evolution is only a theory and gravity is a law. There is no denying gravity its a fact. Evolution will never be anything more than a misguided theory.

Now gravity or how it works is easy to explain. Atoms have a strong nuclear force that holds all of the protons together even though they want to repel each other. This strong nuclear force gets stronger the more mass the nucleus of the atom has. Thats why atoms with alot of protons have about twice as many neutrons, to increase mass without adding to the positive charge. So when an object has a lot of mass it also has alot of atoms and a strong nuclear force that would attract other objects to that mass. Gravity. As for explaining why it works we first have to accept that there is a purpose and intelligent design for this universe. How does evolution work? No one knows. All we get is a bunch of convoluted misconceptions and smokescreen.

I asked for your explanation on the experiments. I said that I did not want links. I don't have time to chase wild geese. So could you please explain them or I will have to come to the conclusion that you purposefully added links to crappy experiments knowing that I wouldnt go to the links and you can pretend that you offered evidence when you really tried to send someone to a pet store for all we know.

 

[Moseme]

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home​

Date: April 18, 2008 Source: University Of Massachusetts, Amherst Summary: In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now researchers have shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment...

www.sciencedaily.com

Just to prove a point I decided to look at one of the experiments that you posted and I was correct it had nothing to do with what you were trying to prove. They took 5 lizards and put them on a different island and in 36 years they adapted to eating new food. Taking DNA samples confirmed that they are the exact same species of lizard that was on the first island. All that does is verify micro evolution which we all agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with macro evolution which is what you are trying to push. How do we know this? Because they are still genetically identical.

Also 36 years may seem like a long time, but for a species that only live about 10 years and has 2-3 eggs per clutch and 3-5 clutches per year, males maturing after 1 year females after 2 years... Well that makes for a crap ton of generations in 36 years.

And I am pretty sure that if you took 2 random lizards with the new adaptations and kept breeding them together that you will not get a lizard like when they first came to the island. Because with natural selection traits are lost once they are bred out of the population.

Your evidence and experiments are trash and the best taht you can do is hope that no decides to actually look at the evidence. I sorry to be harsh but please enough with the charades and smoke screens. If you want to have this conversation then stop trying to manipulate people and let the actual evidence stand or fall on its own without tricks.

 

[Barbarian]

ust to prove a point I decided to look at one of the experiments that you posted and I was correct it had nothing to do with what you were trying to prove. They took 5 lizards and put them on a different island and in 36 years they adapted to eating new food. Taking DNA samples confirmed that they are the exact same species of lizard that was on the first island. All that does is verify micro evolution which we all agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with macro evolution which is what you are trying to push. How do we know this? Because they are still genetically identical.

No. As you saw, the lizards evolved a new digestive organ (spiral valve) larger head and jaws (for better eating plant matter) and new behaviors (less territorial, because less predatory feeding). A surprisingly rapid evolution of new structures and behaviors. The DNA samples were of mitochondrial DNA, not the lizard DNA. Mitochondria are bacterial endosymbionts in animal cells that have their own, bacterial DNA. They reproduce on their own, not through the lizard DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA changes so slowly, it's good for identifying ancestry. The lizard DNA changed significantly. So far as I know, no one has tested whether or not the evolved population has become a new species. Speciation is a fairly common phenomenon, and even most YEC organizations now admit the fact of speciation.

Also 36 years may seem like a long time, but for a species that only live about 10 years and has 2-3 eggs per clutch and 3-5 clutches per year, males maturing after 1 year females after 2 years... Well that makes for a crap ton of generations in 36 years.

Yep. Probably seems like cheating to creationists. Populations with shorter generational times evolve faster, and so we can document greater evolutionary changes in them.

And I am pretty sure that if you took 2 random lizards with the new adaptations and kept breeding them together that you will not get a lizard like when they first came to the island. Because with natural selection traits are lost once they are bred out of the population.

Yes. Once a population has evolved to the degree that this one has, it will very rarely return to the state of the original population. Hence humans have evolved many traits in the past 10,000 years, but none of them brought us closer to archaic H. sapiens or H. erectus.

Your evidence and experiments are trash

They are just reality. Well-documented and great examples of evolution in action. That's how it works.

 

[Barbarian]

Now evolution is only a theory and gravity is a law.

No. A law is merely what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. Kepler's laws, for example, predicted the effects of gravity, but did not explain why it happens.

Newton's theory of gravitation (Newton correctly called it a theory) not only predicts effects of gravity, but explains why it happens. Hence, he moved gravity from a simple law (predicting motions of planets) to a theory, thus making it useful for understanding the motion of the moon, of comets, and even apples falling from trees. A theory is much stronger than a law. To be a theory, a scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions which must be repeatedly verified by observation.

There is no denying gravity its a fact.

As is evolution. You're confusing the phenomena (gravity, evolution) with the theories that explain them.

Evolution will never be anything more than a misguided theory.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There is a theory that explains how it works. Two different things.

English Definition of Theory​

A popular online dictionary defines a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” This is an adequate definition for the word as commonly used in the English language. The fact that the theorist has not researched this theory or even backed it up with evidence does not change the fact that it is a theory in the sense of the English definition.

Scientific Definition of Theory​

According to the same dictionary, another definition of theory is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.” An example of this type of theory is the general theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein in 1916. This is the scientific definition of the word theory, which holds an important distinction from the English definition: a scientific theory must be backed-up with evidence, must be peer-reviewed, and must have passed a rigorous testing process. According to Wikipedia, “a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments.” The article continues stating that “scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.”

The Scientific Method​

Suppose that you observed some phenomena and formulated an idea to explain it. In English, you could describe this idea as a theory. In science, this idea would be called a hypothesis. If you wanted to call it a scientific theory you would need to repeatedly develop predictions, gather data to test these predictions, and iteratively refine your hypothesis based on this data. After many iterations, you would submit your hypothesis to the scientific community. If any scientist could disprove your idea, it would be rejected and remain a hypothesis. If no scientist could disprove your idea, it would be accepted and become a scientific theory. This process is known as the scientific method, and has been simplified for the sake of brevity.

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

 

[Moseme]

No. As you saw, the lizards evolved a new digestive organ (spiral valve) larger head and jaws (for better eating plant matter) and new behaviors (less territorial, because less predatory feeding). A surprisingly rapid evolution of new structures and behaviors. The DNA samples were of mitochondrial DNA, not the lizard DNA. Mitochondria are bacterial endosymbionts in animal cells that have their own, bacterial DNA. They reproduce on their own, not through the lizard DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA changes so slowly, it's good for identifying ancestry. The lizard DNA changed significantly. So far as I know, no one has tested whether or not the evolved population has become a new species. Speciation is a fairly common phenomenon, and even most YEC organizations now admit the fact of speciation.



Yep. Probably seems like cheating to creationists. Populations with shorter generational times evolve faster, and so we can document greater evolutionary changes in them.



Yes. Once a population has evolved to the degree that this one has, it will very rarely return to the state of the original population. Hence humans have evolved many traits in the past 10,000 years, but none of them brought us closer to archaic H. sapiens or H. erectus.


They are just reality. Well-documented and great examples of evolution in action. That's how it works.

Again you are trying to present horrible evidence as if it were law. I am going to call you out on this everytime.

The mitochondria endosymbiotic theory is again just a theory. Worse than that it is a theory that cannot be scientifically tested. On top of that the DNA that they extracted from from the lizards came from their tail clippings and the DNA of the lizards is exactly the same as it was originally. It does not matter which traits emerged from their gene pool, it is the same species of lizard. The most that you can say is that it is a new subspecies. But macro evolution is argued on the family level of taxonomy.

Its not just the lifespans of the organism that determines how fast generations pass on information but also how quickly they reproduce as well. And in all that there has been absolutely no instance of macro evolution occurring.
Take rabbits for example. They are the fastest reproducing animal. Males sexually mature at 6 weeks, females 2-3 months and they life 1-2 years. Females have 4-5 babbies per litter and can concieve immediately after giving birth, so a female can have a new litter approximately every 28 days making 13 litters a year. You can find rabbit in every biome from Arctic to desert. And despite all of the different environments that they find themselves in and how fast they can pass on their traits to new generations, rabbits still only give birth to rabbits. If macro evolution were to occur anywhere it would be with rabbits and it doesn't. All we ever see is micro evolution occurring as natural selection breeds out traits losing them and making the species less genetically diverse. That is reality.

 

[Moseme]

No. A law is merely what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances. Kepler's laws, for example, predicted the effects of gravity, but did not explain why it happens.

Newton's theory of gravitation (Newton correctly called it a theory) not only predicts effects of gravity, but explains why it happens. Hence, he moved gravity from a simple law (predicting motions of planets) to a theory, thus making it useful for understanding the motion of the moon, of comets, and even apples falling from trees. A theory is much stronger than a law. To be a theory, a scientific hypothesis must make testable predictions which must be repeatedly verified by observation.


As is evolution. You're confusing the phenomena (gravity, evolution) with the theories that explain them.


Evolution is an observed phenomenon. There is a theory that explains how it works. Two different things.

English Definition of Theory​

A popular online dictionary defines a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” This is an adequate definition for the word as commonly used in the English language. The fact that the theorist has not researched this theory or even backed it up with evidence does not change the fact that it is a theory in the sense of the English definition.

Scientific Definition of Theory​

According to the same dictionary, another definition of theory is “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.” An example of this type of theory is the general theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein in 1916. This is the scientific definition of the word theory, which holds an important distinction from the English definition: a scientific theory must be backed-up with evidence, must be peer-reviewed, and must have passed a rigorous testing process. According to Wikipedia, “a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments.” The article continues stating that “scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.”

The Scientific Method​

Suppose that you observed some phenomena and formulated an idea to explain it. In English, you could describe this idea as a theory. In science, this idea would be called a hypothesis. If you wanted to call it a scientific theory you would need to repeatedly develop predictions, gather data to test these predictions, and iteratively refine your hypothesis based on this data. After many iterations, you would submit your hypothesis to the scientific community. If any scientist could disprove your idea, it would be rejected and remain a hypothesis. If no scientist could disprove your idea, it would be accepted and become a scientific theory. This process is known as the scientific method, and has been simplified for the sake of brevity.

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

Evolution is not a fact. If it were we would not be arguing about it. Now one ever ever argues about the law of gravity. Also there is only one explanation for how gravity works and that is mass attracts other mass and the more mass an object has the stronger its attractive force. However, theories are in proven, they are not fact. That is why people argue over them and why there are so many theories trying to explain the same subjects. Darwin himself had 5 theories to explain evolution. There is also divergent, convergent, and parallel theories. There is orthogenesis (won't even begin to show how many theories fit under pathogenesis but your theistic evolution is found here) and Darwinian evolution. There is gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. So many different opinions and no evidence to show who is right or wrong.

Again I am not clicking on any links.

 

[Barbarian]

Again you are trying to present horrible evidence as if it were law.

As you see, it's just facts. That's how it is. No point in denial.

The mitochondria endosymbiotic theory is again just a theory.

Not until recently; there was considerable evidence for it, but not quite enough to qualify as a settled theory. The mitochondria look like bacteria, with bacterial membranes, their own circular (bacterial) DNA, and other features. But we didn't really have an example of endosymbiosis being observed to evolve. Now we have at least two observed cases. Would you like to learn about that?

On top of that the DNA that they extracted from from the lizards came from their tail clippings and the DNA of the lizards is exactly the same as it was originally.

The mitochondrial DNA is the same. However, as you learned, mitochondrial DNA is just the way mitochondria reproduce in cells. It's not the DNA of the organism itself.