• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
That is an incorrect statement. The genetic code allows for continued variation through multiple means. The rate of variation may have slowed down but the ability for new variation continues one and is never lost. That is basic to the genetic structure and function.

That's what you keep telling yourself in order to maintain your system of belief..... Yet the more breeds we produce, the less variation exists in every breed.... It has slowed, because it is reaching the end of its variation to produce new breeds. You can of course keep claiming in opposition to the observation, that is totally your right to have whatever faith you choose....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Define life. Before you go popping off simplistic answers, you should know that science does not agree on a single all-encompassing definition of life.
Science doesn't agree even on how life formed, nor in the processes of evolution itself.... So you pointing to the fact that every person has their own opinions not in line with every other person just weakens your case, not strengthens it...... They can't even agree on what a species is, despite supposedly being able to explain to us the "origin of species".....

And the kicker is evolutionists always complain creationists don't have on definition of Kind (2 or 3 of them) while science has over 26 definitions of species and can't even agree within those 26 what a species is.... So why accept the answers of people apparently more confused than others????
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Sigh...... Claiming conspiracy is usually the first sign someone is in massive denial of the actual facts.

The only one claiming conspiracy is you.... They simply believe what they say is true, regardless of the fact that the test can not be used in any court of law to show relationship....

You are the one claiming that the vast majority of scientists that study the history of life, the earth, and the universe are telling us things that are so wrong, even somebody with your (obviously very limited) knowledge can see.

That either means they are stupid or lying. Which do you think it is?

Despite your claim this (what you believe to be similar gene) does not produce egg yolk in humans, so it really isn't similar at all, is it....... you just see an "appearance" of similarity.....

I suggest you actually read the article. This is just one example of "fossil genes" predicted by common decent. The evidence for common decent is overwhelming and beyond reasonable doubt because there are so many different lines of evidence that confirm each other.

Remember, if evolution was wrong genetics could have falsified it. Instead, we could now make the case from genetics alone.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
The "Were you there to observe " and the "No one was there to see it" "arguments" are really silly.

Where I live, there is a huge oak tree. I was not there when it sprouted from a seed. But I know it must have sprouted from a seed. If I cut it down and examine it (well, have it examined, since I am not an expert in reading tree rings) I can determine when the seed sprouted. It doesn't matter that no one saw the seed sprout.
Ahh yes, the old bait and switch routine. Bait people with a known process of tree rings, then imply you can count the age of life by using totally random processes.....

If you say so.... But had that tree grown rings randomly each year, your claims to accurately dating it would be about as valid as your claims to being able to accurately date life..... worthless..... So was the tree ring growth random, it would indeed matter if anyone saw the seed sprout, as that would be the only way to know how old the tree was.....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
You are the one claiming that the vast majority of scientists that study the history of life, the earth, and the universe are telling us things that are so wrong, even somebody with your (obviously very limited) knowledge can see.

That either means they are stupid or lying. Which do you think it is?
Funny how you only offer two choices, even though my answer contained the third choice you never bothered to listen to. They believe..... They are not lying, nor stupid, they simply believe they are right... As Ptolemy and his followers believed they were right. Ptolemy was certainly not lying, nor was he stupid. He simply believed his answer was the correct answer.... Funny how evolutionists always try to misrepresent what someone says and then not include what they said in the list of possible solutions....

So according to your conspiracy theory, was Ptolemy lying or stupid????? Or do we have a third choice and he simply believed he was correct based upon his observations????? The fact he was absolutely wrong does not make him a liar or stupid.... just wrong.....


I suggest you actually read the article. This is just one example of "fossil genes" predicted by common decent. The evidence for common decent is overwhelming and beyond reasonable doubt because there are so many different lines of evidence that confirm each other.

Remember, if evolution was wrong genetics could have falsified it. Instead, we could now make the case from genetics alone.
Right, as long as like from the above response you boil it down to only the two choices while ignoring the third option.......
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
This is for all you "but it's never been observed" broken records. I look forward to the various imminent strawmen, handwave-dismissals and willful misunderstandings.

An Unprecedentedly Thorough Evolution Experiment - The Atlantic

Very cool!
As time passed, many of the mice fell prey to owls, but after three months, the team returned and recaptured the ones that were left. Sure enough, they found that, compared with the average founding rodents, the average survivors were noticeably lighter in the light-sand enclosures, and darker in the dark-soil ones.

Through the deaths of the most conspicuous individuals, the survivors from two initially identical populations had shifted in different directions thanks to their different environments.

“It’s intuitive that if you match your background, you’re more likely to survive,” Hoekstra says. “But that’s been a just-so story for years.” This experiment showed that it matters—a lot."
"
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Funny how you only offer two choices, even though my answer contained the third choice you never bothered to listen to. They believe..... They are not lying, nor stupid, they simply believe they are right...

This is just silly. The idea that pretty much all the experts in a several fields have made an incredible series of mistakes that all happen to point to the same conclusion, is absurd.

It is made even more absurd when you claim to be able to see the mistakes and point them out on a non-specialist forum.

It is made even more absurd than that, when you include a young earth and universe - which involves more incredibly coincidental mistakes in totally unrelated fields.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Right, as long as like from the above response you boil it down to only the two choices while ignoring the third option.......

This is a case in point. Genetics came along and (according to you) made another coincidental set of mistakes that just happened to confirm all the previous mistakes.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Very cool!
As time passed, many of the mice fell prey to owls, but after three months, the team returned and recaptured the ones that were left. Sure enough, they found that, compared with the average founding rodents, the average survivors were noticeably lighter in the light-sand enclosures, and darker in the dark-soil ones.

Through the deaths of the most conspicuous individuals, the survivors from two initially identical populations had shifted in different directions thanks to their different environments.

“It’s intuitive that if you match your background, you’re more likely to survive,” Hoekstra says. “But that’s been a just-so story for years.” This experiment showed that it matters—a lot."
"
Of course there is no reason at all for a "random" process to be able to know it needs to change the mouse to match its background. Sounded like they were advocating ID....

It is intuitive indeed, an intelligent mind can easily infer that matching one's background would aid survival... A totally random process, not so much....
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Of course there is no reason at all for a "random" process to be able to know it needs to change the mouse to match its background. Sounded like they were advocating ID....

It is intuitive indeed, an intelligent mind can easily infer that matching one's background would aid survival... A totally random process, not so much....

You don't see that as evolution? If dark mice survive on soil that is dark there would be more dark baby mice, don't you think? Seems simple enough to me.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
This is just silly. The idea that pretty much all the experts in a several fields have made an incredible series of mistakes that all happen to point to the same conclusion, is absurd.

It is made even more absurd when you claim to be able to see the mistakes and point them out on a non-specialist forum.

It is made even more absurd than that, when you include a young earth and universe - which involves more incredibly coincidental mistakes in totally unrelated fields.
50697450_2065002676900446_3712071218103320576_n.jpg
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
This is just silly. The idea that pretty much all the experts in a several fields have made an incredible series of mistakes that all happen to point to the same conclusion, is absurd.
And yet all the experts of the world (untill one man came along) made a series of incredible mistakes that all happened to point to the same conclussion and drew epicycles upon epicycles... When you are done with your epicycles let me know....

In fact it has happened several time throughout history.

The next big mistake happened when they asserted our galaxy was the universe. But thankfully in each period of human folley because they think they are correct when they are not, individuals challenge the prevailing system of belief....

It is made even more absurd when you claim to be able to see the mistakes and point them out on a non-specialist forum.

It is made even more absurd than that, when you include a young earth and universe - which involves more incredibly coincidental mistakes in totally unrelated fields.
No more mistakes than Ptolemy's incorrect deductions based upon actual observations...

So what would be absurd would be thinking that this time we got it all figured out, even if every other generation thought the same thing and were always wrong.....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
This is a case in point. Genetics came along and (according to you) made another coincidental set of mistakes that just happened to confirm all the previous mistakes.
Ptolemy came along and just happened to make another coincidental set of mistakes that happened to confirm all the previous mistakes about the earth being the center.....
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Ahh yes, I wondered when the fallacy of argument from authority would rear its ugly head.

If that was the case we would still be living in an earth centered universe..... The "experts" said Copernicus was uninformed too. Thankfully we ended up ignoring all those "experts".....
Also known as the Galileo fallacy... i.e. just because Galileo was correct when experts told him he was wrong doesn't mean you are.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Ahh yes, I wondered when the fallacy of argument from authority would rear its ugly head.

If that was the case we would still be living in an earth centered universe..... The "experts" said Copernicus was uninformed too. Thankfully we ended up ignoring all those "experts".....
Also, seems kind of short sighted to condemn arguments from authority, since you obviously expect people to accept your self determined status as one.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Also, seems kind of short sighted to condemn arguments from authority, since you obviously expect people to accept your self determined status as one.
Not at all, I expect people to think logically> I no more accept the opinions of a priest as gospel than I do a scientist. We got our own brains capable of rational thought. Use it and stop parroting what you are told to believe.... just because you were told to believe it.....

As the experimenters said: "“It’s intuitive that if you match your background, you’re more likely to survive,” Hoekstra says. “But that’s been a just-so story for years.” This experiment showed that it matters—a lot."

Yet random processes would not know this need existed..... Only an intelligence would "intuitively understand it matters ---- a lot."
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And yet all the experts of the world (untill one man came along) made a series of incredible mistakes that all happened to point to the same conclussion and drew epicycles upon epicycles... When you are done with your epicycles let me know....

If you seriously think that all the interlocking evidence, from different fields, for evolution (not to mention an old earth and universe) are in any way comparable with people trying to piece together the motions of planets in the sky, you know even less than it seems from your posts.

It's not just that people think they probably have the best theory, it's that the evidence coming from multiple different sources confirms the conclusion. It is the combined weight of evidence that makes the conclusion so robust as to be beyond reasonable doubt. There cannot possibly be one mistake or new insight (like earth not being at the centre) that could change everything. Multiple different, and totally independent things, would all have to be wrong in exactly the 'right' way.

That's why claims of an honest mistakes are so silly - especially when the people claiming it are obviously ill-informed and yet claim to be able to see these mistakes all the experts have missed - and missed for decades and decades - despite being told about them.

If creationists had the sort of obvious points they claim to - then it simply cannot be the case that the experts are just making mistakes - they would have been shown the problems and decided to ignore them. Which brings us right back to a conspiracy or stupidity.
 
Top