The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, except there is a far, far more obvious set of pre-conceived ideas and beliefs on one side of this than the other. Here's a hint: it isn't with the vast majority who have all sorts of religious views and come from many different cultures and backgrounds.

I know it isn’t with those with different religious views and come from many backgrounds. But is with those that come from many backgrounds but are all trained to answer within their little box, unable to think outside it..... they can see dogs mating right in front of their eyes producing sudden variation then propose a never once observed phenomenon is responsible in the past and they must have been separate species, despite the observational evidence....

Don't forget that the religious vested interest groups, by another staggering coincidence, only manage to find problems in the science that contradicts their religious dogmas. What's more they find problems with all the areas of science that contradict their religious beliefs.

Who says I agree with them either????? The side I presented has been put forth by neither side, despite it fitting all observations....

Many of them also openly admit that they will dispute any evidence that doesn't fit with what they regard as revealed truth. By their own admission, they are not following the scientific method. By their own admission, they are openly and consciously employing the sort of bias you accuse others of.

Like Dawkins who was willing to concede aliens might have created us as long as the aliens came from random causes? So he doesn’t really object to the design he sees, just the “designer”

But actual scientists, with real evidence, who manage to overturn current theories are heroes. The same cannot be said for those who question the religious dogma of their cults...

They are only hero’s to the next generation that grows up with the new theory, not the existing one they had to fight tooth and nail against and be ridiculed for until it became the new theory.... The existing ones hate them and call them quacks until it is forced upon them....

Kristian Birkeland a fine example. Ridiculed for over 40 years and then the ones claiming he was wrong and ridiculing him adopt his theory as their own...

J Harlen Bretz another in a countless series of challenging the status quo....

 

[ratiocinator]

I know it isn’t with those with different religious views and come from many backgrounds. But is with those that come from many backgrounds but are all trained to answer within their little box, unable to think outside it.....

That is much more a characteristic of religion than science.

Who says I agree with them either?????

You're arguing here against evolution and you were arguing against an old earth on another thread (Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old))...

They are only hero’s to the next generation that grows up with the new theory, not the existing one they had to fight tooth and nail against and be ridiculed for until it became the new theory....

Hum... Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohr, Pauli...

The fact of the matter is that it's blindingly obvious where the bias is. You (and creationists in general) are accusing most of the world's experts, in multiple different fields, of making obvious, simple mistakes. But only when it comes to science that relates to their religious views - somehow, the rest of science has been spared from all the bias you accuse them of in those specific areas...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is much more a characteristic of religion than science.

You mean they are more consistent within their beliefs....

You're arguing here against evolution and you were arguing against an old earth on another thread (Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old))...

And yet both are supported by the data, not the status quo. The observational evidence points to no change of species. The fact of time dilation supports an incorrect conclusion of age.

Both arguments rely on observational and experimental data, not in maintaining the status quo just to maintain falsified theories.....

Hum... Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac, Bohr, Pauli...

Yes, they all agree with me that time dilation is real..... Planck even told you that truth isn’t accepted as fact against prevailing theory until the old believers die out....

In fact people like you made Einstein mad.....

“"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."” Albert Einstein

The fact of the matter is that it's blindingly obvious where the bias is. You (and creationists in general) are accusing most of the world's experts, in multiple different fields, of making obvious, simple mistakes. But only when it comes to science that relates to their religious views - somehow, the rest of science has been spared from all the bias you accuse them of in those specific areas...

Yes it is blindingly obvious. To those not ignoring the sudden appearance of a new form from mating with no missing common ancestors or change in species and not dismissing time dilation despite the proven fact it exists.....

Science isn’t the problem, it’s you calling pseudoscience like random comparison science when the science that has been proven to work in showing relation has no randomness to it in it’s comparison... Some unable to comprehend the two have nothing in common but a bait and switch tactic....

 

[ratiocinator]

You mean they are more consistent within their beliefs....

That's what happens with blind faith and ignoring evidence.

And yet both are supported by the data, not the status quo.

You have neither demonstrated this nor provided any reason why almost all the world's experts would be unable to see it.

Yes, they all agree with me that time dilation is real.....

You ignored my point. They were people who discovered new science, using actual evidence, and who were held in high regard because of it. If somebody could actually overturn evolution or the age of the earth, with actual evidence and real science, they would be too.

BTW time dilation is real but you seem to know less about that than you do about evolution (which is saying something).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's what happens with blind faith and ignoring evidence.

Agreed. So stop ignoring how new forms arise and time dilation, and stop blindly following....

You have neither demonstrated this nor provided any reason why almost all the world's experts would be unable to see it.

Sure I have, but you are in that confirmation bias box....

You ignored my point. They were people who discovered new science, using actual evidence, and who were held in high regard because of it. If somebody could actually overturn evolution or the age of the earth, with actual evidence and real science, they would be too.

Those scientists are trying, but they keep getting ridiculed and labeled as quaks and the data dismissed....

BTW time dilation is real but you seem to know less about that than you do about evolution (which is saying something).

That’s what those in the confirmation dissonance bubble tell themselves to lessen their anxiety......

But all you all keep doing is arguing the twins argument who couldn’t even tell his own clocks were changing even as they did, and thought instead it was the stationary twins clocks that changed, despite his being stationary......

So one of us doesn’t know much. Probably the one arguing the twins argument while his clocks change before his eyes. Just as clocks at the pole and equator tick at different rates, but you will continue to call different duration ticks of time seconds even when you know they change as you go from one location to another. Because you can’t tell from within the frame under observation that they change.... even when they do.....

 

[Jose Fly]

No it isn't, that is completely false. No relatedness test or test for a suspects guilt relies on randomly matching any portion to any other portion of the genome. Stop deluding yourself.....

I'm afraid not. The test that tests for relatedness does a one on one comparison. It at no time EVER did a random comparison where any portion of the genome was matched to any other portion. And at no time did they cut out 13% of one genome and 26% of the other, before doing that random matching....


yes, it doesn't change the fact that those claimed shared sequences can be in two completely different locations and therefore actually share no similarity in function at all. Pseudoscience......


I have several times.... You just keep ignoring that one is a random comparison where any portion is matched to any other random portion, while the test used in any court is not.....


Or it could be that you keep trying to ignore that a random matching test has nothing to do with the test known to show relatedness which does not rely on randomness. And that you will never be able to make that inconvenient fact go away, no matter how much you deny or preach the PR spiel.....

You're just plain wrong.

[Applications of Alu family in forensic DNA analysis]. - PubMed - NCBI

DNA Analysis – The Forensics Library

And don't get the impression that this is just limited to one specific type of repeating sequence. The same comparative methodology when applied to, for example, tandem repeats is extremely useful in forensic analysis. And as with SINEs, the same method shows that humans are related to other primates.

But again, this is why I usually don't waste time showing science to creationists. All you folks do is make up bizarre reasons to deny it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're just plain wrong.

[Applications of Alu family in forensic DNA analysis]. - PubMed - NCBI

DNA Analysis – The Forensics Library

And don't get the impression that this is just limited to one specific type of repeating sequence. The same comparative methodology when applied to, for example, tandem repeats is extremely useful in forensic analysis. And as with SINEs, the same method shows that humans are related to other primates.

But again, this is why I usually don't waste time showing science to creationists. All you folks do is make up bizarre reasons to deny it.

Sigh......

You still refuse to admit to yourself that the forensic DNA tests do not rely on comparing one portion of the found DNA to another random portion of the suspects genome...

Nor do tests for relationship....

You are in denial.......

Leave wonderland and come back to reality.

Not one forensic DNA test has ever used random comparison of one portion of the genome to another to prove guilt or innocence, nor has relationship testing ever done the same.....

Learn your science....

It’s a good excuse as to why you don’t present science, but sadly they don’t randomly compare those DNA fingerprints to just any portion of the genome..... they match because they are in the same location on both samples, not randomly compared to a match anywhere....

If they randomly matched a portion of my DNA to any part of yours, I could be convicted of a crime you committed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sigh......

You still refuse to admit to yourself that the forensic DNA tests do not rely on comparing one portion of the found DNA to another random portion of the suspects genome...

What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about comparing randomly chosen portions of genomes?

they don’t randomly compare those DNA fingerprints to just any portion of the genome

No one said they did.

If they randomly matched a portion of my DNA to any part of yours, I could be convicted of a crime you committed.

Then show where anyone has described forensic genetic testing as randomly matching portions of genomes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about comparing randomly chosen portions of genomes?


No one said they did.


Then show where anyone has described forensic genetic testing as randomly matching portions of genomes.

Except that is precisely what they do when they compare the Chimp and human genomes to claim relationship...... Com[pare one portion of the genome to a totally random portion of the other genome......Pseudoscience from your own admission since you seem to be aware that random comparison is NOT done in forensic science or relationship testing..... Then go right ahead on pitch the PR bait and switch because one has proven to be valid, so must the other be, when this is not a logical conclusion or random matching would be allowed in forensic testing to prove guilt or relationship....

You seem to be confusing my stance. I totally agree that the forensic DNA and relationship testing that is non random is valid. It is your claim that the pseudoscientific test of randomly comparing Chimp and Human genome and then claiming it is valid that is highly objectionable, since no court of law would allow any such thing....

 

[Jose Fly]

Except that is precisely what they do when they compare the Chimp and human genomes to claim relationship...... Com[pare one portion of the genome to a totally random portion of the other genome

Then show any instance where the methodology I cited involves comparing random portions of genomes.

You keep saying that's what's going on, now it's time for you to show it to be so.

Then go right ahead on pitch the PR bait and switch because one has proven to be valid, so must the other be, when this is not a logical conclusion or random matching would be allowed in forensic testing to prove guilt or relationship.

You're flat out wrong. The method I cited does not involve comparing "random portions" of genomes at all.

You seem to be confusing my stance. I totally agree that the forensic DNA and relationship testing that is non random is valid.

Then by the same token, you should be fine with doing the exact same thing to see if humans are related to other primates.

It is your claim that the pseudoscientific test of randomly comparing Chimp and Human genome

Stop right there.

Your next post needs to contain either a demonstration of where this "randomly comparing" is going on, or a retraction of your claim.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then show any instance where the methodology I cited involves comparing random portions of genomes.

You keep saying that's what's going on, now it's time for you to show it to be so.

You just admitted you understood it wasn't random with forensic or chimp.....

You're flat out wrong. The method I cited does not involve comparing "random portions" of genomes at all.

Apparently you are unaware that the BLAST uses a heuristic algorithm and only looks for matches, not where the match lies in the genome...... It finds any match, regardless of it's actual position in the genome.....

Then by the same token, you should be fine with doing the exact same thing to see if humans are related to other primates.

Then you should have no problem running a standard relationship test without using algorithms that just search for matches without caring about location to prove guilt....

Stop right there.

Your next post needs to contain either a demonstration of where this "randomly comparing" is going on, or a retraction of your claim.

It's going on every single time your algorithm matches the three letter match it looks for in any part of the genome...... You just don't understand how chimp/human comparisons are done....

 

[Jose Fly]

You just admitted you understood it wasn't random with forensic or chimp.....

Apparently you are unaware that the BLAST uses a heuristic algorithm and only looks for matches, not where the match lies in the genome...... It finds any match, regardless of it's actual position in the genome.....

Then you should have no problem running a standard relationship test without using algorithms that just search for matches without caring about location to prove guilt....

It's going on every single time your algorithm matches the three letter match it looks for in any part of the genome...... You just don't understand how chimp/human comparisons are done....

Same as before....all you've done is make claims. I've got news for you. Things aren't so simply because you say they are.

Show where the specific methodology I cited involves comparing "random portions" of genomes. You do understand the difference between saying something is so and demonstrating it to be so, don't you?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You were given a description that actually matches observations. So I guess I will have to repeat it for the 4th time.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. As such every individual creature in the fossil record remains the same from the oldest fossil found for that creature until its extinction.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a new variation the Chinook. The Chinook is not seen anywhere in the record until this occurs. It appears suddenly.... As such every new creature they attempt to connect in the fossil record appears suddenly in the record.

But since they can’t observe mating from a pile of bones and ignore how new variations actually appear suddenly, not gradually over time..... They are led to the wrong conclusion that the Husky (insert fossil creature here) or the Mastiff (insert fossil creature here) evolved into the Chinook (insert fossil creature here).

When in reality the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. There was no missing ancestor, just the incorrect belief that evolution of one species into another exists. Because they incorrectly classify those bones in the fossil record as a separate species.

And then since you all continue to ignore what is happening right in front of your noses, you have to insist on missing common ancestors because of your incorrect belief that one species turns into many....

There are no missing common ancestors nor gaps because neither the Husky nor Mastiff split to become anything. They mated and produced the variation from mating......

As such I need not propose missing ancestors that can’t be found for any creature on any tree, or attempt to explain non-existent gaps where this missing ancestor split to become something else. Just accept observational facts of what actually happens in the real world versus fantasy theory......

You just don’t want to accept that your missing common ancestors are not needed because as we understand with the Husky and Mastiff there was never any separate species to begin with. Just incorrect classifications.... Nor do you want to abandon your mutations, despite the Grants telling you from actual observations of the real world that be genetic variation from mating was two to three magnitudes greater than mutation.....

When all you do is try to justify your beliefs with non-existent common ancestors based on the belief they were separate species to begin with, you end up with gaps where none existed and having to rely on Fairie Dust.....

But you’ll continue to ignore the real world as your cognitive dissonance keeps blinding you to the truth....

So your response to "stop strawmanning" is a strawman. Understood. I think we're done here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes it is blindingly obvious. To those not ignoring the sudden appearance of a new form from mating with no missing common ancestors or change in species and not dismissing time dilation despite the proven fact it exists.....

Science isn’t the problem, it’s you calling pseudoscience like random comparison science when the science that has been proven to work in showing relation has no randomness to it in it’s comparison... Some unable to comprehend the two have nothing in common but a bait and switch tactic....

Evolution does not say that animals suddenly give birth to a new form of anything. Animals always reproduce the same animal. A dog didn't suddenly give birth to a bird one day. That just isn't how it works.

Perhaps the reason you do not accept evolution is that you do not understand it. Maybe that is the problem. Science isn't the problem.