Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Things like colour mutations can happen suddenly but I doubt strongly that a new species can evolve over a couple of generations.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

Mutations may occur rather quickly. The expression of those changes wouldn't be seen until the next generation. And speciation may never happen in a way for anyone to see it. It is very likely that it will never be observed at the moment of change. Since that would have to be established and on continuum, where would that be?

That is a very good point. Insects are very temperature driven. I used to determine dates of hatch for batches of insect eggs based on the temperatures they were kept at during incubation. Higher temperatures and the eggs mature more rapidly. Lower temperatures and they slow down. It's not sudden, it does take time. But it isn't that long either for many species. Some can remain eggs for an entire season at the right temperature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Things like colour mutations can happen suddenly but I doubt strongly that a new species can evolve over a couple of generations.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

A single change doesn't mean speciation. The species concepts I'm seeing bandied about here by others is pretty poor. It is as if they have never studied these things and make stuff up that they like and then, pow! it's a fact.

It doesn't work that way, but you can't tell people that believe they know everything and no longer need to learn and believe that everyone else knows nothing and are always wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, the famous fly experiment. They still talk about that at the Nobel Committee meetings I go to.

The identity of the flies would have to be determined. Specimens collected, mounted, labeled and stored available for anyone to examine. Are the flies all one species or several? That would need to be established. You'd have to see if this behavior is common to all members of a species or just some. You would want to review the literature. I know what others have done and found out doesn't interest @cladking, and he doesn't think of it as real, but you would have to review any prior work.

There is a lot that would have to be done. The main thing that would need to be done is to accept the fact that flies already land upside down. Killing some to ensure that others land upside down changes nothing.

Mutations are random and rarely lead to continued success. If ever. I did research for my biology class about fruit flies and mutations. Two-headed flies don't procreate too often, do they?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My only point is that it's not only creationists, crackpots, crazies, and cranks who don't support Darwin but also tenured biologists, scientists, and peers who don't support him. I personally don't believe in "punctuated equilibrium" either but this is less wrong than Darwin.

The professional biologists here accept the theory of evolution. That leaves...?

There are very few scientists that reject the theory of evolution. The controversy isn't about rejecting it, but modifying it. You really don't understand that do you.

 

[YoursTrue]

A single change doesn't mean speciation. The species concepts I'm seeing bandied about here by others is pretty poor. It is as if they have never studied these things and make stuff up that they like and then, pow! it's a fact.

It doesn't work that way, but you can't tell people that believe they know everything and no longer need to learn and believe that everyone else knows nothing and is always wrong.

Thanks. I am glad to have read these arguments, specifying words such as "speciation," etc. I also enjoyed looking at the "tree" some surmise all those different types, kinds, species, etc. came from. Have a good one!!

 

[YoursTrue]

The professional biologists here accept the theory of evolution. That leaves...?

There are very few scientists that reject the theory of evolution. The controversy isn't about rejecting it, but modifying it. You really don't understand that do you.

What I have seen is that there are those professionals that are roundly rejected by many because they more than question the theory. I am sooo glad, once again, to have read the objections and pronouncements for and against the theory of -- evolution. Thank you!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Things like colour mutations can happen suddenly but I doubt strongly that a new species can evolve over a couple of generations.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

Another interesting thing to point out about the alleged fly experiment is that it is an exercise in selection. Even if it is ultimately meaningless for a result, it was an attempt at selection.

 

[John53]

Oh, the famous fly experiment. They still talk about that at the Nobel Committee meetings I go to.

The identity of the flies would have to be determined. Specimens collected, mounted, labeled and stored available for anyone to examine. Are the flies all one species or several? That would need to be established. You'd have to see if this behavior is common to all members of a species or just some. You would want to review the literature. I know what others have done and found out doesn't interest @cladking, and he doesn't think of it as real, but you would have to review any prior work.

There is a lot that would have to be done. The main thing that would need to be done is to accept the fact that flies already land upside down. Killing some to ensure that others land upside down changes nothing.

I'm reminded of the eggsperiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm reminded of the eggsperiment.

That's another one waiting on the short list for the Nobel Prize.

Who can forget problem, solution, solution! And all from dropping eggs through tissue paper. That's like 500% probability at least.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm reminded of the eggsperiment.

Maybe I should drop flies upside down through tissue paper? What about ballistic upside down flies?! That would be so cool. A fly shooter using compressed gas and a modified rifle. I could breed for supersonic flies. Any fly that leaves the barrel (the bottleneck) and survives could be bred together. I'll have to make sure that there isn't anything that favors one sex of another. I've had problems breeding all male insects in the past, but I think I forgot to include the Vanderzant's vitamin mixture in the diet. I'm pretty sure that was the problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm reminded of the eggsperiment.

I've learned a lot from these discussions.

The Lenski experiment failed because Lenski didn't buy agar in bulk. Fish are still fish. To be fair some of them were also recently dinner. And if you say "Denis Noble says" three times in a mirror he will appear and perform the entire parrot sketch from Monty Python.

Science is so cool.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could well be all that's really irrelevant for
someone who just wants attention.

I think that is what it all really is. Someone wanting to be seen as relevant in these discussions.

 

[John53]

A single change doesn't mean speciation. The species concepts I'm seeing bandied about here by others is pretty poor. It is as if they have never studied these things and make stuff up that they like and then, pow! it's a fact.

It doesn't work that way, but you can't tell people that believe they know everything and no longer need to learn and believe that everyone else knows nothing and are always wrong.

If it did work that way and the fly experiment worked I wonder why we're not breeding all sorts of helpful critters. Cows with arms that milk themselves. Chickens with a basket that collect their own eggs. The possibilities are endless.

 

[YoursTrue]

If it did work that way and the fly experiment worked I wonder why we're not breeding all sorts of helpful critters. Cows with arms that milk themselves. Chickens with a basket that collect their own eggs. The possibilities are endless.

Good fodder for a sci-fi story. Hey, why not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it did work that way and the fly experiment worked I wonder why we're not breeding all sorts of helpful critters. Cows with arms that milk themselves. Chickens with a basket that collect their own eggs. The possibilities are endless.

The possibilities are endless. With genetic engineering, we don't have to stop at variation within a species. We can find genes that produce interesting results from different domains and kingdoms of living things.

A dog with a pouch like a kangaroo so it can carry stuff when you walk it. A guard dog with porcupine quills for enhanced security. A porcupine octopus that can write using its ink and quills.

Of course, the porcupine octopus is still going to be a porcupine octopus.

 

[John53]

The possibilities are endless. With genetic engineering, we don't have to stop at variation within a species. We can find genes that produce interesting results from different domains and kingdoms of living things.

A dog with a pouch like a kangaroo so it can carry stuff when you walk it. A guard dog with porcupine quills for enhanced security. A porcupine octopus that can write using its ink and quills.

Of course, the porcupine octopus is still going to be a porcupine octopus.

I need something that can help me edit photos. I'm going through all my pictures and re-editing them with the new software. I'm quickly going insane and cross eyed. The good news is I've found 2 new species in my collection that I didn't know I'd photographed. I must have not bothered checking the photos I'd taken.

 

[John53]

The Bible makes it clear that hellfire is a distorted, once-again imagined misinterpretation. Sad.

What's your proof?

 

[gnostic]

Plus, you have never presented any experiments from 40,000 years old science.

Ancient science didn't need experiment. It was not based on experiment as ours is.

Ancient science was based on the logic of nature incarnate in the human brain and its metaphysics was Ancient Language itself.

You have misunderstood my statement.

I am ASKING YOU, cladking, I am asking you to present evidence that such science exist or evidence that such translatable language that contain "scientific knowledge".

I am know that there are no such evidence, because you are making extraordinary claims about these prehistorical people, and extraordinary claims would require evidence.

I am sure that you heard of saying "claim without evidence can be dismiss without evidence".

You frequently make outrageous claims that you cannot support.

You haven't shown any evidence that these so-called ancient people have advanced language and advanced knowledge of science. You don't even know that they think logically, because there are no written language to express such thinking. There are no writings at all, 40,000 years ago, so how can possibly know they think logically.

And you seemed to forget the important part of any science, is being able to explain what nature is and explain how nature works. So, since there are no recording device to show they have language that can express vocally, then you would need WRITING where they have shared their thoughts or share what they feel. And I know for fact that such writing won't exist for another 34,000 years.

Without such writings, there are no way to show they think logically or "metaphysically".

Unless you can show evidence they have such capabilities, I can simply show that your claims have no merits, without the needs to disprove you with evidence.

The claimants of extraordinary claims, are the one who has the responsibility of "burden of proof", not with the people disagreeing with you.

I know you for some years now, cladking, I know that you like to make stories and belief that don't exist, so I am not expecting you show any evidence whatsoever. What I predicted is that you will either ignore the request for evidence (which you don't have) OR, you would just make some more unsubstantiated claims on top of the older claims.

Both are the tactics you would resort to, whenever anyone ask for evidence from you.

 

[Hamilton]

There are very few scientists that reject the theory of evolution.

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin, attempting to explain varieties (genera, families, types, or as Darwin said, "kinds", etc.) or "body plans" or structures (surface and deep) of life forms. I am partial to the Third Way and Dependency Graph, coupled with Roger Tarbutton’s Natural Genetic Engineering. Actuality is probably to be expressesed by a combination of developing views.

 

[John53]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

Have you got evidence of this?