1. 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!

Featured The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Kangaroo Feathers, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,706
    Ratings:
    +11,232
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Copernicus' model was inferior to Ptolemy's in many ways. It wasn't until Kepler and Galileo that there was enough raw data for things to get sorted out. Getting away from circular motion and Aristotelian physics was key.

    In the same way, getting away from the old default creationist stance (which was universal prior to the development of biology as a science) was key to our increased understanding of life.

    Creationism isn't the *new* way of looking at things: it is the *old* way that was discarded because the evidence went against it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    What evidence????

    Fossils that remain the same for every single creature from the first fossil found for that creature until it goes extinct? That are only connected in imaginations by "missing" common ancestors?

    Bacteria that remain bacteria regardless of how many times they are mutated?

    Fruit flies that remain fruit flies regardless of how many time they are mutated?

    DNA tests that completely ignore the proven test that shows relationship and instead uses a method that relies on the complete random matching of unrelated portions of the genome to claim relationships????

    I see a lot of ignoring the evidence and claiming pseudoscience is science, but that's about it.....
     
  3. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Too fast? Every single creature in the fossil record remains the same as the first fossil found for that creature until it goes extinct. Your claimed relationships rely in every single case for every single tree for every single creature on "missing" common ancestors....

    What change??????

    Mutation restores nothing..... Mutation deletes and destroys...... The genome has a repair mechanism specifically for trying to repair against those mutations you claim are so beneficial. yet every single lifeform has a built in mechanism to try to stop the very thing you claim is the cause of improvement.... Because it isn't an improvement, but a degradation from a more complex genome and more fully functional to a degraded and less functional genome over time.....

    This is why the Grants understood through their observations of the real world versus theory and laboratory testing that it was "mating" that produced the variation...

    PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

    "Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

    because mating affects several loci at once while mutations affects a single loci and makes minimal difference... except to add errors over time..... But your pseudoscience has devolved so much that they now consider any permanent change to the genome a mutation, and so confuse all the changes brought about by mating as a mutation, when that is a natural built in function of the genome.....

    It is your flawed belief on the condition of the genome that leads to your error. it is not advancing from a less complex state to a more complex state, but from a more complex state to a less complex state. The genome already has within it all the potential variation ever observed....

    Once that variation is exhausted, the only path is continued existence as it is or extinction..... Even your own belief in time shows this as all fossil creatures remain exactly the same until the go extinct. the new forms do not come about by evolution, but by mating..... Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook, the husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff, and a new form not previously seen in the record comes into existence fully formed and functional. Neither the Husky nor that Mastiff evolved into the Chinook....

    The rest is simply incorrect classifications... In reality these.....

    [​IMG]

    Are no more different than these...

    [​IMG]

    Simply variation in breeds of the same respective species.......

    There is no evolution of one into another. They simply can not see what mated with what from a pile of bones, and so incorrectly assume that one split to become others.... Ignoring the evidence right before their eyes that Husky mates with Mastiff and a new form, the Chinook, comes suddenly into existence in the record where it never existed previously.... And so are led to assume incorrectly that one evolves into another when it couldn't be further from the reality.....
     
    #163 Justatruthseeker, Mar 9, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2019
  4. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    How about an all-encompassing definition for "god".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,952
    Ratings:
    +3,420
    And that is complete nonsense since we're talking about the same methodology.

    Yes it is. I explained how both methods work by looking for shared Alu sequences.

    More gibberish.

    Again, both methods work by looking for shared Alu sequences. You waving your arms and desperately shouting "they're different, they're different, they're different" doesn't change that fact.

    Fine, then explain the difference between the methodologies.

    Or it could be that you're just one more in a long, but dwindling, line of creationists who doesn't understand the material being discussed and thinks he can just make inconvenient facts go away by mere assertion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,346
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    nature
    You have a simplistic view of science. As complexity increases the problem of definitions increases. You also have underestimated Darwin's understanding. What he demonstrated incredible reasoning is the concept of how effective natural selection is as well as showing understanding of genetic drift long before genetics was understood. The problems in definition of species reflects the evolutionary theory against Intelligent design. If intelligent design were correct we would have no problem with the definition of species. So the problem with the definition supports evolution and argues against intelligent design. Science tries to be precise as much as it can but with dynamic complex biological systems its precision is less accurate because of the evolutionary influences on genetic expression. .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,346
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    nature
    Which god or goddess? Which interpretation? Which mythological story? Oh that's right the definition varies from person to person and how may variations on the definition could that represent - how many people are there. For a creationist to argue about the definition of species when the definition of god is fraught with the different views of the human population, they do not realize the absurdity of this argument. How many different form of Christianity are there currently? As many opinions as there are believers.
     
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,706
    Ratings:
    +11,232
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I find it very amusing you s while stating below that all the examples are of the same species even though they have a LOT of change.

    It is change. Some is beneficial, much is harmful. All that is required is that it be beneficial enough to allow for changes in populations over many generations. And *this* level of beneficial change is readily observed.



    Wow, that looks like quite a lot of change over time. Wait. Didn't you just say that all the fossils remained the same over the whole span of any species? Doesn't this directly contradict that claim?

    So which is it? Do the fossils stay the same? Or do they change?

    True, we cannot tell who mated with who from the bones. But we also know *when* the different fossilized animals died, and so can watch how those variations change over time. And the amount of change is large enough that any sensible person would say they are different species, especially when they are in different parts of the world.

    The funny thing is that the amount of variation you want to allow within a 'kind' is plenty to put humans and chimps into the same 'kind'.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Are you claiming God is a scientific definition and therefore needs to be precise????
     
  10. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    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.....
     
  11. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    I find it amazing that even though a pug has a lot of change over time from the wolf, you know it is still the same species as the wolf.....


    It is change WITHIN the Kind. Just as all the breeds of dogs remain the same Kind regardless of the change.... NEVER do they become a different Kind, unless we throw in those "missing" common ancestors that magically split to become different things....




    They do remain the same.... you actually didn't read what i said. A Husky remains a Husky..... A Mastiff remains a Mastiff. Only when the Husky and Mastiff mate does the Chinook come into appearance suddenly in the record. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolves into the Chinook. The Husky will remain Husky untill it goes extinct. just as the Mastiff will remain Mastiff until it goes extinct. just as the new form, the Chinook will remain the same until it goes extinct. And they will all remain the exact same species until they all go extinct, as the offspring from any mating with other breeds will remain the same species until they go extinct.....

    Don't be mad because what I said matched actual observations of the fossil record while yours does not.

    We will go over it all over again. Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky..... It remains the same from its first appearance until its eventual extinction..... Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff..... It remains the same from its first appearance until its eventual extinction..... When Husky mates with Mastiff a new form (Chinook) appears suddenly in the record where it did not exist before (your missing gaps). Chinook mates with Chinook and produces ONLY Chinook..... It remains the same from its first appearance until its eventual extinction..... Can you comprehend what we see in real life that it matches the fossil record perfectly. Neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook... Each of them remain the same for their entire existence until eventual extinction. They all remain the same species from their first appearance until their extinction. Their is and never was change from one species into another. This is why EVERY SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR for any creature on any tree where the split is supposed to have occured is missing. Because they incorrectly classified them as separate species and since they couldnt tell mating, incorrectly proposed evolution....

    And yet every sensible person knows that the pug is the same species as the wolf.... AHHHH, what you really mean to say is those with pre-conceived ideas of how change occurs by unobserved evolution would INFER they are separate species.... but only in the past where they can't observe mating..... despite the observational evidence right in front of their eyes.....

    Sorry, we know that all dogs (Kind) can mate with all dogs or are potentially capable of mating... That all dogs (Kind) have the same basic blood type, as all Humans (Kind) have the same basic blood type and all Chimps (Kind) have another basic blood type.... That I can compare genomes by one by one matching within (Kinds), but this is same test can't be used across Kinds.... And such is why they have to use a pseudoscientific random testing across random portions of the genome to support their evolutionary belief.....

    We know what happens when one within the Kind reaches the end of its variation capable within the Kind. Like the Liger they end up not being able to mate even with their one subspecies and so are on the road to extinction.... Or like the Mule is extinct if nor for human intervention and continuing to breed for it.....

    Genetically we can use any dog organ to any other dog (within size of course, and like Humans blood type) to perform organ transplants, same with Humans, same with Chimps, same with Horses, etc, etc, etc. But you can no more use a Chimps organ to transplant into a human or Horse or Dog, than you can use a Horse organ to transplant into a Dog or Human or Chimp.... Because they are NOT the same Kind......
     
    #171 Justatruthseeker, Mar 11, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,564
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Rather than doing... whatever it is you think you're doing with all the strawmen and willful misunderstandings and so on, how about you provide some specifics where your own theory performs better than evolution at explaining anything, including mechanics of observed change? If your theory is more correct than evolution, it should have better predictive and explanatory power, right?

    Tl:dr? Put up or shut up.
     
    #172 Kangaroo Feathers, Mar 11, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    My comment was intended for those who understand sarcastic irony.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Ratings:
    +3,732
    Religion:
    atheist
    GodDidIt! Yay! What do I win?
     
  15. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    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....
     
    #175 Justatruthseeker, Mar 11, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  16. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,500
    Ratings:
    +973
    Religion:
    none
    Says the guy who is asking us the believe that almost all the world's experts, in multiple scientific fields, have all made such obvious mistakes that even non-specialists can see them, and that only a tiny, tiny minority of experts, who all have an obvious, religious vested interest (along with the non-specialists who, by a staggering coincidence, have exactly the same vested interest), have managed to see them.

    Irony doesn't begin to cover it...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    Says the guy that just insisted on another fallacy called argument from authority because he couldn’t defend his beliefs from what is observed in the reality world.

    That’s confirmation bias which lessens the cognitive dissonance....

    Apparently you ignore the fact that at one time you all preached Colecanth as the expo facto proof. Until one was found alive of course. But before that you all made the same argument as your making now, even if all those scientists told you it was true and ended up being totally wrong...

    So to ignore reality you rely on a known fallacy.....
     
  18. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,500
    Ratings:
    +973
    Religion:
    none
    Firstly, what I'm actually pointing out is that there is an obvious vested interest here, and not only with regard to biological evolution, but with regard to any scientific findings that contradict a particular religious view.

    Secondly, you are claiming that the errors you think most experts have made are obvious even to a non-specialist, so you need to provide some sort of explanation as to why so many, highly trained specialists have got it wrong, while only groups with an obvious vested interest have got it right.

    Thirdly, I'm pointing to scientific expertise, rather than authority. I assume you generally defer to experts when it matters to you. You'd expect surgeon if you needed an operation, an expert pilot to fly a plane you were travelling in, and so on.

    So, what do you think is motivating almost all the experts in the world, in several scientific fields, to ignore reality?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +36
    Religion:
    Non-Denominational
    As there is an obvious vested interest with regard to any real world observations that conflict with your pre-conceived bias....

    I already did, it is called confirmation bias. All people tend to ignore data not in line with their belief system.... So when people see different breeds of dogs mating in front of their eyes producing new variation suddenly that did not exist before, they tend to ignore that and continue to believe that only a missing ancestor explains the evidence in all other similar situations. They continue to dismiss the evidence that those dogs and their great variation does not lead to new species. That the sudden appearance was the result of mating, not one evolving into another....

    Said expertise also ignoring that all dogs despite their being the same species, means slightly different forms in the fossil record must be separate species....


    Pre-conceived belief. Confirmation bias. Belonging to the group. Group think...... when one has spent years and thousands of dollars being educated in a specific belief, one tends to confine oneself to that little box of belief. Opposing data is trivialized to justify why they expended years and thousands of dollars to a specific belief.

    It’s those that think scientists or experts can’t be subject to confirmation bias that blind themselves.

    Every few hundred years what we believed was true turns out not to be true at all and is replaced by a new paradigm. You’ll keep insisting on putting band aids to stop the theory from bleeding to death instead of rationally looking for other alternatives that better fit the data.

    You don’t go to school and pass because you opposed the training, but because you conformed to it and where able to answer correctly from inside the box. People are not given alternative choices to pass, but must in all cases conform to the expected answers. Wrong answers result in failing grades, even if the answers counted as correct are wrong to begin with....

    Ptolemy and his followers (almost all the world) thought they were right and had the math to prove it.... And ignored the conflicting data.... delving into more and more complicated epicycles to explain away the “trivial” falsifications. Sound familiar?
     
    #179 Justatruthseeker, Mar 11, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  20. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,500
    Ratings:
    +973
    Religion:
    none
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...