Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[yossarian22]

Are you wrigling

 

[England my lionheart]

Are you wrigling

exactly not for the better

 

[England my lionheart]

The experiment showed that these dear little fruit flies became well fruit flies zzzzzzzzz the mutations never developed into into anythng but fruit flies,the experiment was started by a zoologist and credited even today to show that evolution did not advance through mutation.
Still waiting on the spontaneous genesis theory.

 

[ericmurphy]

If i am wrong about the fruit fly experiment please show in what way i am incorrect .

I don't know why you're incorrect, but you are. Your claim is that the fruit fly experiments (which have been going on for decades) have never created any novel genes. This is simply not true.

If you think you're correct about fruit flies not evolving into other organisms, such as horses or birds, yes, you're correct, but such evolution would falsify evolutionary theory, not confirm it. Evolution simply does not work that way. Further, as I have explained, but as you apparently did not understand, major morphological change as a result of macroevolution takes millions of years to hundreds of millions of years. Even with fruit flies. No one expects to see macroevolution in the lab. That's why they look to the fossil record.

Now, what part of this is giving you trouble?

 

[ericmurphy]

any thing that was'nt there before that is positive ie it can improve the dna

That's a completely wrong definition of "information." Information is anything that is in the genome now that was not there before.

There you go, moving the goalposts.

It's not a simple matter to point to a single mutation that confers a benefit, but it can be done. But most genes work in concert with hundreds if not thousands of other genes to bring about phenotypic change, and it's difficult to assign that responsibility for that change to individual genes. Nevertheless, changes to the FOXP2 as seemingly insignificant as changing two amino acids seems to have a profound affect on speech capabilities.

But we don't need to look exclusively to genes to determine that evolution happens. The evidence that it has happened, and does happen, is conclusively demonstrated by the fossil record, as I pointed out, and a point you have not responded to.

Why?

 

[camanintx]

Please prove me wrong................if you can

We already proved you wrong based on the commonly accepted definition of species but you say that is not correct. Until you explain what defines a species and why most biologists have it wrong, then you are just tilting at windmills.

Still waiting on the spontaneous genesis theory.

There are several different theories on how life may have first started, but unlike creationists, scientists don't claim to have the final answer. If you think this is a problem for evolution then it is up to you to explain why none of these theories will work.

 

[yossarian22]

The experiment showed that these dear little fruit flies became well fruit flies zzzzzzzzz the mutations never developed into into anythng but fruit flies,the experiment was started by a zoologist and credited even today to show that evolution did not advance through mutation.

X-rays do not speed up evolution. They damage genetic information continuously, nulling any effects of natural selection.

 

[ericmurphy]

The experiment showed that these dear little fruit flies became well fruit flies zzzzzzzzz the mutations never developed into into anythng but fruit flies,the experiment was started by a zoologist and credited even today to show that evolution did not advance through mutation.

England, I am not going to repeat too many more times that major morphological change as the result of macroevolution takes millions to hundreds of millions of years. We know this because we can look at the fossil record, and compare e.g. the earliest amniotes appearing in the Carboniferous with more advanced amniotes in the late Cretaceous and looking at the amount of morphological change. That time spans an interval of over 280 million years.

Insects of today are not markedly different from insects of 300 million years ago. What does that tell you about the pace of macroevolutionary change?

Still waiting on the spontaneous genesis theory.

Yes, and so are scientists. They're working on it. Abiogenesis is a huge area of research right now. You'll note that no creationists are actively doing research in abiogenesis. Why not? Don't they want to know?

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't know why you're incorrect, but you are. Your claim is that the fruit fly experiments (which have been going on for decades) have never created any novel genes. This is simply not true.

If you think you're correct about fruit flies not evolving into other organisms, such as horses or birds, yes, you're correct, but such evolution would falsify evolutionary theory, not confirm it. Evolution simply does not work that way. Further, as I have explained, but as you apparently did not understand, major morphological change as a result of macroevolution takes millions of years to hundreds of millions of years. Even with fruit flies. No one expects to see macroevolution in the lab. That's why they look to the fossil record.

Now, what part of this is giving you trouble?

Most of it,the experiment with fruit flies is not what might be expected ie the equivalence in time 12 days for the fruit fly 70 years for humans (average ish) so there should be something that glaringly says "helo i'm here" which it does'nt it just says i'm a fruit fly.

 

[ericmurphy]

Most of it,the experiment with fruit flies is not what might be expected ie the equivalence in time 12 days for the fruit fly 70 years for humans (average ish) so there should be something that glaringly says "helo i'm here" which it does'nt it just says i'm a fruit fly.

You're just not getting it. Do you understand how long a span of time a hundred million years is? It's a million and a half human generations. A million and a half fruit-fly generations is still 275,000 years. That's how long we should expect it to take—absolute rock-bottom minimum—for major morphological change that would allow a fruit fly to evolve into some other kind of organism.

Do you get it now?

 

[England my lionheart]

You're just not getting it. Do you understand how long a span of time a hundred million years is? It's a million and a half human generations. A million and a half fruit-fly generations is still 275,000 years. That's how long we should expect it to take—absolute rock-bottom minimum—for major morphological change that would allow a fruit fly to evolve into some other kind of organism.

Do you get it now?

Iget it but do you ...really?

 

[ericmurphy]

Iget it but do you ...really?

If you "get it," then why do you continue to insist that we should be able to see major morphological change in fruit flies in a few decades? If you continue to so insist, then I'll be pretty sure that you do not, in fact, get it.

Alternatively, based on your most recent post, I might just assume you're an elizabot.

 

[England my lionheart]

If you "get it," then why do you continue to insist that we should be able to see major morphological change in fruit flies in a few decades? If you continue to so insist, then I'll be pretty sure that you do not, in fact, get it.

Alternatively, based on your most recent post, I might just assume you're an elizabot.

The experiment started in 1902

 

[McBell]

The experiment started in 1902

Yep.
that is 105 years ago.
Now since it will take approximately 275,000 years to duplicate the millions of years, you still have 274,895 years to go.

And you want to know why there has not been a new leg develop yet?
You are not even ONE TENTH the way there.

 

[ericmurphy]

The experiment started in 1902

So clearly you don't get it, because you cannot make the distinction between 100 years and 275,000 years.

You do understand that 275,000 years is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much longer than 100 years, right?

Or maybe not?

 

[Autodidact]

The experiment showed that these dear little fruit flies became well fruit flies zzzzzzzzz the mutations never developed into into anythng but fruit flies,the experiment was started by a zoologist and credited even today to show that evolution did not advance through mutation.

Just as ToE predicts will happen. So we're in agreement on that. Well, almost. We agree that the new, mutated species was still a fruit fly. We are not in agreement that therefore there was no evolution. Obviouisly, there was--they were different. And, (I realize that this is hard for you, but try to follow along) when you get enough of these differences...wait for it...you no longer have a fruit fly. So just take that experiment and mentally multiply it by 1000 and you have the evolution of a new species. Get it?

Still waiting on the spontaneous genesis theory.

If I send $ to your PayPal account, would you use it to buy a clue?

 

[Autodidact]

Wouldn't it be cool if a creationist commented on DNA, or geographical distribution of species, or vestigial structures, or the pattern of homologies, or the nested hierarchy of species, or anything, really, anything to do with the evidence that they deny exists?

 

[England my lionheart]

Just as ToE predicts will happen. So we're in agreement on that. Well, almost. We agree that the new, mutated species was still a fruit fly. We are not in agreement that therefore there was no evolution. Obviouisly, there was--they were different. And, (I realize that this is hard for you, but try to follow along) when you get enough of these differences...wait for it...you no longer have a fruit fly. So just take that experiment and mentally multiply it by 1000 and you have the evolution of a new species. Get it?
If I send $ to your PayPal account, would you use it to buy a clue?

My dear do you have one, the fruit fly is a favourite of biologists for over a 100 years,why because they are easy to observe and mutations deteriorated both physically and in the survival of the fitest in the wild,i cannot see what you ar trying to see ,the fruit flies became fruit flies nothing else ,not one iota of difference except they mutated and became mutated fruit flys,get it good.
anyway i'm 3 parts to the wind as we say in England and i must go.
To you above all the others i say love peace and happinessXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Autodidact]

My dear do you have one, the fruit fly is a favourite of biologists for over a 100 years,why because they are easy to observe and mutations deteriorated both physically and in the survival of the fitest in the wild,i cannot see what you ar trying to see ,the fruit flies became fruit flies nothing else ,not one iota of difference except they mutated and became mutated fruit flys,get it good.
anyway i'm 3 parts to the wind as we say in England and i must go.
To you above all the others i say love peace and happinessXXXXXXXXXXX

England, I sincerely hope that you are actually a person of normal intelligence, and will realize later when you're sober how stupid you sound when you're drunk. If not, there is no hope for you ever understanding evolution, and you should probably stop trying.

 

[England my lionheart]

England, I sincerely hope that you are actually a person of normal intelligence, and will realize later when you're sober how stupid you sound when you're drunk. If not, there is no hope for you ever understanding evolution, and you should probably stop trying.

If you were a soldier i would love to have had you in my regiment never say dieX