Evolution has been observed... right?

[Valjean]

You sound like you've only ever read literature prepared by Christian apologists with the goal of miseducating you about biology. You're wrong on every level. You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is, or what evolution is defined as, or anything about biology. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you. However, if you value your beliefs being true more than your beliefs letting you fit in with your JW social community, then I'd recommend you read some books about biology written by actual biologists, describing information accepted by the consensus of experts in their field.

We've been explaining this to her for ten years. She's had plenty of chance to learn basic biology. She either chooses not to or is obtuse in the extreme.

 

[Truthseeker]

By Abraham’s time, there had been a a successive decrease in lifespan (175 for him). From Noah to Abraham, the Bible records a steady decrease of lifespan, and by Moses, it seems the 120 cap is fully in place

I noticed that, too.

 

[Valjean]

Supposedly. But you also have genetic drift. The fittest don't always survive in reality.

Yes. Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
Life's risky. Sometimes well adapted species catastrophically go extinct. Sometimes questionable designs flourish. bit, in general, the better adapted are reproductively advantaged and tend to become more numerous.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe the government is selectively breeding us to reduce our brain capacity, like pugs.

Is that a joke?

 

[Valjean]

It is the literal interpretation. All those people who lived beyond 120 years lived before God made that decree (early Genesis)

But there is no evidence of this -- and a great deal of reason to disbelieve it.

By Abraham’s time, there had been a a successive decrease in lifespan (175 for him). From Noah to Abraham, the Bible records a steady decrease of lifespan, and by Moses, it seems the 120 cap is fully in place

Again, no evidence, and a great deal of contrary evidence.

 

[an anarchist]

Is that a joke?

No, it’s a deeply held belief that is common in the anarchist community. Statist/statism is the projected majority, but there are millions of anarchists. We are framed to look like a minority belief.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's adapting to the selector's wishes.

The variants the farmer likes survive. The rest are culled.

That's not natural selection. Also, most domesticated plants and animals would not survive without continuous tending by humans.

 

[an anarchist]

But there is no evidence of this -- and a great deal of reason to disbelieve it.

With my personal beliefs, evolution or the belief of negative evolution helps solidify my literalism beliefs. I suppose that Adam and Eve had much better bodies and minds than us. The environment was probably was better too. Then, there is a decrease that is recorded, coinciding with the immorality of man.
That’s how I work it in my head, at least.

 

[Valjean]

That's not natural selection. Also, most domesticated plants and animals would not survive without continuous tending by humans.

True. It's human selection. More efficient in that all desired variants are retained and all undesired deleted. Same mechanisms, different selectors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By Abraham’s time, there had been a a successive decrease in lifespan (175 for him). From Noah to Abraham, the Bible records a steady decrease of lifespan, and by Moses, it seems the 120 cap is fully in place

There are records of more recent people living more than 120 years, but the average is well below the 120 cap.

Given the advances in technology, extending age further might happen. What if we do that?

I am still uncertain that it is a mandated cap.

 

[an anarchist]

Given the advances in technology, extending age further might happen. What if we do that?

If we do that, I might have to rethink my hard line literalism

 

[Truthseeker]

No, it’s a deeply held belief that is common in the anarchist community. Statist/statism is the projected majority, but there are millions of anarchists. We are framed to look like a minority belief.

I feel sorry for you!

 

[an anarchist]

I feel sorry for you!

Well we feel sorry for all of us because we are getting culled. Worried about our grandchildren! There will be nothing left thanks to Statism

 

[Valjean]

With my personal beliefs, evolution or the belief of negative evolution helps solidify my literalism beliefs. I suppose that Adam and Eve had much better bodies and minds than us. The environment was probably was better too. Then, there is a decrease that is recorded, coinciding with the immorality of man.
That’s how I work it in my head, at least.

Why do you think they had better bodies and minds? Better in what ways? Is there fossil or technological evidence?
How was the environment better? What was the biome like, in the time and place they lived?
What was the time and place they lived, and how do we know this?

Or is all this just 'worked out' in your head.
In my opinion, fantasy, while comforting and entertaining, is not a good test of reality.

 

[an anarchist]

Or is all this just 'worked out' in your head.

It’s a result of interpreting the Bible literally. I have been surprised not to find many Biblical literalist on this site. In my personal life, it is rather common belief.

How was the environment better? What was the biome like, in the time and place they lived?

Biblical literature describes that there was no clouds at the time. The earth was watered by a continual mist. I suppose I mean they were perfect specimens, fully evolved humans. God created them from scratch. When sin entered the world, God declared that they died that day. Yet they still breathed for hundreds of years. I believe negative evolution starting taking place. The human species has devolved since Adam and Eve.
My beliefs are from taking the Bible literally. If you don’t do that, naturally you’ll come to a different conclusion.

 

[Valjean]

It’s a result of interpreting the Bible literally. I have been surprised not to find many Biblical literalist on this site. In my personal life, it is rather common belief.

Biblical literature describes that there was no clouds at the time. The earth was watered by a continual mist. I suppose I mean they were perfect specimens, fully evolved humans. God created them from scratch. When sin entered the world, God declared that they died that day. Yet they still breathed for hundreds of years. I believe negative evolution starting taking place. The human species has devolved since Adam and Eve.
My beliefs are from taking the Bible literally. If you don’t do that, naturally you’ll come to a different conclusion.

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for folklore, I was asking for actual fossil, radiometric, stratigraphic, dendrochronologic or pallynologic dating and location.

 

[an anarchist]

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for folklore, I was asking for actual fossil, radiometric, stratigraphic, dendrochronologic or pallynologic dating and location.

Like I often have to say on this site, for me, my faith is enough to not worry about the details. Unscientific, yes I’m sure, and I don’t expect to be convincing any atheist. But my faith will always take precedent before any scientific evidence I may be presented, as close minded as that sounds.
For example, I’m a YEC. My belief (which I believe has been mischaracterized in Last Thursdayism) is that God simply created an aged universe with fullly evolved species already, but He did it 6000 years ago. I come to this conclusion because my faith in literalism, but also there is evidence of an old earth. So, I try to logically coincide the two, and this is how I do it.

 

[Rise]

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population of organisms over many generations. An allele is a version of a gene. Blue eyes, green eyes, and brown eyes are different alleles of the eye color gene. For example, we might see a particular shade of fur become more common in a species population that has migrated to a new environment with a new palette of natural background colors.

The theory of evolution is a conceptual model that considers the implications of observable evolution occurring over vast amounts of time, which lets us accurately predict future experimental data like where a certain transitional fossil will be found that we haven't discovered yet, or how long it will take for a disease to develop resistance to an antibiotic. It has made hundreds of thousands if not millions of accurate future predictions, and is one of the most reliable theories in science.

It is very easy to observe evolution. You can take a bit of soil from your backyard with billions of bacteria in it, and place it in a container of nutrient broth that has very low levels of one vital ingredient (like poor amounts of any chemical containing carbon for the bacteria to use). Then, add a substitute for that ingredient that no bacterium can digest, like a new pesticide. Slowly increase the concentration of this chemical over time while growing the bacteria, and you'll see the evolution of a new metabolic pathway to digest this new chemical. You can sequence the DNA of the bacteria at the start and the end of this experiment, and see the genetic changes that result in a new set of enzymes to break up the chemical and transform it into something usable. This has been done many many times, and provides a strategy to clean up chemical spills, and is evolution.

You aren’t describing evolution. You are describing adaption.

Adaptation is epigenetic in nature. It is essentially just a flipping of switches that are already in the DNA. Meaning: the organism already has the contingencies built into it’s code to adapt to different circumstances by undergoing change.

Evolution, in contrast, is claimed to be capable creating new genetic code to unlock new capabilities that do not currently exist in that organisms DNA.

There is no observation of this ever happening. It is just speculation.

You can produce a great degree or variation by breeding dogs for certain traits - but no matter how much you try you will never be able to turn that dog into something resembling a monkey, lizard, fish, or bird.
The genetic information for it to express those kinds of traits is simply not it it’s genetic switchboard.

And we have no evidence to conclude this must be something that can happen if given enough time. That’s just speculation. The only reason that speculation is assumed to be true is because of an a priori commitment to materialism that leaves you with no other mechanism to explain how life came to exist. But you can’t prove materialism is the right way to view the world so you can’t assume you must find a materialistic cause for life.

 

[ratiocinator]

By random mutations. Think about it. Selection by humans being neccasary doesn't support the ToE which is supposed to just happen by itself.

Why is it that those that oppose evolution never bother to understand it?

The environment is what does the 'selection'. Those organisms that have traits that are an advantage to survival and reproduction (in the context of the environment) are the ones that survive and reproduce more than the others (amazing, isn't it?) Their genes come to dominate.

It's directly comparable with artificial selection, where a human decides what they like and those individuals get to breed. The environment does the same sort of thing by killing off those who aren't suited to it and letting those that are survive and reproduce.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Selective breeding utilizes the same mechanisms natural selection does. It's managed, targeted selection.

Which is totally different than it happening by chance, no matter how you spin it.