Evolution has never been observed

[tumbleweed41]

So let me get this straight...you are basing your entire stance on your interpretation of a single paper explaining biological evolution.

This is your "research"?

You haven't found the words "observe" or "observation" in this article, that's your big sticking pint?

Have you researched any peer review papers on the observed speciation of
Drosophila paulistorum, Musca domestica, Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Tribolium castaneum, or Nereis acuminata?

Or the botanical instances of observed speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis, Zea mays, or Mimulus guttatus?

Or are you still waiting for that cat to turn into a dog?

 

[Acim]

So let me get this straight...you are basing your entire stance on your interpretation of a single paper explaining biological evolution.

This is your "research"?

No. You are misrepresenting.

You haven't found the words "observe" or "observation" in this article, that's your big sticking pint?

No, I have other pints. Pints are actually all around. Oh wait, did you mean points?

Oh, point of noting 'observe' not found is just to make that note. Don't read into it too much.

Have you researched any peer review papers on the observed speciation of
Drosophila paulistorum, Musca domestica, Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Tribolium castaneum, or Nereis acuminata?

No. I feel willing. Have other material to go through first. Put it on the list please.

Or the botanical instances of observed speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis, Zea mays, or Mimulus guttatus?

Put it on the list, I feel open to reading it.

Or are you still waiting for that cat to turn into a dog?

I'm waiting for a deist to turn away from acting like a straw man. That proof would go a long way really.

 

[lunakilo]

Hard to say right now, but something beyond inference would be decent start. Wouldn't be conclusive for me, but a start. And something at macroscopic level of new species emerging from existing species. In a consistent way where it is not a fluke.

I grant that this likely exists, in fact I'll speak to this in a bit, but would also just say that I have bias of ID that is not old school Creationism and has been spoken to at least twice on this thread. I cannot help but filter through this bias, even while I feel I can also maintain sense of objectivity.

You run into the problem of defining what you mean by a new species.

I pointed out the following in an earlier post:

As far as I can see, this is a pointless debate.

Evolution cannot possible be proved to a creationist.

The problem is the following:

Most creationists accept that what they call micro-evolution, that is gradual change within a species takes place.
But as creationists correctly point out, variation within a species does not constitute creation of new species.

So when does something constitute a new species?
The definition that I usually use is that if two pouplation groups cannot mate and produce fertile ofspring, then they are two different species.
But I am sure there are other people using other definitions ...

If we for arguments sake use the definition I just gave, then the problem is this:
Even if you do an experiment where you follow a population group which undergoes 'micro-evolition' to the point where it produced two distinct population groups which cannot interbreed, I doubt a creationist would accept this as proof.
They would just say "but that is just variation within a kind" :foot:

Am I right you think? Or is there a kind of evidence a creationist would accept?

I think this applies here to.
If you cannot say what you would accept as proof you can't expect anyone to provide it.

And no matter what people come up with, it is really examples, not proof.
if I show you an example of a new species which evolved from an existing species, it is just an example, not proof that that is how it always happens.

The theory of evolution is a THEORY made after observing the world and the creatures in it. The theory does not contradict what is observed, and that makes it a good theory. Personally I am convienced it is correct. Not because I have absolute proof that it is correct, but because I makes sense to me and I se no evidence that it is wrong.

The examples of evolution given in this thread and other places 'proves to me' (that is convinces me) that the theory is correct.

What would 'prove it' to you?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

This thread is the story of a beautiful love affair between Acim and himself.

-Nato

 

[tumbleweed41]

No. I feel willing. Have other material to go through first. Put it on the list please.



Put it on the list, I feel open to reading it.

Google

 

[Jose Fly]

I've addressed all material brought up in this thread. I have not gone to links where there is material to review and then present findings back here. And I've explained why I am not doing this at least 4 times.

I can cite the 3 areas on this thread where people have said something akin to, "while not directly observed." And is me calling them out on what is title of this thread.

The declaration is not mine alone and is something that is up for discussion in this thread, but basis of this thread continues to be referencing material in another thread. If you simply don't get why I am insisting on being orderly and referencing that material (first), then it would be wise to leave, for it will continue to show up to you like I am in denial, but IMO, all you who are butting heads with me aren't addressing the material I have read. Instead, you are wanting to have other material read, invoked into conversation and I'm telling you I'll get to that when I get to it. Do let me know if material I am reading in this thread gets to points you are raising. If it doesn't I'd like to know that sooner than later.

So you started a thread asserting via the title that "evolution has never been observed", but you haven't really even bothered to look, and when people present you with examples of observed evolution, you say "I'll get to that later".

You don't see how that's a little out of whack?

 

[Jose Fly]

This thread is the story of a beautiful love affair between Acim and himself.

Bingo! :yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

but something beyond inference would be decent start.

Inference is part of all branches of science.

Wouldn't be conclusive for me, but a start.

Science is never conclusive.

And something at macroscopic level of new species emerging from existing species. In a consistent way where it is not a fluke.

You mean Speciation? See link please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

 

[camanintx]

What would in your opinion be proof?

Hard to say right now, but something beyond inference would be decent start. Wouldn't be conclusive for me, but a start. And something at macroscopic level of new species emerging from existing species. In a consistent way where it is not a fluke.

You mean something like this?

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Acim]

If you cannot say what you would accept as proof you can't expect anyone to provide it.

I understand this logic, and do not disagree with it. But if I come up with what is perceived as ridiculous evidence (cats turn into dogs), this is then deemed 'not evolution' even though technically that would be evolution, just not the kind that TOE is based on.

I am not looking for the 'ridiculous' I don't think. I really truly do not think this. At same time, I also believe I'm going through material as skeptical, free thinking, critical analyzing person might. I would think my posts that reference reading material would pretty much clearly demonstrate that this is my intention. I don't feel I am being shy about it. And when persons have come into this thread to discuss (not just present their view or some link to their version of evidence) what it means to 'observe speciation' - it has so far shown up as, 'not directly observable, strongly inferred, this is how we know.' And this is why, up to now, I think straw-man claim stands. You'll notice that I reference it as 'straw-man claim' stands, because I am just skeptical enough to realize the material will hopefully address this in way where I can finally say, 'oh, so it is actually straw-man' (and doesn't really stand). But so far, I apologize to all who are reading this, the claim that says biological evolution cannot be (directly) observed, still stands for me.

And no matter what people come up with, it is really examples, not proof.
if I show you an example of a new species which evolved from an existing species, it is just an example, not proof that that is how it always happens.

I think what you would likely show me is an inference, asking me to draw conclusions based on observations of the evidence. That this species now was once in lineage of that other species found in fossil record, and yadda yadda yadda derived shared characteristics, we now can reasonably infer that biological evolution occurs. There's your proof.

The theory of evolution is a THEORY made after observing the world and the creatures in it. The theory does not contradict what is observed, and that makes it a good theory. Personally I am convienced it is correct. Not because I have absolute proof that it is correct, but because I makes sense to me and I se no evidence that it is wrong.

I am happy for you. I really am. I can't say I hope to get 'there' some day, because I feel underlying logic of 'perceiving physical' would be paramount in my understanding of what is really going on. At same time, if I choose to ignore those understandings, I believe I will plausibly find agreement with the theory, in way that would on surface not make me appear any different than TOE proponent. I think that more or less already is the case, but the exercise that is this thread could bring me to even greater awareness of (relative) facts.

What would 'prove it' to you?

I think I've provided this a bit more indirectly than direct statements I have given, but if that is not working and people don't feel like playing guessing games with what that is, how about we just allow me skeptical positions for now, and allow me to go through material titled, "Evolution 101" and trust that near end or at end of that material, I will make assertions like, "for evolution to be observable in my understanding, I would think such and such must happen." Make sense? Is this allowable at this point?

 

[Acim]

So you started a thread asserting via the title that "evolution has never been observed", but you haven't really even bothered to look,

The thread is all about looking, in orderly way. This thread references another thread (linked in OP).

Here is how that thread starts out:

Thanks to Quaxotic for the idea, and to Painted Wolf for the footwork.

TALKORIGINS.ORG Links:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Keep in mind this is in context of forum that is "Evolution vs. Creationism." So, I looked into material of first item which is last line of quote above.

That first item has first misconception listed as, "Evolution has never been observed." which I thought would be funky way to have a discussion on the material in the other thread, and to go through it in orderly fashion.

And so I went into the material with rigorous effort, not leaving stones unturned (covering each line with scrutiny). If you look at one of my "housekeeping" posts, you'll see me basically referencing the material to look at, to address the first misconception, in I think my first 7 posts in that vein. That is not in order of this thread, and is why housekeeping posts exists, because I pretty much knew from getgo that you all would interject the stuff you need to interject based on your version of 'love affair' and me cheating you with your mistress. Or something like that.

I thought it possible that things could be more formal, more intellectually honest all the way around, but what has instead been the reality was pretty much anticipated by me. That my scrutiny no matter how done, would be criticized. Either I go through the material quickly and agree with you. Or if I go through it slowly, I am hopefully agreeing with you along the way. But if I went through it quickly and disagreed, the logic would be, you didn't even really read the stuff and just jumped to conclusions that are unfounded.

So, I'm going I would say very slow, but making critical comments along the way. You are welcome to join me at that level of looking, or you can continue to chime in with the tripe that you and others are, and given how I think it 'really looks' when you do this, I'm almost too happy to respond in the way that I am.

and when people present you with examples of observed evolution, you say "I'll get to that later".

And I mean that. Or as I've stated, go to writers of other thread, and argue for your material to be presented as what needs to be on top, and if 3 of you all agree, I can be shown flexible enough to shift gears. I've already shifted gears once in this thread, and think I can do it again, but would take either a key proponent noted in other thread to have me consider it, or 3 of you not on that other thread, who are approaching me in way that feels respectful rather than this slight hostility I'm getting from your current version of 'read the damn material will you?'

You don't see how that's a little out of whack?

Here's how it is out of whack.

If I told you I have texts that will prove God to you, and I list links in a thread to 8 of them, and you say, cool, I'll do this exercise. And I start with ones that are deemed by many (including me) as 'intro material' though perhaps not 'best' but you start where it would make most sense (at the top), then I think that is on me who listed the material. Now, let's say that intro material is presenting a whole bunch of stuff that you are scrutinizing the hell out of and making decent points. All points that those of us 'in the know' perhaps experienced in either grade school or even college days, but are pretty much 'over that.' While you are going through this material in earnest way, based on how it was presented in a thread, people like me are coming in and saying tripe like, 'of course God has been observed, you just refuse to look at the evidence. Geez, you're impossible, you don't even care to look at the evidence we are giving you. Don't you think it is out of whack what you are doing?'

 

[Acim]

You mean something like this?

Observed Instances of Speciation

Has already been addressed / scrutinized in earlier posts on this thread.

Was asked to change gears from this to material I am now going through.

 

[Jose Fly]

Acim,

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying, "Rain has never been observed", and then spending the next month trying to discuss websites that cover ocean currents, global climates, wind patterns, the Coriolis Effect, etc., when all you had to do was go somewhere where it was raining and stick your head out the window.

And when people provide you examples of documented rain, you respond, "I'll get to that, but right now I'm critically analyzing this website that discusses the role of solar cycles in global weather patterns." That's how ridiculous this thread is.

If you were truly interested in whether evolution has been observed or not, you would 1) find out what evolution is, and 2) see if it's been observed to happen. You've been provided both multiple times. As I and others have pointed out, evolution is so trivially easy to demonstrate, it's done in basic BIO 101 courses in most universities. You simply take a single-clone strain of E. coli that's susceptible to ampicillin, culture it in a petri dish that is half neutral and half ampicillin-infused, let them reproduce for a few generations, and eventually you will have some E. coli growing in the antibiotic. In better programs, you can even identify the specific genetic change that caused the new trait.

So again, if you're really interested in observed evolution, get off this religious internet forum and stick your head out the damned window.

 

[Acim]

Acim,

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying, "Rain has never been observed", and then spending the next month trying to discuss websites that cover ocean currents, global climates, wind patterns, the Coriolis Effect, etc., when all you had to do was go somewhere where it was raining and stick your head out the window.

Stuck my head out the window and didn't observe speciation. Sorry.

You and I know speciation isn't 'easily observed,' but you want me to read the things that amount to 'covering ocean currents' so I can readily agree with your position.

Why wouldn't "evolution 101" deal with this 'observed speciation' in first 10 pages of material if it was so readily observable? I'm sure if I read something akin to, "raindrops 101" it will talk in first 10 pages about me remembering the last rain storm I experienced and characteristics that are readily available for anyone standing outside, looking outside, for no more than 10 days time. Don't need to go to any extraordinary means to find the evidence.

And when people provide you examples of documented rain, you respond, "I'll get to that, but right now I'm critically analyzing this website that discusses the role of solar cycles in global weather patterns." That's how ridiculous this thread is.

I'm analyzing "evolution 101" as recommended by proponent of TOE, after looking into material titled, "observation of speciation" and you're saying I'm being ridiculous?

Reality is your interruptions are the ridiculous part of this thread, but I entertain them because a) they are more fun than the material and b) because it exposes bias of the so called 'neutral' data. You all can't stand the scrutinizing approach, for that uncovers things that are better left unturned. Yeah, I've seen this in other dogmas. I am all too familiar with it. Time we had fun with 'sciences' in this respect. I say, keep the needless interruptions flowing. That's it, let your dark thoughts flow. I can feel your frustration.

If you were truly interested in whether evolution has been observed or not, you would 1) find out what evolution is,

Already done that in this thread

and 2) see if it's been observed to happen.

In process of doing just this. So far, looks like only a maybe. More like inferred, not directly observed.

You've been provided both multiple times. As I and others have pointed out, evolution is so trivially easy to demonstrate, it's done in basic BIO 101 courses in most universities. You simply take a single-clone strain of E. coli that's susceptible to ampicillin, culture it in a petri dish that is half neutral and half ampicillin-infused, let them reproduce for a few generations, and eventually you will have some E. coli growing in the antibiotic. In better programs, you can even identify the specific genetic change that caused the new trait.

Is this the equivalent of sticking my head out the window?

Anyway, I noticed you didn't use the word observe in your description of demonstration. I find that fascinating. Perhaps one day I'll get to this extraordinary experiment and I'll conform my understandings to your understandings of what must be happening.

 

[Jose Fly]

And now the classic creationist "moving the goalposts" tactic.

"Evolution has never been observed."

<example of evolution is provided>

"Um...yeah, but that's not a new species."


No different than saying "Rain has never been observed" and once the rain starts hitting you in the forehead, responding, "But it's not a hurricane".

Anyway, I noticed you didn't use the word observe in your description of demonstration. I find that fascinating. Perhaps one day I'll get to this extraordinary experiment and I'll conform my understandings to your understandings of what must be happening.

Seriously? That's your best response? So is your standard that someone has to actually observe each mutation as it happens, as well as the actual passing on of those mutation to subsequent generations? Oh, and we also have to actually see every step in the biochemical process that allows the new strain to live in the presence of the antibiotic, right?

 

[camanintx]

You and I know speciation isn't 'easily observed'

What exactly is your definition of speciation? Because if you use the commonly accepted one, "the creation of a new species within a species where both groups can no longer reproduce with the other group," then it is easily observed.

 

[Acim]

And now the classic creationist "moving the goalposts" tactic.

"Evolution has never been observed."

<example of evolution is provided>

"Um...yeah, but that's not a new species."


No different than saying "Rain has never been observed" and once the rain starts hitting you in the forehead, responding, "But it's not a hurricane".

Hasn't occurred in this thread, and so is misrepresenting.

So is your standard that someone has to actually observe each mutation as it happens, as well as the actual passing on of those mutation to subsequent generations? Oh, and we also have to actually see every step in the biochemical process that allows the new strain to live in the presence of the antibiotic, right?

You're asking if my standard is "someone has to actually observe" in a thread where part of the debate has to do with "what is actually being observed?"

I'll answer that with a yes.

Sorry for being unreasonable.

 

[Acim]

What exactly is your definition of speciation?

Wasn't under the impression I had to give one. I thought scrutiny and free thinking addressing of the topic would suffice.

Because if you use the commonly accepted one, "the creation of a new species within a species where both groups can no longer reproduce with the other group," then it is easily observed.

What is easily observed?

 

[lunakilo]

What exactly is your definition of speciation?

Wasn't under the impression I had to give one. I thought scrutiny and free thinking addressing of the topic would suffice.

See, there you go again...

I if you don't tell people what you mean by speciation, how can you expect people to provide you with examples of it?!

 

[camanintx]

Wasn't under the impression I had to give one. I thought scrutiny and free thinking addressing of the topic would suffice.

You claim that we have not observed new species arise from existing ones and when we give you examples of this you reject them. I'm just trying to determine if we're operating from a common frame of reference.

What is easily observed?

Scientists have repeatedly derived new species of plants and animals so it can't be that hard, can it?