Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[Jose Fly]

Reproduction of bacteria from other bacteria. Reproduction of plants from plants, is exactly how it's suppose to work - like the motor car.

Well yeah, that's how evolution works.

That's what you refer to as observing evolution ?

Of course. What exactly were you expecting?

I am shocked. I really thought you were going to give me something.
Nobody here argues against reproduction - no matter what name people give it.

It looks like you need to understand what "evolution" is. In biology, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. In layman's terms, that's a change in a population's genetics over time.

How about a fish to a frog - something like that. Have you observed that kind of evolution? How did you observe it?

That's not evolution. A population of fish turning into a population of frogs in a person's lifetime is more akin to magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reproduction of bacteria from other bacteria. Reproduction of plants from plants, is exactly how it's suppose to work - like the motor car.
That's what you refer to as observing evolution ?
I am shocked. I really thought you were going to give me something.
Nobody here argues against reproduction - no matter what name people give it.

How about a fish to a frog - something like that. Have you observed that kind of evolution? How did you observe it?

That is the sort of observation that would refute the theory of evolution.

Creationists tend to have the false concept of a "change of kind". There is no change of kind in evolution, there is only a series of near imperceptible changes. As I said earlier evolution can be observed in the fossil record.

 

[nPeace]

Well yeah, that's how evolution works.

Of course. What exactly were you expecting?

It looks like you need to understand what "evolution" is. In biology, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. In layman's terms, that's a change in a population's genetics over time.


That's not evolution. A population of fish turning into a population of frogs in a person's lifetime is more akin to magic.

I'm not going to get into semantics of micro and macro. I don't play that.
Exactly. So you haven't observed it, in the sense I am asking.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not going to get into semantics of micro and macro.

When discussing science it's important to use terminology properly. Do you agree?

I don't play that.

No one is playing here.

Exactly. So you haven't observed it, in the sense I am asking.

No, and no one ever will observe it "in the sense you're asking", because that "sense" is a silly straw man. Out of curiosity, where exactly did you get the idea that evolution was fish becoming frogs within a person's lifetime?

 

[whirlingmerc]

What do you mean by "show evolution"? The fossil record "shows evolution" it s exactly the sort of record that we would expect if evolution occurred and has not other explanation that has not been thoroughly refuted. Perhaps you are making an unreasonable demand.

Actually... the fossils do not 'show evolution' ... the fossils show a few things strongly

1) all major animal types appeared fully formed without ancestors in the record
2) there are different taxonomy and one can make charts with dot's connected them .

By show perhaps you mean 'connecting the dots'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to get into semantics of micro and macro. I don't play that.
Exactly. So you haven't observed it, in the sense I am asking.

Once again in the sense that you are asking would refute the theory of evolution. Why would you expect to see such an event?

We can observe it in the fossil record. A record that creationists have not been able to explain.

Actually... the fossils do not 'show evolution' ... the fossils show a few things strongly

1) all major animal types appeared fully formed without ancestors in the record
2) there are different taxonomy and one can make charts with dot's connected them .

By show perhaps you mean 'connecting the dots'?

We have been over this error of yours already.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Personally? As an undergrad biology student, I (along with my classmates) carried out a lab experiment where we watched a strain of E. coli evolve resistance to an antibiotic. We also identified the genetic changes that conferred the new trait.

I've also been fortunate enough to do a field visit where some researchers were studying the evolution of new plant species.

Some bacteria develop resistance not because they become better but by loss of an enzyme the antibiotic attacks

That is not classical evolution on an increase of information scale and up up up... but a loss by subtraction... a missing piece and down down down

like a blind cave fish.. not classical evolution and can't go backwards... the info is gone Can't take a poodle and breed a wolf out of it Just Cant'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some bacteria develop resistance not because they become better but by loss of an enzyme the antibiotic attacks

That is not classical evolution on an increase of information scale and up up up... but a loss by subtraction... a missing piece and down down down

like a blind cave fish.. not classical evolution and can't go backwards... the info is gone Can't take a poodle and breed a wolf out of it Just Cant'

Yes, but that is only one way that bacteria evolve. Why do you ignore the rest?

 

[nPeace]

When discussing science it's important to use terminology properly. Do you agree?


No one is playing here.


No, and no one ever will observe it "in the sense you're asking", because that "sense" is a silly straw man. Out of curiosity, where exactly did you get the idea that evolution was fish becoming frogs within a person's lifetime?

Seems like this is a game to you.
No problem - It's good to have fun... some times.

You gave me the only answer you can give me... twice, so I don't need to hear it a third time.
I said

How about a fish to a frog - something like that.

Operative word 'to'. I didn't say 'turn into'.
I don't know if you wear glasses, so I won't make a fuss.

However, you are right, not only would you not see it in a lifetime - you will never see it, nor have it ever happened.
If you disagree, please prove it did.

You can't .
That's cool. How can you prove something that never happened?
Magic, according to you.

As regards the evidence you gave me for reproduction, yes. That's what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems like this is a game to you.
No problem - It's good to have fun... some times.

You gave me the only answer you can give me... twice, so I don't need to hear it a third time.
I said
Operative word 'to'. I didn't say 'turn into'.
I don't know if you wear glasses, so I won't make a fuss.

However, you are right, not only would you not see it in a lifetime - you will never see it, nor have it ever happened.
If you disagree, please prove it did.

You can't .
That's cool. How can you prove something that never happened?
Magic, according to you.

As regards the evidence you gave me for reproduction, yes. That's what it is.

What makes you think that we can't? Now unreasonable people may not allow themselves to be convinced, but then the existence of Flat Earthers should explain that to you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Some bacteria develop resistance not because they become better but by loss of an enzyme the antibiotic attacks

And other times it's due to more specificity in an enzyme and other times it's due to a lateral shift (e.g., loss of bonding ability coupled with gain of another). What's your point?

That is not classical evolution on an increase of information scale and up up up.

Making up definitions for evolution seems to be quite a creationist pastime around here.

Where did you get the idea that "classical evolution" is what you described?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And other times it's due to more specificity in an enzyme and other times it's due to a lateral shift (e.g., loss of bonding ability coupled with gain of another). What's your point?


Making up definitions for evolution seems to be quite a creationist pastime around here.

Where did you get the idea that "classical evolution" is what you described?

it is always easier to defeat a strawman.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seems like this is a game to you.
No problem - It's good to have fun... some times.

Not sure what you're talking about.

Operative word 'to'. I didn't say 'turn into'.

So basically you're asking for evidence for something like amphibians being evolutionary descendants of fish. Is that right?

However, you are right, not only would you not see it in a lifetime - you will never see it, nor have it ever happened.
If you disagree, please prove it did.

I can certainly provide evidence for what I described above. Or we can do the same with something like human/primate common ancestry if you prefer.

That's cool. How can you prove something that never happened?
Magic, according to you.

Is ther a reason you're putting words in my mouth? FYI, don't...it's very irritating.

As regards the evidence you gave me for reproduction, yes. That's what it is.

Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own personal definitions for words and expect everyone else to follow along. As I showed via citation to a respected mainstream source, what I described to you was evolution (the evolution of a new trait and the evolution of a new species).

FYI, it's not a good look for you to try and define your way out of dealing with data.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And other times it's due to more specificity in an enzyme and other times it's due to a lateral shift (e.g., loss of bonding ability coupled with gain of another). What's your point?


Making up definitions for evolution seems to be quite a creationist pastime around here.

Where did you get the idea that "classical evolution" is what you described?

Classical information starts with no information and increases

Cases like the blind cave fish are loss of parts... that would be a decrease in information

 

[nPeace]

Not sure what you're talking about.


So basically you're asking for evidence for something like amphibians being evolutionary descendants of fish. Is that right?


I can certainly provide evidence for what I described above. Or we can do the same with something like human/primate common ancestry if you prefer.


Is ther a reason you're putting words in my mouth? FYI, don't...it's very irritating.


Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own personal definitions for words and expect everyone else to follow along. As I showed via citation to a respected mainstream source, what I described to you was evolution (the evolution of a new trait and the evolution of a new species).

FYI, it's not a good look for you to try and define your way out of dealing with data.

Okay. Sorry to put words in your mouth.
Evolution - change - okay.
Yes. what have you observed of human/primate common ancestry?

 

[Jose Fly]

Classical information starts with no information and increases

Again, where did you get this definition?

Cases like the blind cave fish are loss of parts... that would be a decrease in information

How are you measuring "information"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Classical information starts with no information and increases

Cases like the blind cave fish are loss of parts... that would be a decrease in information

Yes, but that is a very limited style of evolution. Why ignore the usual and focus on the exception?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay. Sorry to put words in your mouth.

Thank you.

Evolution - change - okay.

Evolution is what I and my source described earlier....a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

what have you observed of human/primate common ancestry?

As we discussed earlier, that is something that is inferred from examining the data from multiple fields of science.

So we can start walking through some of that data if you like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, where did you get this definition?


How are you measuring "information"?

Perhaps from his refuted creationist source. He earlier sited someone totally outside his area of expertise, who happened to be a mechanical engineer of all things.

 

[nPeace]

Thank you.


Evolution is what I and my source described earlier....a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.


As we discussed earlier, that is something that is inferred from examining the data from multiple fields of science.

So we can start walking through some of that data if you like.

So you are sharing the inferred, not observed? I am familiar with he inferred. You are not able to show me any observed?