Question for people that believe in evolution

[footprints]

The Lenski populations WERE in fact identical. The first 12 "tribes" were separated from a single culture of e coli. The citrate mutation IS understood - the theory of evolution explains it. "Nobody knows why" ONE population mutated in such a way as to be able to use citrate is a ludicrous thing to say. The FACT of evolution is "why". The THEORY of evolution explains "how". Random duplication errors resulted in traits that favoured the survival of the mutated bacteria over its predecessors. Therefore that population exploded and out-competed it's predecessors. That IS the theory of evolution. Everything the ToE predicts was observed in that experiment.

Care to have a go at Endler and his guppies? The mutations relating to patterning and mating habits were observed in the wild. All he did was transport one guppy population from a pond with predation to another pond without, thus again providing incontrovertible evidence of natural selection producing change over time.

Alceste, this is a direct quote from the evidence you offered, you don't have to look far for it, it is in the first couple of lines: tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual :

When a premise is built from a flawed foundation, it flaws the whole premise to a greater or lesser degree. Whoever wrote your evidence was honest, they let people know from the very onset, that the initial populations were not exactly identical. This is needed for it must be added to the formulation of the final conclusion as it shows the amount of inbulit possibility for error. However to prove their own point, some people will brush straight over this point and just pretend it doesn't exist.

I already knew of Lenski and similar experiments.

To be honest I didn't know about Endler, I didn't even open your selected evidence. Your base outline as you have given me here, suggest it is similar to other such alleged proofs I have read, so didn't see the need to open it or read it. Yes, I could be doing Endler a diservice, and Yes I could be missing out on some association patterns that I do not have already, but just like with your evidence on Lenski, there is so much evidence/data missing which I am supposed to just take on blind faith. In order to make a full evaluation, I would need the full set of data as used by Lenski to work out this final analysis. In conjunction with this, I would need the complete, detailed knowledge of E.coli bacteria, not just what we currently know of, but the absolute knowledge, in this way I could make comparisons to what is a normal cycle and what pertained to an alleged evolution cycle.

 

[footprints]

Changes in alleles over time is one of the most observed and factual aspects of science. I have to assume you're being intentionally obtuse and coyly hinting at epistemological issues...?

Hmmm, Nepenthe, what we observe can sometimes be an illusion of our own creation. What we personally assume and believe, will never be an illusion to us, our assumption and belief will make it our reality.

Your brain, assume away, though if you know you are prone to assumption, then you must also know many of your beliefs will also be created in the same way.

 

[footprints]

OK, if you discount the empirical observation of random mutations and natural selection causing spontaneous (unmanipulated) change over time in thousands of studies inside and outside the lab, by thousands of research teams (of every conceivable religious background); if you dismiss the growing fossil record affirming our evolutionary history and conforming to the predictions of ToE; if you dismiss the entire field of genetics; if you ignore the fact that all of the predictions of ToE are affirmed repeatedly in every relevant study and discipline without exception; if you fail to acknowledge there is absolutely no evidence of any other process than evolution causing the diversity of life we see before us, then fine: There is "no evidence" that evolution is a fact.

(Not surprisingly, if you rule out all conceivable forms of evidence of anything, you'll discover there are no facts.)



Don't be ridiculous. I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept the fact of evolution, and because I find it fascinating I go out of my way to learn about the science that seeks to understand it.

My fossil hunting trips would be exceedingly difficult if evolution were anything at all like a religious belief. There's no "knock and the door will open" in fossil hunting. You need to look in exactly the right place if you hope to find anything, and without fact-based understanding of geological time and evolutionary time this would be impossible.

Alceste, do you have enough knowledge pertaining to evolution to know there is more than one theory. That Biology isn't the only field of science looking into it. And from a personal viewpoint, I don't even believe Biology has the most credible evidence.

I never rule out evidence, only the power of suggestion offered from it, albeit I always keep good association patterns even if I know they are a power of suggestion.

Most of your facts in finding fossils will not come from the field of biology.

 

[footprints]

Actually we do have indisputable evidence that evolution does occur. Have you studied the evolution of the whale? It's quite fascinating.

No Tristesse, I have never studied the alleged evolution cycle of the whale. I have read some data pertaining to this matter, and did find the power of suggestion offered quite feasible. Albeit, in saying that, I didn't find anything to add to my association patterns that I did not have already.

 

[footprints]

Yes...debatable by those who don't understand the theory...(mainly creationist)...debating against those with the evidence or those who understand the evidence for ToE.

That is one perception Penguin, strange how it is perception that proves your own point.

uhh...in the scientific community Theory IS fact. You may need to take your own advice and find out what the difference is between Theory, Evidence and Fact. Better yet. Here you go...tumbleweed41 said it nicely here

Do you mean in the post where tumbleweed tried to exalt a theory to the status of scientific law. Tumbleweed really does need to get a grip on comprehension.

Fom the pages of chemistry which also aligns with biology: Please note the important message on the bottom. There is a reason why there are hypotheses, theories and laws. Evolution has not been moved to a Law state yet.


Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

I can only speak for myself...I go where the evidence takes me.....

I can also see you go where power of suggestion takes you, providing it aligns with your belief.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you mean in the post where tumbleweed tried to exalt a theory to the status of scientific law. Tumbleweed really does need to get a grip on comprehension.

Fom the pages of chemistry which also aligns with biology: Please note the important message on the bottom. There is a reason why there are hypotheses, theories and laws. Evolution has not been moved to a Law state yet.

As Evolution is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers, it is termed a Theory. A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis.
Both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
There is a Law of Gravity, and a theory that explains how the Law works. Do you understand this?
Theories do not become Laws. The biggest difference between a Law and a Theory is that a Theory is much more complex and dynamic. A Law describes a single action, whereas a Theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Correct, they do not all mean the same thing. That is why I have never posited that the Theory of Evolution is a Law. Unlike yourself, I do know the difference between a Hypothesis, Theory, and Law.

Alceste, do you have enough knowledge pertaining to evolution to know there is more than one theory.

Enlighten us to these Scientific Theories. What other Theory explains the diversity of life?
Remember, I am asking for a Theory. Not a hypothesis or some psudoscientific guess. Nor am I asking for an explanation outside of the realm of science.
Give us these Theories.

 

[MSizer]

I never rule out evidence, only the power of suggestion offered from it, albeit I always keep good association patterns even if I know they are a power of suggestion.

I think the one thing that I have learned from heretical theorists is that humility and wisdom seem to have an inverse relationship.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, do you have enough knowledge pertaining to evolution to know there is more than one theory. That Biology isn't the only field of science looking into it. And from a personal viewpoint, I don't even believe Biology has the most credible evidence.

I never rule out evidence, only the power of suggestion offered from it, albeit I always keep good association patterns even if I know they are a power of suggestion.

Most of your facts in finding fossils will not come from the field of biology.

Keeping in mind the actual definition of the word "theory" as it applies to science, what other "theories" than ToE do you think there are that explain how species change over time? Please name one. Remember it must make accurate predictions and be falsifiable in order to meet the definition of a "theory".

BTW, to find specific fossils you must know not only the arrangement of geological strata, but also which organisms were living at the time the strata were accumulating. That requires an acceptance of the speciation timeline predicted by the theory of evolution and affirmed by all the evidence ever observed, without any exceptions at all.

 

[Tristesse]

Alceste, do you have enough knowledge pertaining to evolution to know there is more than one theory. That Biology isn't the only field of science looking into it. And from a personal viewpoint, I don't even believe Biology has the most credible evidence.

I never rule out evidence, only the power of suggestion offered from it, albeit I always keep good association patterns even if I know they are a power of suggestion.

Most of your facts in finding fossils will not come from the field of biology.

What other theories are there? Please enlighten me. Oh and what other fields other than biology are looking into it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Keeping in mind the actual definition of the word "theory" as it applies to science, what other "theories" than ToE do you think there are that explain how species change over time? Please name one. Remember it must make accurate predictions and be falsifiable in order to meet the definition of a "theory".

Why do I get the feeling we will only get more wordplay and strawmen, rather than actual scientific theories?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

this tread is simply to learn and understand.

What evidence of evolution has persuaded you to the believe that evolution occurs?

if you have articles or anything that supports your statement i would be interested in reading them.

Well, when I was born again I became a different person...does that count?

 

[Jose Fly]

So when a creationist sees the hand of God in all things, are you now implying they are seeing fact? Or is this just a right you reserve for yourself and your belief.

You keep dodging my question about this. Where can I see this "hand of god"?

You observe change, nothing more and nothing less, what you want to attest to this change is up to you.

Incorrect. I observed a population change its allele frequencies in response to selective pressures. That is the definition of evolution. Therefore, I observed evolution.

At this moment in time, the probability for evolution is very high, much implied and suggested evidence points to it.

We are but novices in this field, at the moment it is not an exact science, albeit I can understand your need to make it an exact science, if you are truly doing a biology course.

So what exactly are your qualifications in biology and evolution such that we should take your unsubstantiated assertions as unquestioned gospel? IOW, why do you think your claims about evolutionary biology carry any weight at all?

 

[Nepenthe]

Why do I get the feeling we will only get more wordplay and strawmen, rather than actual scientific theories?

Because the power of suggestion aligns with your beliefs that are illusions of an observed assumption.
Or some equally vacuous gibberish...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, when I was born again I became a different person...does that count?

That would count as your personal evidence of salvation. (Theology)

The subject here is evolution. (Biology)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would count as your personal evidence of salvation. (Theology)

The subject here is evolution. (Biology)

It's an evolutionary process...when I get to heaven I get a new body (heaven knows I need one).

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, this is a direct quote from the evidence you offered, you don't have to look far for it, it is in the first couple of lines: tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual :

You're incorrect. One single population of e coli was divided into 12 beakers, which began the 12 evolutionary "lines".

When a premise is built from a flawed foundation, it flaws the whole premise to a greater or lesser degree. Whoever wrote your evidence was honest, they let people know from the very onset, that the initial populations were not exactly identical.

It's Wikipedia for god's sake. The writer of the article had nothing to do with the experiment, and their arbitrary choice of the word "nearly" does not imply anything at all about the actual research. For all I know it could have been inserted by some rampaging creationist.

To be honest I didn't know about Endler, I didn't even open your selected evidence. Your base outline as you have given me here, suggest it is similar to other such alleged proofs I have read, so didn't see the need to open it or read it.

Typical. "I didn't look at your evidence because I've heard of similar evidence, but I will nevertheless continue to claim there is 'no evidence' of evolution despite the fact I refuse to look at the overwhelming evidence."

Yes, I could be doing Endler a diservice, and Yes I could be missing out on some association patterns that I do not have already, but just like with your evidence on Lenski, there is so much evidence/data missing which I am supposed to just take on blind faith.

But that's absurd! I'm not asking you to "take anything on faith" - I'm telling you where you can find some of the evidence you insist does not exist, look at it with your own eyes and draw your own conclusions! I don't even care what your conclusions are. I just can't abide the blatant disinformation you are promoting.

In order to make a full evaluation, I would need the full set of data as used by Lenski to work out this final analysis. In conjunction with this, I would need the complete, detailed knowledge of E.coli bacteria, not just what we currently know of, but the absolute knowledge, in this way I could make comparisons to what is a normal cycle and what pertained to an alleged evolution cycle.

OK - so your argument is "I am not qualified to draw conclusions about whether or not the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence, therefore the theory of evolution is not supported by evidence". Good one!

 

[Jose Fly]

In order to make a full evaluation, I would need the full set of data as used by Lenski to work out this final analysis. In conjunction with this, I would need the complete, detailed knowledge of E.coli bacteria, not just what we currently know of, but the absolute knowledge, in this way I could make comparisons to what is a normal cycle and what pertained to an alleged evolution cycle.

That doesn't even make sense. "Normal cycle" and "evolutionary cycle"?

It's always funny when people try and pretend they're experts in subjects they know nothing about.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is one perception Penguin, strange how it is perception that proves your own point.

It's not a perception. I except the evidence. It's there. It's testable and falsifiable. That's what the scientific method is about.

Scriptures in religion have shown to be incorrect in a multitude of scientific fields....It doesn't matter what's being discussed,

Cosmology - scripture is incorrect
Geology - scripture is incorrect
Biology - scripture is incorrect
embryology - scripture is incorrect

Did you know that right now in another thread they are debating whether or not the bible is accurate....rather Is it important or not the bible is accurate?

It appears that it's not that important to believers whether it is or isn't. The fact is more often than not there is inaccurate information in scriptures. That's probably why we don't regard them as history or science books. They hold no value in answering most basic or even complex questions.

Talk about perception....that's just blind faith....and as a freethinker I have higher standards.

I can also see you go where power of suggestion takes you, providing it aligns with your belief.

You have no idea what I believe. If the EVIDENCE suggest (X) is valid for ToE then I'm under the impression the data for (X) is correct until it is shown not to be the case. If new evidence is presented then I have no problem adjusting.

If you were on trial for your life and all the evidence was against you but some one stepped up and had evidence that falsified existing evidence then would you want the jury to shift their understanding of the case at hand?

 

[Vile Atheist]

People are still feeding this troll?

 

[Alceste]

People are still feeding this troll?

I.... can't ... help ... myself....