The Wild Experiment That Showed Evolution in Real Time

[David1967]

They will still be mice. Just not the mouse one might envision once they speciate over time.

Just like we are still Apes. Just not The swinging tree to tree group although I think that would have been a lot of fun. :0)

Funny (but true) story. My son was discussing one of his high school science class assignments regarding the theory of evolution with me in my shop one day. A customer overheard us and yelled across the room at us, "Hey!, I didn't come from no God***#% monkey." He wasn't the best example to use as proof against this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Funny (but true) story. My son was discussing one of his high school science class assignments regarding the theory of evolution with me in my shop one day. A customer overheard us and yelled across the room at us, "Hey!, I didn't come from no God***#% monkey." He wasn't the best example to use as proof against this.

I think that's really what it boils down to for most evolution denialists. It's not that they've studied the issue and found the data to be lacking, rather it's that they just don't want it to be true (especially when it comes to human/primate common ancestry).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm just curious how he convinced the drummer for Black Sabbath (Bill Ward) to help with the experiment.

It's like how Brian May is a well regarded astrophysicist. Lots of the original metal band members from the '70s moonlighted as serious researchers and scientist. Angus Young made breakthroughs in electrical power distribution, and Ozzy Osbourne was a major contributor to the modern understanding of human pharmacodynamics (I believe he co-authored several papers on the subject with Keef Richards).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think that's really what it boils down to for most evolution denialists. It's not that they've studied the issue and found the data to be lacking, rather it's that they just don't want it to be true (especially when it comes to human/primate common ancestry).

Because being descended from dirt is somehow more empowering

 

[Jose Fly]

Because being descended from dirt is somehow more empowering

Funny, but to be fair, for many religious folks it's the difference between being a special, distinct creation of God and being descended from primates. In a way, I can understand how they would rather the latter not be true.

 

[Valjean]

Funny, but to be fair, for many religious folks it's the difference between being a special, distinct creation of God and being descended from primates. In a way, I can understand how they would rather the latter not be true.

The terrible dread of insignificance...

 

[ecco]

Funny, but to be fair, for many religious folks it's the difference between being a special, distinct creation of God and being descended from primates. In a way, I can understand how they would rather the latter not be true.

The only ones "distinctly created" by God were A&E. The rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The only ones "distinctly created" by God were A&E. The rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

 

[Valjean]

The only ones "distinctly created" by God were A&E. The rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

How do you know this?

 

[ecco]

The only ones "distinctly created" by God were A&E. The rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

How do you know this?

Picky, picky. OK...

According to the Bible the only ones "directly created" by God were A&E.

According to the Bible the rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Picky, picky. OK...

According to the Bible the only ones "directly created" by God were A&E.

According to the Bible the rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

Twice. Let's not forget the Noah's Ark myth. Whoever wrote the book of Genesis was sure into incest.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Twice. Let's not forget the Noah's Ark myth. Whoever wrote the book of Genesis was sure into incest.

Lot and his daughters get a worthy mention

 

[Valjean]

Picky, picky. OK...

According to the Bible the only ones "directly created" by God were A&E.

According to the Bible the rest of us descended from the results of incestuous relationships.

But what about according to the Popol Vuh, or the Chronicles of Narnia, the Vedas, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What do they have to say about it?

Why just cite the Bible?

 

[ecco]

But what about according to the Popol Vuh, or the Chronicles of Narnia, the Vedas, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What do they have to say about it?

Why just cite the Bible?

I cited the Bible because I was originally replying to Jose Fly's comment about the difference between common descent and God (with a capital G).

 

[ftacky]

The 'experiment' is pure baloney as far as showing 'evolution'. they started with a mouse and ended with.......a mouse. wow. lol.
There are humans with pale skin who have a kid with dark skin.
There are short humans who have a tall kid.

The debunked theory of evolution claims one type of animal eventually turned into another - from a terrestrial reptile into a bird, for example. Atheists will never have show us any such 'proof' - just fossils e.g. rocks which don't prove changes.

 

[Astrophile]

I think that's really what it boils down to for most evolution denialists. It's not that they've studied the issue and found the data to be lacking, rather it's that they just don't want it to be true (especially when it comes to human/primate common ancestry).

According to some rough calculations, my most recent common ancestor with Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was born no longer ago than 1200 AD. If I have to admit to being related to Hitler, I'm not going to object to being descended from apes.

 

[Valjean]

The 'experiment' is pure baloney as far as showing 'evolution'. they started with a mouse and ended with.......a mouse. wow. lol.
There are humans with pale skin who have a kid with dark skin.
There are short humans who have a tall kid.

But evolution is change, and change was observed.
Run the experiment longer and you'll see more change. Alter the environments and you'll see faster change.
Changes accumulate. Enough accumulation and you'll get something you'll no longer recognize as a mouse.

Take language. How did Latin turn into French?
When was there ever a time when anyone would claim to speak a different language from his grandfather?
Each change is minute, almost unrecognizable -- but they accumulate. What's to stop them from becoming an unintelligible new language?
What's to stop a reptile's progeny turning into birds?

The debunked theory of evolution claims one type of animal eventually turned into another - from a terrestrial reptile into a bird, for example.

When was the ToE debunked? I must have missed that. I was under the impression that the ToE was one of the most robust, extensively supported, consilient and predictive theories in all of human history. Doesn't support for the theory accumulate on a daily basis?

Atheists will never have show us any such 'proof' - just fossils e.g. rocks which don't prove changes.

Are you serious? Do you really think fossils are the ToE's only support? Do you really think science "proves" things?
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that you know virtually nothing about the theory you're so opinionated about, and have never learned even the basics of science.

Theists cling tightly to their theology, supported by no empirical evidence, while demanding extensive evidence from "evolutionists." When given such evidence, they reject it -- for no logically supportable reason. Apparently they don't understand it, or have no skills in evaluation or critical analysis.

The ToE is not faith based, like theology. Theists err if they see the methods of science as comparable to those of religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 'experiment' is pure baloney as far as showing 'evolution'. they started with a mouse and ended with.......a mouse. wow. lol.
There are humans with pale skin who have a kid with dark skin.
There are short humans who have a tall kid.

The debunked theory of evolution claims one type of animal eventually turned into another - from a terrestrial reptile into a bird, for example. Atheists will never have show us any such 'proof' - just fossils e.g. rocks which don't prove changes.

Change of kind is a creationist strawman. Look at chimps, you share a common ancestor with chimps that ancestor was an ape, the chimp is an ape, and you are an ape.

One cannot refute the theory of evolution if one does not understand it.

 

[tas8831]

The debunked theory of evolution claims one type of animal eventually turned into another - from a terrestrial reptile into a bird, for example. Atheists will never have show us any such 'proof' - just fossils e.g. rocks which don't prove changes.

The debunked claim of Divine Creation of a fully formed adult human male from dust 6000 years ago in an instant is a joke. Creationists will never show us any 'proof' - just a regurgitated reliance upon uncorroborated ancient middle eastern tall tales and numerology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? What mechanism would stop arbitrarily large changes?

That has nothing to do with it.
It's just how evolution works. It's a vertical process, not a horizontal one.

Consider a branching tree. A branch might split in two (or more) branches. But each sub-branch will forever be attached to its "ancestral" branch. It will never become part of another branch.

Just like all your descendents will forever be your descendents.
It's the only possible outcome of vertical inheritance.

All descendents of mammals will forever be in the group of mammals.
All descendents of felines will forever be in the group of felines.
No descendents of felines will ever become canines.

Primates produce more primates. We are primates.
Mammals produce more mammals. We are mammals.
Tetrapods produce more tetrapods. We are tetrapods.
Vertebrates produce more vertebrates. We are vertebrates.
Eukaryotes produce more eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes.

We are what our ancestors were.