views on evolution

That has been done, several times. Here is brief outline of one done in Brazil:

There were tiny fish that sexually matured very quickly (in much less than one year) living with larger fish that ate them below a water fall but not above it. Evolution theory suggested the reason they were smaller earlier egg layers of only a few eggs was the selection pressure of the bigger fish. (Little fish that had genes delaying sexual maturity could lay more eggs later but were eaten before those genes could be reproduced.)


So to test evolution in less than ten years (Some Ph.D. candidates did not want to be "professional students" as I did with ~10 years at JHU) they netted a couple of hundred tiny fish and moved them above the water fall where there were none of the bigger fish. About 20 to 30 generations later, JUST AS EVOLUTION PREDICTED, the tiny fish were several times larger when they became sexually active and lived for four or five years, laying hundreds of times more eggs than when selection favored the "lay eggs early" genes. Now, above the water fall, the genes that made early sexual maturity with only a few eggs laid were selected against.

I.e. the chance of 10 or 20 of those eggs with "early mature and lay eggs genes" winning the survival struggle with limited food against >10,000 eggs from the fish with "delay maturity, lay more eggs, live longer" genes was so little that AS EVOLUTION PREDICTED, the "mature quick, lay a few eggs" genes became extinct in the gene pool above the water fall but not below where selection pressure of the bigger fish favored the "mature quick, lay a few eggs" genes.

Nice thing about this experiment (in addition to the Ph.D.s it produced) was that there is no alternative way to explain the observed results as both the tiny fish below and their evolved "cousins" above the falls lived in exactly the same water. If there were any difference (say some fish eating birds operating on both groups, that would work against the evolution predicted and observed results as like the bigger fish below the falls, that is some slight selection pressure helping the "mature quick, lay a few eggs" gene fishes. (lay eggs before some bird eats you.)

I will note however, that despite your stating this "would prove you wrong" I am confident you will not admit that. - Facts are totally ineffective against those "possessed by the faith."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A central point about evolutionary theory is that evolution is not random. There is definite selection. Any process by which a subset of a population is selected over all other subsets is clearly not a random process. Your ignorance on this vital point calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

I am unaware of any serious researcher in the field who would make or has made such a suggestion. Your ignorance on this point calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

Please point to any specific assumptions that you believe prevent current theory from predicting the future with any accuracy. Please acknowledge that Billy-Ts example already proves you wrong. Please contemplate the fact that predictions can be made of the past as well as the future: we can predict the existence of intermediate forms with certain features. We then discover such forms. Prediction successful!

Your ignorance of these points calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

Since your objection on prediction has been shown to be invalid, do you have any other instances wherein you believe evolutionary theory does not qualify as a theory.

Your comment about laws of science reveals that you have almost no understanding of what constitutes a theory and a law. Laws are not higher than theory. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Your ignorance of this point calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

This is patently nonsense, as illustrated by my earlier example of predicting - with incomplete information - the existence of an intermediate organism with particular features and the subsequent discovery of such an organism. Your ignorance of this point calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

Word salad (half eaten by slugs).

The observation that some portions of the genome are more susceptible to mutation than others is a discovery of evolutionists who are therefore very well aware of this aspect of mutation. You are cherry picking and misinterpreting data to support your unfounded assertions. Your dishonest handling of such matters calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

Your prediliction for lying calls into question your competence to discuss evolutionary theory in a critical manner.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the only real change i've seen is human intelligence.
there nothing that says we aren't putting this stuff where we think it goes.
there have been anomalous archaeological finds that do not fit with the mainstream with the result of being held in limbo and the discoverers being ridiculed out of their careers.
there is definitely a reason for this.

no one has addressed my post from "a storehouse of knowledge" and the reason behind derogatory tactics used in relation to evolution.
the tactics used by james and hercules in this thread are typical and representative.

i seriously believe that if any future anomalies are found they would certainly go unreported for that very reason.

a good point but a bad arguement.
evolutionists get around this by saying it takes too long for the results.
on the other hand when evolutionists require evolution to not proceed at all it doesn't.

maybe.
you also must consider that science is totally unequipped to deal with the supernatural.
this isn't to say science is flawed.
i believe science is the best we can do with the mental equipment we have.

you know, it's funny.
if you were talking quantum this or that your hypothesis could very well be embraced.
but since we are talking about evolution i can positively guarantee that you will be ridiculed, laughed at, scorned, ad hommed.

to be fair you must also say creationists are just as irrational.
how rational is it to say there is a intelligent spirit out there some where.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not controversial to scientists. The controversy has been artificially created by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization that hopes to create a "wedge" between science and the public so they can advance their political agendas.

Hmm. Since we have seen dozens of organisms actually evolve and speciate, and have tens of thousands of fossils representing a gradual evolution over millions of years, it would be difficult to overlook such evidence - unless you made a concerted effort to do so.

Scientists don't pursue the "status quo." They look for mistakes in it, and they look to fill in gaps in our understanding. They've been doing that with evolution for over 100 years - which is why we now understand so much more about it.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

aSK:About

A Storehouse of Knowledge was created by Philip J. Rayment, in March 2009.

An Australian evangelical Christian who has edited at Wikipedia, CreationWiki, and Conservapedia, he felt the need for an encyclopædia with a biblical worldview.

Most other encyclopædias do not have this basis. The ones that do are mostly specialist encyclopædias, such as CreationWiki. The one other English-language one he knew of, Conservapedia, he considered a failure at what it intended to be.

 

Do you think the recent discovery of homo floresiensis went unreported?

Not just unequipped - by definition it does not work in that area. It's like saying a dinner-only restaurant is unequipped to deal with lunch.

 

so it's religious based.
that somehow makes what it presents irrelevant doesn't it.

 

if it conforms to the mainstream or they can make it fit, no.

 

Irrelevant to evolution?

To the extent that evolution is a religion, I admit that it is relevant, otherwise, no, it would not be either relevant or authoritative.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. I, for one, am all ears. Do say more.

 

i wasn't referring to the discovery institute.
i was referring to the controversy expressed in the science daily article i posted.

 

Yes, you were. And manufacturing that controversy is what the Discovery Institute has been trying to do for decades. And, based on articles like the one you have posted, they are seeing some success.

 

The evolution from primordial eukaryotes to blank humans to humans capable of manufacturing controversy, a la Discovery Institute, would appear to result in a net increase in entropy...hey wait-maybe that idea should be revisited!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What was the reason for the cambric explosion and why did natural selection change its parameters to allow more of everything?

 

It was a time when bodyplans were not as yet established, which means there was a lot of experimentation going on.

 

That answer is reasonable. But was natural selection on vacation or did it just become more liberal instead of conservative? Did mother nature, go through her own type of change only to later change her mind back? It is a woman's prerogative.

I am doing this to give a hard 20/20 hindsight problem, instead of the softballs evolutionists toss each other to dazzle the audience. Why the probability change and why the change in terms of bulk rate natural selection, compared to before?


I

 

It's just that in modern times, ecosystems are full of diversity, so there is less of a chance for a mutated life form to have success. There is already some other well adapted thing waiting to take it's place. That's why there cannot be a second abiogenesis, everything organic will be eaten almost immediately.

 

That is also very reasonable. However, natural selection all of a sudden decides to chose more critters than before. It is doubtful all these additional critters were all mutant and defective. Choosing defective mutants is not natural selection. Rather each would need to have some selective advantage, if we assume natural selection applies. How can random changes on the DNA lead to so many critter jackpots at one time allowing so many to be selected? It would make more sense if the DNA had a sense of direction, but that is not the assumption in evolution. We need to use the evolutionary assumptions.

 

It had more opportunities.

The key concept here is "adaptive radiation," a period of rapid adaptation as an organism discovers new niches and adapts to those new niches.

A modern example of this are the cichlids. Over 300 new species of cichlid fish adaptively radiated from one parent species in just 15,000 years in Lake Victoria. These fish, alone in a newly formed lake, very rapidly filled in all the ecological niches that other species would otherwise inhabit.

If you added a new fish today it would not radiate nearly as quickly. For example, the Nile perch, introduced in the 1960's, has become the lake's apex predator - and pretty much remained there, since the cichlids had taken over all the other niches.