Jump to content


Photo

Experimental Evidence For Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:33 AM

Just as the title says

 

The theory of evolution is well attested. Its evidence comes from many, inter-connecting disciplines and a vast body of experimental and observational science.

 

 

Please cite some examples of this experimental evidence for evolution.. Are the experiments testing evolution or is evolution assumed on the back of other experiments?



#2 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:33 AM

Please cite some examples of this experimental evidence for evolution..

 

Gilbo, There's "Mountains of Evidence"  <---------That's the evidence dummy.gif



#3 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:52 AM

From an article about Richard Lenski's work with E. Coli found here,

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.U-UmFKNCySo

 

 

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

 

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."

 

 

Another example that comes to mind is the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shuman et al. They predicted that they would find a transitional species in Devonian rock because of the time frames involved and everything else that they assume about geologic history. They found some Devonian rock in Northern Canada, searched around for 5 yrs and voila! They found a transitional species buried in the rock.

 

This is a prime example of a theory succesfully making a prediction and making a succesful prediction is how we know that a theory may be correct. After you accumulate millions of bits of corroborating evidence you can be fairly confident that you are on the right track.


  • texasdave likes this

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:58 AM

 

From an article about Richard Lenski's work with E. Coli found here,

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.U-UmFKNCySo

 

 

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

 

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."

 

 

Another example that comes to mind is the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shuman et al. They predicted that they would find a transitional species in Devonian rock because of the time frames involved and everything else that they assume about geologic history. They found some Devonian rock in Northern Canada, searched around for 5 yrs and voila! They found a transitional species buried in the rock.

 

This is a prime example of a theory succesfully making a prediction and making a succesful prediction is how we know that a theory may be correct. After you accumulate millions of bits of corroborating evidence you can be fairly confident that you are on the right track.

 

 

We've covered that six year old information many times here on EFF.

 

The changes in bacterial E.Coli transformed into....................guess what.............bacteria. You'll have to do much better than that.

 

There are no 'transitional species'. That won't do it. Unless you can demonstrate that any organism has ever transformed into a classifiably different organism in the family/order level then you have no argument for neo-Darwinian evolution.



#5 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:48 PM

 

From an article about Richard Lenski's work with E. Coli found here,

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.U-UmFKNCySo

 

 

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

 

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."

 

 

Another example that comes to mind is the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shuman et al. They predicted that they would find a transitional species in Devonian rock because of the time frames involved and everything else that they assume about geologic history. They found some Devonian rock in Northern Canada, searched around for 5 yrs and voila! They found a transitional species buried in the rock.

 

This is a prime example of a theory succesfully making a prediction and making a succesful prediction is how we know that a theory may be correct. After you accumulate millions of bits of corroborating evidence you can be fairly confident that you are on the right track.

 

 

And on the Tiktaalik topic....

 

It was a 'successful prediction' until they found this

 

http://www.nature.co...ature08623.html

 

This shows that fully formed, fully functioning tetrapods were walking around with Eusthenopteron. So much for the Tiktaalik prediction! As it turns out Tiktaalik ended up being a failed prediction of evolution. I'm assuming you were never told of this newer discovery that destroyed the Tiktaalik idea.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#6 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:01 PM

"There are no 'transitional species'. That won't do it. Unless you can demonstrate that any organism has ever transformed into a classifiably different organism in the family/order level then you have no argument for neo-Darwinian evolution."

 

 

All species are transitional.

 

You are asking for a demonstration of a process that takes millions of yrs to happen and crying foul because you can't see it happening in 20 yrs. This research demonstrates a step in the process. The bacteria evolved a new ability and thrived as a result. That is how evolution happens...slowly.



#7 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:07 PM

 

This shows that fully formed, fully functioning tetrapods were walking around with Eusthenopteron. So much for the Tiktaalik prediction! As it turns out Tiktaalik ended up being a failed prediction of evolution. I'm assuming you were never told of this newer discovery that destroyed the Tiktaalik idea.

 

What? Tetrapods were walking around with tetrapods and this is somehow damning evidence? Can you elaborate?

 

How does this evidence mesh with your young earth theory?



#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:08 PM

Will: 

 


Says who? Transitional to what?

 

Show us any stage-by-stage change of any organism into a totally different organism in the fossil record.

 

Show us any stage-by-stage change of any ogranism into a totally different organism in the lab. 

 

Bacteria changed into a merely different species of bacteria doesn't do it. 

 

"You are asking for a demonstration of a process that takes millions of yrs to happen and crying foul because you can't see it happening in 20 yrs"

 

You won't see it in 20 yrs, 40 yrs, 200 yrs, 5,000 yrs or 50 million yrs because it doesn't happen. It never occurs in nature. The only thing that does occur is 'variation within the kind' and nothing more. That is what nature was pre-programmed to do and your evolutionary comrades cannot undo this...so don't expect the blind forces of nature to do it for them.......................over any time frame you can dream up.



#9 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:56 PM

 

We've covered that six year old information many times here on EFF.

 

The changes in bacterial E.Coli transformed into....................guess what.............bacteria. You'll have to do much better than that.

 

There are no 'transitional species'. That won't do it. Unless you can demonstrate that any organism has ever transformed into a classifiably different organism in the family/order level then you have no argument for neo-Darwinian evolution.

What's your definition of a transitional species? What would you expect to see in a transitional fossil?



#10 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:59 PM


 

You won't see it in 20 yrs, 40 yrs, 200 yrs, 5,000 yrs or 50 million yrs because it doesn't happen. It never occurs in nature. The only thing that does occur is 'variation within the kind' and nothing more. That is what nature was pre-programmed to do and your evolutionary comrades cannot undo this...so don't expect the blind forces of nature to do it for them.......................over any time frame you can dream up.

Where is the scientific evidence for "nature pre-programmed" for "variation within the kind".



#11 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:22 PM

 

From an article about Richard Lenski's work with E. Coli found here,

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.U-UmFKNCySo

 

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

 

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."

 

You might want to examine what that E.Coli change actually was instead of going off buzzwords.  The "complex new trait" or "novelty" is based entirely on preexisting genetic information that simply became expressed at different times.  


  • EQuestions likes this

#12 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:27 PM

 

And on the Tiktaalik topic....

 

It was a 'successful prediction' until they found this

 

http://www.nature.co...ature08623.html

 

This shows that fully formed, fully functioning tetrapods were walking around with Eusthenopteron. So much for the Tiktaalik prediction! As it turns out Tiktaalik ended up being a failed prediction of evolution. I'm assuming you were never told of this newer discovery that destroyed the Tiktaalik idea.

 

He's about to realize that Evolution "theory" accommodates both successful and failed predictions.   wacko.png



#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:15 PM

 

You might want to examine what that E.Coli change actually was instead of going off buzzwords.  The "complex new trait" or "novelty" is based entirely on preexisting genetic information that simply became expressed at different times.  

 

Latent information previously unexpressed but none of it will go beyond the natural genetic limitations that God imposed upon them.



#14 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:17 PM

 

What? Tetrapods were walking around with tetrapods and this is somehow damning evidence? Can you elaborate?

 

How does this evidence mesh with your young earth theory?

 

Oh man. If you don't see the problem here then I'm not sure it's worth conversing with you. 



#15 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:18 PM

 

You might want to examine what that E.Coli change actually was instead of going off buzzwords.  The "complex new trait" or "novelty" is based entirely on preexisting genetic information that simply became expressed at different times.  

 

It's obvious he didn't read the actual paper. Go figure.



#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:28 PM

Where is the scientific evidence for "nature pre-programmed" for "variation within the kind".

 

Please feel free to create your own thread for this question, the topic of THIS thread is for Hewy to give examples of the "empirical evidence" he claimed exists...

 

In otherwords I want him to "put his money where his mouth is", yet it seems (as always) evolutionists do not even want to support their own claims...

 

 

 

Gilbo, There's "Mountains of Evidence"  <---------That's the evidence dummy.gif

 

Lol, that is what we keep getting told wink.png

 

 

Another example that comes to mind is the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shuman et al. They predicted that they would find a transitional species in Devonian rock because of the time frames involved and everything else that they assume about geologic history. They found some Devonian rock in Northern Canada, searched around for 5 yrs and voila! They found a transitional species buried in the rock.

 

This is a prime example of a theory succesfully making a prediction and making a succesful prediction is how we know that a theory may be correct. After you accumulate millions of bits of corroborating evidence you can be fairly confident that you are on the right track.

 

 

As has been said before, Tiktaalik has already been debunked. The footprints in Poland which were dated OLDER than the oldest Tiktaalik fossils implies that tetrapods (the think Tiktaalik is claimed to be an ancestor for), were walking around before Tiktaalik... Do you see the problem?

 

How can you have something as an ancestor when it comes after the thing it is an ancestor for? Its like saying my great great grandfather will be born in 20 years...

 

If you can't see the problem here then I think EQuestions is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From an article about Richard Lenski's work with E. Coli found here,

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.U-UmFKNCySo

 

 

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

 

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."

 

I'll suggest reading Lifepysop's post here.

 

 

You might want to examine what that E.Coli change actually was instead of going off buzzwords.  The "complex new trait" or "novelty" is based entirely on preexisting genetic information that simply became expressed at different times.  

 

No novel information was generated.. Ecoli are able to digest citrate (as per the citric acid cycle), the only thing that changed was mutations resulted in a loss of regulation, a loss of information, which allowed the digestion of citrate outside it's normal use.

 

Therefore the experiment has actually demonstrated the reverse of what evolutionists propose. A loss of regulation is not a new function.



#17 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:02 AM

 

Oh man. If you don't see the problem here then I'm not sure it's worth conversing with you. 

 

 

I see from your reference that the discovery supported a change in the timeline by some 18 million yrs. Is this what you are referring to?

 

  I don't see how this takes away from the prediction of finding these kinds of fossils in this kind of rock. An adjustment of 18 million yrs may sound like a lot but in fact is not even 5% of the total age of 385 million yrs.

 

I am curious though. Do you actually believe that the tracks are 18 million yrs older than the Tiktaalik fossils? Do you agree that the Devonian rocks are approx. 385 million yrs old? Which bits of the evidence are you accepting?

#18 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:11 AM

 

The "complex new trait" or "novelty" is based entirely on preexisting genetic information that simply became expressed at different times.  

 

Consider the alphabet. It remains constant and new letters do not appear. Are we not able to express new information using the same old alphabet? Does every new idea that we express, using the same old alphabet, require the loss of information?



#19 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:10 AM

I see from your reference that the discovery supported a change in the timeline by some 18 million yrs. Is this what you are referring to?

 

  I don't see how this takes away from the prediction of finding these kinds of fossils in this kind of rock. An adjustment of 18 million yrs may sound like a lot but in fact is not even 5% of the total age of 385 million yrs.

 

Consider that you are now claiming both the success and the failure of this prediction as a comfortable outcome for evolution theory. This is an awkward position to be in.

 

The predictive value of Tiktaalik was based on it being discovered in the proper stratigraphical "transitional sequence".  That is more 'fishy' creatures below him, and more 'tetrapody' creatures above him, and Tiktaalik supposedly slots right into the right place in the sequence.  That is what was advertised to the public as a victory for the heuristic value of evolution theory.

 

The more recently discovered polish trackways are evidence of advanced tetrapods, and are found about "18 million years" below Tiktaalik, which itself is only believed to be a primitive "proto-tetrapod".  This has prompted evolutionists to hypothesize that tetrapod evolution occurred millions more years earlier than even the trackways, extending somewhere back into the Silurian.  As far as evolutionists know, tetrapods may have evolved 50-100 million years earlier than the strata where Tiktaalik was found, and this is what they would be forced to conclude if such fossil discoveries were made.

 

In such a case you would automatically support that conclusion if the alternative means questioning Evolution which is against your belief system.

 

I am curious though. Do you actually believe that the tracks are 18 million yrs older than the Tiktaalik fossils? Do you agree that the Devonian rocks are approx. 385 million yrs old? Which bits of the evidence are you accepting?

 

No, we are simply using the evolutionists' own language and context for clarity.  It is sufficient to say that such fossils are found in higher or lower strata and the inference to the belief in millions of years is unnecessary.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:47 AM

I see from your reference that the discovery supported a change in the timeline by some 18 million yrs. Is this what you are referring to?

 

  I don't see how this takes away from the prediction of finding these kinds of fossils in this kind of rock. An adjustment of 18 million yrs may sound like a lot but in fact is not even 5% of the total age of 385 million yrs.

 

Please read my 2 cents on this as well...

 

 

 

As has been said before, Tiktaalik has already been debunked. The footprints in Poland which were dated OLDER than the oldest Tiktaalik fossils implies that tetrapods (the think Tiktaalik is claimed to be an ancestor for), were walking around before Tiktaalik... Do you see the problem?

 

How can you have something as an ancestor when it comes after the thing it is an ancestor for? Its like saying my great great grandfather will be born in 20 years...

 

If you can't see the problem here then I think EQuestions is right.

 

Its not as simple as pushing the dates back since

 

  • Tiktaalik fossils weren't found at the (claimed) strata for revised date... So essentially its evolutionists claiming Tiktaalik existed much earlier than the fossils they have... Can we do that too, or is this only allowable for evolutionists?

 

  • that would also stuff up the dates for the claimed ancestors of Tiktaalik. The footprints in Poland were of Reptilian gait so that would push it back even further.

 

  • The fact remains that footprints were found to be earlier than the fossils of Tiktaalik... Sure you can claim it lived millions of years before, but you'd have to admit that you do so with no evidence whatsoever, baring your blind faith in evolution. A public admission of this on this forum would be acceptable smile.png

 

 

 

I am curious though. Do you actually believe that the tracks are 18 million yrs older than the Tiktaalik fossils? Do you agree that the Devonian rocks are approx. 385 million yrs old? Which bits of the evidence are you accepting?

 

This is a red herring... What matters is that YOU believe in the dating method and thus are forced to accept its conclusions. Unless you think the method was wrong, just this once? wink.png

 

 

 

Consider the alphabet. It remains constant and new letters do not appear. Are we not able to express new information using the same old alphabet? Does every new idea that we express, using the same old alphabet, require the loss of information?

 

Hang on... Whenever we use the alphabet as an example of DNA mutation, evolutionists say its taboo... Yet you are allowed to do so here?

 

Sadly (for you) DNA is much more complicated (and restrictive) than letters in an alphabet. Keep in mind that each and every change needs to be beneficial in order to be selected for via natural selection... (something which doesn't apply to an alphabet).






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users