Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection Observed


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:27 AM

This is a gross misrepresentation of the details. 

View Post

Actually, it is not a misinterpretation at all. The only problem is that you disagree with it. And you have to do much more than attempt to wave your hand and magically say “This is a gross misrepresentation of the details”. You need to follow it up with actual evidences of your assertion. And you have yet to do such.

If evolution happened it would leave a particular signature.

View Post

No, if evolution happened it would leave solid evidences, not interpretative innuendoes. There are absolutely “NO” transitional forms or evidences: No fin to limb transitions, no lips to beak transitions, no scale to feather transitions, No spot to eye transitions (etcetera… etcetera…). None have yet been posited for consideration, or empirically adduced. Therefore, all discussion is speculative at best. Further,

Searching for that signature is a scientific process. 

View Post

No, searching for that signature is a philosophical process. Searching for “evidence” is a scientific pursuit via the inductive scientific method.

Not all science is done in a lab (a particularly virulent misrepresentation this one), but some evolutionary work, such as the discovery of a set of positive mutations that together increased the fitness of the organism that had them is done in the lab.

View Post

The empirical scientific method is performed in a controlled environment. Field work is done, then the finding are sent back to the controlled environment for scientific study. The misinterpretation is in positing that anything outside a controlled environment can be verified as empirical.


The scientific question is:  “If evolution happened, what would we expect to see?”

View Post


Actual “transitional” evidences.

#62 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 30 June 2010 - 12:10 AM

This is a gross misrepresentation of the details.  If evolution happened it would leave a particular signature.  Searching for that signature is a scientific process.  Not all science is done in a lab (a particularly virulent misrepresentation this one), but some evolutionary work, such as the discovery of a set of positive mutations that together increased the fitness of the organism that had them is done in the lab.

The scientific question is:  “If evolution happened, what would we expect to see?”

View Post


That's not even the point I was trying to make. My point is, you can't simply observe the simplicity of fish then apply it to the complexity of humans. Whatever you observed from fish can only be applied to fish unless you've found what's in common for the findings to apply.

Yet evolutionists often fall for and tend to apply the fallacy that "because evolution is found in fishes (I even assume they are right on this), such that evolution in humans are proven". <---------- this is a fallacy.

Moreover, the tactics of the evolutionists is that they try to show you how "evolution" occurred to the becteria, then then will draw the conclusion that "evolution exists". Then they start to apply the "fact" ;) that "evolution exists" then keep talking about how high end animals are evolved and to present them as "facts".

The fallacious line of logic is more or less like,

It is obvious that 1+1=2, then mathematics is true, then 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 are true as well because "mathematics is true" and they are of mathematics. :D

#63 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:15 AM

That's not even the point I was trying to make. My point is, you can't simply observe the simplicity of fish then apply it to the complexity of humans. Whatever you observed from fish can only be applied to fish unless you've found what's in common for the findings to apply.


There is a lot more in common than you are allowing yourself to see. Such as both life forms are guided by genetics, not necessarily by the hand, but certainly in their physical traits.

Then there are outside pressures that affect their chances of survival, natural, artificial and S@xual selective pressures will dictate who gets a chance to survive.

Those are just a few similarities.

Yet evolutionists often fall for and tend to apply the fallacy that "because evolution is found in fishes (I even assume they are right on this), such that evolution in humans are proven". <---------- this is a fallacy.

Moreover, the tactics of the evolutionists is that they try to show you how "evolution" occurred to the becteria, then then will draw the conclusion that "evolution exists". Then they start to apply the "fact"  ;) that "evolution exists" then keep talking about how high end animals are evolved and to present them as "facts".


If all life is governed by genetics, and with genetics you can show that different traits are stronger in different situations then yes you can make you case for evolution.

The fallacious line of logic is more or less like,

It is obvious that 1+1=2, then mathematics is true, then 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 are true as well because "mathematics is true" and they are of mathematics.  :D

View Post


Unfortunately it is nothing like that at all. For this example to be true Evolutionists would have to be claiming that a dog will give birth to a new species without any sort of transition in between.

#64 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 30 June 2010 - 06:30 AM

For this example to be true Evolutionists would have to be claiming that a dog will give birth to a new species without any sort of transition in between.

View Post


;) They are since they haven't found any transitions / intermediates :D

#65 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:50 AM

You may discuss the evidence for a transitional in this thread:

http://www.evolution...t=0

#66 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:39 AM

:lol:  They are since they haven't found any transitions / intermediates  ;)

View Post


And that is the main point (or sticking point). But, many non-transitionals will be submitted (mistakenly or intentionally) as the real thing. Or, the definition will be modified to include non-transitionals.

#67 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:13 PM

I have asked you before Ron, what would you expect a transitional to look like?

Evolutionists have a tight definition of what constitutes a transitional. Do you know what that is?

I have given a particular example here for you to discuss, and this shows exactly what we mean exactly.

http://www.evolution...t=0

#68 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 January 2012 - 10:38 AM

Pardon?

Read On the Origin of Species Natural Selection requires variation.

Mutations increase variation.

Natural selection + mutation = evolution (micro only!)


That is where your example has failed. How does a guppy genetically mutate into different colors in an aquarium and then re-mutate back to it's original camoflauge colors when released back into the wild? Mutation is a one way direction and irrevesible, so this is not Darwinian natural selection; It's gene expression.


Enjoy.

#69 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2012 - 03:20 PM

I have asked you before Ron, what would you expect a transitional to look like?


What is quite funny here is that I have stated OVER-AND-OVER what "transitional forms AND evidences" would be. In fact, in post #61 (on this page) I said: "if evolution happened it would leave solid evidences, not interpretative innuendoes. There are absolutely “NO” transitional forms or evidences: No fin to limb transitions, no lips to beak transitions, no scale to feather transitions, No spot to eye transitions (etcetera… etcetera…). None have yet been posited for consideration, or empirically adduced. Therefore, all discussion is speculative at best." In all actuallity, for MACRO-evolution to be true, we would have to find a "continual and gradual transitional evolving chain of life" like fish to land creature to ape-like creature to man (etc...). BUT all we have as pseudo-evidence from the evolutionists is skulls and bones stacked side-by-side with millenial gaps of time (evolution-of-the-gaps) between them, and no real empirical evidence that ties any of them together.

#70 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 January 2012 - 07:01 AM

... He took some of these guppies back to the lab and put them in tanks with various bottoms, such as sand and gravel and different levels of predation from fish such as pike cichlid, Crenicichla alta, which is its natural predator. He also had some put in with the Killifish ( Rivulus hartii) which is a weak predator, and with different layers on the bottom. In another set of tanks were guppies with no predation, but the same layers along the bottom. He saw the species change in 6 months (in spot number, size and the colour depending on whether the selection was the Cichlid, the Killifish or the female), and he then took some of these back and put them into a tributary with only killifish and checked on them two years later and they were already more brightly coloured. This is only a quick summary of the detail. I couldn’t do it justice, but nine years later, another researcher found the descendants of Endler’s introduced guppies and they were as brightly coloured as ever.

What gives you (or him) the idea that this wasn't a preprogrammed response? Epigenetics perhaps? Did they investigate changes in the DNA, if yes, please give a source? If not, I think the example needs to be dismissed.

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 January 2012 - 07:34 AM

What gives you (or him) the idea that this wasn't a preprogrammed response? Epigenetics perhaps? Did they investigate changes in the DNA, if yes, please give a source? If not, I think the example needs to be dismissed.

Mark,
Phil was banned a while back. I was responding to the childishness of his reply to me, not to him. Phil showed the propencity to not answer for his assertions, but rather side step the issues at hand, and pretend facts didn't really matter.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users