Observable Evidence: Evolution vs. Creationism

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.

What was your problem then with their methods and controls? Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

vimeo.com...

a reply to: cooperton

This is such a silly question. First of all, evolution doesn't say that speciation happens instantaneously or that if it isn't directly observed, it didn't happen.

But if you must have "observation", permanent genetic mutations, which are passed on to succeeding generations is a good example. Humans and the great apes have approximately 97% genetic compatibility. But that doesn't mean that a great ape mother gave birth to a human.
Permanent genetic mutations are observed frequently in organisms due to evolutionary and environmental stresses.

You folks refuse to read and understand the science. You beat your heads against a brick wall in an attempt to convince that the science of evolution isn't there. Well keep on beating - Maybe it will do some good!

a reply to: cooperton

OP, you may find what you're looking for here:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.

2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.

3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.

4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.

What was your problem then with their methods and controls? Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

vimeo.com...

How is this video supposed to support your claims please?

What does it show in any way to show me that you are correct?

I really do not understand what you hoped to achieve by using this one and a half minute clip that shows nothing at all that I can see.

a reply to: cooperton

Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

I would prefer a published article over a video.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

But if you must have "observation", permanent genetic mutations, which are passed on to succeeding generations is a good example.

But there was no experiment that observed a viable change of kind from these genetic mutations. I would like to see the evolutionary development of a wing, it must've been pretty useless until adaptation over the generations allowed it to let the organism take flight. The intermediary wing, which would be incapable of allowing the organism to fly, would not be an advantage, so that species would die off before fully developing a set of wings capable of flight. Therefore, it would require begetting a bird from something that isnt a bird (an organism without wings giving birth to an organism with wings capable of flight), and thus a change of kind. But this has never been observed.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.

What was your problem then with their methods and controls? Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

vimeo.com...

How is this video supposed to support your claims please?

What does it show in any way to show me that you are correct?

I really do not understand what you hoped to achieve by using this one and a half minute clip that shows nothing at all that I can see.

this is why i did not include it in the original post. I tried contacting the researcher but they did not respond to me. But they claim to have "witnessed the impossible", implying they were successful. Unfortunately their microscope camera is not good enough for us to clearly see the bugs.

a reply to: cooperton

I believe that was less of an actual experiement, and more of an artist paying tribute.

Artist Statement :

This work replicates one notorious experiment of little-known scientist Andrew Crosse in 1837. That experiment was once believed to have spontaneously generated insects (called Acarus crossii later) from inorganic matters. If it did, it proved the concept of abiogenesis. In my version, Crosse's setting will be triggered only when audiences are flipping a fiction book, written in 1968. It is an early work of Taiwan respected writer, Zhang Xiao-Feng (張曉風). The sad story was about a living woman, Pan Duna (潘渡娜). She was actually an artificial life created in laboratory, even without genetic parents. She was pretty, arranged to get married and pregnant, but eventually failed to deliver, and “died”.

www.huiwaikeung.org...

I don't see where they claim to have been successful, nor do I see anything but an apparatus in the video.

a reply to: cooperton

The intermediary wing, which would be incapable of allowing the organism to fly, would not be an advantage, so that species would die off before fully developing a set of wings capable of flight.

You just demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of evolution (not a surprise). Traits which may not have a survival advantage do not lead to extinction of species. Changes in the environment do.

If a mutation causes a particular organism to die, it is not passed on the the rest of the population. If it does not kill the organism, it will be passed on. Whether or not it is a "beneficial" mutation depends upon the environment and many mutations have no effect at all. Do people with six toes automatically die? Are they better at surviving than those with only five?

a reply to: cooperton

Figure out how to live a few hundred thousand years and get back to us. Asking for a real-time observation of a process that takes thousands of years is a bit silly.

a reply to: cooperton

Those are poor analogies. Evolution is not a one-to-one relationship. Nature experiments over millions of generations, billions of mutations most of which fail. It's the ones that survive that breed. It is the common ancestor, not the preceding generations that cause observable evolution. Primates and humans evolved from a common ancestor. And I repeat, a primate never gave birth to a human. If humans were wiped off the face of the Earth, primates would possibly become the common ancestor of futures species - not necessarily humans either.

It's the common ancestor that links biological organisms together.

Creationist have deliberately misinterpreted the science to suit their agenda. Only the lame, lazy and the crazy who don't like work buy into it.

a reply to: cooperton

Can you define "kind" in an objective, meaningful, and clear way? I've seen your question asked by creationist members here on ATS regularly since I've been a member, but no one seems to want to put a definition to it.

And getting back to your original question and comments - where in the scientific literature has it ever been said that evolution must be a direct measurement or observation? Science makes direct and indirect observations. We don't see photons, but we know they are there. We don't see oxygen and nitrogen, but we k now they are in the air.

Just another deliberate misinterpretation of how science works.

The next time you turn on a lightbulb or breath the air remember - it ain't real because you can't see it.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.

What was your problem then with their methods and controls? Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

vimeo.com...

For the sake of argument, let's say that they did create the conditions for life to form in a lab. How does that disprove evolution?

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

it is very unscientific of you to ignore observable evidence, especially when you have not read the experiments.

I read it.

What was your problem then with their methods and controls? Have you watched this video which is a contemporary source that successfully recreated the experiment:

vimeo.com...

For the sake of argument, let's say that they did create the conditions for life to form in a lab. How does that disprove evolution?

That is a valid point. Even if the experiment were true then I imagine that the result of the experiment would need to evolve into other creatures to explain the world we now live in.

If I were to see an experiment were somebody made a chicken or an elephant from scratch then I would be inclined to re eavaluate my opinion.

a reply to: cooperton

Creation is a world.

It isn’t a natural reality outside that matrix necessarily.


This world is the world of creation so the biologist will forever be looking for some root thing as a source in which they’ll NEVER find.

They won’t find it because in order to find it one has to reach the greater world that is the source of this creative-world matrix and that is only done through the spiritual sciences


They’ll never believe that

What one has to observe first is ones own ignorance then they may be able to carry on into real knowledge but the scientist are too arrogant and think, like religious dogmatists, that they have the only methodology to truth…science.


What the scientists don’t understand is that we are mysteriously wrapped up in this creative matrix and that alone serves to blind us from certain realities.



So the scientists will never get to the truth because they avoid the basics…and that is to know yourself

a reply to: Willtell

They won’t find it because in order to find it one has to reach the greater world that is the source of this creative-world matrix and that is only done through the spiritual sciences

No such thing. As spiritual sciences. By definition.

I think it's funny when people ask for observable proof of evolution when believing creation. As if there is observable proof of a species just poofing into existence. smh.

a reply to: cooperton

The writing that human beings generate while trying to understand the natural world is not subject to the same optimisation principles that the natural world is.

You can smash the two together all you like and all you will get is frustration.

Meanwhile, a system that is trying to optimise fish, is going to boot out anything that is not optimising towards optimised fish.

See?

a reply to: jheated5

That's where the experiments of Crosse and Weeks come into it. The claim is that science has observed the spontaneous appearance of life from non-life.

It's a new tack, to me.