Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: AthlonSavage

A moth changing colour or patterns to blend with their environment is not an example of species evolving from one thing to next. That process is a metamorphosis.

It's not metamorphosis (in the biological sense of the word), either. Metamorphosis is a larvae changing into an adult -- like when a caterpillar grows into becoming a moth. It's changed, but it's still the same individual.

In the case of the peppered moth, it's not like individual white moths suddenly changed their coloring to become a black moth so they could blend better with the tree bark darkened by soot.

What happened was that there were both varieties of moths -- light and dark -- but the light color was the far more populous variety before the industrial revolution in England, because the light-colored moths blended in with the light tree trunks, and were harder for birds to spot, thus the light-colored moths lived longer to have offspring. Those offspring would likely to be light-colored as well because of the parents' genes being passed to them.

However, when the industrial revolution in places such as Manchester and Birmingham caused the light-colored tree trunks to become sooty and dark, the light-colored peppered moths were at an environmental disadvantage versus the dark-colored peppered moths. In that environment with darkened trees, it was the dark moth who blended in better than the light moth. The light moths were eaten by birds more than the dark ones, so the dark ones lived longer and had more offspring. The offspring of the dark moth would more likely also be dark, due to the parent passing along the dark gene.

After several generations of this, the dark moth soon greatly outnumber the light moth in that area because it was the dark moths who were able to have far more offsping, and had a better chance of spreading there "dark wing" genetic code to the next generation. This reversed the decades-earlier trend of the light colored greatly moths outnumbering the dark ones.

Granted, they were still the same species, just different varieties. However, this was an example of process of adaptation and natural selection. This process can, after other beneficial mutations and additional generations, lead to a new species splitting off from an existing one.

a reply to: whereislogic

Followed by a reference to the so-called "mountain of evidence" for evolutionary philosophies (not "the theory of evolution" as defined by some people that conveniently leave out the subject of common descent, which was the main topic of evolutionary ideas/philosophies in my commentary, as it was in your comment about whales and the comment I was initially responding to in this thread) that I have concluded is a house of cards by considering the relevant facts/certainties/truths and "drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction". As per Newton's recommendation that I'm partly quoting there.

a little research on the subject of taxonomy and phylogenetics will prove educational i think.

www.onezoom.org...

www.iflscience.com...

www.nature.com...

www.sciencemag.org...

www.evogeneao.com...

behold the majestic map of common descent, which absolutely is a key component in the theory of evolution. take a look for yourself.

a reply to: KellyParker

google is your friend

a reply to: Akragon

Plants have evolved us, say thank you to them.
Diet and environment
Psycho active
Activating our psychology


They have built us from a micro biological level, our brains are always evolving.

It's the great goddess
Diana, Sofia the Gaia
The mother

The spikes happen because the mother introduces us to new substances that build our brains chemistry

What we consciously desire the earth provides

When science looked into how millions of different life forms were on Earth, the only theory they considered, and still consider today, is that all species on Earth were branched off one, or a few, original species, which were simple-celled organisms. The millions of species on Earth today are all from this one, or a few, ancestor species.

Since then, all their efforts have gone into proving this theory is correct, and nothing else is considered but that theory.

All the evidence over recorded history has been ignored, as if it doesn't even exist, because it means their theory has to explain why they've ignored all this evidence, as scientists should never do, regardless of their own views.


If it was valid science, they would consider the ACTUAL evidence on hand, and over recorded history - BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO DO - LOOK AT ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Valid science would then find all species have been the exact same species, since recorded history, and since that time, and never changes at all in the future centuries, as well.

They would have no choice but to conclude all species on Earth were CREATED as those species, since the beginning.

They would not know how they were created, or who created them, or why they were created, or when they created them....but at least, they'd be on the right track.


Science shouldn't be ignoring what is in front of them. It should be accepted, and embraced, as the reality. That's what it is, so why pretend it isn't true?

Because science is trying to be God, and have the world praise them as God, when it's actually the reverse.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Since then, all their efforts have gone into proving this theory is correct, and nothing else is considered but that theory.

Nope. Since then, all evidence has agreed completely with this theory and nobody has ever come up with an alternative theory backed by evidence.

All the evidence over recorded history has been ignored, as if it doesn't even exist, because it means their theory has to explain why they've ignored all this evidence, as scientists should never do, regardless of their own views.

Aside from Tom Brady, what evidence do you have to support anything else?

Valid science would then find all species have been the exact same species, since recorded history, and since that time, and never changes at all in the future centuries, as well.

Funny, because all evidence shows the exact opposite.

They would have no choice but to conclude all species on Earth were CREATED as those species, since the beginning.

LOL!! Based on what, exactly?????

They would not know how they were created, or who created them, or why they were created, or when they created them....but at least, they'd be on the right track.

Yeah, that's creationism to a T. Nobody knows anything about anything at all, but they just KNOW for a fact that they were created.

a reply to: ManyMasks

ManyMasks,

I dunno.

I get a strong sense, that you could be my ol Padawan #1!

My blood pressure rises...

M,Coomba98

a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour

I don't think you actually understand what Science is as does. Your post has no backing as to how scientific method works, or what scientists do. I say this as one.

What a silly topic. Of course you can prove evolution wrong. Who even believes it anymore? Nothing can't come from something. That is absolute fact. Evolution is basically like farting and it somehow rearranging itself into a musical symphony. It ain't gonna happen. It's on it's last legs, most real scientists like Stephen Meyer already know it.

Intelligent design: 1+1 = 2
Evolutionism: 12 + infinity = Harry

There is no reasoning to support it. Stop clinging to false hope, atheists!

This fly evolved by having 3D Images of its prey (ants) in its wings so that it can be amongst them incognito.
Clever nature. linky

a reply to: Toothache

uhm… Mostly everyone "believes" it... if that's even the appropriate word

Its only religious fundys that usually argue against it...

And believing what science says about evolution of species does not mean one must also be an atheist

a reply to: Toothache

Some nice trolling there. However. Please post testable evidence, not your own gnoses. Thanks

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour

I don't think you actually understand what Science is as does. Your post has no backing as to how scientific method works, or what scientists do. I say this as one.

If you had heard every scientist around the world agree, that smoking does NOT cause cancer, NOR does it even cause damage to one's health, at all. Coughing, but nothing else harmful to you.

Those were the facts, from our 'scientific experts', at the time.


They were lying, but so what? It's in the past. Now, we can believe them, on anything, being 100% truthful, ok??


When you see that they - as all of our greatest scientific experts around the world - have all agreed to lie. Being such a ruinous, despicable, evil lie, which will cause more death, more illness, more damage around the world, because of their obscene lie. And why they supposedly lied to us, about smoking, which caused so many deaths, sickness?

For money, and that's it!! Nothing else.


How much money would it take to lie about smoking not causing cancer, then?

And how would every scientist take money to lie about this, knowing that smoking kills people, and lying will cause many more to die, than otherwise would?


Not one scientist came forward, to speak the truth about smoking, right?


Were they all so evil, and/or greedy, then?

Or were they told to lie, or else?

Lie, or die - simple as that.


Lie for money, maybe so, but death is motive alone.



So now, the question is - knowing they lied before, why wouldn't they lie today?

a reply to: turbonium1

Speaking as a scientist. That is not how it works. We don't have to agree. WE do have to agree with the data. IF the data shows the same thing to us, we thus say the same thing.

Its certainly not for the money neighbour. We don't get paid very much compared to other jobs.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Toothache

uhm… Mostly everyone "believes" it... if that's even the appropriate word

Its only religious fundys that usually argue against it...

And believing what science says about evolution of species does not mean one must also be an atheist

Even if biologists are having exceptional difficulty nailing down which phylum "god" fits in.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The same phylum as Zeus, Odin, Horus, dragons and unicorns.

a reply to: turbonium1

None of what you said is true. The tobacco companies absolutely wanted data withheld - that's a no brainer. To this day they will deny the relationship based on nothing. They recently have been sued again for e-cigarettes which not only blow up in your face but also contain toxins and compounds derived from tobacco.

That said, scientists were on the job. You have to understand how clinical trials worked then and now - there's a huge difference. Read this article - it will explain how it worked back then.

The Study That Helped Spur the U.S. Stop-Smoking Movement
Jan 9, 2014
www.cancer.org...

The 1950 Turning Point

There were a few small-scale studies conducted from the late 1920s to late 1940s that suggested a possible link between smoking and lung cancer, but these studies had several limitations – and didn’t provide the evidence necessary to establish a clear connection between smoking and lung cancer.

This began to change in the 1950s. Five larger retrospective studies were published in the early 1950’s that again showed a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Though important, these studies still didn’t make a convincing enough case as they relied on the self-reported smoking habits of people who already had lung cancer, and compared them to those who didn’t.

One potential problem with this type of study is that people with lung cancer are more likely to overestimate how much they smoked, while those who don’t have lung cancer are more likely to underestimate how much they smoked. To address this issue, a prospective (cohort) study was needed – recruiting healthy people and following them over time to see who develops or dies from lung cancer and who does not. Without such evidence, the tobacco industry was able to cast doubt on the link between smoking and death from lung cancer and other diseases, says Eric Jacobs, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society.