Ultimate "blind" proof of Darwinian Evolution

[Himantolophus]

But I doubt the *accumulation* GIVEN THAT mutations are far more likely to disrupt than create. In that sense I doubt that the mechanisms of evolution have the POWER to generate and accumulate additional mutations to create that A-B-C pathway.

Actually most mutations are neutral, not negative.

And of the cat example and crab example I posted above, don't you believe it is "microevolutionary" change that brought about that speciation pathway? Is microevolution adding or subtracting from the genome of each successive species that forms? Can you provide genetic studies that illustrate this genetic degeneration from ancestral form to derived form? I just don't see any evidence of this "degeneration since original creation" (which seems to be inherent in your argument since you do not believe in Darwinian evolution adding information, so this must mean stay the same, rearrange, or decrease), no matter if you believe in OE or YEC. It seems apparent from the profusion of intermediate forms that there is some mechanism adding information? Darwininain or God or something else, it's happening. If you say God then when does he deem it neccessary to intervene and modify things and genomes?

[obsolete]

Actually, I think that the two pictures of the crabs are of the same genre. One is female and the other is male. The colors are used to atract the oposite sex for mating. How in the world could that not be ID for reproductive purposes? As far as the cats, It might have been more convincing if you posted a picture of a domesticated cat with them.

[Gerald McGrew]

Gman,

So if "it's possible" for God to create a bacterial flagellum via natural means, how would a bacterial flagellum evolving via natural means falsify ID?

So "natural causes" are antithetical to ID?

It depends on what you mean by "natural causes".

You're the one who stated: "ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice". What did you mean by "natural causes"?

That's funny... I've never heard it call the "Fact of Evolution" only the "Theory of Evolution."

I suppose you should actually read the material people provide for you. I provided this essay from S.J. Gould a while ago. Didn't you read it? It states

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Perhaps you should make a phone call to all the scientists of the world to correct their statements...

Perhaps you should study the subject matter more.

[Gerald McGrew]

Show us this evidence for evolution happening at the present

In this forum, I have posted the link to the paper describing the evolution of a new species (Tragopogon spp.). I've posted this link multiple times.

[Gerald McGrew]

I guess by that you are meaning virulent bacteria and viruses. I would say yes.

So how do you feel about worshipping a God who intentionally and deliberately created all manner of pathogens, parasites, and other horrible things that have caused the suffering of untold millions? In any other context, wouldn't this "designer" be considered a mass murding bio-terrorist?

Regardless of their effect, your question (please let me know if I am totally off base with that assunmtion) has more to do with theology than design. Whether or not a God would make something that infects another being is more in line with the classic *God/suffering question* and really has no bearing on it's design.

Given that ID is religious apologetics masquerading as science, the theological ramifications are indeed relevant.

Can we not observe a gun or tank with the same conclusion as our observations at a corvette or porsche?

Sure...but the people getting squashed beneath the tank treads aren't praising and worshiping the tank designer, are they?

Can you definitively say it isn't ? Look, if tomorrow, if ten years from now, we see that those 10 additional years of bacterial growth produces more changes, I'll be happy to adjust my view. However, if that happens, *YOU STILL* can't rule out GOd or the supernatural.

That doesn't answer the question: Have you ever seen anything being supernaturally created?

Hey, maybe I am too demanding. BUT, maybe the scientific community is too quick to leap to theor conclusions as well. (I suspect, and yes, a generalizaiton here, that phillosophically, they HAVE to leap on these discoveries).

Or maybe they aren't? How would you tell the difference?

All I'm saying is that I want to see more of these studies. Who are you to say I *should* be convinced by this?

No one is saying you have to do anything.

This is the only example I have seen of such a long range study of 20,000 generations. And while there are interesting examples of allopolyploidy and autopolyploidy in plants, the selection for mate choice in fruit flies, these are not as long range.

The reason is that experiments are set up with very specific hypotheses to test. Once the identified hypotheses have been tested, the experiment is over and the strain/population is eliminated. What you seem to be saying is, "I won't believe in evolutionary common descent until I see it all happen".

Because I have a problem with making such a large extrapolation based on one example of 20,000.

What "large extrapolation"? Again, all we've ever seen is the evolution of new traits and species via natural means; we've never seen new traits or species arise via any other means. So why is it such a "large extrapolation" to conclude that's been the case for the history of life on earth?

Here's one scenario. Suppose, for instance, selection is not meant to be creative over those long periods of time, but rather a maintenance? In other words, selection can work up to a point but the creation of new genetic traits through inversion, replication, mutation...is not as powerful as we think?

Ok, let's suppose.

First, since most people use that typical extrapolation (mutations over time), who would bother?

Bother to do what?

Secondly, this type of scenario can only be studied by examining this over time.

Not necessarily. One would expect that if major taxa were completely distinct (i.e. specially created), there would be signs of it in the genetic record. We wouldn't expect, for example, seperate taxa to share sequences like retroviral insertions or pseudogenes.

Ok, I an fully convinced of what the studied showed, that somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 generations of bacteria, some mutations occurred (were they inversions of genes already there? hmm, mnaybe those bacteria originally had that ability).

Is that all you think this study demonstrated ("some mutations occured")? Really?

But I doubt the *accumulation* GIVEN THAT mutations are far more likely to disrupt than create.

They're sufficient enough now to generate new species, so why wouldn't the same hold true for the past?

AGAIN, the study showed ONE new trait over 20,000 generations. the desire is to extrapolate this over millions of years. How can we tell?

It demonstrates yet again that new traits evolve via natural evolutionary mechanisms...mutation and natural selection can indeed generate new traits in populations.

Since when does logic mean something is necessarily what happened?

Where did I say "necessarily" anything happened?

[obsolete]

The reason is that experiments are set up with very specific hypotheses to test. Once the identified hypotheses have been tested, the experiment is over and the strain/population is eliminated. What you seem to be saying is, "I won't believe in evolutionary common descent until I see it all happen".

It is interesting that the "evolution" you are referring to is happening in a controlled environment that has been set up and monitored by scientists. This suggests that evolution can only occur in such an environment to make sure that the hypothesis will come out correctly.

zoegirl wrote:AGAIN, the study showed ONE new trait over 20,000 generations. the desire is to extrapolate this over millions of years. How can we tell?


It demonstrates yet again that new traits evolve via natural evolutionary mechanisms...mutation and natural selection can indeed generate new traits in populations.

That is still a pretty long stretch of time.

[Gerald McGrew]

It is interesting that the "evolution" you are referring to is happening in a controlled environment that has been set up and monitored by scientists.

Variable controls are an essential part of experimentation. Also, I've provided other examples of evolution taking place in the wild.

Are you suggesting that populations stop evolving when we aren't looking?

This suggests that evolution can only occur in such an environment to make sure that the hypothesis will come out correctly.

Are you accusing the scientists of fraud?

It demonstrates yet again that new traits evolve via natural evolutionary mechanisms...mutation and natural selection can indeed generate new traits in populations.

That is still a pretty long stretch of time.

What is a "long stretch of time"?

[Himantolophus]

Actually, I think that the two pictures of the crabs are of the same genre. One is female and the other is male. The colors are used to atract the oposite sex for mating. How in the world could that not be ID for reproductive purposes? As far as the cats, It might have been more convincing if you posted a picture of a domesticated cat with them.

no, the two crabs are Callinectes sapidus and Callinectes similis, two distinct species that live in the same range. Sexual selection is fully explainable by natural selection (the female prefers the male with flashy colors, therefore the male with the flashiest colors will be able to mate more and thus pass on his genes). Within the same family there are drab and colorful species. The randomness of it all fits evolution more than a designer and it clearly is not evidence of a designer!

I should have posted a domestic cat but that is a different genus then Panthera. Still, I ask is the change from Felis to Panthera micro or macroevolution? What makes you think that? They are both a "cat kind" obviously.

[obsolete]

Are you suggesting that populations stop evolving when we aren't looking?

Anything is possible within the "controled" atmosphere of a science lab. I do beleive that there are some types of micro organisms that do "evolve" on some level, but when has anything "evolved" into something larger? Like a fish coming out of the water?

What is a "long stretch of time"?

I was remarking on what zoegirl wrote.

ONE new trait over 20,000 generations

no, the two crabs are Callinectes sapidus and Callinectes similis, two distinct species that live in the same range.

Maybe that is why they look so much a like. Either way, if you boil them they will probably both turn red and probably taste really good with clarified butter.

[Himantolophus]

Just to add a point to the "most mutations are harmful" line I see a lot here. Assuming natural selection is acting on each organism of a population in the same way, selection should immediately remove said negative mutations from the population. So even if you have 1000 organisms with "bad" mutations and 2 with "good" mutations and 10,000 with neutral, the "bad" ones would most likely die off due to selective pressure, the "good" ones would have the opportunity to breed and produce more babies, and the neutrals would carry on as usual. After multiple generations you would have a evolutionary shift towards the individuals that have that "Good" mutation. The frequency of good vs. bad doesn't really matter, it's all up to selection.

Maybe that is why they look so much a like. Either way, if you boil them they will probably both turn red and probably taste really good with clarified butter.

true, but C. similis is usually pretty small and you don't get much meat out of em.

[Gerald McGrew]

Are you suggesting that populations stop evolving when we aren't looking?

Anything is possible within the "controled" atmosphere of a science lab.

First, "anything's possible" isn't really an answer to a question.

Second, the whole point of controlling variables in a lab experiment is to eliminate "anything's possible", so that when something is observed you have the ability to account for it and explain it.

In this specific experiment, the variables were carefully controlled so that when the new trait arose, not only could the researchers say "Yes, this is the evolution of a new trait", they could specifically identify the evolutionary pathway that led to the new trait.

I do beleive that there are some types of micro organisms that do "evolve" on some level,

Which "types"? Also, which "types" do you think don't evolve?

but when has anything "evolved" into something larger? Like a fish coming out of the water?

You mean amphibians?

What is a "long stretch of time"?

I was remarking on what zoegirl wrote.

ONE new trait over 20,000 generations

Generations aren't the measurement of time here; the experiment took place over 20 years. IOW, in a mere 20 years this strain of bacteria evolved a completely new metabolic ability.

[Gman]

Gman,

So if "it's possible" for God to create a bacterial flagellum via natural means, how would a bacterial flagellum evolving via natural means falsify ID?

Again it depends on what you mean be natural means... I don't believe in purely naturalistic means (no help from God).

You'rethe one who stated: "ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice". What did you mean by "natural causes"?

Metaphysical or methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism...

I suppose you should actually read the material people provide for you. I provided this essay from S.J. Gould a while ago. Didn't you read it? It states
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

All facts are interpreted and still have their own presuppositions. Therefore Darwinian evolution is your belief system. Not mine.. You can't force me to accept it as a fact...

Perhaps you should study the subject matter more.

I have and I'm not convinced that it is an "unquestionable" or "undeniable" fact..

[Gerald McGrew]

So if "it's possible" for God to create a bacterial flagellum via natural means, how would a bacterial flagellum evolving via natural means falsify ID?

Again it depends on what you mean be natural means... I don't believe in purely naturalistic means (no help from God).

Let's say I mean "via evolutionary mechanisms" when I said "via natural means" above.

So is it possible for God to create a bacterial flagellum vian evolutionary mechanisms?

You'rethe one who stated: "ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice". What did you mean by "natural causes"?

Metaphysical or methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism...

So we have: "ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when metaphysical or methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism would suffice".

That doesn't make sense.

All facts are interpreted and still have their own presuppositions. Therefore Darwinian evolution is your belief system. Not mine.. You can't force me to accept it as a fact...

By that token, gravity, pathogenic disease, and the atomic structure of matter are also "belief systems".

Perhaps you should study the subject matter more.

I have and I'm not convinced that it is an "unquestionable" or "undeniable" fact..

Anyone who thinks evolution is a fish morphing into a human cannot claim to have studied evolution in any detail.

[B. W.]

Anyone who thinks evolution is a fish morphing into a human cannot claim to have studied evolution in any detail.

What about the use of Darwin's theory to support the superior race?
-
-
-

[Gman]

Let's say I mean "via evolutionary mechanisms" when I said "via natural means" above.

So is it possible for God to create a bacterial flagellum vian evolutionary mechanisms?

Not via metaphysical or methodological naturalism because it denies any spirituality...

So we have: "ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when metaphysical or methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism would suffice".

That doesn't make sense.

Not at all.. All methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism has to do is produce a flagellum.. Is this a hard task to do?

By that token, gravity, pathogenic disease, and the atomic structure of matter are also "belief systems".

Macroevolution is not equal to gravity... It is still called a theory today. Is gravity a theory? I don't think do...

Anyone who thinks evolution is a fish morphing into a human cannot claim to have studied evolution in any detail.

Carl Sagan believed it... Watch this video by him on the subject….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtRn1fst-g