Re: The score

Zoe wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:59:00 GMT, Richard Clayton
<pockZIGetnZIGerd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Zoe wrote:
In order to test my core belief, you
would need to use a different hypothetical like the one I gave Joe
Cummings:

Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, I observe
that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
change morphologically. At the end of several years, I find that
while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
systems, others are more plant-like.

If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
to change my core beliefs.
But what you describe isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory; you're describing a rate of change far beyond anything any biologist imagines.
I don't think so. If a bacterium splits every 20 minutes, you will
have trillions of bacteria in a few hours that would begin to provide
your evolutionary time line in microcosm, given a few months or years.
On that scale, you should see the kind of evolutionary changes that
are assumed to have happened in longer-lived species.

An experiment like that would not support modern science's understanding of biology, it would mean we're dreadfully wrong about something. Why not check out one of the experiments that scientists DO use to test the theory of evolution?
you mean, you don't know any offhand, yourself? I would think this
type of thing would be at the fingertips of evolutionists on this
forum who are dedicated to demonstrating their points.
As a matter of fact, it IS at my fingertips. Here's a list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

what? There's not even agreement among evolutionists as to what is a
species. You have eight different definitions here. And an open
admission that there is disagreement about how to define a species. I
don't think I want to go further with that mess.

And another:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

no thanks. I don't know if Stassen has the correct definition or not.

Now you're simply dodging the issue.

You're not talking about the fruit-fly experiment, are you?
Among many others, yes.

The fruit
fly has a fast gestation period, 12 days, and has been used to try to
demonstrate how mutations can change a species. Yet what they have
ended up with so far are fruit flies with abnormalities, not a species
that no longer is recognized as a fruit fly.

What else have you got? Help me out.
Zoe, laboratory demonstrations of evolution have resulted in organisms far more distinct from each other genetically than you and I are from gorillas. It's casual ignorance to dismiss it out of hand and say "Well, they're STILL bacteria." By that argument, chimps and humans are both "STILL eukaryotes."

more semantics like the eight controversial definitions for a species?

Yes, sometimes it's hard to define "species." There are animals that can breed, but generally don't, so we consider them to be separate species mostly because that's a handier way to classify them.

There are also animals that can sometimes breed, or that may breed but yield infertile offspring, or animals that can't reproduce but try anyway. Where does one draw the line between coyote, red wolf, and grey wolf? But you'd expect that, if they evolved from a common ancestor, in a pattern of diversifying, diverging, and diversifying again.

If, on the other hand, species were completely inflexible, it should be very, very easy to tell which is which. I have yet to find a creationist willing to hazard a testable definition of "kind." Want to be the first?

snip>
See, that's the first problem. Scientific observations have to be testable and repeatable; the whole system is designed to minimize the possibility for error in observation (or deliberate fraud).
wait a minute. If scientific observations have to be testable and
repeatable, then are you saying that the theory of abiogenesis is
unscientific?
There is no "theory of abiogenesis." The evidence shows that once, there wasn't life on Earth; today, there is. Scientists are still trying to figure out how it happened.

That the theory of the split of chimp and human from a
last common ancestor is unscientific?
As I said, the OBSERVATIONS must be repeatable, and they are: You can examine the DNA for yourself. You can perform the tests that show the genomes are nearly identical. You can look at the endogenous retroviral insertions, scars left by long-ago viruses. You can examine the morphological and fossil evidence.

you are speaking only of interpretations of evidence. I am talking
about an event that can be observed and repeated. Your supposed LCA
split into human and chimp ONCE, and cannot be observed again or
repeated. So claiming that it happened when it has not been observed
or repeated makes it an unscientific claim, by your standards.

No, Zoe... the facts can be observed, and the observations are repeatable. You're being deliberately thick, unless you think that all forensic science is a scam. Maybe we should free every man in prison, since we can only examine the evidence and not the original crime itself...

What other viable "interpretation" do you have for the evidence? Do you have any other theory that makes falsifiable predictions and fits the evidence?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon

.

Loading