4 ms·

The man made fruit fly experiments are quite precisely the opposite of natural selection, which is what I'm looking for. As for the birds, there was never obse

The man made fruit fly experiments are quite precisely the opposite of natural selection, which is what I'm looking for. As for the birds, there was never observed a time when that genetic anomaly was not present, so no evolution has been observed. Regardless, it isn't the case that the species has bifurcated itself into two subspecies, rather there are 4 genders in the single species and each gender only mates with a particular partner gender. How is this different from speciation? Easy: any organism can produce offspring of any gender, but they will all be the same species.

tomrod 3y ago
Evolution is a theory that is parsimonious to the data at hand. We proved speciation in a lab. As you and I are part of nature, their speciation is natural even if at our will. We isolated a species long enough that they could no longer mate, subjected to separation of environments. Ergo, separation of populations leads to speciation. QED. But if you decide that only random events cause the effect you're looking for, first restate your hypothesis as such then do your homework on a very well studied field. Why a restated hypothesis? Because it is intellectually honest to say your first hypothesis is completely answered by the fruit fly experimentation. There is no clear distinction between speciation from random events causing separation and researchers doing so in a laboratory.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Sure, I believe there is no evidence to support the hypothesis: "the species we encounter derived exclusively from random genetic mutations competing via natural selection", or even the weaker form: "random genetic mutations have been responsible for the development of new functionality in Life". I used to buy into the Evolutionary Theory, or at the very least believe there was actual observational Science behind it commensurate to the scale of the claims atheists make. Hell, I even studied biology at a top university. I suspect you may be less familiar with the opposing view, I recommend the "Creation vs Evolution" lecture here: https://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#Creation_and_Evolution https://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#Creation_... . While the site as a whole is rooted in Christian fundamentalism, the lecture itself makes no arguments based on Scripture or Faith. Now, I believe in the parts of evolution we have observed. Which, in CS terms is something along the lines of: "the backing data-vectors of life forms are subject to stochastic gradient decent mechanics which can result in population-level changes tending towards local maxima in fitness, via a process we call `Evolution`". That said, I have seen no evidence to support the claim that those data-vectors were initialized randomly, or that Evolution is capable of optimizing past these local-maximas.

tomrod 3y ago

Evolution is a theory that is parsimonious to the data at hand. We proved speciation in a lab. As you and I are part of nature, their speciation is natural even if at our will. We isolated a species long enough that they could no longer mate, subjected to separation of environments. Ergo, separation of populations leads to speciation. QED. But if you decide that only random events cause the effect you're looking for, first restate your hypothesis as such then do your homework on a very well studied field. Why a restated hypothesis? Because it is intellectually honest to say your first hypothesis is completely answered by the fruit fly experimentation. There is no clear distinction between speciation from random events causing separation and researchers doing so in a laboratory.

explaininjs 3y ago
Sure, I believe there is no evidence to support the hypothesis: "the species we encounter derived exclusively from random genetic mutations competing via natural selection", or even the weaker form: "random genetic mutations have been responsible for the development of new functionality in Life". I used to buy into the Evolutionary Theory, or at the very least believe there was actual observational Science behind it commensurate to the scale of the claims atheists make. Hell, I even studied biology at a top university. I suspect you may be less familiar with the opposing view, I recommend the "Creation vs Evolution" lecture here: https://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#Creation_and_Evolution https://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#Creation_... . While the site as a whole is rooted in Christian fundamentalism, the lecture itself makes no arguments based on Scripture or Faith. Now, I believe in the parts of evolution we have observed. Which, in CS terms is something along the lines of: "the backing data-vectors of life forms are subject to stochastic gradient decent mechanics which can result in population-level changes tending towards local maxima in fitness, via a process we call `Evolution`". That said, I have seen no evidence to support the claim that those data-vectors were initialized randomly, or that Evolution is capable of optimizing past these local-maximas.