5 ms·

We don't know evolution is true I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intellig

by kirse 18y ago

We don't know evolution is true I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intelligent humans. Honestly, I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I can't believe people accept Evolution as if it's some inherent and proven physical law as gravity. On the macro-evolutionary level, there's so much bullshitting/extrapolation going on (especially in the arena of speciation) that there's so many questions and holes left unanswered. Despite the fact that we only ever observe variation within a given type, we're supposed to have faith in the scientists that (given enough time) we'll get whole new kingdoms of life. As far as I'm concerned, those experiments prove one thing: variation exists within a given type. Period.

justindz 18y ago
Most people I've met that accept evolution (well, the ones that accept evolution and also think about what they accept) accept it as requiring less bullshitting than other proposals and are also willing to reject it if something better comes along. I haven't met any reasoned person in a while that accepts evolution and isn't okay with the fact that it might not be right or at least finished yet.
KirinDave 18y ago
So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures, even above the single-celled level. The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years). I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.
- kirse 18y ago
  The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation. Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other. So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro). So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it: Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
  - KirinDave 18y ago

by kirse 18y ago

justindz 18y ago

Most people I've met that accept evolution (well, the ones that accept evolution and also think about what they accept) accept it as requiring less bullshitting than other proposals and are also willing to reject it if something better comes along. I haven't met any reasoned person in a while that accepts evolution and isn't okay with the fact that it might not be right or at least finished yet.

KirinDave 18y ago

So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures, even above the single-celled level. The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years). I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.

kirse 18y ago
The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation. Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other. So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro). So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it: Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
- KirinDave 18y ago