Evolution and Evolution. Still two different things

Posted by Dealer on July 20, 1998 at 05:12:29:

In Reply to: History and evolutionary experiments. Still two different things. posted by rpcman on April 26, 1998 at 17:45:28:

The main reason evolution is still popular is because people don't know the difference between evolution and evolution. One is a change of traits (a brown haired man and a brown haired wife give birth to a blonde girl) where the traits are present in the genes of the parents (dominant and recessive genes). The other is a change from one species to another one.(a brown haired man and a brown haired wife give birth to a blonde dog).

There is much proof for the first evolution (horizontal), but none to attest to the second evolution (vertical). Evolutionists seem to think along these lines: "I see evolution when this fly changes into a ... fly... So evolution is true, we come from apes!" (I see a flaw in this way of thinking, don't you?)

: Here is an experiment for you. Take a nice sized random sample of a species of your choice. Find a trait in a minority of the species (1% to be exact) that gives those individuals a 5% advantage in survival/reproduction. I predict (with a great deal of confidence) that in 100 generations 56% of the population will exhibit this trait. Go ahead, try it. Let me know how it goes.

: If this doesn't equal 'evolution' into separate species in your book then do the experiment twice in two different settings evolving them for different fitness. You may have to wait a few hundred of your lifetimes but you'll get the results.

Like my previous point, someone is saying that changing the FREQUENCY of a trait is somehow making new species. There isn't any change in the species. Start with flies, what do you get? Flies. Start with bacteria, what do you get? Bacteria. There are limits to what changes are possible in a particular type. We know the mechanism for horizontal evolution, changes in populations showing a desired trait, and that is simple genetics. However, simple genetics doesn't allow for addition of new traits, just the destruction of existing ones. It's foolish to say that one form of evolution with one known mechanism proves another kind of evolution that cannot use that same mechanism. Predictions and extrapolation are great, but you have to remember that there are limits and to jump over these limits without proof is foolish.

: : But where are the predictions?

: Come up with the facts and the predictions are simple computations.

For horizontal (proven) evolution, yes. For vertical (and completely unproven as of yet), no. Possible later, when new evidence is found (though we've searched most everywhere and not found) We can predict changes from one species to another, but not when we don't have a provable mechanism.

: : That is, who predicted the peppered moth would change color before it was observed?

The peppered moth never did change colors. It started by having both black and white moths and it ended with having both black and white moths. The only difference natural selection had was in determining the population of the two colors. If the polution had caused the trees to turn blue, would the moths have turned blue? No, it is beyond the limits of it's change - it's not pre-programmed into it's genetic code like black and white was, therefore isn't a example of vertical evolution.

: : I have asked several times for a repeatable, predictable experiment; this would be proof.

: Try the experiment above as many times as you like.

However, that experiment would only prove that natural selection works and that species have the ability to tend to use the traits that they have more if they help it to survive. It would not, hower, (much to the surprise of most pure evolutionists [grin]) prove that a species can aquire a new useful trait which would be necessary to turn an lizard into a bird.

: : My only beef is your statement "Evolution is just a theory is laughable"

: It is as evolution has been observed countless times. Also, the people who make this claim think that scientific theory is a mere untested, unobserved hypothesis. We both know that a scientific theory is far more than this.

No, one form of evolution has been observed countless times (which, to the joy of creationists goes along perfectly with their theory. After all, they first thought of natural selection. [Edward Blyth - 24 years before Darwin's]) The other evolution as a theory is often called laughable because of the many large jumps of 'faith' required to believe in most parts of it. Just because a population of a species changes from being high in one trait it has to being high in another trait that it had, means that a one-celled organism can change into a man. That's just a laughable leap of faith.
Another is the fact that because we see a general pattern of decreased organization, and of decreased availiable energy, that there must have been some force that strictly opposed that which created life as we know it. That's quite funny in my opinion.
And to end this before you all are rolling in your chairs in laughter, yet another one would be that some evolutionists (not many, but a notable few) are saying that we must have been put on this earth by aliens because all the natural processes that we know of go against evolution the way it's currently defined (though they change the theory to fit the current facts so often).

: : Keep up the good work.

: And keep asking the questions and actively looking for the answers.

Actively being the key word, just because you don't agree on one part of a theory doesn't mean to ignore the rest.