Why is evolution hiding?

[Esquilax]

Inevitably, those of us who aren't professional scientists have to take a lot of science on faith and trust. Unfortunately, that also makes it embarrassingly awkward to ask a question that seems, in the light of recent studies and several popular books, to be growing ever more pertinent. What if Darwin's theory of evolution – or, at least, Darwin's theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it – is, in significant respects, not entirely accurate?

Darwin's initial theory wasn't entirely accurate, and the theory of evolution has been adapted to take account of new information as we've progressed. But the basis of it has only ever been confirmed by everything that we've come to know about the living world since. In over a hundred and fifty years we have never come across any significant contention against evolution. It is simply a fact.

There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Argh, you're killing me man. This is just crap, I'm afraid; the reason a breeder of animals- my family breeds dogs by the way, so I do understand what you're saying- doesn't see their animals breeding something that's of a different species is because that process generally takes many millions of years to become as noticeable as you're imagining. The lifetime of a single human, no matter the generations of animal they're able to breed, isn't enough time to bring about the big, attention grabbing speciation event that you're thinking of.

Nor do they have to, mind; in a scientific sense we're able to create new species in a laboratory, because evolution is true. This is a fairly lengthy article, but if you go down into chapter five you'll see that the stuff you're talking about has been done under laboratory conditions for years.

I at this time am skeptic that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

There's a type of bacteria that was bred in a lab called Flavobacteria that can digest nylon. Nylon isn't naturally occurring, and no other bacteria can do this; where do you think they developed this ability, if not through new information being added to their genetics via evolution?

Also, Science has fucked up many times, said one thing at one time was good for you, and 10 years later says this is terrible for you, take it off the shelves.

This is a process that we call "learning." Are you against learning, TC?

Would you prefer that science didn't own up to the mistakes it makes, just to maintain the pretense of being all knowing? Or would you rather a scientific method that corrects for its errors and always works to remove them from play?

Also, even if I were to become the most militant and fanatical atheist on this forum, I would still get extremely irritated every time someone says something like "Dawkins proved that God doesn't exist". Bullshit!

Yep, that would be a pretty stupid thing to say, I'm with you there.

Scientists do not know how to explain so many of the theories of evolution because the research leads to results they can't understand.

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies.

And they always will, dude! I don't think you understand just how small these changes are; evolution never has, and never will, state that one species gives birth to an offspring of another species. That would disprove evolution as science understands it, to see that. These are gradual, small changes that build up over time; we might not get fruit flies turning into anything else, but we do get new species of fruit fly from that.

Let me put it this way: if I start piling up sand one grain at a time, eventually I'm going to get a huge pile of sand, right? Why would small changes in species over time not add up to big, noticeable ones eventually too?

I argue that there has been much evidence. One example is the image on the Guadalupe tilma. It was always believed to be a miraculous image, it lead to the conversion of the Aztecs, and with are scientific technology we can determine if an image was painted or if fibers were dyed and what they have been dyed with.

Scientists do not know of any artwork that has or even could by natural phenomenon be produced in a manner so baffling and mysterious, nor do they understand why a tilma made of cactus fibers isn't decomposing after hundreds of years.

Given that this supposed miracle hasn't been allowed a scientific examination in over thirty years, I find this claim dubious.

[Phatt Matt s]

This is a process that we call "learning." Are you against learning, TC?

No, thank you for sharing your knowledge and I consider you a wise man

Would you prefer that science didn't own up to the mistakes it makes, just to maintain the pretense of being all knowing?

Only if I've got my head up my ass.

Or would you rather a scientific method that corrects for its errors and always works to remove them from play?

If I didn't prefer that I don't deserve to be alive

Why would small changes in species over time not add up to big, noticeable ones eventually too?

It makes sense and those who embrace this idea are not dummies. It is still theory.

Nylon isn't naturally occurring, and no other bacteria can do this; where do you think they developed this ability, if not through new information being added to their genetics via evolution?

Didn't know that thanks!

generally takes many millions of years to become as noticeable as you're imagining...
Bacteria evolves very quickly

[SteelCurtain]

I argue that there has been much evidence. One example is the image on the Guadalupe tilma. It was always believed to be a miraculous image, it lead to the conversion of the Aztecs, and with are scientific technology we can determine if an image was painted or if fibers were dyed and what they have been dyed with.

Scientists do not know of any artwork that has or even could by natural phenomenon be produced in a manner so baffling and mysterious, nor do they understand why a tilma made of cactus fibers isn't decomposing after hundreds of years.

There are thousands of miracles that Scientists and Doctors of no Religious persuasion have given credence to.

I agree SC Religion can be very bad for people so that they do not explore, discover, or keep an open mind.

How is this religious iconography evidence for Creationism? Does the belief in these 'miracles', no matter how they are explained, have any bearing on one's acceptance of evolution? (BTW, infrared imagery of the cloak in question shows clear sketch lines that were very common in 16th Century Spanish art)

---

---

A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).

 They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  there is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16).  but they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.  

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

This isn't to say we don't have a common ancestor but it is a reason I don't have blind faith, in certain theories of Evolution.

Did you read about the Lenski experiment in the link that I provided earlier? This is as clear as evidence gets for the fact that evolution is happening right now. Also, your assumption that evolution 'seeks' to speciate is faulty. There is nothing to say that bacteria has to evolve into something else. If a bacteria is successful in it's environment, then it doesn't have a lot of selection pressure. If a random mutation makes it more successful in the environment, then that mutation will be selected. The fact that there are so many millions of types of bacteria that are very well suited to their environment is further proof of evolution.

---

[Phatt Matt s]

Yes this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment

If all the information is correct than it supports your views on evolution. The problem is, I can show other scientific studies that only lead to greater thorns in the side of Evolutionists and have done so.

---

Creationism teaches that rational inquiry is useless.""

I don't beleive that at all. I guess I'm not a Creationist

---

I'm not hoping to debunk evolution. It needs to be taught. Just not with a closed mind
Is a Scientist who says, "All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction” an ignorameous?

---

Darwin wrote in his book The Origin of Species: “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

---

May there be another mechanism"""
Of course...theoretically speaking

---

Ever wonder why that hasn't happened?""
No, but now I do

---

Since Darwin’s day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. There should have been millions of transitional creatures before I get too gung hoe about your interpretation of evolution.

[SteelCurtain]

Yes this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment

If all the information is correct than it supports your views on evolution. The problem is, I can show other scientific studies that only lead to greater thorns in the side of Evolutionists and have done so.

Well, all of the raw data is available on his site. It has been thouroughly vetted. Please cite some peer reviewed articles about these 'thorns.'

Is a Scientist who says, "All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress “under construction” an ignorameous?

This is a straw man, my friend. I know of no scientist who would ever say that the fossil record is anywhere approaching complete. What they will say, however, is how lucky we are to have what we have. Fossilization is extremely rare. Such specific conditions need to exist for it to occur. So, there are species that roamed this planet that we will never know about. But, without fail, as we continue to dig up the rock strata, we continue to find more fossils and fill more gaps. The funny thing is that there have never been so many transitional forms available as there are today, but people have never been so vocal about the fact that there are so many holes. Wonder why that is?

[Phatt Matt s]

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scien...tPdDS.dpuf

Now do I know that the article is true. No. But can't dismiss it as false either.

---

are there no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish?

Are there not Scientists that admit discovering what is fatal to their evolution theory? The fossil record does not show Darwin's Evolution Theory to be correct.

[Chas]

Well the purpose of this thread is to have meaningful discussion, because painfully I do not know many things; need to learn how to facilitate such fruitfull discussion that isn't of a pornographic or worthless nature, and by challenging beliefs about evolution, I can learn.

My hope and intention is not an argument, but the opportunity to learn, though this probably will turn into an argument, and much can be learned from that as well.

THis would include but is not limited to growing in patience, understanding human nature, desensitization, and examples of how not to behave.

If your desire is to learn, read some books on evolution.

[Phatt Matt s]

Thank you though for leading me to consider the rareness of fossilization. My mind is open.

[SteelCurtain]

Oh, boy. That article is just...bad. There's no other way to describe it.

To start out, No, evolution is not a scientific law. Laws are mathematical statements with no explanatory power for observed phenomena. They are boiled down empirical generalizations. To say that Evolution is not a Scientific Law, and therefore is worthless is like saying the same for the Theory of Gravity, or Cell Theory. Again, this is an example of preying on the lack of understanding of the masses.

And the dog evolving into a cat thing is on equal par with the crocoduck. It is shameful how they are purposefully passing on misinformation. The examples this article is giving, are just... sad.

Natural selection doesn't create solutions that make you perfectly fitted to your environment. Do you see how this is leading you down a path? They present a solution as if it were fact, like 'If natural selection were true, then eskimos would be hairy." And you think, "Well, yeah!" In reality, the only way that would be true is if Eskimos somehow lost the knowledge about clothing, then the hairiest of them would statistically be more likely to survive into adulthood and have children, and the hairiest of those children would be even more likely to survive, and so on. But they have clothes. Hairy-ness plays no part in the survival of their genes. Same with the silver equator people. Just sad.

Seriously, TC, if you actually read this article and bought what it was selling, then you need to read up on what evolution actually posits. That article makes a lot of claims that are just bare assertions, and offers no evidence to back it up. If an article has that many subjective arguments in it, that should spark your BS meter. Try Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth," or Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True," the latter being a little less science-y.

Thank you though for leading me to consider the rareness of fossilization. My mind is open.

This is clear as well as greatly appreciated. It is precisely why this thread hasn't become a flame-fest.

[popeyespappy]

Well the purpose of this thread is to have meaningful discussion, because painfully I do not know many things; need to learn how to facilitate such fruitfull discussion that isn't of a pornographic or worthless nature, and by challenging beliefs about evolution, I can learn.

My hope and intention is not an argument, but the opportunity to learn, though this probably will turn into an argument, and much can be learned from that as well.

THis would include but is not limited to growing in patience, understanding human nature, desensitization, and examples of how not to behave.

If your desire is to learn, read some books on evolution.

I highly recommend Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It will go a long way in helping you understand the both the evolutionary process and the evidence for common decent.