Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
See the Lederberg Experiment (1952) and the Luria-Delbrück (1943) experiment. Both have been repeated over and over and meet their respective predictions.

Were you not aware of those two experiments? Did your ID sources not mention them? How unsurprising.

Now please tell us about an equivalent biological ID experiment which we can repeat this over and over. And we can make the prediction that it will happen again the same way.
Click to expand...
we have been over this. In your words what exactly happened in the experiments? Micro or macro?
 
What, in your view, is the difference between macro and micro evolution?
 
edwest211 said:
Yeah. They glued those moths to a tree and photographed them.
Click to expand...
The experiment was repeated by Majerus (2012), published after he died. That vindicated Kettlewell’s work.

Is Christianity false because someone painted a picture of what they imagined Jesus to look like, rather than directly from life? Or do you know a way to train moths to sit still for a photograph?
 
rossum said:
Why do you persist in making the Pope look bad by continually repeating this false statement? The LTEE is over 50,000 generations and still running.
Click to expand...
Pope was speaking of the past 10,000 generations of evolutionary events. You know it. Why keep repeating this.
 
rossum said:
The experiment was repeated by Majerus (2012), published after he died. That vindicated Kettlewell’s work.
Click to expand...
This was adaptation in any case. And what did we find? As in Darwin’s finches they returned back. This is microevolution in action.

A more interesting question now becomes was this cell directed?
 
What’s the difference between macro and micro evolution? Enlighten me.
 
buffalo said:
we have been over this. In your words what exactly happened in the experiments? Micro or macro?
Click to expand...
No we have not been over this. It is not over until you answer my request for the equivalent ID experiments.

What happened in those experiments was evolution. Your question said “evolution” and that is what I answered. By shifting the goalposts after the event you are in effect admitting defeat.

Where are your equivalent ID experiments, buffalo? You do not get to ask your second question until you have answered my first question.
 
And? Why wouldn’t they still be bacteria?

Dinosaurs were animals and humans are animals. What’s your point?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
They are still bacteria.
Click to expand...
And humans are still eukaryotes. Do we now take it that you have no problem with humans (eukaryotes) evolving from amoeba (also eukaryotes). They are still eukaryotes, after all.

I suggest you learn just how wide a range of organisms “bacteria” covers.
 
PhiriTalk said:
What, in your view, is the difference between macro and micro evolution?
Click to expand...
Adaptations are the built in capabilty to make changes to fur color, beak size and shape: things like that. No one argues this happens.

Macro is the thinking that a series of these small steps will create new and novel features. It does not happen.

What we are seeing is adaptive features that offer a short term survival advantage by breaking or blunting a gene. The long term effects make the organism less adaptable to environmental pressures and will lead to their extinction. A newly found example is a bacteria ejecting is motive tail when faced with death.
 
Do you have any evidence that so called “macro” evolution doesn’t happen?

How do you account for the fossil record?

What were Homo erectus?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
No we have not been over this. It is not over until you answer my request for the equivalent ID experiments.
Click to expand...
No need. We are investigating what those experiments actually tried to prove?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top