I did. Your “a bacteria staying a bacteria” is the equivalent of seeing an amoeba evolve into a badger and saying, “a eukaryote staying a eukaryote”.
So you are saying we have lab examples of an animal being turned into something radically different?
Apparently the only kind of change that you would accept as being radically different is a change that that is so massive that it could not occur in the time frame of recorded history. I submit this is an unrealistic criterion that you set. There are many physical processes that we project beyond our human experience and I think you accept them with no trouble at all. Your unwillingness to accept this one projection in light of all the ones you do accept suggests an a-priori prejudice against evolution that you do not have against, say, nuclear decay. For example we know that the half-life of Radium is about 1600 years. I’ll bet you accept that without undue objections, even though Radium was discovered less than 1600 years ago, and no experiment could possibly have been performed yet to verify that half of the Radium will decay in 1600 years. But we project that amount of decay from the amount that decays in just a few years. It would be unreasonable to say that the half-life of Radium is just a wild guess because no one has seen half of a quantity of Radium decay. But that is exactly the kind of objection you are raising in asking for contemporaneous evidence of a turtle evolving into a chicken or any such thing like that.
It may have been an interesting experiment, but it does not mirror evolution because of the time scale involved. Evolution works because of random variation (possibly caused by natural radiation) and natural selection. The amount of variation in nature is very low compared the amount of radiation used in the fruit fly experiment. Each variation gets exposed to years, maybe centuries, of natural selection. In this experiment, there was not time for any natural selection. So all you see are the failed variations. If you looked back at all the generations of fruit flies, you would find all those genetic mix ups too, but at a much lower frequency, so low that you would have a hard time finding any, harder than finding a four-leafed clover. So the experiment to accelerate evolution was a flawed experiment to begin with, and it is not surprising that it yielded no useful results.
All you have to believe is that at any stage of the Anglerfish’s evolution, random mutations made it possible for it to survive… its that simple.
Do you believe it possible that not all random variations ended the affected animal’s capacity to survive? That would be a first step.
So is this acknowledgement that evolution is untestable?
So, what was the variations in the environment that led random mutations to evolve the huge variety of animals and plants we see today ?
Plus these forces have a little bit of Nostradamus abilities.
Of course it is, if the process you want to observe takes 10 million years.
So does evolution. You are just unwilling to accept them. That is the only difference.
You can’t demonstrate the half life of radium on paper. All you can do is calculate what it should do. That is not demonstrating it.
No, it is just an acknowledgment that this particular test was inconclusive.LeafByNiggle:
So is this acknowledgement that evolution is untestable?
