Is Evolution Observable?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2014, 01:08 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
I got my 10 year old son to understand evolution by talking to him about the small change animals make to adapt over time. Then we looked at viruses and animals that have short life cycles. The short life cycle animals were great because I could show him multi generational changes that happen in the cource of a few years. After the concept was grasped we appled it backwards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like wazzel's post
06-02-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(06-02-2014 01:08 PM)wazzel Wrote:  I got my 10 year old son to understand evolution by talking to him about the small change animals make to adapt over time. Then we looked at viruses and animals that have short life cycles. The short life cycle animals were great because I could show him multi generational changes that happen in the cource of a few years. After the concept was grasped we appled it backwards.

Oops, wrong reply.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 08:02 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(06-02-2014 11:50 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Again, . . . it's why the creationist will come up with the "but it is STILL . . . a dog!" Or, . . "It's still a virus." Surely there is a link that shows credible examples of a lifeform that has characteristics found in "two different kinds". I am not at all well versed on this topic, but I read that there was an animal that had similarities to both canines and felines.

That's not the way evolution works.

One modern species doesn't turn into another modern species, or combine with another existing species. Chimpanzees didn't become humans.

I suggest reading Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne. It's only 250 pages, or so.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-02-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(01-02-2014 12:10 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  One of the bedrock claims of creationism is that mutation can never create new information, that random changes can only make complex systems worse and never improve them. Although there are many examples of information-increasing mutations in the natural world that prove this claim false, there’s an even more potent and understandable counterexample, one that I think defenders of evolution too often overlook. That counterexample comes in the form of evolutionary algorithms.

Better and worse are relative. Better for you could be worse for me.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(06-02-2014 08:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 11:50 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Again, . . . it's why the creationist will come up with the "but it is STILL . . . a dog!" Or, . . "It's still a virus." Surely there is a link that shows credible examples of a lifeform that has characteristics found in "two different kinds". I am not at all well versed on this topic, but I read that there was an animal that had similarities to both canines and felines.

That's not the way evolution works.

One modern species doesn't turn into another modern species, or combine with another existing species. Chimpanzees didn't become humans.

I suggest reading Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne. It's only 250 pages, or so.

I agree, . . . . but you will hear creationists say it all the time. And they fully stand behind it as if it is an "evolution killer". It's both funny . . . . AND sad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(01-02-2014 12:10 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  One of the bedrock claims of creationism is that mutation can never create new information, that random changes can only make complex systems worse and never improve them. Although there are many examples of information-increasing mutations in the natural world that prove this claim false, there’s an even more potent and understandable counterexample, one that I think defenders of evolution too often overlook. That counterexample comes in the form of evolutionary algorithms.
Those hypocrites! They don't even know the difference between "change" and "add". Do you get what I'm saying. They say it themselves, a "series of random changes" then they say "can't add information." What did the latter disprove? Not the word "changes" evolution isn't adding, it's changing.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
27-04-2016, 08:04 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(06-02-2014 11:50 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Again, . . . it's why the creationist will come up with the "but it is STILL . . . a dog!" Or, . . "It's still a virus." Surely there is a link that shows credible examples of a lifeform that has characteristics found in "two different kinds". I am not at all well versed on this topic, but I read that there was an animal that had similarities to both canines and felines.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/343...here-it-is
The problem is they won't define "kind". Do they mean species, genus, family, class? There are plenty of fossils that show a grading between two different groups, including "Lucy" who had characteristics halfway between those of modern non-hominid apes and hominids.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Livemike's post
27-04-2016, 10:09 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
They'll deny it, it doesn't matter what you say. If the bible says the contrary you're wrong not them.

"Skepticism is the first step towards truth" -Denis Diderot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 10:27 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
(27-04-2016 10:09 PM)Seeking_Truth Wrote:  They'll deny it, it doesn't matter what you say. If the bible says the contrary you're wrong not them.

I forgot this thread even existed, hell I forgot I was the one who started it, I literally came here ready to present I posted in the Op. But yeah most likely they will, but seeing them get butt hurt is fun.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 11:08 PM
RE: Is Evolution Observable?
check this out, I posted it in a thread about Chernobyl.
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/ani...radiation/
That's quite observable and remarkable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: