| The first laboratory experiment in evolution which provided evidence confirming Darwin's theory was begun in: |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by dauguy  United States |
|
About
In nature, the Great Pyrenees is confident, gentle, and affectionate. While territorial and protective of flock or family when necessary, the general demeanor is one of quiet composure, both patient and tolerant. The Great Pyrenees is strong willed, independent and somewhat reserved, yet attentive, fearless and loyal to flock and family.
|
9 Points
|
Darwin rejected evolution before he died.
Please document that, from his writings.
And even if he did, evolution still exists.
name a realistic alternative then. Because all appearing out of nowhere by a magic wizard in the sky does not cut it in the real world.
Please document where any theory of evolution has EVER hypothesized "a magic wizard in the sky." Sounds more like Intelligent Design crap to me.
I think he is refering to the biblical creation story, with a bit of colourful description of the God of Genesis [and before any bright spark chips in, no that is not Peter Gabriel!]
Actually I posted that because I knew it would stimulate conversation. I have no magic statement. The evolutionist tend usually to state that Darwin was dying when he made those statements, being that he was the father of evolution I would think they would consider his words. Ultimately even the evolutionistic theory says we came from nothing, both system are just as presumptuous, choose I guess. Flip a coin. No? Maybe it matters little in the grand scope of things, yet I'd rather think there was a heaven. The funny thing is, I am a thinker a very, very heavy thinker, you think evolution is logical? Evolution is a fix for people who can't handle the truth. Inversely proportional they will say the same about one who creates God in their own image. You know anybody can take the same data and extract any answer out of it they want to. One thing I can agree with, with the evolutionists is the universe is about 20 billion years old. Maybe that is a good place to start.
I can tell from this disquisition that while you may be a heavy thinker, you have no talent for organizing your thoughts coherently. I really cannot make heads nor tails of your argument. Which are the propositions and which are the conclusions?
Okay how about the human eye. Why does it exist, from the point of evolution it has bothered many. What is your take on it?
Look it up. Can you google?
In case:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
And, as Dawkins points out, even a very weak and primitive eye will provide an edge in survival over time.
And what are the propositions and conclusions of your argument above?
I think it means I am proposing an arbitrary creation of us. The conclusion of the argument was only implied. Thanks for the link I did read it.
This would be a big help to you, I think.
http://skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson5.html
I think you are mixing up Abiogenesis with Evolution with that "they are both presumptuous" argument.
And when claiming "Evolution is a fix for people who can't handle the truth" you are including more then 99% of those within the scientific community yes?
Oh okay I will check
That is a widely quoted myth, with no truth to it at all.
"The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians"
It matters little and I only put it there to stimulate some discussion. Thanks for the opposing information I hadn't heard that before.
It matters LITTLE? You make a totally false statement based on a fabrication and it matters LITTLE? Oh my, oh my.
Logic isn't his strong suit, but he doesn't descend to name calling. I think a Critical Thinking course and learning the basics of logic would be a big help here.
Only if that was true. I think my mind could use a little rest.
I have evidence from your own mouth showing that logic is not your strong suit ("You know anybody can take the same data and extract any answer out of it they want to."). I DO think that education in critical thinking would help you. I haven't seen you descend to to name calling.
What part isn't true?
treat yourself to a nice long one :)
Just because omeone either loses their temper or is profane by nature does not mean their arguments are invalid.
While it is regrettable in a public forum, I can well understand the frustrations that might lead someone over to the ark side, I certainly get close myself.
Given the choice of a truthful but profane person or a polite loonie I'd go with "swearbox Sam" everytime.
It means I won't waste my time talking to them.
There are other sources of his struggle with evolution and creation he was raised as a creationist. I am sure you at least acknowledge that. I don't know that statement to be false and if it is you would need to be patient enough to let me verify it.
Everyone before him was raised a creationist!
How could they be an evolutionist before evolution was a theory?
That's as useful as saying no one was raised as a christian before christ :)
The basic building blocks for being a evolutionist were in place but the idea of creatures evolving is credited to Darwin right?
In his mind these ideas developed, you know I am not even talking against evolution at all. Here is something better just tell me the above date for the proof (was it 1878?), I really don't know it and I know I could google it but would rather hear it from you.
No. Darwin described the means by which evolution happened, not that it did.
Try reading all the posts to the question, instead of just answers to yours. You might learn something.
This is another of those examples of failure in logic.
Totally agree.
It is a long known truth that Darwin was bothered by the idea of evolution.
In what way?
He was raised a creationist and was pulled both ways. There is much to read about it all of it, mostly about evolution and some is mentioned about his personal struggle. His ideas didn't necessarily fit his own ideals as much as the need of the scientific community of the day. His discovery gave a foundation to the Atheistic society of the day.
It seems he was more bothered with the ideas put out by the bible then he was with evolution.
Okay
Long know to who apart from yourself?
I think you should consider backing up your statements with some evidence.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyTo find out when it was, google "Dallinger evolution experiment."
To get an update on the most impressive laboratory demonstration of the basic truth of evolution, and one which may actually have created a new species as a result, google "Lenski evolution experiment"
I got interested in this because a member tried to assert that evolution was not demonstrable in the laboratory.
I'm curious why you wouldn't count Mendel's experiments (1856-1863)? I'm guessing you'd call them more experiments in genetics than in evolution?
That actually occurred to me--after I posted the question. ;)
I think that Mendel was just trying to say something about heredity. He did not have the conceptual breakthrough that connected it to change in species over time. As a matter of fct, making that connection sis not really occur until the 1920s, and, of course, the mechanism by which it did was not discovered until 1953.
From mendelweg.org glossary, as part of the entry under 'evolution':
"Although the phrase "history of the evolution" may be a reasonable translation of Mendel's Entwicklungs-Geschichte, and Entwicklungsgeschichte it would be wrong to conclude that Mendel was talking about any particular theory of evolution. Although we know that Mendel was interested in , and read Origin of Species before 1865, we have no evidence that he thought the specifics of Darwin's theory particularly relevent to his experiments with peas. Indeed, Mendel often seems to have used Entwicklungsgeschichte, in contrast to Entwicklung, simply to distinguish the historical development of species from the development of the individual organism. "
Dallinger, on the other hand, bred bacteria that happily survived at over 150 degrees F from parent stock that could not survive that heat. His resultant survivors not only loved it hot, they died if immersed in lukewarm water. He explained this to Darwin in a letter, asserting that they had evolved adaptations in order to survive in the new environment.
Wasn't Dallinger's experiment in 1887, not 1878?
(concluded in 1887 i mean. started in 1880 i think.)
His first letter to Darwin on describing what he was doing was in 1878. The experiment was ended in 1886 when his experimental vessel was destroyed.