Why? You plan on running this experiment? You can’t have a target, as you might end up with something else/new if successful. I don’t know how different these two are, but if you start with one baseline E.coli bacteria and end up with salmonella (w/o contamination), then the Evolution experiment might be successful.
Hi Nonlin -
You think that speciation hasn’t been observed yet, and thus you propose that biologists must conduct experiments to see if they can induce speciation.
However, numerous instances of speciation have already been observed. You will recall the mice of Madeira. This webpage cites at least eight more, although it’s a bit of a stew. It’s the best I am able to find for now.
We don’t insist on conducting experiments to observe gravity, hinking that we won’t believe in gravity in the absence of experimental results. We already know gravity exists because we see it around us. The experiments that physicists conduct aren’t designed to prove the existence of gravity; instead, they are designed to refine our understanding of a universally acknowledged phenomenon.
In the same way, there is no need to conduct experiments to observe evolutionary speciation. It has already been observed many times over! Like experiments on gravity, the E. Coli experiments aren’t trying to prove the existence of something; they’re designed to refine our understanding of a phenomenon universally acknowledged among biologists.
Does that make sense?
In addition, experiments have been conducted on pseudogenes in primates (as I already linked to elsewhere). The pseudogenes demonstrate a nested hierarchy that exactly matches the nested hierarchy derived from other characteristics. Several nested hierarchies based on several sets of characteristics have all been derived, and the results all match.
In fact, you could even go to Oxford’s “Clade Genomics of Primates” site and perform your own cladistics. Best part: it’s free! Tell us what you find, if you care to explore for yourself.
Is this remarkable confluence of primate clade analyses just a coincidence? Or could it be that it is the product of an underlying reality?
Best,
Chris
2 Likes
Hi Chris,
Just one comment on this - many experiments have been conducted to show what gravity is through the behaviour of objects - falling, rotating, plants in orbits etc. with a great deal of maths to quantify such matters. I think your approach is a bit difficult to accept, although I think you may be referring to some type of direct experiment that defines gravity per se.
It is ironic that within the context of my comment, ToE ends up been very speculative - a touch of humorous irony I think. 
Saying you can’t have a target is true in one sense, but also points to the problem with your entire proposal: it is not that easy to define what is one species and what is another. Some scientists spend their entire careers refining classification schemes. Evolutionist are absolutely fine with — and even expect — a percentage of border cases. In fact, if there were clear, definable boundaries between all living things, that would be extremely strong evidence for non-evolutionary creationism!
But there are not. Efforts to create a systematic classification system which is not evolutionary tree-shaped have never been successful. They do not explain the data very well, if at all. Baraminology tries hard, but it does not find clear and unambiguous divisions between categories of living things, no matter if they are looking at the species level, or genus, family, order, or any other level.
If the underlying reality of the world was that there were finite, easily divisible varieties of organisms, they should have been sorted centuries ago. Biologists today should not still be debating or reclassifying anything except new discoveries, certainly not based on genetic evidence indicating that something is a little more or less closely related to something else than had been thought based purely on morphology, which happens all the time.
You may be interested in the methods described here, which are interesting especially for how thoroughly they fail.
1 Like
Sadly, no. You can see Gravity here and now, but you cannot see Common Descent here and now.
Maybe. But only a direct experiment can be conclusive.
Why are you opposed to a direct experiment as proposed?
That is a problem for sure, but not mine. Those that claim Common Descent need to define what that means exactly, and how it can be verified experimentally (I am only doing them a favor).
Neither do we see continuity between all living things, and that is a huge problem for gradualism. Why would gradualism work vertically (in time) but not horizontally (in space)? More: http://nonlin.org/gradualism/
You are gravely mistaken. Those who understand common descent have no need of any definition or experimental verification beyond what already exist in the extensive literature you would be doing yourself a favor to familiarize yourself with if you choose to pursue your current interests.
In particular, as @gbrooks9 went into some detail on, the interruption of the ability to interbreed is a key way to define species. And as I explained in my previous comment, evolutionists expect some species to be difficult or arbitrary to define.
Ooooh, I know this one! It’s because individual animals die and species go extinct all the time! I just solved “a huge problem,” do I get a cookie?
1 Like
It has been seen. Google ring species.
3 Likes
Two cookies!
1 Like
Sure you can. Descent of multiple species from a common ancestor has been observed a great deal in both the ecosystem and in the lab. You have been supplied with multiple links. I think you would find some literature research to be very helpful.
You truly misunderstood what I said, Nonlin. I’m not opposed to a direct experiment at all. I’m just saying that the experiments you think should be done have already been done, and they have already demonstrated speciation by evolutionary mechanisms.
Like I said, now would be a good time to read the articles that I and others have linked to.
Have a great weekend,
Chris Falter
1 Like
You didn’t understand my point.
The first step in a dialog is to understand and address the position of the other. I don’t see an effort on your part and that’s fine, but then the dialog must stop.
I already said “no one is forcing you to learn what you don’t want to know”. Why do you keep going in circles?
That tautology doesn’t answer anything.
Ouch!
Look, I may not have succeeded. But to be accused of not making any effort…
I think our dialog is sufficiently clear for any readers to discern our positions and weigh the evidence. Have a fabulous weekend.
Chris
3 Likes
Do you know what a ring species means? How is that not gradualism working over space?
1 Like
Gradualism requires a continuous function. Not only is ring species not a continuous function but there is not even a variable (continuous or discrete) to measure along the ring.
In fact, everything in nature is discrete: from quantum states to atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms. New organisms are created by discrete processes and result in newborns that are measurably different from each parent while all DNA mutations are discrete events. You cannot follow a horizontal continuous path of organisms from pelicans to hawks or from chimps to cats. Not even from lions to tigers or from chimps to gorillas.
My statement was a direct rebuttal of yours. Your follow-up appears to be a complete non-sequiter—with the baffling insinuation that I am the one willfully ignoring well-established facts and obvious truths.
Sigh. I don’t think you know what tautology means. I looked it up. I suggest you do, too, before explaining to me how it relates to what I said.
My point was that deaths and extinctions, especially in any kind of quantity, would obviously create discontinuities in horizontal gradualism. How could they not?
4 Likes
So you don’t know what a ring species means. You might want to look it up before you explain why it doesn’t answer your objection.
6 Likes
tau·tol·o·gy
tôˈtäləjē/Submit
noun
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).
“Extinctions cause discontinuities”. Well, duh! Maybe not the book example, but close enough. Hence: “That tautology doesn’t answer anything”.
Let’s see: “…have no need of any definition or experimental verification…” Did I write that?
Question is: will we continue this silly discussion for ever? It seems neither one of us is learning anything useful.
Going back to the original disconnect, I think I found where the argument stopped making sense.
What you mean by gradualism appears to be either tautological or nonsensical, but in either case, let’s return to “clear, definable boundaries between living things.” Everyone agrees that living things can usually be divided into natural categories. My point is that there are many different levels of these categories, species, genus, family, order, phylum, kingdom, and more. Furthermore it is not intrinsically obvious which level a division falls on: are wolves the same species as dogs, or merely the same genus?
If you believe that they all descended from a single pair (or seven) on the Ark, such quibbles are academic amusements of little significance.
The ‘problem,’ or evidence for common descent, is that such quibbling occurs all the way up the tree of life. What exactly are the borders of an order or a class? Surely, if reality was that discrete kinds were separately created, at some level the distinctions would become obvious and intuitive, right?
I recently checked out this account of baraminological classification:
http://creationwiki.org/Baraminological_Lists
For a lot of species, so far so good. But are giraffes and okapi the same kind? They’re not sure. Is Cervidae one kind of deer, or five? They have it tentatively as three, as of four years ago. Perhaps it’s been settled since. But why would that kind of confusion exist in the first place, if kinds were either clearly one thing or clearly another? And why would higher-level groupings like ‘artiodactyl’ exist if the ‘tree’ is an artificial invention?
This is what I meant, when I said clear, definable boundaries. What do you think common descent (taking extinction into account) should look like, as opposed to separately created kinds?
3 Likes