Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just thinking theoretically, we should be able to produce such an experiment. Not overnight, but within years,...
Nope!
Quote:
..maybe within a couple of hundred of years.
Not even a couple of thousand years.
Quote:
We've shown small scale change that might have took thousands of years to happen naturally. Surely we should be able to do an experiment that shows major change, millions of years worth, within a decade or a hundred years in one continous experiment.
Not to my knowledge. The macroevolution you seek takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. You ain't gonna see it buddy so save your energy and go strawberry picking or something.
I'm starting to see what you're saying. Yet I'm hesitant to jump on the idea early life on this earth (pretty much bacteria and single cell organisms), evolved into the many creatures we see today, multi-cellular organisms. Are there any experiments showing this in real time?
Unfortunately if you want real-time, we are the experiment. Maintaining a controlled ecosystem for a couple billion years is not something we are really set up for . This is why experiments are generally confined to bacteria, fruit flies, and houseflies. These things have a short lifespan, so you can run tests with lots of generations.
The other option open to scientists is to try to observe natural evolution. I found a neat link about observing what appears to be ongoing speciation as it happens. They are watching what appears to be the creation of new species (depending on exactly how you want to define that). This is probably the closest to what you are asking about.
Now don't jump the gun here, I'm not going to wave anything because there are no creationist experiments showing we are right. I'm just thinking theoretically, we should be able to produce such an experiment. Not overnight, but within years, maybe within a couple of hundred of years. (Of course I will be dead by then, but for the sake of others who might be living in that time who denies common descent)
We've shown small scale change that might have took thousands of years to happen naturally. Surely we should be able to do an experiment that shows major change, millions of years worth, within a decade or a hundred years in one continous experiment.
Where are you going to find a subject other than bacteria who's generation time is short enough? There are none, so why not rely on the already known evidence that all life on earth shares some common DNA....Please explain how that is possible if life were not all connected. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_42
Unfortunately if you want real-time, we are the experiment. Maintaining a controlled ecosystem for a couple billion years is not something we are really set up for . This is why experiments are generally confined to bacteria, fruit flies, and houseflies. These things have a short lifespan, so you can run tests with lots of generations.
The other option open to scientists is to try to observe natural evolution. I found a neat link about observing what appears to be ongoing speciation as it happens. They are watching what appears to be the creation of new species (depending on exactly how you want to define that). This is probably the closest to what you are asking about.
-NoCapo
I'll wager that the next post from Heavenese will be something along the lines of... 'Yeah but I was thinking of something BIGGER than birds'.
I thank everyone for all their answers and links. I'll take some time to read up and study them. Personally, I think such an experiment can be done, a large scale speciation test. Yet if it can't be done with living creatures, I would also be interested in an experiment showing a single-cell organism evolve into a multi-cellular organism. (If we could speed up that process) Again, my thinking is because nature doesn't have a purpose, that is majorly why it would take millions of years to have major change. Yet because we are a focused people, who gives purpose, we should be able to cut down that time.
Yet anyway I'll continue to look over some of those links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Where are you going to find a subject other than bacteria who's generation time is short enough? There are none, so why not rely on the already known evidence that all life on earth shares some common DNA....Please explain how that is possible if life were not all connected. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_42
If you talked with creationists before, we would tell you we have DNA because of our creator. How would you test that? That is yet to be seen. Of course I wouldn't test for that specifically, but other tests would imply it indirectly. So that is what creationist experiments would be about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Now don't you go confusing 'em with 'witchcraft' like DNA San.
Hey heavenese! Can you explain how humans have the same number of hair follicles as chimps?
The same number of hair follicles? That's definitely interesting. Common descent would be the best answer just from observation. Overall just from observation, it would be the best answer. Yet, there might be a better answer, from better observation. I believe I have that answer, however, I'm yet to have experiments testing them out. So you'll have to wait on that.
If you talked with creationists before, we would tell you we have DNA because of our creator. How would you test that? That is yet to be seen. Of course I wouldn't test for that specifically, but other tests would imply it indirectly. So that is what creationist experiments would be about.
Yes I know, according to creationists absolutely everything is because of a creator, but that is not a valid argument since it cannot stand up to any test....
Yes I know, according to creationists absolutely everything is because of a creator, but that is not a valid argument since it cannot stand up to any test....
That's because there is no test for it. Creationists, mostly the out spoken creationists like a Ken Ham, haven't done anything research wise. We look at scientific articles, and try to find things we can use to cast doubt on evolution, and naturalistic origins. That's a big problem. I'm a creationist, but if I can't prove what I'm talking on, what's the point of talking at all?
Now real experiments for testing creation are about to come. Once we have a model, we will be able to test it out.
That's because there is no test for it. Creationists, mostly the out spoken creationists like a Ken Ham, haven't done anything research wise. We look at scientific articles, and try to find things we can use to cast doubt on evolution, and naturalistic origins. That's a big problem. I'm a creationist, but if I can't prove what I'm talking on, what's the point of talking at all?
Now real experiments for testing creation are about to come. Once we have a model, we will be able to test it out.
Really? I very much doubt that....It would be like testing for the existence of the wizard of OZ, who as you know was also a fraud. What makes your creation story any more valid or believable than the thousands of other creation myths? In the Haida creation myth the creator was a raven, and the first humans were born in clams. When you think about it, the one you believe is just as far fetched.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. This is why experiments are generally confined to bacteria, fruit flies, and houseflies. These things have a short lifespan, so you can run tests with lots of generations.
, I'm not going to wave anything because there are no creationist experiments showing we are right. I'm just thinking theoretically, we should be able to produce such an experiment. Not overnight, but within years, maybe within a couple of hundred of years. (Of course I will be dead by then, but for the sake of others who might be living in that time who denies common descent)
