Replies

But, it was the man controlled experiments that proved this, right? They did NOT observe these changes takingplace in nature, did they? It was in a laboratory where the change was induced, [etc. etc.]

Race, now you're defending creationism by attacking the very concept of an experiment!

Any valid scientific experiment is a controlled subset of what we observe in nature - specifically designed to isolate the phenomena under study from those phenomena that are unrelated (noise). Your new complaint, if true, would render moot all experiments ever made about anything!

Why are you enthusiastically using such a destructive line of argument? Yet another thing that should bother you, IMO.

No, I am just pointing out the absurdity of the idea that this proves it could happen in nature. This was a complex series of things done here, done in a sterile atmosphere, done in a guided way, performed over a series of tests until they got it right...and yet, that is supposed to show it could happen by chance?? Pul-Eaze!!

This whole event is something spectacular for DESIGN, because THAT'S WHAT IT IS, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not chance/evolution/survival of the fittest.

Race, now you're defending creationism by attacking the very concept of an experiment!

I think the point is that because you can manipulate circumstances in a lab, it doesn't mean that the result you get can happen in nature. I can bake a cake, make frosting, and combine them, but we don't find such a thing occurring, on its own in nature. Such a thing requires human intertvention. That we have learned to manipulate genes much like we'd manipulate ingredients for a cake doesn't prove a thing, except that we are capable of manipulating genes.

I'm certain that you could "breed" all sorts of genetic attributes into or out of a society or even an entire species, eventually, but that doesn't mean that a new species will be created. Even the genetic mutations you cited do not prove that they could lead to different species. There is only speculation based on what is assumed to be "evidence," not proof. When you speculate and believe something that you cannot observe, that is a form of faith. Don't get me wrong, that is your right, but if we're to have a discussion, let's talk about the facts.

With this particular experiment, the mutation creates an inferior creature (one, by the way, that is still a shrimp). I'm not saying that (macro)evolution didn't happen, but that the evidence to date has left me wholly unconvinced.

When, in the face of this lack of concrete evidence, people try to convince me (or people I love) that this theory is fact, or that the experiments they perform are scientifically airtight, I'm reminded of the words of the great Groucho Marx. "Who are you going to believe? Me or you lying eyes?" I have to chuckle.