The Mystery of Evolution: 10. Falsifying the Evolution-The Experiment #1

I have promised that I will try to falsify the evolutionary theory by performing some simple experiments, as many of Darwin’s faithful on this blog have been really reluctant to do or even to suggest such an experiment…

However, one video was posted on TSZ suggesting that such an experiment has already been performed by Biologist Ken Dial in a study of how young birds use their developing wings that is supposed shed light on the evolution of flight in birds.

The Origin of Flight–What Use is Half a Wing? | HHMI BioInteractive Video


So, I had pulled some strings and set up the scenario for the experiment similar to Dr. Dial’s and went to the cottage country for the weekend just to see how it was done in reality by Dr. Dial…

Can anybody guess how the experiment went?

While we obviously didn’t have Dr. Dial’s style and enthusiasm, we got quite close to the scenario he had…

The results? Well, I have to admit that it wasn’t great at all…

First, of all the birdies refused to run up the tree, period. They were simply running away from us, not even flapping their wings at all or only on occasions when they had to abruptly change the direction of running…We didn’t use my Dog Valet that was supposed to play the role of the predator, which he was very eager to do, but there was no need for it, as birdies were scattering all over the yard just by seeing us and hearing Valet barking in the background…

We were even trying to corner the birdies so that they would have no choice but to run up the tree to escape, but they chose to run between our legs or under the tree…

So…what went wrong? Any ideas on how we could have done better? How can we improve? 

As some of you may know, my initial idea was to perform an experiment on ostriches or emus to make them fly again as the evolutionary theory predicts that they had been flying in the past, they just got too fat and stopped flying…

Based on Joe Felsenstein’s claim that ALL 10 billion species on earth are evolving and ALL transitioning into other species, I thought I’d give it a try to falsify evolutionarily predictions and Joe’s claim that it seems everyone is in agreement with, as nobody protested about that…

I figured, that if Joe Felsenstein says that it is not entirely impossible for an okapi to evolve into a zebra, even though they are not that closely related, why not try to make ostriches or emus fly again? Make them lose weight, make them run up the tree and fly off the edge of it to re-evolve the full flying skills again…

Unfortunately,  with the fiasco of replicating Dr. Dial’s experiment, I’m kind of stuck…

What went wrong with the replication of the experiment? How can we improve?

Ideas please! “… I really want Darwinism to be true…”

86 thoughts on “The Mystery of Evolution: 10. Falsifying the Evolution-The Experiment #1

  1. J-Mac: It’s a prelude…

    So that’s a “no” then.

    J-Mac: People also believe in multiverse…because they claim there is evidence for it

    Citation please.

    J-Mac: It only when I ask about it, it turns out to be a theory

    Citation please.

    J-Mac: I don’t see any difference with Darwinism…Darwin wrote the book on the origin of species not on the origin of changes in species…

    If things don’t evolve, how did they get here?

  2. J-Mac: Your input into the future experiment (s) would be much appreciated…

    Why, do you have doubts suddenly about your ability to do what you claim?

    And why would you be asking someone who is blinded by ideology for help?

  3. Adapa: If anyone is still confused as to why the intellectual level of TSZ has gone straight down the shitter, just read the OP or any of the others by J-Mac.

    It could be because TSZ is built more like an outhouse than a modern toilet.

  4. J-Mac: I was thinking of doing the same experiment but according to evolutionary consensus ostriches or emus are just easier and faster to work with because all they have to do is lose weight and get fit again to fly again, as apparently their being grounded issue is the direct result of he widespread obesity among the Animalia Kingdom…

    I think that John suggested that we remove their ovaries. He thinks a non-functional ovary could provide a selective advantage for fligth. Two non-functional ovaries should provide even more of a selective advantage for flight.

  5. I would like to kindly remind everyone on this blog about the invitation that Lizzy, the owner of this blog, extended to EVERYONE and not just the people who are going to post what you want to hear…

    “…Otherwise, welcome to The Skeptical Zone, have a free virtual beer in celebration of its first post, and post any comments, objections, suggestions, and criticisms you may have.

    All are welcome. The only rule is: Park your priors by the door 🙂

    Cheers

    Lizzie

    *and I’ll take this opportunity to thank the UD community for the welcome they extended to me, and to extend my invitation to them, here, in return…”

    So, if I get banned here, Lizzy is going to look like the owner of UD or worst…
    Until she decides to look like that, I will try to make the best of my time left… 😉
    Or, should I already plan my own blog and invite both UD and TSZ people who can handle what they don’t want to hear? 😉

  6. J-Mac: Or, should I already plan my own blog and invite both UD and TSZ people who can handle what they don’t want to hear?

    Yes, you should do that. Then you will discover that it’s not the people who are the problem, it’s your message. Here you have a ready made auidence, but if you start over you’ll have to attact that auidence by the quality of your message.

    Here is your future: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/

    J-Mac: All are welcome. The only rule is: Park your priors by the door

    And you did that yourself, did you? In what way?

    Tell me J-Mac, at what point did you realize that evilution was a sham?

  7. J-Mac: So, if I get banned here, Lizzy is going to look like the owner of UD or worst…

    You won’t get banned, unless you break one of the few rules. All that’ll happen is that everyone puts you on ignore and you’ll get bored.

  8. J-Mac,

    I have no interest in seeing you banned, not least because that feeds into a persecution narrative. I just think that the OPs should reflect basic knowledge of the topic that they discuss. If there’s no quality control, then any random person anywhere on the Internet can register at TSZ and post whatever they want.

    In any event, my confidence in the theory of evolution as our currently best explanation of adaptation and biodiversity is not perturbed by your incorrigible ignorance.

  9. Mung: I think that John suggested that we remove their ovaries. He thinks a non-functional ovary could provide a selective advantage for fligth. Two non-functional ovaries should provide even more of a selective advantage for flight.

    What are you talking about Mung? Have you lost your mind? Are you still talking about the claim by John Harshman, the famous birdwatcher, that the non-functional ovary in birdies weighs nothing?

  10. Paul C: Why, do you have doubts suddenly about your ability to do what you claim?

    And why would you be asking someone who is blinded by ideology for help?

    PaulC Here is the post you quote-mined
    J-Mac Post authorSeptember 25, 2017 at 3:41 pm
    Pedant: A noble quest. The problem is that you’re so laughably ill-equipped to do it.

    {J-mac:]Why don’t you give me a few pointers how to do it better? Your input into the future experiment (s) would be much appreciated…

    You are wasting my time! Goodbye! 😉

  11. Mung: I think that John suggested that we remove their ovaries. He thinks a non-functional ovary could provide a selective advantage for fligth. Two non-functional ovaries should provide even more of a selective advantage for flight.

    How about the bladder? Should we remove it too?
    Can you imagine what would happen if ostriches or emus re-evolved to fly again? We would have to walk around with umbrellas all day even on sunny days…Ostrich and emus obesity is one of the best things evolution has ever accomplished, maybe second to the weightless, non-functional ovaries in birdies Harshman has experimentally proven to happen…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3CE04LGiA

  12. After discussion with Neil, we’ve agreed that further opening posts from J-Mac will require admin approval for publishing. This will not be unreasonably withheld.

  13. Alan Fox:
    After discussion with Neil, we’ve agreed that further opening posts from J-Mac will require admin approval for publishing. This will not be unreasonably withheld.

    So, you are implementing censorship on my OPS? Right?

  14. Kantian Naturalist: Only if you don’t know what censorship is.

    He can always start his own blog. He does not understand censorship. Like everyone else of his ilk he equates people not being interested in his half baked ideas with censorship.

    I wrote a letter to Nature telling them Einsten was wrong! And they refused to publish it! Censorship! Wahh!

  15. Kantian Naturalist: Only if you don’t know what censorship is.

    So …now the security of your beliefs is safe…now you can read the OPs about what you want to hear…not the truth…

    People lying to themselves and pretending it’s the truth…It’s beyond pitiful…

  16. J-Mac: So …now the security of your beliefs is safe…now you can read the OPs about what you want to hear…not the truth…

    People lying to themselves and pretending it’s the truth…It’s beyond pitiful…

    Whereas I don’t believe that you have any understanding of truth or reality. You might think that my beliefs are delusional, but I assure, the feeling is entirely mutual.

  17. J-Mac: Why don’t you give me a few pointers how to do it better? Your input into the future experiment (s) would be much appreciated…

    First, take a biology course at university level. Approach it with a mind open to the likelihood that you know nothing and need to learn.

    Then, come back here and demonstrate your competence.

  18. Alan Fox: As you appear not to know, you have your theories of evolution mixed up. You are attempting to refute Lamarck, not Darwin.

    Here are the original papers published by Dr. Dial:

    How A New Theory Of Bird Evolution Came About

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224221802.htm

    https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=A+fundamental+avian+wing-stroke+provides+a+new+perspective+on+the+evolution+of+flight&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHhuG78cDWAhUS4GMKHfE8BxcQgQMIJDAA

    Censorship of the OPs based on false understanding of evolutionary claims is a good way to start Allan…

    Any other “real reasons”?

  19. J-Mac: So, you are implementing censorship on my OPS? Right?

    J-Mac !!! Welcome to the world of PEER-REVIEW !!!

    That’s a big step up for you ! Congratulations !!!

  20. J-Mac: Here are the original papers published by Dr. Dial:

    And so what’s your point? It’s quite likely quite a lot of what we know is wrong, or incorrect in some way. It’s all best effort, all the way to the bottom. And what we do know seems fairly robust in many cases. We have computers. We know where to to go dig up predicted fossils. And so on.

    So you’ve found some research that shows some prior bit of research is wrong. So what. Big whoop. Happens every day. It’s called science. What’s your point?

  21. If this “new perspective” is not “god did it” or “it was designed by aliens” I’m not sure how it supports your evolution can do nothing, god did it all case J-Mac.

  22. According to the video, Dial has observed the flapping behavior of climbing young birds repeatedly with many species and has yet to find an exception.

    What was J-Mac looking for? An exception?

    How would that falsify evolution?

  23. Pedant:
    According to the video, Dial has observed the flapping behavior of climbing young birds repeatedly with many species and has yet to find an exception.

    What was J-Mac looking for? An exception?

    How would that falsify evolution?

    Ehhh…J-mac just wants to make fun of a strawman he’s conjured up. He clearly doesn’t understand Dial’s actual research and does not appear to understand Felsenstein’s comments on evolution. It appears he just wants to rail against that which he does not understand…

  24. One gets the impression that J-Mac doesn’t understand that a new explanation of how birds actually flight, with relevance to resolving the arborealism vs cursorialism debate in bird evolution, is not actually a refutation or revision of evolutionary theory.

  25. Mung: It just happened, that’s all, is not a theory.

    That’s correct. That’s your disparaging claim.

    It wasn’t Dial’s claim.

  26. Joe Felsenstein:
    This post is incoherent enough that I will not be responding to it, except to note the references in the post to my statements:

    1. My statement that all species are evolving into new species.I stand by that and have explained it here.Lots of other commenters here drew the same conclusion.It is noncontroversial so I will not justify it further.It has nothing to do with this post, which actually has nothing to do with anything.

    2. The statement that J-Mac makes that “Joe Felsenstein says that it is not entirely impossible for an okapi to evolve into a zebra.” My statement is found in the same comment referenced above.What I actually said was

    Thus endeth my participation in commenting on this thread.

    I understand a last post was made but this is important.
    All species are not evolving or any!
    not from a creationist but from evolutiondom.
    If all species were always evolving then there never would be stasis . Yet stasis is the norm and then PE takes place according to modern evolutionary hypothesis.
    IF species were evolving THEN they never would need a geographically segregated off shoot of the population to quickly evolve and become a dominant/even exclusive population.
    I don’t understand why Joe is saying this!
    How can a species evolve by itself without some trigger?!
    PE evolution teaches only new species come AFTER a part of the parent species has been affected by selection/mutation/including random.
    Not the whole species!!
    The whole point behind PE was finding over great timeframes the abscence of evolution to change specxies gradually.
    Joe is saying gradualism has returned as opposed to PE.
    I don’t think he is.!
    Again what of the concept of stasis???
    People are not evolving or have for centuries according to modern evolution.
    Is our immune system, liver, lips evolved since the Mayflower??
    If so HOW? Random evolution or selection on mutations beneficial?
    Yes there are white tailed deer and Florida island dwarf white tailed deer. yet this segregation is not based on endless evolution but geographic segregation and very quick change.
    This would be a good thread by Joe or someone understanding the subject.

  27. Pedant: That’s correct. That’s your disparaging claim.

    And yet when asked for a specific instance of that being proffered as an explanation by an evolutionist, on a thread dedicated to that very subject, Mung bailed.

    Much like phoodoo was able to explain how decisions are made in phoodoo world. Much like any IDC was unable to explain the true origin of the eye.

    They’ve got nothing except disparagement to offer. If they were capable of being constructive they’d not be creationists!

  28. J-Mac: So, you are implementing censorship on my OPS? Right?

    More like saving you from embarrassing yourself any further. Not that you can’t do that in the comment threads.

  29. John Harshman: I would like to complain again: this post is an abuse of posting privileges. Nobody should take it seriously, and I’m pretty sure that not even J-Mac does. What purpose does it serve other than to demonstrate that J-Mac is a troll?

    One could appeal to self-restraint. OK, I do. But if that doesn’t work, we’re going to need something stronger.

    So, this is “the new site administrator’s” one complaint…

Leave a Reply