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. Wow, you wiped out years of research in one weekend. So impressive.

    According to one of the comments on that video on YouTube, you just need to get some chickens. And observe them for longer than just a “weekend in the cottage country”.

    Dorothy Menafee writes “I’ve seen my chickens do these kind of things. Its a bit surprising how high up into trees and on top of buildings they can get if they want to. They technically can’t fly but they use their wings to assist in jumping and running up steep slopes to get where they want to go.”

    I think Dorothy is way ahead of you, J-Mac

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

    You can’t. You can’t improve. I’m certain of it.

  3. 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…

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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    I would like to complain that Harshman is complaining not the area where complaints are to be complained…

    Wait a minute! This blog doesn’t have the section for whiners, does it? What a shame…because if it did, every time Harshamn has no arguments, which is pretty often, that section would be flooded with his whining…

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

  6. 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.

    I would like to remind everyone that Harshman is miraclevolver…He thinks that there is no problem with miraculous insertion of genes into the tree of life…I don’t know if he is a closet-creationist/ID, but whenever he talks about the tree of life, he probably doesn’t mean it…which in my view is simple trolling…Because why would anybody admit the possibility of miracles in the history of evolution and still talked about evolution as fully random, unguided process?
    I think he is to be ignored because of his double standards on views which is exactly what trolls do…

  7. 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.

  8. Fair Witness:
    Wow, you wiped out years of research in one weekend.So impressive.

    According to one of the comments on that video on YouTube,you just need to get some chickens. And observe them for longer than just a “weekend in the cottage country”.

    Dorothy Menafee writes “I’ve seen my chickens do these kind of things. Its a bit surprising how high up into trees and on top of buildings they can get if they want to. They technically can’t fly but they use their wings to assist in jumping and running up steep slopes to get where they want to go.”

    I think Dorothy is way ahead of you, J-Mac

    Actually, a while back I came across someone who was experimenting on chickens…trying to make them fly longer distances every day for food or water… I don’t remember the details now, but I’m wondering if Dorothy is that person…
    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…

    Regarding the experiment, we obviously would like to repeat it…just to make sure we didn’t miss something…I’m going to try to contact some experts in this area maybe even Dr. Dial or his assistant for some more directions… For next time, we are planning high-speed cameras and videotaping as well as some evolutionary biologists if possible… One lab expressed interest in helping out in exchange for the publishing rights but they are not sure they will be able to publish the findings if the results of the upcoming experiment are similar…

  9. 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.

    Are you going to say the same thing if this is going to be published?
    I forgot…Whatever doesn’t align with your preconceived ideas is s..t…

    Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

  10. John Harshman: Not stronger enough, unless “ignore” gets rid of OPs too.

    Harshman is ticked off because this experiment is right up his alley…Unfortunately, he is only a garden-variety birdwatcher that seems to be also blind…Does that make him The Blind Birdwatcher?

    I’m more than happy to invite Harshman to attend the next experiment…that is if he brings his new glasses… 😉

  11. John Harshman: Not stronger enough, unless “ignore” gets rid of OPs too.

    Maybe, Harshman, The Miraclevolver can do an OP on the miraculous gene insertions into the tree of life and explain there how they don’t imply an ID?
    If he can’t, maybe his publishing rights should be revoked because that would be nothing else but trolling….

    I can’t wait for that to happen actually…as I have a juicy surprise for him…

    dazz should know what I mean… 😉

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

  12. GlenDavidson: The trouble is that I’d have to actually read it.

    It has been proven beyoned reasonable doubt here that you can’t read…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3CE04LGiA
    I’m working on my next OP on quantum mechanics…Since you, and your roommate ketihs , as well as Adupa, would like the intellectual level of the OPs to improve, I will expect your full support on this one…

    I’m really into it, as Joe Felseinstein has already observed…really into it..:-)

  13. J-Mac:
    I’m working on my next OP on quantum mechanics…

    This is why I am getting tired of reading TSZ. It seems like the inmates are taking over the asylum.

  14. the thing i would point out is that modern evolutionism, including punctuated equilibrium, teaches, and must, that evolution takes place in small segregated populations, off the main crowd, usually in geographically segregated places.
    Evolution needs segregation in order to have selection on mutations beneficial to a new surviving population. Otherwise stasis is the norm.
    therefore it should be evolutionists opinion we are in stasis at all times. Species or greater groups are not evolving. people are not evolving inside or outside our bodies.
    its impossible there would be a selection going on that creates new populationsa.
    Human population is not dying because of problems.
    likewise with fauna/flora.
    Nothing is evolving. Only a chance that a new population has evolved from the main one in some place. Yet THIS DOES NOT affect the great original population. Unless the new one mingles and prevails over the older one.
    EVEN THIS however would not be the evolution of the great first group. Just replacement.
    YES evos get their own stuff mixed up but its a involved subject.
    Thats why creationists have to pay attention and make sure they pay attention.

    If evos think evolution is going on in man or beast then they should desribe how that could/is happening.

  15. Fair Witness: This is why I am getting tired of reading TSZ. It seems like the inmates are taking over the asylum.

    Don’t you think it is a good idea?

    I mean you can doubt my abilities in the explaining of the notion of quantum mechanics and “quantum soul” in relation to near-death-experiences…That’s fine… But what don’t you like about it?
    What would you rather see? I’m really curious…

  16. Robert Byers,

    I was just thinking about you Rob…lol
    My Pilipino neighbor had one too many and I started wondering if this is what you look like when you write on blogs… lol

    Just keep writing Rob, as the intellectual level of TSZ needs to keep improving… 😉

  17. Fair Witness: This is why I am getting tired of reading TSZ. It seems like the inmates are taking over the asylum.

    Oh, definitely. The problem with TSZ is much deeper and procedural: there’s nothing in the rules that allows us to prohibit J-Mac’s nonsense. And we can’t change the rules without Lizzie’s consent. But she’s doing much more important things, and no one is really interested in taking TSZ over. So we’re stuck.

  18. 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.

    I have to agree with John here. This OP is just plain dumb. There has to be SOME level of quality control here, or it’s just going to devolve into a cesspool of posts from the criminally insane. We’re talking timecube level nutbaggery here.

    The exact limit where a post becomes too silly might be hard to identify, but in this case it isn’t. “Me and some friends of mine tried chasing chickens in the barn where we were inbred” isn’t a serious thread. Get rid of this bullshit thread.

  19. Folks

    Can I ask that further pleas regarding editorial policy should take place in the moderation issues thread.

    Have you considered the eloquence of not responding to an article attacking the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

  20. 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

    And although it is not absolutely impossible that an okapi will turn into a zebra, so much would have to happen very precisely that it is astronomically improbable, an event that would not happen even once in the whole history of the Universe.

    Thus endeth my participation in commenting on this thread.

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

    So what?

    So that has been done… a long, long time ago.

    So far all of your ideas of what evolutionary theory entails are clearly Lamarckian, such as this:

    1. Just as an example, let’s say I would like to evolve some aquatic functions…
    How long would it take for me to see some evolutionary changes, if I spend most of the day in the water and what would they be? How about several generations of water-lovers? Can someone make a prediction, as evolutionists often do?

    This was state-of-the art at the turn of the 18th century, but we moved on a little further since then.

    To repeat Allan F’s sage advice: You need your strawmen to stand up a little, before you knock them down.

  22. Kantian Naturalist: Oh, definitely. The problem with TSZ is much deeper and procedural: there’s nothing in the rules that allows us to prohibit J-Mac’s nonsense. And we can’t change the rules without Lizzie’s consent. But she’s doing much more important things, and no one is really interested in taking TSZ over. So we’re stuck.

    You’d better contact Lizzie pronto to ban J-mac because he has more than a couple silver bullets/last nails in the coffin of your beliefs…
    Then, and only then, you will be able to fully enjoy what you want to hear…and not as it is…

  23. J-Mac,
    Would you not be better writing a formal paper that can the be used and reused over and over in other venues rather then simply posting this material here on a backwater blog that is not exactly Nature in it’s reach?

    What’s the point of destroying Darwinism if only the people who happen to visit here get to hear about it?

  24. J-Mac: You’d better contact Lizzie pronto to ban J-mac because he has more than a couple silver bullets/last nails in the coffin of your beliefs…


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism
    Illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egotism.

    Yeah, that seems about right.

  25. Paul C:
    J-Mac,
    Would you not be better writing a formal paper that can the be used and reused over and over in other venues rather then simply posting this material here on a backwater blog that is not exactly Nature in it’s reach?

    What’s the point of destroying Darwinism if only the people who happen to visit here get to hear about it?

    Hi Paul,
    Please read my comments above. There is some interest in publishing the results of the experiment. Obviously, we will have to redo it and document it. However, there is some concern that there may not be sufficient interest to publish such a paper…

  26. Paul C: What’s the point of destroying Darwinism if only the people who happen to visit here get to hear about it?

    You can’t destroy something that people really want to believe in no matter how much evidence there is against it…Darwinism was never “alive” in the first place…Most evolutionary biologists are not even Darwinists anyway…

    If Darwin hadn’t written his book, people who couldn’t care less about God/ID/Supernatural would have found another idea to believe in…Panspermia, UFO, multiverse, anything but what is inconvenient to them…

    Don’t be naive that I will destroy Darwinism…I’m just exposing it for what it is…
    A delusion bullied by many as a scientific fact…That’s all…

  27. Joe Felsenstein: And although it is not absolutely impossible that an okapi will turn into a zebra, so much would have to happen very precisely that it is astronomically improbable, an event that would not happen even once in the whole history of the Universe.

    So… you are confirming that there is a chance…for an okapi to evolve into a zebra…

    Is the okapi’s chance to evolve into zebra better than say… a protein molecule forming spontaneously? How about hundreds or more proteins needed for a cell to function? Which one is at better odds Joe? Please tell me you can do the math…

  28. Alan Fox:
    Folks

    Can I ask that further pleas regarding editorial policy should take place in the moderation issues thread.

    Have you considered the eloquence of not responding to an article attacking the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

    Yeah, I gotta back Alan on this one. Accepting for argument’s sake that “TMZ is in decline” given these types of posts (which personally I don’t think is the case), I don’t think Lizzie’s presence for a change of rules or policy is needed to “right the ship”, as it were. Simply ignoring such silliness will starve the those striving for silly attention.

    Personally I

  29. Rumraket: I have to agree with John here. This OP is just plain dumb. There has to be SOME level of quality control here, or it’s just going to devolve into a cesspool of posts from the criminally insane. We’re talking timecube level nutbaggery here.

    The exact limit where a post becomes too silly might be hard to identify, but in this case it isn’t. “Me and some friends of mine tried chasing chickens in the barn where we were inbred” isn’t a serious thread. Get rid of this bullshit thread.

    Have you all missed the most important point here?
    I’m trying to falsify your beliefs so that they don’t stay just so beliefs… Are you worried about your beliefs? Are you worried that the science of evolution theory that it is supposed to be a fact is not going to withstand the test of one tiny experiment?

    What’s wrong with you people? Don’t you get it?

  30. J-Mac: If Darwin hadn’t written his book, people who couldn’t care less about God/ID/Supernatural would have found another idea to believe in…Panspermia, UFO, multiverse, anything but what is inconvenient to them…

    Nonsense. The ideas were in the air. If Darwin had not written that, someone else have presented similar ideas.

    Blame Linnaeus. His classification system made evolution visible to all who looked closely.

  31. J-Mac: You can’t destroy something that people really want to believe in no matter how much evidence there is against it…

    I don’t see you presenting that evidence. Do you consider the OP to be such evidence?

    I think you may be in error. People don’t “believe” in Darwinism the same way you “believe” in god. There is evidence, physical evidence for Darwinism. Therefore belief is irrelevant.

  32. Neil Rickert: Nonsense. The ideas were in the air. If Darwin had not written that, someone else have presented similar ideas.

    Blame Linnaeus. His classification system made evolution visible to all who looked closely.

    O’RLY? On what evidence? Selective breeding? Finches changing their beak size that are not even different species?
    There is a huge difference what one could and can observe and make a claim that a few pound land walking rat evolved into 150-ton whale…
    Do you realize how ridiculous these claims are? My kids are laughing their heads off… So do I…

  33. J-Mac: Have you all missed the most important point here?
    I’m trying to falsify your beliefs so that they don’t stay just so beliefs…

    A noble quest. The problem is that you’re so laughably ill-equipped to do it.

  34. J-Mac: So what?

    It’s funny how both you and Trump talk about yourselves in the third person. You both seem to be of a similar type, dismissing expertiese in favour of “gut feelings”.

    Pesky scientists, knowing stuff…

  35. Paul C: I don’t see you presenting that evidence. Do you consider the OP to be such evidence?
    It’s a prelude…

    I think you may be in error. People don’t “believe” in Darwinism the same way you “believe” in god. There is evidence, physical evidence for Darwinism. Therefore belief is irrelevant.

    People also believe in multiverse…because they claim there is evidence for it…It only when I ask about it, it turns out to be a theory…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…

  36. Pedant: A noble quest. The problem is that you’re so laughably ill-equipped to do it.

    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…

Leave a Reply