Is Evolution Real?

 You like throwing the word "god" on everything without even thinking what it means. No, setting up an experiment does not mean that you represent god."

 Place the highest concentration as the first application. Will they adapt then?

 Dispite how you feel the scientist did help the bacteria evolve. Without the right conditions that experiment does not happen, evolution will not happen. They had to be helped by intelligence.

Evolution is trying to prove that intelligence is not involved.

Setting up the experiment does mean you represent God (or some form of intelligence).
Setting up the experiment doesn't mean it was unassisted, or it occured naturally.

 Ottomans are items, whereas evolution is a process.

Murder can be simulated.
Because you can represent the person who caused the murder.

 What does this even mean? 

@AlexOland

"Why though? Normally, we do not see extreme and sudden changes in the nature (there are exceptions). If you placed the highest concentration as the first application, they would probably die out. But evolution does not claim that they would live, so that is irrelevant. 
 The claim was that organisms can adapt and change based on their environment. The experiment shows that bacteria adapt and change based on their environment. Simple as that. "

Although it is simple, it is the application to the whole that is disagreed upon. Adapting based on the environment is accepted. But changing to another species is not.

So far that has not been proven.

"The conditions were constructed to create an environment that makes it harder for the bacteria to survive, little by little. They were not helped by intelligence, unless you consider putting bacteria in deadly chemicals "helping". 
 Even if assume that the scientists did help, did the experiment prove that an organism changed? Yes. 
"

The scientist did help. Not placing it in deadly chemicals. Gradual slightly deadly chemicals. They do the same to soldiers they will give them reduced poisons, in order to help them develop immunities. But when they are in the field and get hit with poison, the plant or animal doesn't slightly adjust the poison so they can survive.

"No, it is not. It can be used to explain how life came to be without a god but evolution itself is not trying to refute intelligent design. "

You only need to read MayCeasar to prove it is. You may feel it is not. But to the majority of others it is.

You might want to explain this argument to MayCeasar

" No, it does not. If you have no effect on the experiment, you do not represent anything in the experiment. That is not how science works.
  If I put a frog and a fly in a jar and observe that the frog eats the fly then repeat the experiment with different subjects, then I can conclude that: "Frogs can eat flies". Just because I put the frog and the fly there, does not mean that the frog did not eat the fly. I represent nothing in this experiment. My existence is separate of the fact that frogs can eat flies. Now you will maybe say that: "You helped the frog get to the fly." but, if you noticed, my conclusion only states the result of the experiment itself. Maybe frogs naturally are not able to catch flies but I have proven that frogs are able to eat flies. (Well, we can conclude that frogs do catch flies by thinking logically but whatever.)"

You may place two frogs in a jar. And over time the one frog will eat the other frog. Then you can conclude that:"Frogs can eat Frogs". Do you represent nothing to the experiment?

You may take two people place them in a cage. And over time the one will eat the other. Then you can conclude that:"Man can eat Man".

You right you probably proved that they can eat themselves.Nevertheless, when would this situation happen? The constraints of the test are very important to the conclusion. They do not represent real world situations.To best determine real world situations observation without assistance needs to be done. Evolution is said to have happened over millions of years. Over millions of years anything could have happened. Meteorite, storm, disease, anything! I mean gradual, extreme, extinction level. Or nothing could have happened. No experiment is going to simulate millions of years.So assumptions have to be made, and that is not science.

We cannot observe millions of years. We cannot experiment millions of years. So Evolution is not real, it is guessing.

@MayCeasar

“No, the scientists represent intelligent observer, which is not the same think as intelligent designer. Direct experimentation is merely one of the methods to observe the world around us, but it is not the only one.

The claim that just because scientists can create something intelligently, everything has been created intelligently - is a logical fallacy of the type "if a is a logical subset of A and a is true, then A is true". Of the same type as "Dogs are alive, dogs are animals, and dinosaurs are animals - hence dinosaurs are alive".”

I agree with direct experimentation is a method to observe. Nevertheless, when you are trying to prove unassisted development, you cannot have direct experimentation. You represent something to the project. You are an observer if you only observed. If you built a case or did anything outside of looking, you represent something to the project.

“This reductionist view of science is deeply fallacious. We do not have to observe the entire process from the beginning to the end, in order to be able to reconstruct the process from the existing evidence.

I will ask you the same question I asked someone else who disbelieved evolution on this site: do you consider history a science? In particular, do you think that Ancient Rome has existed? Or is your position that we do not know, since we never directly observed it?”

If it is not observed how do you know it happened? History has a multitude of documented eye witnesses. I believe you would question the viability of anything that was not observed. Do you know how many times science was wrong in their conclusions. Scientist’s  break their rules all the time.

“Because evolution is not a linear process. It involves a lot of branching and merging.
And we did not evolve directly from apes; or, at least, it is not conclusive as of now that we did. Most likely, thousands different species contributed to us becoming what we are today.

It is indeed like a lottery. Lottery, strictly speaking, is not a random process, and the individual who knows absolutely everything there is to know in the Universe could predict the outcome of every lottery. However, given the informational vacuum any reasonably realistic individual would be in when trying to predict it, we can approximate it as a random process. This is what probability theory does: deals with the models that can be approximated as random”

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion? Have you studied the “the Cambrian explosion”? Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. The vast majority of fossils (95%) show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. Like bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor. Majority of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time.

“I presented that video as evidence for evolution. And you just accepted that it is evolution (according to the definition) so I think that debate is over now. Evolution is a fact. What you reject is speciation which is not the same thing as evolution.”

I didn’t accept that. I accepted what I thought you were saying. Which you corrected. I do not agree with the definition. You can conclude the debate as over, if you are scared to address the real issues that evolution cannot answer. Then yes the debate is over Evolution is not real. I reject evolution period. Do not consider my respectful acknowledgement as agreement. Evolution is the same thing as Speciation to you, not to everyone else.

Evolution is an idea, it has never been proven. Just because a video shows plants and animals can adapt is not evolution. I know to you it does.

But Lönnig’s research proves you wrong! He says “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations”

Mutations can only go so far and that is it. To you, it evolved, to everyone else it adapted. We use the word adapted because the word evolve means more than adaption. To you

Now if you want to go against science, go right ahead, believe your fantasies. But science is against you!

Sand said:

I agree with direct experimentation is a method to observe. Nevertheless, when you are trying to prove unassisted development, you cannot have direct experimentation. You represent something to the project. You are an observer if you only observed. If you built a case or did anything outside of looking, you represent something to the project.

If it is not observed how do you know it happened? History has a multitude of documented eye witnesses. I believe you would question the viability of anything that was not observed. Do you know how many times science was wrong in their conclusions. Scientist’s  break their rules all the time.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion? Have you studied the “the Cambrian explosion”? Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. The vast majority of fossils (95%) show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. Like bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor. Majority of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time.