The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

For your example 1.) of mutation and adaptation to be sunburn resistance, I believe you thinking of Melanin, your saying that’s the mutation.

How do you know that it’s not the other way around, where when people started migrated to the northern regions that, that as you call ‘mutation’ disappeared?

"How do you know that it’s not the other way around, where when people started migrated to the northern regions that, that as you call ‘mutation’ disappeared?"

I won't argue with that. All human tracks lead from the Middle East. When tribes reached high latitudes, no need for high melanin content.

Then how do you explain seeing planets from billions of light years away? This proves the universe is billions of years old because we're looking that far into the past...We can watch planets being formed, stars exploding, we can ascertain the elements present through spectroscopy, and the approximate age of stars....

https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html#:~:text=By%20dating%20the%20rocks%20in,range%20of%2050%20million%20years.

"Then how do you explain seeing planets from billions of light years away? "

Since you did not supply any reference to what you are replying, I cannot generate a cogent response.

He was replying to post 93

If you look in the top right hand corner of the post

You see <in reply to #93>, if you click on the highlighted <#93> it takes you to the post.

"Then how do you explain seeing planets from billions of light years away?"

The Earth's geologic history happened once and the past is finished. Plenty of room for wrong interpretation, overlooked floods, meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions, and whatever else. Galactic history is ongoing. One can see it happening in various stages in different parts of the universe so that cross checking us available and errors are greatly reduced.

Maybe evolution was the only DNA creative ability God had at the time? And please tell us how you think God was created.

"And please tell us how you think God was created."

I have no idea. It is beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend the full extent of such an entity.

Speak for yourself and your own limitations.

Everybody knows that God was created by Supergod, who in turn was created by Superdupergod, who (skipping a generation) was created by Superduperpooperscoopergod. Any competent theologist could tell you all of this, but they usually don't bother.

"Everybody knows that God was created by Supergod, ..."

There are those who might might be attracted to such an idea. Such a concept is an exercise if in mental masturbation. A being who can create the universe and sustain its laws is beyond the full understanding of mankind. Anyone who thinks they can comprehend such a being does not know their own limitations.

Do you think he might have been joking?

"Do you think he might have been joking?"

I don't know.

You should visit the Arc Experience... none of the animals on Noah's arch were what you see today. Their is no way that all of the life forms today, or then, would have fit on the arc.

So there must be evolution even if there was a initial creation. A single creature will develop over time to "adapt" to changing environments, thus they develop differently in completely different species if limited to that environment long enough and are strong enough to survive it. Isn't that evolution?

As far as genetics and DNA, is it too far fetched that some other worldly species has been messing with ours for millions of years to get us to this point?

Would that be considered Creation or Evolution?

"You should visit the Arc Experience..."

What and where is the 'Ark Experience'? It says in the Scriptures that every kind or type of life form that could not withstand the flood were ensconced in the large ocean liner size ark. That does not mean that every species or variation that were present on the Earth at that time were in the ark. The land life present today are the adaptations of the representative kinds of animals and insects that were released from the ark after 40 days of floating around.

Before you dream about space aliens, you should have a little proof that they exist.

You should quit relying on fraudulent literature for your opinions. You should also learn that unscientific nonsense is one of the worst sins against the holy spirit, and thus is not likely to be forgiven.

"You should quit relying on fraudulent literature for your opinions."

What fradulent literature are you referring to?

For starters, "scripture."

"For starters, "scripture.""

It is the only written record we have about what happened way back then. You have not submitted any proof of its falsity. All tracks of humanity seem to flow from the Middle East. This subject is too big to thrash out here.

Would you like to talk about cockatrices, four-legged insects, rabbits chewing cuds, unicorns, days before the sun and earth were claimed to exist, 900-year-old humans, or what?

The "only written record" means nothing at all if it is defective.

Although several religions came out of the Middle East, the "tracks of humanity" more likely came out of Africa.

Your final point might be right: the subject of abject stupidity may well be too big to thrash out here.

"Would you like to talk about...."

What is the point you are making? If something is wrong, what is correct. Or, don't you know? This thread is about evolution. Do you believe it exists? Can order come from disorder? Let's keep the discussion on track.

In post 113, you said I had not proven any falsity in "scripture." In my reply, I furnished several examples. Now you ask what point I am making. It's obvious: "Scripture" contains some errors. Seldom have I heard such a silly question.

Of course evolution exists, including speciation. And of course order can come from disorder. Randomness (mutation) is a part of that, but not all. The main part is natural selection, which preserves small and gradual improvements.

" In my reply, I furnished several examples."

What examples that were not supposedly wiped out by he flood?

Show me an example where a high amount of order comes from a a complete amount of disorder.

Show me a clear example unambiguous example where a scripture reference is wrong.

Declaring evolution works does not make it correct. The "simplest" form of life is the cell, which is unbelievably complicated. Almost like a miniature city. Many papers and books have been written about it. To believe that something organic like that could self organize and come into exitance on its own and instantaneously goes beyond faith.

If natural selection works so well, how come so many of the population wear eye glasses? During the industrial revolution in England, there were more dark moths than light moths because they were harder for the birds to see and eat. After the pollution laws were enacted and the air cleared up, the light moth population rose again. So natural selection does not necessary eliminate what in place before.

"What examples that were not supposedly wiped out by he [sic] flood?"
I doubt that there is (or ever was) enough water on earth for this alleged flood.
Even if there were such a flood, it would not correct the errors I cited.

"Show me an example where a high amount of order comes from a a [sic] complete amount of disorder."
The way you have posed this question is dishonest. A "high amount" of order does not come from a "complete amount of disorder" in one fell swoop. As far as I know, no one other than you has suggested such nonsense. Instead, what has happened is that a bit of order has arisen from disorder, and then another bit, etc., eventually accumulating into greater order.

"The 'simplest' form of life is the cell."
That could be debatable. Does a virus (subcellular) constitute life?

"self organize and come into exitance [sic] on its own"
Apart from your repeated illiteracy, this is a bad characterization. I doubt that anything comes into existence "on its own." Fortuitously, perhaps, but not from any desire or effort from itself.

"If natural selection works so well..."
Who, other than you, ever said that natural selection works so well?" Instead, natural selection works a little bit at a time, accumulating to better over a longer time, but with no guarantee of perfection. Because of this, lack of perfection does not constitute a problem for natural selection.

On the other hand, lack of perfection does constitute an enormous problem for such dopey notions as "intelligent design", from which there would be no imperfections.

"I doubt that there is (or ever was) enough water on earth for this alleged flood."

There would be if the land sank from the weight of the water. Today, much of the costal frontage loss can be attributed to land sinking and not sea rise, by the way.

The more modern translations of the Scriptures use the more correct description of "wild ox" instead of "unicorn". I am not going to counter every one of your examples.

"The way you have posed this question is dishonest. A "high amount" of order does not come from a "complete amount of disorder" in one fell swoop. As"

That is exactly what I am saying. The cell is as simple as life can get. There is no half-life. A cell has to be ready to go and fully functional from the moment it exists. That also means an environment with a food supple and a compatible temperature. To any rational person, that means instant creation, not a hokey-pokey trial and error, hit and miss over eons of time.

Yes, a virus is a life form even if it depends on other life forms for its existence. Can we humans exists on inorganic substances alone? Don't we depend on other life forms for our existence also?

Natural selection will assure that Quack Grrass will take over your lawn during the drought, but the Kentucky Blue Grass will still be there somewhere. How long before natural selection will eliminate Sickle Cell Anemia?

Or... we may come to and end of evolving.

'Humans do not produce Vitamin C due to a mutation...'

Well, if we came from apes like Solar Eagle thinks we did, then we would already have that ability.

That's not necessarily true, vitamin C is contained in almost all the fruits and vegetables we consume in a normal human diet...We might have traded that ability for a bigger brain...

"We might have traded that ability for a bigger brain..."

And what did we give up for our ability to digest cellulose? Who brokers such a deal?

..."And what did we give up for our ability to digest cellulose? "...

Long claws and tails...

Nice to have vs need to have... the basis of evolution.

The unessential disappears while the necessary to live evolves.

In that case, available or current diet probably determined this.

"Smart fish?"

Having advanced communication abilities or other skills does not imply high intelligence. Possessing those characteristics does not mean they were developed by "evolution". They were baked in at their creation.

"So you don't want to believe in the evidence"

No, I don't. I don't think the evidence backs up what you assert.

There are many aspects of evolution that confounded Darwin.The Cambrian explosion,for instance,and the more recently discovered Avalon explosion that preceded it.An explosion of life that happened relatively quickly.

If you are preparing a garden,you will plant a cover crop,till it under,add carbonaceous material,till it under until the soil is just right for planting.

If time does not exist in your reality,it is irrelevant whether it takes a million or a billion years.

If a future species discovered a mall parking lot,they would see similarities between a VW beetle and a semi,a farm tractor,a bus, a train,maybe a AWD with a Jetski attached on a trailer,or a set of snow skis on top.Could these be parasites?

Another find might be an airport,where they will discover other fossil treasures;A Piper Cub,a commercial turbo prop,a commercial jet,and likewise see an evolution from simple to more complex.

Of course there are many similarities among all the things they might find,because they had a common creator.

Over 90 percent of the universe is "missing",so how can we presume to have the answers.? I certainly do not,and only exaggerated hubris would take such a stance.

What is happening in the other 90 percent?

Are all particles in our universe entangled with other particles outside of our ability to detect?

All proofs require a certain amount of faith in unknown factors.

What you believe is a personal thing,and there can be no valid argument concerning opinions,tastes,or beliefs.

"Need more salt on those fries?" "No thanks,mine are fine."

I'm still keen to hear from SWB123 and Ratch where they draw a distinction between: mutation and adaptation, and, evolution.

The incredible thing about the mud skippers from which scientists believe all mammals birds dinosaurs and reptiles are descended, is that they already contained all the complexity necessary. It's really easy to see how continuous adaptation connects them to all their descendants.

If you were to claim that a creationist created the first microbes with RNA and DNA: I don't have the knowledge or ability to refute that, though I'm sure that others do.

"I'm still keen to hear from SWB123 and Ratch where they draw a distinction between: mutation and adaptation, and, evolution."

OK, an example of a mutation is where the Corona virus mutated into the more deadly delta version. However, it still is a Corona virus. An adaptation example is when the moths became darker in color during the dirty industrial revolution because they could more easily evade their predators. There is no explanation for biological evolution because it does not exist; due to the fact that order does not arise from disorder as I asserted before in previous posts.

There is no particular difficulty about order arising from disorder. On that point, you are completely wrong.

The universe is predicted to die a heat death due to atrophy.

You will never see a broken glass reassemble,adapt,or repair itself.

Life certainly does seem to defy the law of atrophy.

You will never see a broken glass reassemble or repair itself.

Instead of becoming more disorderly over time,it becomes more orderly.

Please explain your reasoning.

It was a typo,but in an ironic way it could also mean the wasting away of the universe in the context of my usage here.

(There is more than one pedantic person here.)

Given an infinite set of probabilities and possibilities,anything is possible.

Perhaps a 2021 Mustang could eventually evolve from a T-model,which it did,and the T Model evolved from a bunch of parts that evolved from another creature's imagination,which evolved from a bunch of atoms that formed molecules,etc,etc,

It is much simpler than any living organism,so why not ?

You may be right,perhaps there is a (to us,a cartoonish) universe inhabited by sentient vehicles that began as much simpler vehicles,like perhaps bicycles,motorcycles,or skateboards,roller skates:Surfboards getting stranded on land and growing wheels.The beaches littered with fossilized primitive surfboards with only one wheel,then two wheels,etc.The surfboard/skatebords themselves may have evolved from seaweed,or algae,and so on down,or up,the chain of infinite events.

Not impossible given an infinite time and possibilities.

Within(I say "within",but there are no limits in this infinite possibility-infinite time universe) these infinite times and possibilities there might even be a universe that was created by an intelligent entity that had an origin in infinitely deep time.

There are no limits to anything,unless imposed by our imagination to suit our opinion,which makes us feel warm and fuzzy,so to speak.

So choose your universe.Anything is possible.

Let your imagination have free reign.

But do not try to prove yours is any better than anyone else's.

I am not trying to prove anything,simply stating and clarifying my opinion.

Live and let live.

To each his own.

What a load of subjectivist drivel.

Back at'cha.

Everything is subjective and idiomatic.

It can not be otherwise.

All of our knowledge is filtered through our brain and intellect,we pick and choose what to keep and throw away.

Sometimes our choices are influenced by our environment,our upbringing,and personal experiences along life's way.

We are all limited by the things we can sense with our 5 senses.

We cannot see in UV,infrared,or X ray,but these frequencies exist nonetheless.

We have devices that let us convert these things into our perceptible range,but we really do not know what they look like.Like looking at an Xray or a negative of a color photo,there is so much more to the universe than we can ever even imagine.

Over 90 percent of our universe is missing,and Baryonic Matter makes up a very small percentage of total reality.

Our choices reflect who we are,and we defend them like they were our children,and in a sense,they are.

You are inebriated by your hubris,and cannot possible see anything except your narrow minded way of looking at things.

You rebuke dissenting opinion,and have sequestered your intellect into a very small space.

I have an open mind to all possibilities,even possible diametrically opposed ones.

If your reply was intended to offend me,it has failed .

No one can offend me unless I allow it.

You have only increased my pity for your condition.

I sincerely hope you do get better.

Duly noted and disregarded.

I expected no less from you,and you have inadvertently given further validation to my point.

Thanks!

That is not truthful, which is all I will say for the moment.

"There is no particular difficulty about order arising from disorder. On that point, you are completely wrong."

That is crazy thinking. If that were true, things would self-repair and new items would pop up all over. A little thought would realize that there are almost an infinite number of ways blind chance can go wrong and an infinitesimal chance to get it right.

How long before pedestrians will be able to jump 10ft high and run 60 mph or Opossums will be able to cross the road?

" Something becoming more complex only requires that one of billions of random events results in a beneficial change."

There is a much greater chance of a random change resulting in a bad selection that can survive than a good change that can survive better. Surely you agree that good changes are much rarer than bad changes, because there are a lot more ways to make bad changes. Look at all the genetic diseases we have (Sickle Cell Anemia). So we can still have both survival of the fittest and the sickest. Anyway, there is not enough time in the in the the dimension for random elements to organize themselves into life. The odds are against it.

"There are actually millions of new viruses occurring every day."

No, they are mutations of existing viruses.

"Surely you agree that good changes are much rarer than bad changes."

Yes that's the beauty of natural selection.

Look at the "delta variant" from the point of view of Covid.

"Look at the "delta variant" from the point of view of Covid."

Yes, the delta is becoming more prevalent, but the other variations are still around, and the virus is and always will be a Corona virus no matter how many times it mutates to dodge the anti-bodies.

I already explained one way that order might arise from disorder in this post

Can you see any problems with that explanation?

We're all familiar with some of the changes which you believe are possible due to mutation and adaptation. What I'm trying to understand is where you think the line is drawn, or, what you think the "rule" might be that distinguishes between what you think is possible and what you think is impossible.

"I already explained one way that order might arise from disorder in this post"

Do you mean post #112?

How did those bacteria, viruses, and other microbes get there in the first place? Do you think that a mutation of one of those entities is going to result into a different creature?

Actually, mutation does result in a different creature, but not a different species. Once again, you are presenting a cartoonish straw-man version of evolution. The level of false witness on your part is Hopelessly Pathetic.

"Actually, mutation does result in a different creature, but not a different species."

I never said mutation results in a different species. Different size, color, temperment, hair length, etc., but still the same species. Where did you get that idea?

I did not get that idea. Instead, I specifically denied it. Learn to read, please.

That mischaracterization of evolution come mostly from liars for Jesus, of which you are among the greatest I have ever encountered.

"I did not get that idea."

I was referring to the idea you had that I said mutations caused a different species to form.

I never mentioned J.C.

I did not say that you claimed that a mutation, or a few mutations, result in a different species. The problem is that you falsely impute that idea to evolutionists, who do not claim it either.

Yes. (If you click on the highlighted link this post your browser should open a new tab with that post in it.)

"How did those bacteria, viruses, and other microbes get there in the first place? Do you think that a mutation of one of those entities is going to result into a different creature?"

I have already conceded that I do not have the knowledge to explain where the microbes with RNA and DNA came from. I am sure that others do have that knowledge.

A mutation of one of those entities does not result in a new creature: it only has to result in a strain which gains an advantage by collaborating with other microbes.

"A mutation of one of those entities does not result in a new creature: it only has to result in a strain which gains an advantage by collaborating with other microbes."

And how do those microbes exist in the first place?

"And how do those microbes exist in the first place?"

I have already conceded that I do not have the knowledge to explain where the microbes with RNA and DNA came from. I am sure that others do have that knowledge.

What I'm trying to understand about your position is what you think the difference is between <mutation & adaptation> and <evolution>. You seem to be focused on the fact that mutation and adaptation cannot create new species.

I believe that the definition of species relies on the ability to breed with others of the same species. There are hundreds of examples of creatures which are going through or have gone past the point where they can breed with other creatures descended from the same ancestor. For example:

Going through

Horses and Donkeys are different species (they have different numbers of chromosomes), but, they can still breed with each other producing hinnies (male horse female donkey) and mules (female horse and male donkey). The offspring cannot breed.

Mammoths, Mastodons, Asian Elephants, African Savannah Elephants and African Forest Elephants: are all descended from the same common ancestor, but, are generally regarded as separate species although there has been one instance of an African Asian cross which did live briefly. The two African species did interbreed for a long time but have now diverged to the point where they cannot.

Lions and Tigers are similar to horses and donkeys in this respect.

Gone past

Black and White Rhinos are descended from the same common ancestor along with several other rhinos, but, are no longer able to breed (because they have been kept apart from each other by the Congo for about a million years).

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, there must be hundreds (thousands?) of others.

If the "line which cannot be crossed" is the creation of new species, do you have a different definition of species.

Or have I misunderstood your position?

I awaiting your reply to my post 137.

Did you mean #137 ?

I have given several explanations of the way in which life can become more complex. It's something that happens gradually over hundreds of generations, not something like a broken glass spontaneously re-assembling itself.

You have not explained how life,becoming more complex(organized) from a few molecules,continuously becoming more orderly,less disorderly.

These initial molecules "decided" to get together and join up and form RNA, and DNA,and further organize into living creatures,each more complex and organized than before.

This violates the law of entropy,IMHO.

Of course,whatever make you feel good is ok by me.

There are approximately 8 billion opinions out there.

We hold only two of them,a very insignificant percentage.

"Allow me to further clarify my position:I do not have a problem with evolution and adaptation for different environs."

Then we're in agreement about the points being discussed.

Within the context of my entire message,yes.

But I do have a conflict with auto-genesis of living organisms.

Things taken out of contest,like the modern mass media likes to do, can lead to misunderstandings and sometimes reverse the meaning.

"if it transpired that those microbes were seeded by aliens"

A bit of a segue. If we assume that the first microbes with RNA and DNA on earth were seeded by aliens: then you can increase the number of "experimental explosions in a timber yard" by 4 hundred billion stars in a galaxy times a 100 billion galaxies times the ten billion years the universe existed before the solar system was born. (Maybe we need to multiply by trillions of universes which may exist, it could be that life only exists in one in a trillion universes, but then of course if we weren't here we wouldn't be thinking about it or discussing it.)

I wonder if we ought to be thinking about seeding planets in the goldilocks zone with microbes. People have already suggested seeding the atmosphere of Venus with microbes that would convert the atmosphere into something more acceptable to humans. Think about the progress we have made in the last century: in a million years or so we should be able to launch thousands of "micro" rockets; the payload would only need to be a milligram or so; they would need to sling shot off planets in the solar system and then planets of near by stars; after that they would need to calculate there own sling shots and they would need to seek out there own targets. It would be unethical to target planets more than 100 million years old (some debate needed) unless the probes could determine that there was no life present.

Again, think about the progress we have made in the last century: in a million years we will be able to edit the "junk code" in DNA easily, so we will be able to leave a message for any intelligent life form which becomes able to read it. Is anyone searching for coded messages in the junk DNA of of the most ancient microbes?

"Black and White Rhinos are descended......"

All those examples of interbreeding of similar species produce similar offspring. What I am getting at is a is a prey animal like a lion does not produce a rabbit species no matter how many times it interbreeds.

Wolves are carnivores, but most of their descendants (dogs) although they are still strictly speaking the same species are omnivores. Some dogs (by the choice of their owners) are vegetarian: it's easy to see how given the right environmental pressures some new breeds of dogs could become total vegetarian of their own choice.

Polar bears are carnivores, but, most of their close relatives are omnivores. According to several sources eg.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/grizzly-bears-go-vegetarian-due-climate-change-choosing-berries/

Grizzly bears are becoming vegetarian due to climate change.

"dogs could become total vegetarian of their own choice."

Dogs are natural carnivores, but will eat anything else that suits their fancy.

I can't open that link without subscribing to something.

Does that statement about a 3/4 ton polar bear turning vegan pass the smell test? Giving up that calorie rich seal meat for pea size berries? Could it be that the climate change has melted the ice so that the poor bear cannot venture out to catch the seals like he used to? How about the salmon? One salmon equals a lot of berries. That article has a lot of explaining to do.

Try this link

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/brown-bears-climate-change-salmon-vegetarian-diet-kodiak-grizzly-alaska-a7918406.html

Or do a search for <bears vegetarian salmon climate change>

It's grizzly not polar bears which are affected.

The point is that if there was environmental pressure on say some breeds of dogs to remain vegetarian for several thousand generations then some breeds would eventually lose their ability to digest meat.

"Try this link"

I did and I still get stopped unless I subscribed to something. However, I Googled on my own and found the 2014-15 study you are referring about. I don't know why bears prefer berries over salmon. Salmon is much more nutritious to bulk up for the Winter. Perhaps they favor the sweetness of the berries. As for turning into vegans, they are omnivores and therefore already vegans. It is a stretch to say they will ever lose their ability to digest meat. Just like it would be to say humans will ever gain the ability to digest cellulose.

Salmon are only available when they are spawning.

The bears have to eat something in the meanwhile.

Berries are plentiful when they come out of hibernation,but they cannot put on body fat without the salmon in their diet,which spawn later.

"Salmon are only available when they are spawning."

The article reports on an old study (2014-2015) which says that due to the climate change warmup, the berries are ripening earlier than usual and are in sync with the salmon run. The bears seem to prefer berries over fish. My guess is that sugar tastes better than scales, but the bears have to eat a lot more berries to pack on the pounds for the long Winter's sleep.

Some folks seem to think that this means the bears will turn into vegetarians. I don't think so. They will still eat anything they can get their paws on.

"The article reports on an old study (2014-2015) which says that due to the climate change warmup, the berries are ripening earlier than usual and are in sync with the salmon run. The bears seem to prefer berries over fish. My guess is that sugar tastes better than scales, but the bears have to eat a lot more berries to pack on the pounds for the long Winter's sleep."

Good Answer

"Some folks seem to think that this means the bears will turn into vegetarians."

I don't think that anyone believes that bears will become vegetarian. But, if environmental pressures continued for thousands of generations then a new species could evolve which could not digest meat.

There are hundreds of ways this could occur. For example it might start with two breeds of the original bears one of which specialises on the salmon and the other specialises on the berries.

There are thousands of example of this sort of thing in the tree of life. Darwin's observations of finches showed very similar branching.

"Darwin's observations of finches showed very similar branching"

I don't think putting the bears on a veggie diet for thousands of years will change their appetite or ability to digest meat.

Why not?

The ability to digest meat would be an unnecessary overhead. In their vegetarian environment any creatures which lost the ability would then be able to dedicate more resources to other abilities, and would then have a slight advantage over those that hadn't.

"The ability to digest meat would be an unnecessary overhead."

I would consider that ability to be an asset. Another food source. In any case, I think that ability ranks among the ability to to digest cellulose as either you have it or you don't. And, once you have it, you won't lose it.

The ability to digest meat is only an asset if the creature ever gets the opportunity to eat meat. But, I believe I am wrong that they would lose the ability: it turns out that all mammals can eat and digest meat.

So the changes which would result in a new species which was "vegetarian" would be the simple ones that fall into your category of mutations and adaptation, possibly starting with changes to the teeth.

Examine two cloned rabbits;one alive and the other one dead for a few minutes.

They weigh the same,look the same,but one is dead,the other is not.

All of the same chemicals are present in each one.

What is missing in the dead rabbit?

The life force.That unknown energy that enables life.

Without it,it is all just minerals.Like every other living creature in the universe.

What is this life force;What is it's source?

According to current theory,energy is not created or destroyed,it simply changes form.

So where did the life force come from,and where did it go?

Has anyone set up a lab experiment to detect electromagnetic activity at the instant of death?

I would be interested in the results if anyone knows of such an experiment.

The actual longest running evolution may be the Earth itself:

Considering the age of the Earth,and the short period of time it took for man to evolve,it is possible that previous advanced civilizations have been present on Earth.They may have been able to overcome C and time travel.,which to us,in the present time,is considered impossible.

Our unidentified flying objects may actually be a previous civilization checking in on our evolution.

With plate tectonics,ice ages with miles deep glaciers scraping the Earth clean,there would be no geological or other evidence of their existence.

There are however,some mysterious documents that have shown up,such as the ancient(1500's) map of Antarctica without ice that is amazingly accurate:(Piri Reis Map);

The age of the Sphinx is hotly debated,but the erosion patterns on the body are definitely water erosion,not wind erosion.The last known water in the area was over 10,000 years ago,and according to scholars,no civilization existed in that area at that time;

The Pyramids' blocks have aggregate (shells) uniformly distributed in the blocks,which is not the original form from the quarry where they were mined.In the quarry,the shells are in layers,like typical sediment layers;This is,however typical in concrete.

"Experts" ridicule this idea because they say there would be form marks on the blocks.(As if they did not have enough intelligence to grind away and smooth out any form marks);

Anyone that seriously questions the status quo is sanctioned and sentenced to a dead end career;

Images that can only be seen from a high altitude,miles of perfectly straight lines that seem to serve no known purpose.But the intense labor and engineering to make them was not just an idle exercise;

There was a purpose for them,and we do not have a clue.

I cannot imagine how much information was lost when they burned the library in Alexandria.Volumes from all over the world were lost.

We do not know the true history of the Earth,only what is a censured history.