Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · #**1001** 18th August 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

I mentioned a few of these. organisation of ERVs and ALUs only really make sense in the light of TOE.

This is so frustrating, I leave long enough to feed my kids and come back to a few dozen new posts, I think you people are really robots. So in the words of johnny five, imput.

gluadys · #**1002** 18th August 2004, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

and we do not know for sure that breeding, thus evolving can continue from the evidence, only assumptions and speculations that it can and does happen. In other words, our speciation evidence is too limiting to know for sure.

Yes, we do know for sure, for as you have been informed many times, with examples, we have actually seen speciation occur. It only takes one example of speciation to confirm that evolution is a fact, and we have seen many more than one.

Okay, new evidence, where did all these organisms come from

From their ancestors. Remember we began with a population A. When a part of it separated out to a new area, we are not assuming that it was only one lone individual; it was a sub-set of population A consisting of many individuals. And it was the whole sub-set that evolved into population B, not just one or two individuals. (To understand this more fully, you need to understand how natural selection works.)

and how did thousands of organisms evolve into a viable breeding source of male and female (later down the line) because there would not have been a need for male and female species to evolve.

No, males and females are not different species. By the time you read this again you will have seen the post on hermaphrodite species. If you still have questions, ask.

Asexual is the way to go if you want to survive.

Actually its not. To survive in a dynamically changing environment you want to be prepared for changing times with lots of potential variation. Species that reproduce sexually are much better at that than species which use a-sexual reproduction. A good book on this is The Cooperative Gene by Mark Ridley. (I believe I recommended this to you once before.)

This is definately new teaching, but does not change the questions I have asked in this post.

It may be new to you, but it is not new to TOE. You can find it in the first edition of Origin of Species published in 1859.

gluadys · #**1003** 18th August 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.

No, because you actually need only one new species capable of reproducing for evolution to continue and we have many more than that. So the evidence along this line is conclusive indeed.

Tomk80 · #**1004** 18th August 2004, 08:49 PM

People, this is getting quite confusing here. Couldn't we put up a list of issues and start seperate threads on those? I think this would make it more understandable for Razzelflabben also.

Second, Razzelflabben. At this point I don't think presenting other independent lines of evidence for evolution is feasable here (for example treating ERV's in detail), since you already have trouble keeping up at this point. Especially since some other important issues, like what is and is not speciation, are not resolved yet. I really think you should focus on one debating point for clarity.

gluadys · #**1005** 18th August 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Got it, but this doesn't address the down the road issues.

So we address the down the road issues when we get to them. Remember that list I gave you of all the aspects of evolution? You won't get all the answers from the answer to one question.

So keep asking.

DJ_Ghost · #**1006** 18th August 2004, 08:53 PM

You have a good point there Tomk80. I am having trouble keeeping up with this thread and I have more free time than Razzelflabben, since I do not have Kids to feed etc.

Mind you I should be working on a magazine article, but there you have it.

Ghost

razzelflabben · #**1007** 18th August 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

My apologies. You did say "conclusive". So, let me rephrase the question: What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?

I do not think there can be conclusive evidence which is a sentiment presented by some scientists that I was asked to read. At least not in this life time.

But you being emotional isn't what I proposed, was it? I proposed you could not find the data for evolution conclusive, because, if you did, it would cause you emotional distress.

Absoltuely not, No distress, enotional or otherwise. So rethinking about a few odds and ends but nothing more strenuous than that. In fact, I have recently had a lot more challening issues to deal with in my life and I have come through the emotiona distress of them just fine. I am not afraid of the hard questions and the even harder answers, in some ways I thrive on them.

But you admit that TOC is founded on Genesis 1 and other passages of the Bible. What happens to Genesis 1 and the Bible, in your opinion, if evolution is true and TOC is false?

You are asking me a hypothetical questions for there is no proof to back it up. If that were the case however, and the evidence was conclusive I would most likely (not sure because it is hypothetical) study to see if the passage could be on the lines of a story rather than an actual account. If that did not prove to be the case, then I would reconside the apparent contridictions, and do a lot more searching.

Let me ask you the same question, if science found a way to conclusively prove the Gen account of C how would it change your thinking? Would you be able to accept it without the emotional distress you suggest I would find?

Even the name -- Theory of Creation -- seems significant. It looks to me that if the Theory of Creation is wrong, then Creation didn't happen. Is that how it is for you? Would Creation by God still happen? If so, how? If TOC is wrong, how would God have created?

I think I covered this, if not, let me know, but please I am interested in your answers to the questions if the opposite were true.

Well, guess what? You share that passion with all those who showed TOC to be wrong and evolution to be correct! Remember, TOC was the accepted scientific theory between 1700 -1831. But scientists abandoned TOC. These scientists were all Christian and most were ministers. They must have had a reason to decide TOC was wrong. Remember, Darwin started out thinking TOC was correct. What does your research tell you that was?

I do not understand this question? What does your research tell you that was? What was? I am not interested in which theory is right or wrong, at least on this thread, only in knowing if there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE and so far, I haven't seen it. I have seen strong evidence, I have seen suggestions, I have seen assertions, but no overwhelming evidence.

And why do you have that belief system that we have a long way to go before we can know the truth about our origins? You haven't read Origin of the Species. I don't think you have read any textbook on evolutionary biology. So how do you know what we already know?

Believe what you will, I have no control over what you believe and do not believe, and no fear in not controling your thoughts. I believe we have a long way to go because there are many unanswered questions out there. And much more we can learn and know and experience about our world, things that we have not even scratched the surface of knowing still await exploration. That is why I don't think we can know in this life time all the origin of life answers.

Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Look at the sheer number of papers that have been done on the subject since 1965 in a medical database. Over 160,000. Don't you think those investigations would have told us something about our origins?

Shall I point you to all the information we do not yet have, much of which we don't even know we do not have yet. Why do we go into outerspace, the depths of the oceans, the depths of the earth if we have all the answers we seek? Why do we continue to explore if we already know the answers to the questions we ask? There is much much much more to learn and explore and research and observe before we can know the answers to the questions in this world, including the quesiton of the origins of life.

gluadys · #**1008** 18th August 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.

Not entirely no. But it is restricted to closely related species. And most evolution does not happen through these inter-species matings, but through the ordinary within-species breeding.

Are you wanting to change the definition of kind to something larger than a species?

That is what happened to TOC in the 19th century. You would be following a well-trod creationist pathway by enlarging the definition of kind.

Of course, if you carry this enlargement of "kind" to the ultimate conclusion, you end up defining "kind" in the same way evolution does: as including all of life past and present.

If that is not acceptable to you, you have to find a place between "species" and "all of life" where you can say that the ancestors of two selected species were never able to breed with each other.

And that means you have to be able to answer one of Aron-ra's questions with a definite "NO" and be able to say why.

lucaspa · #**1009** 18th August 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.

Razzel, Gluadys accidentally confused you. All new species can reproduce within the species. What causes extinction is not failure to reproduce but failure to deal with either environmental changes or competing species. For instance, the coati is extending its range from S. America to N. America. It occupies the same ecological niche as raccoons. Where the coati is, local raccoon populations disappear. The coatis grab the food and other resources. When the coatis have gone to all parts of N. America where there are raccoons, raccoons will have gone extinct.

Tomk80 · #**1010** 18th August 2004, 09:26 PM

As long as there is no answer to the suggestions done earlier, but by others and by me, to start a new one, I'm wondering about another position you have on species Razzelflabben.
Do you consider donkey's and horses to be of the same species?
Do you consider them to be seperate creations or species derived from a common ancestor?

And to both questions, could you also explain in a little bit of detail why? Because I'm getting totally confused at your understanding of the concepts kinds/species and speciation, and this might at least clear up a bit of my confusion.