Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · #**1111** 19th August 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

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.

Of the speciations we have observed, which became more than a "mutation" of thier parent. In other words, which looked so differently that we can put them in a new phylum, family group. This would be proof of the TOE.

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.)

That doesn't answer my question unless of course I don't understand the question I am asking.

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.

I don't recall saying that males and females were different species. These last to paragraphs are exactly what I have been talking about. I am not an idiot people. You need to listen.

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.)

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.

A Okay

razzelflabben · #**1112** 19th August 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tomk80

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.

skipping a bunch of stuff to catch up and to try to stay on topic. That might help if I don't answer every question but only those that relate to the overwhelming evidence. (I know, I know it all is related to the overwhelming evidence, but I have had suggestions to narrow it down, so you will have to abide by the same suggestions I should think)

razzelflabben · #**1113** 19th August 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Where in the Bible -- your source for TOC -- is this mentioned.

You said "Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce." But what I am talking about is the exact REVERSE of this. We started with a situation where they did reproduce. Then we ended up with 2 populations that could not reproduce with each other. By what you said, we ended up at "the species were not able to reproduce". We made new kinds.

Well, then, the lab experiments are not at all what you say. One original population, then split into several populations (each with 500 individuals). Population A is captured from the wild and is kept in the original environmental conditions. Population B is placed at colder temperatures. Population C has different food than A and B. Now, after 2,500 generations, population A is the original species. It can still breed with the wild population. However, populations B and C can't breed with A or the wild. They can't breed with each other. So, where we had one kind: A, we now have three kinds: A, B, and C.

Did you follow all that?

For the twenty millionth evolving time yes, I'm not a moron. Doesn't address the issue I am asking about.

razzelflabben · #**1114** 19th August 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

It doesn't. All it does is remove an argument against it. Some people have claimed that some fhuman ossils are older than they are because they were buried and thus were found in sediments lower (older) than when they actually lived and died. Burial made the fossils look older.

But why aren't you reading in the subject? Both what creationists are saying what TOC is and what biologists say evolution is? It's apparent that you are doing some reading. You tell us that TOC comes from Genesis, but the idea that speciation is part of TOC comes from articles at ICR and AiG written since 1995 or so. It's a very recent addition/change to TOC. And not a change based on the Bible!

No, that burial does occur by digging a hole. And it is this hole that is going to have the fossil appear to be in sediments older than when the individual lived and died.

Razzel, remember the claims. ALWAYS remember the claims. Testing and arguments are done in relation to claims. If you don't remember the claims, you end up posting the irrelevancy of burial in caves where the body is just set on top of the existing rock.

Not my point at all, but this moron doesn't have the strength to keep repeating myself. Move on.

gluadys · #**1115** 19th August 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Originally Posted by gluadys

I am asking where TOC suggests this scenario (population A splits into sub-groups which become population B and C) or is even compatible with it. Everything I have heard about TOC says this contradicts TOC. It doesn't mimic it.

So explain why you think this works from TOC, please?

I am so far behind, overwhelmed by the response to my accusations that there is not overwhelming evidence, (especially from those who claim that it is not a belief system), frustrated at not being able to keep up, bored with trying to repeat my answers to a dozen or so posts because everyone is saying the same thing and then complains if I don't respond to a post.

If everyone is saying much the same thing---and I agree they are---why not make just one post and address it to everyone?

And if you are tired---take a day off. You do not have to come everyday.

I am tired of feeling like people here feel like they have to talk down to me, I assure you that my college professors didn't talk down to me. And, I am just plain tired.

It is because it seems to take so long for you to understand anything we say. Now part of that is because you have not been telling us when you do understand things. And part of it is because you keep asking the same questions we have already answered---so it looks like you did not understand.

So please bare with me as I try to explain to you why I do not find the evidence overwhelming. I thought I had covered that many times already but apparently, I either didn't cover it or some here will not be content until I change my mind and claim to know truth and that truth is the TOE.

No,you have never covered why you think the evidence is not overwhelming. You have just repeated and repeated your opinion.

For an animal to reproduce after it's kind, it would also need to reproduce in the same way that it's parents do. This process means that in the case of male and female reproduction, the creature is a part of both parents.

Got that. But that doesn't answer the question that I asked. I asked how does TOC predict that population A will split into different groups and that after a time the groups (B and C) will no longer be able to interbreed with population A. I thought that TOC said this was never possible.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

That is exactly my point. If we see species that interbreed but cannot reproduce, then the question must be asked, to what extent will the reproducing continue. We can assume that it will stop or we can assume it is limited to a few species. Either way, the observations are inconclusive. We are still making leaps of faith to claim we know what is not known. We do not know to what extent reproduction will continue because our observations are inconclusive. Thus, we lack overwhelming evidence.

You did not answer the question.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

You complain about people talking down to you. This is why. You keep bringing up the red herring of different species inter-breeding and producing a hybrid which cannot reproduce itself.

But that is not an evolution scenario. The hybrid is not a new species.

You have been shown a different scenario. Many times. In that scenario we end up with parent population A, and daughter populations B and C. None of the three inter-breed well with each other, but they all breed easily within their own group.

This is an evolution scenario. Do you understand that this is an evolution scenario? Do you understand that the hybrid produced by inter-breeding is not an evolution scenario?

But, the issue is that it is not conclusive.

If you don't get continued reproduction, you don't get a new species. No speciation has happened.

Right, but if the new species cannot reproduce, evolution stops. That is what I am talking about.

Do you see what you have just done? I said "you don't get a new species". And you start your answer by saying "if the new species cannot reproduce..."

The point, Razzleflaben is that there is no new species that cannot reproduce, so there is no species to speculate about with an "if the new species cannot reproduce" What new species that cannot reproduce? There is no new species that cannot reproduce.

Now if you have understood the scenario above, then you should understand that when you speak of hybrids produced by inter-breeding, you are not talking about an evolution scenario. Evolution doesn't stop, because what you are describing is not evolution. Using a correct evolution scenario shows that new species keep on reproducing.

Do you understand that now?

Can we stop talking about the problem of the mule now? Can we go on with the understanding that new species have no problem with continued reproduction? They keep on reproducing and they keep on evolving.

That is what you are talking about. What I am talking about and have been trying to get people to understand is that if even one "new" species is not a viable breeder, it is an assumption to claim that species evolve.

No, as usual, you have it backwards about. Even if your mythical non-breeding species could exist (and it does not), even if we had hundreds of new "non-breeding species" (how we would ever get that I don't know), all that is necessary for evolution to continue is one new species that reproduces normally.

And, in fact, all new species breed just fine. That is what makes them species.

Do you understand that now?

There is question. That question means that the evidence is not overwhelming.

Since all new species do reproduce, the evidence is overwhelming, even on the basis of your false assumption. Because there is not even one new "species" which is not a viable breeder.

Is that clear now?

I think I have this one covered, if there are still questions, let me know.

Yes, I do have questions.
What do you mean by "I have this one covered"?
Do you mean that you now understand that the common ancestor was a population, not an individual?
Do you mean that your questions about the common ancestor have been cleared up? answered?
Do you mean you understand now why concern about having a suitable mate was misplaced?

If any of these questions have not been cleared up, please explain what the ongoing problem is.

So which is it, no unanswered questions, or still unanswered questions? That should clear up this entire thread with one simple answer.

Depends on the type of question.

If the question is: do we know evolution is a fact---the answer is a resounding YES! There is no more question about the fact that evolution happens.

If the question is: do we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact---the answer again is YES! in spades!!!. Heaps and heaps of evidence which supports evolution and none which casts doubt on evolution.

If the question is more detailed, such as "how did the nucleus of the eukaryote cell evolve?" or "what is the exact lineage of Hydrangea arborescens? or "what genetic changes led to the development of feathers?"---sure, there are lots of unanswered questions.

But note the difference between this kind of question and those above. All of these questions take for granted that evolution is a fact. They are not questions which cast doubt on the theory of evolution. They are questions scientists seek answers to in order to fill in the details of our knowledge about evolution.

No more overwhelming than the explainations that can be found in the original TOC and the room it allows for explainations.

What explanations? You keep talking about these TOC explanations but you never tell us what they are. And "allowing room" for TOE explanations does not count. If TOC is a legitimate theory, it must come up with its own explanations.

Now, first off this assumes that I have never read or studied anything about the TOE. That would be a false assumption. I may not know everything there is to know about it because quite frankly, it bores me and I think there are a whole lot of more important things to focus on, but none the less, I know more than you give me credit for knowing.

We give you credit for knowing what you have told us you know. If you want more credit, tell us more of what you know. Show us that you really understand TOE instead of a strange straw man that has nothing to do with TOE.

You assume because I tell you what we were taught, that that is what I believe,

If you believe different from what you were taught, you just have to say so. If you don't say where your beliefs differ from what you were taught, it is a natural assumption to think you believe it. Don't blame us for problems you create for yourself.

Secondly, if there is overwhelming evidence to convince us of all the above and more, where then are the unanswered questions you spoke of? Why do the people here accept there are unanswered questions then assert that we have overwhelming evidence to answer those questions? Where is the logic in this?

See the examples above. The unanswered questions do not detract from the overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. They are a different kind of unanswered question.

razzelflabben · #**1116** 19th August 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

That's because she is forgetting the title of Darwin's book. Origin of the SPECIES. Not "every living thing comes from a single cell", but the origin of species.

So, what has happened is Razzel has incorporated speciation into TOC. She isn't really discussing evolution anymore, because she is admitting it happened. She is arguing theism vs atheism. Deep down to her evolution = atheism. So evolution is always going to be a "possibility".

These are the types of posts that are the most disturbing to communication for they assume to know what I think and feel without ever knowing or asking. In fact, it goes against what I have said and feel but because I do not agree with you, then I must be this.

Let's look at it this way.
Because E a has had dealings with C b and C b does not agree with E a then person D must believe what C b does because person D also disagrees with E a.

Are you getting it yet, or can I explain in a few hundred more times before you understand, that I am not your typical C or "christian" I do not hold the same views or teachings and these accusations do nothing to prove your point, but confirm my suspicians that there are many more E out there whose belief system is E than what want to admit it. Only those who have something precious to loose would resort to this type of accusations. That usually comes in the form of a belief system.

Aron-Ra · #**1117** 19th August 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by mrversatile48

..Razz is 1 of the best posters in the whole CvE board

Can't say da same for you tho'

So if I were more petulent, and ignored people more, you would consider me a better poster?

Jesus said that Satan is the "father of lies"

And Thor said his brother, Loki was a trickster. So?

Your handle wouldn't be a pathetic demand to be worshipped as the phoney pagan occult sun-god Ra, by any chance?
Or a priest of a Ra cult, ape-ing Aaron?

No. My name is Aron, (pronounced like Arn or are + run). I use Aron-Ra to remind others of Amen-Ra, whom I believe to be one of the primary inspirations your god was based on.

razzelflabben · #**1118** 19th August 2004, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Well you haven't said until now that you have understood us. You have just kept on asking the same questions that we thought we had answered clearly. If you do not want to look like an idiot, tell us what you have understood and rephrase the question so that we know what we haven't covered. Don't act like you are ignoring the answers you have been given.

So define your terms.

What, in your opinion, is inter-breeding?
What is breeding?

Isn't lucaspa describing two species which are successfully breeding? (not inter-breeding)?

Where is the problem you see that we are too stupid to see.

Help us out here Razzelflaben. We don't know what problem you are talking about. Using lucaspa's salmon example, show us what the problem is.

You know what, I give up, I rephrase the question and you ignore it to repeat the answers. If you want to see someone asking the same questions, I will take you to a thread where every post, (almost) is the exact same question. I understand what you are saying, but I am talking about reproductive problems, not interbreeding. Come on, give me a little credit.

razzelflabben · #**1119** 19th August 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

This is what the theory originally said:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

We are not similar to Genesis. We are still saying there was a common ancestor population or species, but we are saying that this common ancestor species had many, many, individuals.

Okay, let's talk about populations. Where in the Bible does it say that God only created on or two of a kind? (apart from man)

gluadys · #**1120** 19th August 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I will can these kind of remarks when people stop treating me like I don't know the difference between interbreeding and breeding. I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me. If I was talking about interbreeding, I would have specified interbreeding. This type of response make me feel like you people view me as an uneducated idiot and though I view myself as stupid, I assure you that is not what the tests, and people who know me think. I would appreciate being treated with this type of respect, if you intend this type of comment to be dropped.

Hey, communication problems arise when different people are using the same words for different realities. Don't get peeved with me because I try to improve communication.

Do you agree with the definitions I set out?

breed = mating individuals of the same species
inter-breed= mating individuals of different species.

Is this how you understand these words? I just need a simple confirmation. Or if you define them differently, tell me what your definitions are.

For example, in this sentence: "I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me." what do you mean by "breed" and "interbreeding"?