Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
on my way to saying good night, I know I missed a lot of responses, but I feel good about reading every post and getting caught up this far. If I missed something important, I'm hopeful you all will bring it up again instead of making accusation
Originally Posted by gluadys
No, it would be a contradiction of TOE. What TOE predicts is speciation. And it predicts that a new species will always be very closely related to its parent species. So it will always be in the same genus as the parent. No new species would ever be in different phylum or even a different family.
But overwhelming evidencce for the TOE would include the observation speciation beyond the species level. Otherwise, if is only assumptions.
Now, speciation over time will lead to the formation of the larger taxonomic groups, just as reproduction within a species will lead from a couple, to a nuclear family (couple + children) to an extended family (couple + children + aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents) to a clan (many extended families descended from the same great-gr-gr----grandparent) to tribes (like the tribes of Israel each descended from one of Jacob's sons) to nations (like the many different nations descended from Noah and his sons).
Just do all of this with speciating populations instead of individuals.
This is the theory, but what evidence so we have to support the Theory. See how different the TOE is from the speciation we observe? We are assuming that the speciation continues into these extended groups. Where is the proof that they do. I know all the DNA, etc. , what those are not observations, they are experiments that predict. I want overwhelming evidence if you are going to claim it.
I did listen. Here is the question you asked in your own words (bolding added)
"...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. "
Yeah, what isn't clear? we have a population of organisms, they are reproducing asexually, evolving into organisms that contain both male and female reproductive organs, who evolve into male and female of the same species. Two problems, 1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.
2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.
1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.
They didn't - they already were the same species. All sexual reproduction is is the ability to transfer genes from two parents to get different recombinations. Today exist species that can reproduce in quasi-sexual and quasi-asexual ways and other species that can change from male to female.
2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.
I can think of a whole lot of cases where it would improve the survival of a species. It allows for gene transfer which can be very valuable - allowing the best traits in two individuals to be culled by natural selection instead of just one.
because when I do, I am accused of not addressing a certain post.
Just say at the beginning of the post that this is what you are doing. Even put in people's names if you want. i.e: to aron-ra, gluadys, jet black, lucaspa, etc ....
Lots of people use a single post to reply to several people.
No,you have never covered why you think the evidence is not overwhelming. You have just repeated and repeated your opinion.
Too many unanswered questions, too many assumptions, too little evidence to disprove other possibilities. That should about cover it.
No, it is a perfect example of what I mean by not covering it.
---too many unanswered questions what unanswered questions? name three.
----too many assumptions what assumptions? name three.
---too little evidence
What would be enough? what more do you need beyond direct observation?
I understand that that is the theory which is where my problem lies,
It was intended as an answer to your problem. So why doesn't it solve the problem for 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.
Huh? where was I talking about inter-breeding? no wonder you think I am putting up red herrings, you don't understand any questions I ask.
You were speaking of the mating of a donkey and a horse which produces the mule. That is what I call inter-breeding. Isn't that what you call inter-breeding?
Sure, let us forget the hybrid, they do not support the TOE so let us ignore them completely. Sounds reasonable.
Actually the hybrid does support TOE. It is evidence that the horse and donkey have a recent common ancestor.
Are you asking me if I understand common ancestor or if I still have questions about common ancestory?
I am asking if you understand that "common ancestor" refers to a species, a population, not an individual.
I expect you do have more questions about common ancestry.
Don't see anything that addresses the question I asked about suitable mates, only assumptions about what I don't know.
ok, when time permits, we can revisit that question.
Is the definition here for evolution, (speciation)?
Yes, understanding that means not only the final separation of one population to another, but also the various steps leading up to it. Speciation is a long process which takes many generations.
What definition are we using here. For my assertion has always been the claim that there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, not evolution as defined by speciation.
Still using the same definition. If you are using a different one, throw it away. It is a straw man definition.
But, note that they are all related to the TOE which has always been the issue, are you just now coming to the understanding that there is a difference between speciation and the TOE or are you still asserting they are identical?
They are identical. When you understand that, you will have gone a long way toward a correct understanding of TOE.
You still haven't answered the question, do you understand that there is a difference between speciation (evolution) and the TOE?
The only difference is that speciation is evolution and TOE is the explanation of speciation and its consequences.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
yep, look at it a moment. species that cannot breed become extinct. Your definition, breed=mating individuals of the same species. Would a species that cannot breed become extinct?
A species that cannot breed would not come into existence in the first place. You cannot get speciation unless both the parent and the daughter species can breed.
btw, you did not confirm if you agreed with my definition of inter-breeding.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
And I have made none of the assertions, so why attack me? If you want to talk about some of these issue, we can do so on another thread at a later time, but carrying forth such an agenda here is not productive to your position.
I answered your question. You wanted to know why the issue was important to me. I didn't claim that you personally were involved in these activities, so I was making no attack on you.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Okay, I am excited about being on the verge of catch up, so see if I can clarify, looks like I was asleep when I made the post.
Speciation is possible, probable, and is what one could call overwhelming evidence to support. However, to jump the speciation line, and say that the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it, makes assumptions in the observations of speciations that we have not yet observed and therefor lack sufficient evidence to claim the TOE as overwhelming. Is that clearer?
OK. The problem here is an incorrect assumption about TOE.
TOE does not assume any "jumping" of the speciation line.
Speciation is it. There is no equivalent of speciation at a higher level of the taxonomic order. There is no such thing as genusiation, familiation, orderiation, classiation or phyliation.
We do not get those kinds of jumps in evolution. All the higher taxonomic orders are a result of accumulated speciations. So when we have observed speciation (and we have) we have observed evolution.
All that remains to work out is who speciated whom.
And that is where the construction of phylogenies comes in. We use the various lines of evidence, both fossil and non-fossil, to figure out who is related to whom and how far back the relationship goes to get to their common ancestor.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
But being crated to adapt to ones environment could also address the issue of why there was not mass extinction.
Well, there was mass extinction. More than once. The current human-generated mass extinction is the sixth one.
What does being "created to adapt to one's environment" mean?
Does it mean anything different than being created to evolve?
If so, what's the difference? How does adaptation work if it doesn't work via evolution (mutations, gene sorting, natural selection)?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Your going to have to explain that one better, I don't understand how, speciation is the TOE. There is more to the theory than observed speciation. For example, if I introduced you to my children, you could easily believe they are my children. But how can you assume that I did not adopt them? That is an assumption that the evidence does not predict.
That is how I see speciation, it is easy to believe that they happen (are my children) but to assume that equals the TOE is like assuming my children are adopted or not.
Well that is one of the differences between individuals and species. Individuals can adopt children. (And not just humans either. Sometimes animals adopt other animals too.)
But with species, there is no adoption. So all species are related by inheritance via a common ancestor.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
But overwhelming evidencce for the TOE would include the observation speciation beyond the species level. Otherwise, if is only assumptions.
Finally we get to what I expected was the problem all along. You want overwhelming evidence of what creationists call "macro-evolution". (I hear the buzz word today is now "vertical evolution".)
Well you will never get that because it is a straw man. No such thing as the ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind's definition of macro-evolution occurs in nature.
And of course, that is why they created those straw man definitions---because they don't occur in nature--so it is quite impossible to provide overwhelming evidence for them.
The scientific definition of macro-evolution is speciation. Micro-evolution are those small changes in a species that occur while it is becoming more and more different from the parent species, but is not a fully-separate species yet. Speciation is the final step in the process of evolution.
To get higher taxonomic groups, keep on repeating the process of speciation.
This is the theory, but what evidence so we have to support the Theory. See how different the TOE is from the speciation we observe?
Only the straw man definition of TOE is different. Put the straw man definition on a bonfire and get rid of it. Use the scientific definition which adheres to what we see in nature instead.
We are assuming that the speciation continues into these extended groups.
I think it is a pretty fair assumption that if speciation can happen once, it can happen more than once.
I think it is a pretty fair assumption that if speciation is happening today right in front of our eyes, that it was happening in the past.
Species change. They become new species because they change. They become ancestors of two or more new species, because the population divides and both groups change in different ways.
So how do we not have speciation continuing into these extended groups?
As long as individuals keep on reproducing, will we not get families, clans, tribes, etc. How could we not? What would stop it?
As long as species keep changing and speciating, what would stop the extension into larger groups?
Can a husband who has children who reproduce prevent himself from becoming a grandfather? And after his own decease, as his grand-children and gr.grandchildren continue to reproduce, can he stop his descendants from becoming many many related families?
So if speciation is happening again and again and again (and I would need pretty solid evidence that it is not) how do we stop these larger groups from appearing.
Population A=one species
Population A---> populations B AND C
A and B and C together constitute three species in the same genus
Population B---> population D
Population C---> populations E, F and G
Populations B and D are two species in the same genus. (Genus X)
Population C, E, F and G are four species in another genus. (Genus Y)
All the species in Genus X and Genus Y together with their common ancestor population A constitute a family.
Just keep going. What would put a stop to it as long as species exist and change?
Two problems, 1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.
Which species? The male species and the female species? Or some other species?
2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.
Nothing would require it. Species were already reproducing before gender.
But if having gender gave a species an advantage of some sort, then a species with gender would replace a very similar species (probably its own ancestor) without gender.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Last edited by gluadys; 20th August 2004 at 09:36 AM.
Reason: closing parenthesis
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.
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. There is question. That question means that the evidence is not overwhelming.
I think I have this one covered, if there are still questions, let me know.
Now I was told that there were no unanswered questions which is why the TOE is said to have overwhelming evidence. Now I am being told that we don't have all the answers to the questions. This is why I am saying that there is not overwhelming evidence, because there are too many unanswered questions. So which is it, no unanswered questions, or still unanswered questions? That should clear up this entire thread with one simple answer.
suggesting plausible answers is not proof of anything. Therefore, not overwhelming. No more overwhelming than the explainations that can be found in the original TOC and the room it allows for explainations.
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. You assume because I tell you what we were taught, that that is what I believe, heck you people even believe that I lean towards C because of what I have been taught. I assure you, I was taught E, not C.
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?[/quote]
I know how you feel, Razz!
My mum taught me to read when I was 2, & I always "had my nose in a book"
So I'd already studied many things before they came up at school
At 13, I had to choose between Latin & biology
Both staff & students were stunned when I said I'd already studied ET, rejected it, but knew I'd have to parrot such poppycock to get a pass in the exam, so I chose Latin, as it was new to me, challenging, & gave me a fair chance to pass, whereas the dice were unfairly loaded against me getting a pass in biology, despite my going deeper into it than most folk
It was hilarious when peers called me brainwashed!
It was mainly the class clown of course- (hi Sco' if you're out there!)
So I answered in kind: "Don't be stupid - I'm only @ 2/3 hours a week in church, & that's hardly enough for brainwashing, but I'm with you lot 40 hours a week & you still can't browbeat me into your tomfoolery!"
It has occurred to me several times, this past week of praying for youth awaiting big exam results, that a lifetime isn't enough to learn everything about everything
& yes, our presnt & future direction & development is relevant to topic
We must prioritise, so my prayer for them was as my prayer for readers....
"Lord, so teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts to wisdom"
Proverbs 1:2/7's intro to that book puts it so beautifully, but it applies to the whole of Man's Maker's Manual, the Bible..
"for attaining wisdom & discipline,
for understanding words of insight,
for acquiring a disciplined & prudent life,
doing what is right & just & fair,
for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge & discretion to the young -
let the wise listen & add to their learning
& let the discerning get guidance.."
Just time to skip to the key verse (7)..
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom"
The end of Daniel prophesied, @ 2,500 years ago, that the endtime would see both travel & knowledge vastly increase
Other endtime Bible prophecies combine high tech with occult revival at the same time - forecast 2000, 2500 & 2800 years ago - all with the most uncanny accuracy for our day
1 of the saddest prophesies is that "men will be ever learning, but never able to acknowledge the truth"
A similar 1 said that "The time will come when men will no longer endure sound teaching, but will instead gather to themselves teachers who will only tell them what they want to hear"
Another says, "They deliberately choose to reject the truth & believe lies"
Those, & other prophecies fulfilled in our times, are not evidence of progress to Utopia, but of decadence demanding judgment
Man's Maker's Manual - the most vital book of all to study
Read, mark & learn
Yet I'm reminded of the much-loved prophecy of Christ, written @ 2800 years ago, that I was asked to read out on Sunday: Isaiah 53..
"Who has believed our report?
& to whom has the arm of the Lord been been revealed?
verse 3 - "He was despised & rejected"
Must go!
Ian
Last edited by mrversatile48; 20th August 2004 at 08:53 AM.
Reason: typo
Yeah, what isn't clear? we have a population of organisms, they are reproducing asexually, evolving into organisms that contain both male and female reproductive organs, who evolve into male and female of the same species. Two problems, 1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.
Linear Mode
