Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · #**561** 13th August 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

See above for examples. What proves that these are not fraudulent? The fact that a) they passed peer review in order to get published in the first place, and b) the papers published describe minutely the methods used and the results obtained. Anyone can read and challenge these experiments; or try to replicate them.

Were did I say that this evidence was fraudulant. I said that the fossil record that a reptile and mammalian jaw bone existed in the same animal has been suggested to be a fraud and cannot be assumed as proof until or unless proven otherwise.

No, we have observed that a species of salamander has evolved the ability to reproduce in a neonate state. Where did you get the idea that the neotony could occur without evolution?

I think the problem here is with the term E. C could predict, that the neonate could exist, and would offer means of adaptation to the environment. If this is your definition of E then we have nothing more to discuss, however, a previous post suggests you are opperating on a different definition for E. What then is your definition for E.
[quoteWe don't assume this. Speciation has been documented by direct observation.

Has anyone said that? I missed it if they did. It could be that it is a different species. Depends on whether or not it can reproduce with the parent species.[/quote] Yes it was suggested, I don't currently have time to go back and find the post. It is why the neonate was brought into the discussion in the first place.

You mean if the iodine is added again? Well, if you manipulate the genome of chickens they will grow teeth. (They still have the genes to do so; but the expression of those genes is ordinarily suppressed.) Does that make chickens the same species as Archeopteryx?

I don't know, what are the other characteristics of Archeopteryx?

No manipulation. If it cannot/will not reproduce with the parent species, it is a different species. If it can/will reproduce with the parent species, it is not a different species. That's what the definition says.

What the definition doesn't deal with well are the in-between cases when we can't give a straight "yes" or "no" to the question of whether it is inter-fertile with the parent species.

So what are the answers to these questions with the neonate, I suggest to you that if the neonate matures into the same adult salamander, it is the same species.

It's in reference to nature's fuzzy species lines. You said it should be part of all the theories, and I agreed. I also said all the theories should explain why this fuzziness exists. TOE does. Speciation is a slow process and we should expect to see examples in nature of partial speciation. Fuzzy species lines indicate that we do.

So how would TOC or ID explain nature's fuzzy species lines?

How about, the creator created the ability for the species to survive by allowing for some adaptible occurances. Such as neonates. These survival mechanisms allow for a fuzziness in the definition of "kind" species.

It is an immature form of that salamander. That doesn't stop if from being a separate species. If it does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form, it is a new species.

By this definition, my children are a new species, that would explain a lot.

So are the catapillar, the frog, and even a chicken, because the immature form cannot or does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form. Fuzzy definition again?

Of course not. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is a new species of salamander.

Let's be clear that if the neonate is capable of reproduction it is mature in the neonate form. And it is a salamander in the neonate form. If its offspring also mature to reproductive capacity in neonate form they have matured into salamanders. What else would they be?

If the environmental condition is changed such that they mature into more ordinary looking salamanders, they have also matured into salamanders. What else would you expect them to be?

Exactly, this is the prediction of the TOC and is proven by the data observed. So if the data supports C why use it to try and support E?

No, that is not a prediction of TOE. TOE predicts the salamander form can change in either direction, and that the development of the young will respond to the environmental condition (presence or absence of iodine).

It's a long thread. Reference please?

The TOC predicts, that it will not change from the original species, one of salamander.

chosen_boss · #**562** 13th August 2004, 12:31 PM

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has. Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

USincognito · #**563** 13th August 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by chosen_boss

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has. Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

Welcome to the forum chosen. I'd like to recommend that you spend some time in the Christians Only section of CF before venturing back here. You seem to be really outgunned, and I'd hate for a adherance to a literal Genesis to threaten your faith in light of the evidence you will be presented.

chosen_boss · #**564** 13th August 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by USincognito

Welcome to the forum chosen. I'd like to recommend that you spend some time in the Christians Only section of CF before venturing back here. You seem to be really outgunned, and I'd hate for a adherance to a literal Genesis to threaten your faith in light of the evidence you will be presented.

Thank you for your concern. But I know what I believe in, why I believe it, and have a well rooted faith in God. Nothing can shake that, no matter how many times I've posted, or how old I am. Again, thank you for your concern, but I think I've got it under control.

Aron-Ra · #**565** 13th August 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by chosen_boss

Thank you for your concern. But I know what I believe in, why I believe it, and have a well rooted faith in God. Nothing can shake that, no matter how many times I've posted, or how old I am.

It so bothers me when someone decides in advance that they will not learn anything new, and that no matter what anyone can show them, they will not change their mind.

Ironically, some of these people accuse me of having a closed mind. But I could never make a statement such as you just did.

Aron-Ra · #**566** 13th August 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by chosen_boss

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has.

Gravity too is "only a theory" and it has already been disproved at least once.

Is atomic Theory "only a theory" too?

"Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

There is no faith required at all. Evolution has been proved (in the sense you're implying) and I can prove evolution to you right now, right here, no matter how much faith you have or lack in anything else.

Tomk80 · #**567** 13th August 2004, 01:10 PM

Razzelflabben, I'm getting confused here as to what you consider a species and what you consider a new species. Maybe you can answer the following questions for me, to clear up things.

First off, a good definition of species for me would be: "A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."
Can you agree with this definition? If not, what should be altered?

Then, should the following animals be considered as the same species and why, why not?
Cats and dogs (well, we already know that one)?
Prezwalski horses and domestic horses?
Donkeys and domestic horses?
Zebra's and domestic horses?
Cats and lions?
Dogs and wolves?
Dogs and foxes?

Following this, we can consider speciation. I (and I think the rest of the evolutionists here) see speciation as a group of organism changing so much from it's mother species, that a new species comes into existence. This new species can or will either:
1. not reproduce with the former species
2. not produce fertile offspring

Is this a good description of speciation for you? If not, why not?

Next, I would consider the neonate salamander a new species, different from it's parent species of salamander because it cannot do 1. I do not know about 2. If you agree with my definition of speciation, what reason do you have for not excepting the neonate salamander as a new species.

Considering drosophila, the reason the 'new' drosophila is considered a new species, is because it will not do 1. That this change has been brought about through varying environmental conditions in the laboratory does not matter, the same can happen in nature. So, considering this, what argument do you have for not considering this an example of speciation?

I hope you'll be able to answer these questions, so as to clear up my confusion.

The Bellman · #**568** 13th August 2004, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

All I have heard from you is old school C. And since I asked you to define C so that our discussion can flow, you refuse. So I will put forth the definition you will have to follow for the remainder of this discussion. C is the theory as put forth in the original format found in Gen. The definition for kind will be the same as the definition for species. And the evidence of animals procreating after their "kind" will be allowed into the discussion as evidence.

There is no "old school" creationism. There is only creationism, which has been thoroughly defined elsewhere. It isn't the "theory" put forth in Genesis, it is a hypotheses drawn from Genesis.

Again, if "kind" means "species', then creationism has been thoroughly falsified, because we have observed, repeatedly, speciation. Animals DO evolve across species lines, which disproves the "version" of creationism you are talking about.

Loudmouth · #**569** 13th August 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tomk80

First off, a good definition of species for me would be: "A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."

This isn't how species are defined in science. A species is a breeding population, period. This definition does not say that interbreeding between two different species will not result in fertile offspring, but rather that interbreeding does not occur in nature. The definition of species is derived by the breeding patterns of organisms in the wild, not as a preset definition that is then forced upon breeding groups. Hope this helps.

razzelflabben · #**570** 13th August 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

I have addressed those in the reply to that post. Meanwhile you have not answered this question:

"If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do?"

And I will add this question:

"If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it?"

In light of my recent replies, I should be asking you these questions instead of you asking me. If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do? Yes, but first on must be sure that the other 2 are failing to explain the observed data, not just assume that they are. Remember, the thread is not about what theory is right or wrong, but whether or not the TOE has overwhelming evidence or whether or not it is fact.

If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it? Again, that would be based on more than simply assumptions that the theory cannot explain the observations. The TOE does not predict the problems observed with reproduction beyond the species. They can offer theories as to why the phenomia occurs, but no predictions, because the TOE would predict the opposite to be true. So should we then throw out the entire TOE because it fails to predict the observation correctly, Pooh, that would be horrible scientific method. So why then should we allow science or E to do the same with the TOC? Do you have an answer for that question?

No, the point is that every iota of data in the fossil record is observed data which the theories are supposed to explain. Even though only a small portion of the fossil record has been examined, we have thousands upon thousands of fossils and everyone of them offers data by which we can determine the adequacy of the theories which try to explain them.

This has proved to be more than sufficient evidence to make the TOE the only viable scientific theory. The TOC does NOT explain this mountain of evidence now. Why should we expect it to do so when we have tripled or quintupled or multiplied that mountain of evidence a thousand times over.

The TOC can offer possible reasons for the observations, which is what E does as well. BTW, I have never said that the observed data was incorrect, please understand. What I have said is that it is not conclusive. There is a big difference here that you appear to be missing. incorrect-false, falsified, proven wrong inconclusive-not enough to offer proof, provides speculation and possibilities but not proof.

I don't need to argue or to make assumptions to show that TOE explains the evidence and TOC does not.

Well, then I think you need to study some more, because the TOC can explain the evidence. Even if you don't like the explaination, the fact remains that it can explain it. So that would leave it up to you to prove you statements.

But these are not unique predictions. The same predictions are made by TOE. So again, TOC is only correct when it coincides with or borrows from TOE. TOE does not need to borrow from TOC.

Excuse me, the TOC is much older than the TOE it is E that must borrow from C. But that is neither here nor there, it is like determining which came first the chicken or the egg, but is known, is that in all the mounds of scientific evidence found, the only thing that does not coincide with the TOC is the fossil record and that can be explained. Now there are scientific assumptions that can and have been made that do not coincide, but assumptions are not scientific observations, they are predictions based on observations. The observations themselves, all coincide with C.

That is because they have been caught doctoring evidence. No double standard when the fraud is proven. The mere possibility of fraud does not make evidence inconclusive. You have to show that there really was fraud. Otherwise, you are basically bearing false witness. Only, the fact of fraud renders the conclusions invalid.

Again we come back to this, what was said is that until or unless the fossils are studied and determined to not be fraud, we cannot claim them as proof and even then, given human nature and their desire to falsify information, we can only examine the evidence for ourselves and deside whether or not we want to believe it. Let us look at the earth for this example. I cannot fly around the world, simply too poor. I cannot tell from a photo if the world is spherical or not, I am not good enough at math to do an equation to determine the shape of the earth. So, I can allow people to study the facts and tell me if they have found them to be fraudulant or not, and if not, then I can study the data and deside based on the data presented if I want to believe the earth is flat or spherical. This is the same idea behind the fossil record in question. There was suggestion that it was fraudulant. Therefore, I cannot just blindly believe it because it matches my belief, I must first wait to see if it is fraudulant or not and then study the evidence. This is how one comes to truth. How again is it that you find truth?

Since you are drawing your original theory from the bible, I can see why you are mystified. The bible does not give a precise definition of kind either, and creationists assumed, as scientific classification began to come into vogue, that "kind"="species". It was only when it was shown beyond doubt that species do evolve that some creationists opted to break with that definition. That would not be obvious from the biblical text.

YOu have yet to present such evidence that C cannot explain. When you can do so, then you can make this assumption. Until then, this assumption is invalid.

Well, that is what I am trying to do: ascertain what you personally believe, rather than assuming you buy into the canned creationist dogma of ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind. Yet every time I ask you directly what you believe, you question why I ask (see above in this post). This puzzles me. If you want me not to label you, why are you so reticent about providing your personal beliefs when asked to do so?

I have always, at least on this thread, been open and honest about my beliefs. Why do you claim that I am avoiding the issue? is it because I don't fit into one of these groups? or because you don't know which twist to put on the data to prove me wrong?