Challenging Evolution

gluadys · #**891** 17th August 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Okay, you are right, I am wrong, all the questions I raised about the TOE were not asked

Do you mean "not answered"? What questions were not answered?

Or do you really mean "not asked"? Do you have more questions you haven't asked yet?

you have accepted the original theory of C as put forth in the bible

I am using the definition you gave as a working definition of TOC. That does not mean I accept the theory.

You understand my point about "new" species that cannot reproduce becoming extinct, because I am too dense to understand that reproduction is not necessary for life to continue. Yeah, I got it all wrong, please accept this formal appology. I'm sorry

Come on. No one is saying you are dense to say what cannot reproduce must become extinct. That is something we all agree is self-evident. All we are showing you is that it is not a problem for evolution because there are still plenty of species reproducing and evolving.

You did not understand that species usually begin as populations not pairs of one male-one female. So you saw what seemed to be a real problem. But now, you see, I hope, that it is not a problem, because there are lots of organisms in the new species, so reproduction continues easily.

We just didn't understand why you were seeing a problem none of us could see.

The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring. But you already addressed that definition, again I am sorry. I don't recall the post, but I am sure it was there.

Yes, as I said, the definition of kinds as populations that "reproduce after themselves" is identical to the scientific definition of species. So this says "kinds" = "species".

The problem comes with the next part: "life was created after its kind". You see we know from observation that some species (=kinds) were not directly created. We know from observation that they have evolved from other species (=kinds).

So if "kinds" = "species" then the TOC has been falsified because we know of existing "kinds" which were not directly created. We know they evolved from other "kinds".

My only real issue with you is that you tend to get off topic by trying to prove that E is possible when I have no issue with that. My issue is that the "proof" we have is not sufficient to call E truth.

Well, this is related to my issue with you. You claim that evolution is not a fact. But it is. You have claimed that someone who says evolution is a fact does not understand the TOE. But most people who say evolution is a fact understand the TOE very well. I am not trying to show you evolution is possible. You already know that. I am trying to show you that evolution has happened and is happening and will probably continue to happen as long as there is life on earth.

That is not going off topic.

But the fossil record is not enough evidence to claim overwhelming proof. It is enough to say that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the TOE, but these are two completely different things and is the source of much of the argueing between the two theories.

This only means we have talked too much about one evidence for evolution and not enough about other evidences. I am glad to see you acknowledge that the fossil record does overwhelmingly support TOE. We can move on to other evidences, and you will find this is true of all of them.

The only thing to date that I have not heard from you on, at least as my memory serves, is the definition of kind, and the above clarification on the fossil record.

How do you know that? Where does it say that in the "original theory"?

Forgot what this was in reference too.

You said that when the TOC says creatures reproduce after their kind, it did not mean an exact "cookie cutter" copy, but only similarity.

But as far as I can see, TOC only says "reproduce after their kind"? So where does TOC predict that "after their kind" does not mean "exact copy"? Why couldn't it be an exact copy?

Your right again, the plants and animals can be cloning, but man cannot. The would then mean that the TOC would predict that some animals would reproduce via male and female and others would reproduce via cloning.

No, you are making this up as you go along. How does "reproduce after their kind" become a prediction of "some by cloning and some by sexual reproduction"? The biblical definition says nothing at all about how creatures will reproduce after their kind. You are adding that in. But you can't add it in to a theory until you show how the theory predicts that.

An even more serious objection to TOC is that even if we accept that there are two modes of reproduction (asexual, sexual), TOC still does not tell us how these methods of reproduction assure that offspring will be the same kind as the parent. How can we be sure that a fig tree will produce figs and not thistles? How does the TOC explain the mechanism that makes sure that reproduction will be "after their kind"?

So how then can we have predictions that are observed in science and still have a falsified theory?

Because, as shown above, the predictions are bogus. You just threw them in. You did not derive them from the theory.

Oh that's right, if the theory of C changes it's predictions to fit the evidence, then it is a flawed theory, but if the TOE does this, it is sound scientific methodology, I keep forgetting this bit of information. Short term memory lose I guess.

Oh it is perfectly ok for TOC to change to fit the evidence. All good theories do this. What is remarkable is that the evidence has always led the TOC to mimic TOE, never the reverse.

1. Have you read the theory carefully? 2. Animals may or may not be clones. 3. They were created after their kind. 4. Man cannot be cloned. 5. God created male and female. What is disproven from a scientific standpoint? I am really confused by your claims here.

1. Yes
2. This is not a legitimate part of the theory since it is not derived from the proposition that living things reproduce "after their kind."
3. If "kind"="species", this has been falsified for we know of species which evolved from other kinds instead of being directly created.
4. You want to bet? There is a group (fruitcakes to be sure) which claim they have already cloned a human. They have not produced evidence, so I don't believe they have. But theoretically, it is perfectly possible to clone humans. We have cloned sheep and cats and other animals, so it is likely that unless there is universal agreement not to try, someone will clone a human before the next century is out.
5. The evidence says humans evolved from an earlier species. Humans are not a directly created kind. They are male and female because they evolved from a sexually reproducing species.

Is that enough to clarify the matter?

I would like to know which of these 29 is not 1. related to the fossil record, and 2. is unique to the TOC. That will clear up a lot of things. I have asked several times now but it has gone unanswered unless I haven't gotten to it yet. I'll work at it another 20 min. then must be off.

You mean unique to TOE don't you? All 29 are unique to TOE. Every single one is a falsification of TOC. As for those which do not depend on the fossil record, I counted 22 of the 29 which are not related to the fossil record.

He doesn't use a straightforward numbering system of 1-29, but divides the material into 5 parts, so that each piece of evidence has a number such as 2.3 or 5.1. Judging only from the titles, the sections I found that seem to fit your criteria are: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.5, all of parts 3 & 4 and all of part 5 except 5.4.

gluadys · #**892** 17th August 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

And it is consistant with the TOC.

Again, we see consistancy with the scientific evidence. Hummm.

Almost forgot this bit.

I explained some time ago, that it is not sufficient for a theory to be "consistent with" observations. The theory must "predict" and "explain" the observations.

Furthermore, if it makes a false prediction (such as "All kinds [=species] were created directly.") then the theory is disproved, because a true theory cannot make a false prediction.

gluadys · #**893** 17th August 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

But, they are still reproducing!

Right. That is why reproduction is no problem for TOE.

gluadys · #**894** 17th August 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.)

Oh, you are going to have to explain this one to me.

You have stated:

Originally Posted by Razzelflaben

The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring.

Now when a speciation event occurs, part of the kind will no longer reproduce with another part of the kind. (Each part can keep reproducing with its own section of the kind, so there is no problem with reproduction.)

So what is a group that is no longer able to reproduce with another part of the created kind? Is it a new kind? But it was not specially created---and that is another part of the definition of kind. So, how can it be a kind?

And where does the "original theory" of TOC say that speciation is acceptable?

gluadys · #**895** 17th August 2004, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Right, and burial being one of the possible reasons for the observations. But of course you are right again. I am so incredably stupid I don't even know what I am saying in my own posts. A post in which I am putting forth possible theories, is in reallity a post offering red herring. Maybe I am too stupid to know what red herring is too. Do we have a fossil record to prove what red herring is?

Oh you are far from stupid.

But maybe you do not know what a red herring is, or why we use that phrase to describe a diversionary tactic.

Comes from fox-hunting. Dragging a pungent smoked red herring across a fox's trail could divert the dogs from the trail.

Burial, as I said at the time, is irrelevant. It does not affect the observations in such a way as to erase a single day from that 60 million year gap between the latest dinosaur fossil and the first hominid fossil.

gluadys · #**896** 17th August 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.

The caves would still have to be accessible to people at the time of the burial. In addition, if there were any animal bones in the cave, or if they left "gifts" with the body (as was a common custom), these would be datable to the time of death and burial.

In fact there are many homind fossils which pre-date the beginning of burial customs. So burial, all by itself, shows a recent geological date.

gluadys · #**897** 17th August 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Open to possibility does not equal proof of. Would you be happier if I said, The dinosaurs became extinct before the possible existance of man but this is not a known fact so therefore is only speculation.

No, because it is not speculation that dinosaurs became extinct before the existance of humans.

Sounds like a lot of words simply to say that what we know is that dino's became extinct before man.

Half-truth evasion again. What we know is that dinosaurs became extinct about 60 million years before humans existed.

The bolded parts are essential to the full truth as derived from the observed evidence.

USincognito · #**898** 17th August 2004, 10:32 PM

To put a little different spin on the dinosaur/human issue, the core problem with your argument razzel, is that it's not the location of the remains, it's the dating of the remains. The only way you could make the point that we might have reason to find humans and dinosaurs in the same geological time period is to argue against dating techniques.

And I want to apologize for being a tad harsh with you when we discussed this last week. I should have focused more on your conclusion and assertion (which are faulty) than your logic (which was correct). I shouldn't have tied them together the way I did.

gluadys · #**899** 17th August 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I don't remember what this is refering too so I can't answer.

It's about the speciation scenario. Remember

Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

B cannot interbreed with A, C or X. But, of course, members of B can and do mate and reproduce with one another, as do those in groups A, C and X.

You said this mimicked TOC.

I am asking where TOC suggests this scenario 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?

21 First, this is to assume that population b is breedable within itself. If not, then popluation b becomes extinct,

Right.

I can't fathom how we don't understand that offspring that cannot reproduce, can survive.

We do understand that. But evolution does not lead into that kind of dead end. This is what we are trying to show you.

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

I understand what you are saying about a, b ,c,and x and any other letter we want to use, but what I am talking about is the inability to be viable breeders.

And what we are trying to say is that such a situation is not relevant to speciation. The species that result from speciation keep on reproducing each within its own species.

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

If the subspecies cannot reproduce, it dies, dead subspecies, cannot evolve.

We are not talking about sub-species. Generally speaking, sub-species are still inter-fertile with the parent species. We are talking about new species which can no long inter-breed with the parent species but which do keep on reproducing within their own species.

Now on to the subject of one living cell organisms, First, this is different from what we were taught,

More likely it is different from what you thought you were taught. If it is what you were really taught you had an extraordinarily ignorant teacher.

secondly, you state that we cannot state taht all life rose form a single living cell. Yet we have overwhelming evidence to say that they did?

No.

Please note the difference:

a single cell

a single population of single-celled organisms

We cannot state that life descended from "a single cell". For one thing, there was probably never any time in the history of earth when there was only one single cell.

We CAN state that there is very strong evidence that all life rose from a single population of single-celled organisms.

In TOE, "Common ancestor" refers to a population, not to an individual.

How please. It is speculation. We have more problems with the theory when we try to figure out how these single cell organisms not only evolved into creatures, but how did they evolve into male and female? These are more questions that arise that the TOC does predict. What predictions can the TOE offer?

Well, don't expect everything in one post. And don't expect to get ALL the answers, because we don't have them all yet.

However, we can answer (or suggest very plausible answers) for some of them.

First you need to realize that there were several crucial stages before single-celled organisms evolved into multi-celled creatures.

Some important ones were:

1. How did simple (prokaryote) cells become complex (eukaryote) cells?
2. Why did sex evolve in single cells? (Note that I said sex and not sexual reproduction. I also did not say "gender". Single cells which engage in sharing their genetic material are not male and female.)

Then we can get to:

3. How did multi-cellular organisms come to be?
4. How did multi-cellular organisms engage in sexual reproduction? (Still not talking gender. These animals were not male and female, or, if you prefer, they were both male and female at the same time.)

Then we get to:
5. Gender specialization.

And through all of this we need to keep in mind:

a) the mechanism of heredity in a-sexual and sexual reproduction
b) the mechanisms of variation
c) how natural selection works
d) how species change as a result of a) b) and c)
e) how these changes lead to speciation, and
f) how repeated speciation leads to the phylogenetic tree with its groups of genera, families, orders, classes, etc.

And, of course, through all of this we also need to keep in mind the observations which show that all of this really does happen and has happened in the past.

See why universities need whole libraries to house everything there is to learn about evolution?

What I can assure you is that there IS evidence, convincing evidence, for every item above.

And probably the simplest way for you to learn that is to get a good introductory text on evolution and just start reading it.

gluadys · #**900** 17th August 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

And these observations are not inconsistant with the original TOC. It may not predict such, but is not inconsistant.

It's not?!?!?!?

I am beginning to think you do not know the theory you claim to lean towards.

Also, if TOC does not predict these observations, then, as a theory it is inferior to TOE which does make these predictions. A theory that does not predict observations is useless as a theory as it gives no direction to future scientific research.

And I still need to be convinced that the observations do not contradict (falsify) TOC.

But what you are talking about is interbreeding, I am talking about breeding.

Please define "inter-breeding" and "breeding". Perhaps the problem is that we are using the words differently.

By "breeding" I mean mating one individual with another individual of the same species. i.e. horse with horse, donkey with donkey.

By "inter-breeding" I mean mating an individual of one species with an individual of a different species. i.e. horse with donkey.

If you agree with these definitions, then I don't see why there would be any problem with the new species being viable breeders. But there is definitely a problem with the new species inter-breeding with the parent species. That is what makes the new species new.

But again, I must be too stupid to understand that species do not have the ability to breed can survive and even better, evolve.

Would you please can this type of remark. It is childish.