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.
then how would you test for that. i.e. how would you demonstrate that there is no common ancestor between a dog and a lion, or a chipmunk and a banana?
How does science test single cell ancestary?
false, will you please please please stop ignoring the vast majority of what I say. the fossil record is categorically not the only bit of evidence we have for common ancestry. there are a great deal of other evidences which I have pointed out to you ad nauseum.
Trying to deal with one thing at a time. I still have people claiming that I think the fossil record in falsified evidence. Put the other observations out there and I'll eventually get to them.
two groups of individuals. does the inability of the horse to breed with the donkey and produce viable fertile offspring result in the extinction of both?
No, but it does stop the possibility for evolution of the species. A prediction made by the original TOC.
Do you mean the new species will have difficulty maintaining inter-fertility with the parent species?
NO
If so, that is what we expect to see. That is evidence that evolution is happening.
Or do you mean that members of the new species will have difficulty breeding with each other because of inbreeding?
Yes
It is a problem in some cases that when a population is too small, inbreeding will make adaptation and survival difficult. But this applies only to specific cases.
You need to check more data.
Many species start off with sufficient numbers that inbreeding is not a problem.
Lack of viability in the new species is a feature of some specific situations. It is not a general rule.
But it is enough to question the validity of the TOE especially when one considers that all living organisms can from one living organism. This would mean that the TOE has some big problems if inbreeding results in reproductive problems. In contrast, the TOC predicts that inbreeding will cause problems. A further study of the bible shows us that this interbreeding was limited in time, not carried down for millions of years, thus, the TOC totally explains this phenomina, antistipates the problem of interbreeding and the creator addressed the issue. Thus, the TOC predicts and explains what we observe.
No, but it does stop the possibility for evolution of the species. A prediction made by the original TOC.
I have already gone over this, and you're still catching up, you probably haven't seen the replies, and that's cool, you are coping admirably with a large colume of people answering your questions. but it goes like this. It is the parent species of the donkey and the horse species, that has split into the donkey speckes and the horse. the donkeys and the horses have drifted away from one another genetically and now they are two new species. The mule isn't the new species, the donkeys and the horses are the new species if you still don't get it, PM me please, then it will be easier to discuss.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
by comparisons of the genomes that code for certain proteins that we share with seveal single celled organisms. there are more diffrences between us and them for example than there are between us and dogs. note that these are often mutations that result in no functional difference, since they code for the same amino acid.
Trying to deal with one thing at a time. I still have people claiming that I think the fossil record in falsified evidence. Put the other observations out there and I'll eventually get to them.
it's ok, you're still catching up I go into this stuff in alot more detail a bit later I think. it's all the ERV and ALU stuff.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
they come from the DNA of living organisms and the distribution of the animals around the planet. from the former we can parsimoniously construct phylogenetic trees from various features in the Genetic code, from Alu sequences through ERVs, pseudogenes and chromosome banding patterns. This can be done otherwise completely independently of knowing what the organism actually is (i.e. you could just send the DNA in a test tube to a lab and they could construct the tree for you). The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record.
to give an example, ERVs, or Endogenous RetroViral sequences are viruses that insert themselves into the genome and become crippled in some way before they can do the rest of what viruses do. Occasionally they will embed themselves in a gamete, either a sperm or an egg, and become integrated in the animal that develops, remaining within every cell of this animal. By genetic drift, these retroviral sequences may become embedded in the entire population, and hence will also be present in the entire population of any groups that split off from the main group and speciate in their own right. looking at whether an ERV is present in an organism or not can indicate relatedness to other organisms, so for example if we have an ERV that is present in humans and chimps, but not Gorillas, then this ERV was inserted after the human-chimp line broke away from the Gorilla line. We would not expect to find that same ERV in the Orang-Utan line, since the Orang Utan line split away before we and chimps split from the Gorilla. so using these principles we can construct entire phylogenetic trees based purely on ERVs (if ERV A is present in species 1 and 2 but not in 3, then 1 and 2 are more closely related than either is to 3). These phylogenic trees match what we expect. ALU sequences are chunks of mobile DNA within our DNA, and can serve a similar purpose of identification. Pseudogenes are genes that have been crippled in different organisms, and can again be used to construct phylogenic trees.
Biogeography allows us to look at the distribution of different organisms around the planet and again construct phylogenetic trees, based on migration patterns, distribution patterns and also take into account geographical phenomenon such as plate tectonics. again the phylogenetic trees from these techniques also match the phylogenetic trees as expected from an analysis of the fossil record, and also DNA.
Okay, let us look at the evidence objectively.
1. we are still relying on the fossil record. quote The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record. One of the prerequisites, was not related to the fossil record.
But let us go ahead and examine this information for conclusive properties.
2. DNA is still new and we learn more about it daily and though someday, when I have more time, I would be interested in further information on the topic, we cannot be sure that this evidence is conclusive. In fact, the references from this post that relate to the phylogenetic trees, states clearly that this is not proof of E. So we cannot use this as overwhelming evidence.
3. The results that I have viewed (yes limited, I freely admit that) are not inconsistant with the Original TOC. The theory allows for some evolving of species, though it is limiting. Therefore, some phylogenetic results would be consistant. What would not be consistant would be in the case of mankind. and the second criteria was that it is unique to the TOE.
So, we are back to no overwhelming evidence, in this case even by the scientists writing the papers.
you are misunderstanding again. It is not the infertile offspring that is the new species, it is the two parents of the infertile offspring that are the separate species - note that the parents can still breed with their own species no problem. they can clearly reproduce with one another (otherwise no offspring) however it is very difficult and the offspring are infertile. this makes the two groups genetically separate and hence separate species.
I get group a group b group c group xyz, it is a word picture, peace of cake. What you fail to understand is that the entire TOE is brought into question if the species cannot evolve because of reproductive problems.
So, we have a breeding with b producing c. C is infertile and cannot produce offspring. We have just witnessed the fall of the TOE. For the TOE to be viable, the reproductive nature of c must continue independent of a and b or not. In other words, if C cannot breed with A, B, or C, evolution ceases, and is not viable. Though we do not see this in every instance of speciation, we see it often enough to question the validity of the TOE.
Okay, let us look at the evidence objectively.
1. we are still relying on the fossil record. quote The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record. One of the prerequisites, was not related to the fossil record.
no we aren't really. these are independent sets of data that just happen to match. we are not relying on one in order to sort out the other. It is like tracking someone round the country by looking at where mobile phone calls were made from, and where their credit card was used. they are two independent methods that chart precisely the same route around the country.
But let us go ahead and examine this information for conclusive properties.
2. DNA is still new and we learn more about it daily and though someday, when I have more time, I would be interested in further information on the topic, we cannot be sure that this evidence is conclusive. In fact, the references from this post that relate to the phylogenetic trees, states clearly that this is not proof of E. So we cannot use this as overwhelming evidence.
aah, the dismissal. I fail to see what is inconclusive about endogenous retroviral sequences. we know full well what they are - they are viruses that have been inserted into the genome and been crippled by a mutation. ALU sequences are bits of floating DNA that copy themselves around the genome. they are independent to ERVs but can be used to demonstrate the same sort of phylogenetic tree. Chromosome banding patterns are another example. they can be independently used to construct phylogenetic trees.
so now we have 4 different methods of constructing a phylogenetic tree
(1) we can use the fossil record to construct the tree
(2) we can use ERVs to construct a tree
(3) we can use ALUs to construct a tree
(4) we can use chromosomal banding patterns to construct a tree.
and without ever actually comparing these prior to getting the result, we find that our trees are all the same, we get the same order of ancestry regardless of which method of tree construction we use.
3. The results that I have viewed (yes limited, I freely admit that) are not inconsistant with the Original TOC. The theory allows for some evolving of species, though it is limiting. Therefore, some phylogenetic results would be consistant. What would not be consistant would be in the case of mankind. and the second criteria was that it is unique to the TOE.
really? why would the TOC predict identical ERV sequences in identical locations in unrelated organisms? The odds of an ERV being embedded in a particular location in any cell are billions to one. the odds of an ERV being embedded in two gametes from two completely different organisms and then becoming fixed within the populations via genetic drift is absolutely astronomical.
So, we are back to no overwhelming evidence, in this case even by the scientists writing the papers.
but you have just dismissed these pieces of evidence as "not overwhelming" without ever actually pointing out how they might be erronous. you can claim it is not overwhelming until the cows come home, but such statements mean nothing until you actually detail why it is not overwhelming. can you give alternate explanations to why we see the distributions of ERVs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the distributions of ALUs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the comparisons in chromosome patterns that we do? can you explain why all of these totally independent methods return precisely the same phylogenetic tree?
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
because here we are making a very specific claim about the existance of an individual. the things we can draw from this so far are that (1) people were baptised here and other rituals were carried out here (2) someone belonging to a sect that did not allow members to cut their hair worked here. (3) someone may have had their head severed here. there is nothing identifying a particular individual, though I think it is pretty likely that it was John. I will let the scholars argue it though.
absolutely, we do not currently have enough information to know, the theory is still only theory. The point however was not that it is inconclusive as to John the Baptist (you have more faith that it is right now than I do), but rather what was said about the requirement for proof, read it again. quote short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.
Note the word conclusive. Without the inscription, we do not have or can we have overwhelming evidence to conclude that John the Baptist lived. Now either science is being extremely biased in this case, trying beyond all reason to disprove the bible, or...the theory of E by the same standards does not have overwhelming evidence to support it. Which do we want to go with. An extreme bias against the bible which would include C? or, the TOE lacks overwhelming evidence? You choose.
if you still don't get it, PM me please, then it will be easier to discuss. 
Er..the keys to making progress are relevant to topic.. 
Linear Mode
