Challenging Evolution

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.

I don't know about the bolded part. I can't see clear correlation between multiple abiogenesis events and the special creation of each "kind".

Okay, Has that DNA tested the original single cell? Has it tested all living and none living organisms since that single cell existed? How far back has it gone?

Depends on the definition of common ancestor. If you mean that we developed from a single cell, no that is E.

So you are saying we are comparing the DNA to that single cell again?

If the DNA is conclusive evidence of E, then how can there be differences in humans from one to the other? Wouldn't they be identical sequences, as we would see from species to species?

OK, did we find independent DNA sequences unconnected to any other DNA sequences? That is what we should have found if TOC is true. If TOE is true, then the DNA sequences should be related by the historical connections of common ancestry.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

There you go. TOC is falsified and TOE is 'proved'. True statements can't have false consequences. TOC has this as a false consequence. It isn't true. God's Creation tells us God didn't create by TOC. God created by evolution.

I don't get it, the TOC with allow for some evolution, is disproven by incomplete tests that prove the TOE?

Some evolution is possible within the theory of C. What is not allowed is single cell creating it all and man being created sperately. Now depending on what was used to create, and how far back the creation goes, I would expect to see similar DNA sequences in living organisms.

But I guess I am just too stupid to understand DNA, it is relatively new.

As I understand it, the theory used to say, that everything was descended from one organism, now, we are saying that there were several organisms that each sperately started evolving. This is very similar to the Gen account of creation. God created a bunch of organisms. The difference is in how far back we go.

Without the inscription, we do not have or can we have overwhelming evidence to conclude that John the Baptist lived.

You are making up scenarios different from your original. The original scenario was that the blood was from a suspect, not the victim. Now, say you have suspects Dave and Dan. YO do a DNA analysis of the blood and find it came from Dan. Now you know Dan was at the scene and not Dave. Dave is off the hook by that evidence.

Morphology is how a plant or animal looks. For instance, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals all have one upper arm bone and two lower arm bones. No matter what the limb does: swim, run, climb, dig, fly. All mammals have fur. Their physiology is how the body works. An example is that all mamamls have a constant body temperature (warm blooded). So, how is it observed? By looking. The physiology is done by looking, taking temperature, and doing some lab experiments -- on how the kidney handles salt, for instance.

How these are unique to TOE and falsify TOC is that different kinds were separately created, each for their separate tasks. And God supposedly made them for these tasks. So, when Darwin observed woodpeckers living on the plains of Argentina hundreds of miles from any tree, it was apparent that God had not specially created the woodpecker there. Also, since the different tasks of swimming, digging, running, climbing, and flying would be more efficiently done with different bone structures of the upper limb (arms), the reason all these different creatures had the same bone structure would be by inheritance from a common ancestory, like inheriting red hair in a family.

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/index.html There are chapters there that detail the relationship of developmental biology and evolution. But let me give you one:
As embryonic birds develop, they make teeth! Now, adult birds all have beaks without teeth. So later in embryonic development, the teeth are resorbed (disassembled). Now, TOC would not have embryonic birds making teeth; there is no point. It's a stupid thing for God to do and God isn't stupid. BUT, if birds evolved from an dino that had teeth, then developing teeth in the embryo is a holdover from that ancestor.

Not bad criteria. Not great either. Let's try this idea of evidence:

1. Must be a deduction, or consequence of TOE. Or, put another way, must be evidence predicted by TOE.
2. Is not predicted by any other theory.

Now, if the evidence fits #1 and #2, then #3 follows as a consequence.

Can you explain this one in more detail, please? You've said this before and it puzzles all the evolutionists here because this isn't what happens!

Production of an infertile offspring by two species is a consequence of evolution, not evolution happening.

Let's get back to horses, donkeys, and mules. Horses and donkeys are not interbreeding to make a new species "mules". Mules are not a new species. I'm afraid you have the process backwards. Horses and donkeys are descendents of a common ancestor. A measure of how far apart they are as species is that a mule cannot mate with another mule to give an offspring. However, a mule can interbreed back to a donkey or a horse to produce a fertile offspring. So, donkeys and horses are recently formed species that are not completely separated.

Now, in biology there is a process called "hybridization". This happens almost exclusively in plants. Many plants just cast their pollen onto the wind and it can land in a plant of another species. Sometimes, when the DNA of the two species are similar, the result is a hybrid between the two plants. The hybrid can be a new species that is fertile with other hybrids but not fertile with the two parent species.

This has been done in a lab study. There is a species of sunflower called Helianthus anomalus and molecular evidence suggested it was formed by hybridization of H.annuus and H. petiolarus. Again, this is a process in which two species hybridize, and the mixed genome of the hybrid becomes a third species that is reproductively isolated from its ancestors.

So what the researchers did was hybridize H. annuus and H. petiolarus and produced 3 independent hybrid lines undergoing different regimes of mating to siblings and backcrossing to H. annuus. After 5 generations the DNA was analyzed for comparison to wild H. anamalus and to see which ancestral genes persisted in the hybrids. The genes from the hybridization in the lab matched with the wild H. anomalus! Remarkably, despite the different crossing regimes, all 3 lines converged to nearly the identical gene combinations, all H. anomalus. The gene recombinations were complex, but repeatable in all 3 hybrid lines.

So, in regard to your criteria, this did not rely on fossils, but used living plants. It's unique to TOE, because TOC says that kinds can breed with their own kinds. An H. anomalus can't breed with H. annuus or H. pertiolarus but only with other H. anomalus. Since we got a new kind and observed it, it proves that TOE is more than a guess.

However, the claim is that 1. the TOC has been falsified by the evidence. Therefore, the overwhelming evidence must be unique or it is not overwhelming. 2. the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it, support for the TOE cannot occur if the evidence supports both theories, unless we make a leap of faith, something that also has been claimed to not be a part of the TOE.

The claims must be proven not in the interpretation of the evidence, but in the presentation of the evidence. In other words, I prove nothing by saying look at this species ring, when the species rings do not prove the claims made, it is smoke rings instead, trying to divert attention from the boastful claims that have been made.

The infertile offspring brings into question the probability of the TOE. That is the point.

edicts, that when two species reproduce, the offspring will be unable to reproduce? Okay, then I ask again, how then does evolution occur. If the new species cannot evolve because it cannot reproduce, then how can it evolve?

If none of the individuals are able to reproduce, the population becomes extinct in one generation. Evolution, however, continues to happen in the other populations which are continuing to reproduce.

No, this is a false assumption. No wonder you have been having problems with the reproduction bit. Populations ordinarily begin with thousands of individuals (sometimes even millions).

It would be very difficult for the survival of a species to begin with a population of less than 2,000 and next to impossible to begin with only 2 individuals.

This is, I hope, a misinterpretation of what you were actually taught, for I would not like to think the teaching was that bad.

Probably what you were actually taught was:

"Everything evolved from one population of single-celled organisms." There were probably several millions of cells in the population.

No, to one population of organisms or a very few populations at most.

No, it is not. It is based on the idea of a single common ancestral population.

And by the way----that is not a change to TOE. That is part of Darwin's original thesis and has always been basic to TOE. You may have misinterpreted what you learned in school (or worse, your teacher misinterpreted it.) But the TOE hasn't changed on this point. The common ancestor has always been understood to be a population, not a single organism.

Even when I was a creationist, I understood that much.

I'll let open minded readers examine the earlier posts here that were presenting a long series of skulls as proof of progress onwards & upwards

The evolutionary ladder/chain is surely universally known as a "how-to-go-from amoeba to modern man",

(Never had to mod a mod before: we live & learn, huh?)

Ian