Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

[gluadys]

Hummm.. can you provide any proof of the claim that he was an ID'ist, or are you just saying that, because you think that is true?

Here is an Interview With him, about the Book in Question, so that both you and Smidlee can enjoy.

I did not see any reference to ID, or anything of that ilk.

Maybe you should do some research on the matter, and have some support for your stand before you make these claims of yours.

God Bless

Key.

Does his biography help establish his former ID connections?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, evolution has been proven through micro evolution.

 

[KerrMetric]

.
Maybe you should do some research on the matter, and have some support for your stand before you make these claims of yours.

Are you usually this sloppy? He was a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute - ya think that may mean he was an IDer? Is the Pope a Catholic?

He doesn't identify as an IDer anymore but he was.

ps

I can tell you are new to this debate area but FYI Denton was the Behe of 15 years ago. Do some research on the topic.

 

[KerrMetric]

How are those non-breeding mules by the way? I noticed you let that error of yours slide. Here's a hint - get a little more knowledgeable in this whole creation/evolution debate before spouting off.

 

[Key]

Yet you don't really explain why. The speciation we have observed is macroevolution and therefor the observation of evolution.

Why are the changes in genetic code that lead to the speciation we have observed not macroevolution?

Because they are only changes in the alleles, accepted existing variants allowed already within the DNA strand, (IE: Blue eyes, Brown Eyes). which would not account for changes that would go beyond the alleles for life to have evolved at the direction that was proposed by the Macro Aspect of the Theory of Evolution.

If the only limit we have, does not apply to the foundation principle of what a species is, then there becomes a dispute if we are really generating a new species, or are we just making breeds, and claiming they are species.

This is a very important distinction, and one that should be noted.

Unless you can objectively answer this question you are simply cherrypicking.

Evolution has been observed because speciation has been observed.

I did answer in an objective manner.

You are applying unneeded and artificial lines around it. If things don't breed in nature, they are different species.

It is ,and rightly so, more involved then that. It is not that cut and dried.

To provide an example. Cougars are all the same Species, even if one group of them are in Canada, and there are other groups in Florida. They do not breed, not because they can't, but because there is a barrier between them. In the case of Species, this may be an argument that southern (Florida) cougars are not the same species as the northern (Canada) cougars, even if they are genetically identical, and could produce viable offspring, but would not breed in nature, maybe because of social customs. In this case, should we call them different species?

I still have not gotten into ring species, and that is a whole other ball of wax, that creates even more problems for the Species classification system.

But it is a bit more complex then you have put it forth, and the issues are not only with the experiments to generate new species, but also, with the system by which we validate this claim.

That is all that matters in evolution.

No, that may be all that matters to you to believe evolution, which I have no problems with.

But if you are going to bring up the discussion as to what matters as far as viable evidence, then it does matter. As I explained above.

I hope I have given you the objective answer you were looking for.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

..

..

Note to self... I just can't keep feeing you the Troll Chow... Well the only mistake I really made was responding to you.

I'm going to stop that now.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

Does his biography help establish his former ID connections?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Yes that was very informative, it seems (by the link you provided) he started the whole idea. Which would not really make him an IDer, any more then it would make say The Buddha a Buddhist.

But thanks.

God Bless

Key.

 

[KerrMetric]

Note to self... I just can't keep feeing you the Troll Chow... Well the only mistake I really made was responding to you.

I'll going to stop that now.

Figured that might happen after the predictable howlers were made and instantly spotted.

I recommend a book on perhaps animal husbandry for the mules question. Then you can move up to maybe a Niles Eldredge or Ernst Mayr book for evolution. And for the ID movement history maybe a Google search with Denton and a few other names thrown in would help you out.

PM me and I'll provide a more extensive catch up bibliography for you.


And by the way your big mistake was making scientific errors of fact and mistakes on the creation/evo debate history.

Watch that door........

 

[notto]

If the only limit we have, does not apply to the foundation principle of what a species is, then there becomes a dispute if we are really generating a new species, or are we just making breeds, and claiming they are species.

This is a very important distinction, and one that should be noted.

This ignores genetic differences in species that were at one time the same population but now produce infertile offspring.

The separate populations can breed just fine but they cannot form a viable population by breeding with each other. This goes beyond physical separation. The populations are genetically separated.

This is an observed phenomena and a valid speciation event.

It is observed evolution.

Wipe out the middle of a ring species and you can have this same type of speciation.

There is no question about it. Speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed, and evolution has been observed.

All of the physical mechanisms used by the theory of evolution to explain diversity genetically and physiologically have been observed.

You really can't get much better than that as far as theory goes.

The independent lines of evidence that lead to the conclusion of evolution and common descent are well documented and well understood. Evolution and common descent are really the only scientific conclusion we can come to. It is the only conclusion that explains the evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

Yes that was very informative, it seems (by the link you provided) he started the whole idea. Which would not really make him an IDer, any more then it would make say The Buddha a Buddhist..

Except of course Denton did not start the ID movement or the Discovery Institute. And though his book was part of the inspiration for Johnson there were IDers before the term was used and before Denton wrote his 1985 book. He became a Senior Fellow at the institute after it was formed and identified himself as an ID proponent.

 

[Key]

This ignores genetic differences in species that were at one time the same population but now produce infertile offspring.

The separate populations can breed just fine but they cannot form a viable population by breeding with each other. This goes beyond physical separation. The populations are genetically separated.

Can you cite source please.

This is an observed phenomena and a valid speciation event.

It is observed evolution.

Please cite source.

Wipe out the middle of a ring species and you can have this same type of speciation.

Not really.

God Bless

Key.

 

[KerrMetric]

Can you cite source please.

Please cite source.

Hey try something novel - do some research yourself it can be most enlightening. Of course - watch out for mistaking things for "medical blogs".

Just how does someone mistake this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed for a blog????????????

LOL. You really are starting to crack me up.

 

[gluadys]

Because they are only changes in the alleles, accepted existing variants allowed already within the DNA strand, (IE: Blue eyes, Brown Eyes).

I think what you are actually speaking about are not changes in the alleles (which would be mutations) but changes in how the alleles are distributed in the population. That, of course, is evolution.

which would not account for changes that would go beyond the alleles for life to have evolved at the direction that was proposed by the Macro Aspect of the Theory of Evolution.

Could you clarify what you mean by "changes that would go beyond the alleles"?

I am also puzzled by the phrase "the direction that was proposed by the Macro-Aspect of the Theory of Evolution".

AFAIK the theory of evolution does not propose any preferred direction at all.

To provide an example. Cougars are all the same Species, even if one group of them are in Canada, and there are other groups in Florida. They do not breed, not because they can't, but because there is a barrier between them.

For the time being true. But for how long can they remain separate, separately evolving, and still maintain the ability to interbreed?

Geographic isolation does not make reproductive isolation certain, but it does make it possible.

In the case of Species, this may be an argument that southern (Florida) cougars are not the same species as the northern (Canada) cougars, even if they are genetically identical, and could produce viable offspring, but would not breed in nature, maybe because of social customs. In this case, should we call them different species?

Only if they do develop reproductive isolation.

But it is a bit more complex then you have put it forth, and the issues are not only with the experiments to generate new species, but also, with the system by which we validate this claim.

One standard technique is to establish whether mating is random or assortative. Another would look at the viability of hybrids.

 

[Key]

I am a little puzzled. I have read the post through, and I agree, one needs to define "what the demand of proof was." But I can't find where you have defined it. Am I missing something?

No, you didn't. I did not post the demand, an over site on my part.

I have usually seen "species" defined as a population whose members CAN and DO mate and produce viable offspring.

Requirement is CAN, not necessarily do.

Or that could make for some very formidable problems, with species that have been separated by land barriers, or cultural barriers, but are in every possible, the same like life form.

Yes, and if that is included in the definition, then these would be legitimately assigned to different species.

The definition of Species, is not set in stone, it is as stands right now, a very mutable concept, that is in much dispute.

I think that is appropriate, because not mating with members of the other group for any reason is just as effective a barrier to gene flow as inability to do so.

It's involved. Could one then say that because people who follow Islam won't (not can't) mate with anyone that does not follow Islam, that those that follow Islam are a separate species?

Would one say that Activist White and Black "Power" groups are really separate species, because they won't inter mate?

This is why the line of "won't" is not anywhere near a viable as the line of "can't".. and one is valid, the "can't" the other is subjective. You can not build evidence off a subjective definition, or concept, when you are dealing with science.

Again, since this would effectively cut off gene flow between them, why would it not be a warrant for classifying them as different species?

Because, they are like life from, and I explained above. Also, it is really not a matter of "gene flow" between them, IE: Flies A, and Flies B, don't mate, but they have the same genetic structure. They do not need to cross breed, for them to be viable as being the same genetically.

A good theory is supported by strong evidence. But a good theory also has another quality. It explains the evidence found.

Yes, that would be another aspect of what makes a theory viable, the ability to apply it.

The evidence wartorious referred to is well-explained by evolution. I don't know of another theory which matches evolution for explaining this type of evidence.

Do you have any other Theory to work from?

Are you really that unfamiliar with the structure of the tetrapod limb? It is such a basic text-book example. Surely you know that the bat wing is supported by a "five-finger" structure, that some fish have limb-like lobes at the base of the fin, and early tetrapods show similar limbs but with digits in which the typical bones of the ray-fin are fused into fingers, and that the horse single toe is a modification of a three-toed structure which in turn was a modification of a five-toed limb.

We assume that, that is an assumption based on the premise that Evolution is correct.

I don't know how one gets the nested hierarchy pattern other than through evolution.

Which Aspect?

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

For the time being true. But for how long can they remain separate, separately evolving, and still maintain the ability to interbreed?

Who knows, Humans have done it, for thousands of years, and it does not seem to have had any affect on us at all. That would be assuming the genetic isolation remained, and that no ring species formed.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Knock it OFF!

Address the
Topic
not the
Poster!

Insults and belittling statements are subject to deletion.

If it continues,
it will result in thread closure.

Carry on....NICELY​

 

[Key]

How are those non-breeding mules by the way? I noticed you let that error of yours slide. Here's a hint - get a little more knowledgeable in this whole creation/evolution debate before spouting off.

You do realize that Mules can bare offspring, but can not reproduce, right?

God Bless

Key.

 

[gluadys]

No, you didn't. I did not post the demand, an over site on my part.



Requirement is CAN, not necessarily do.

Or that could make for some very formidable problems, with species that have been separated by land barriers, or cultural barriers, but are in every possible, the same like life form.



The definition of Species, is not set in stone, it is as stands right now, a very mutable concept, that is in much dispute.



It's involved. Could one then say that because people who follow Islam won't (not can't) mate with anyone that does not follow Islam, that those that follow Islam are a separate species?

Would one say that Activist White and Black "Power" groups are really separate species, because they won't inter mate?

This is why the line of "won't" is not anywhere near a viable as the line of "can't".. and one is valid, the "can't" the other is subjective. You can not build evidence off a subjective definition, or concept, when you are dealing with science.

OK, part of this stems from an incorrect interpretation of what is meant by "won't interbreed". When biologists speak of two populations that don't or won't interbreed, they mean that they don't or won't even given the opportunity to do so.

Canadian cougars and Florida cougars don't interbreed because they can't due to geographical separation. That in and of itself doesn't make them separate species.

To consider whether they are separate species one would need to put both together, say in a zoo in Ohio. Now, given the opportunity to interbreed, do they choose mates as readily from the other group as from their own? Are the offspring of cross-matings healthy and viable? In that case they are not different species. But if, in a favorable environment for cross-mating, they avoid mating outside their own group, they may be separate species. If, when a hybrid mating does occur, the offspring tend to be sterile and/or non-viable, they are likely separate species.

Your human examples don't work because this sort of avoidance is not complete enough. Muslims do not refuse to mate with non-Muslims and vice versa. And while Black and White activists may refuse to mate with each other, both mate with Black and White non-activists who will mate across race lines.

Because, they are like life from, and I explained above. Also, it is really not a matter of "gene flow" between them, IE: Flies A, and Flies B, don't mate, but they have the same genetic structure. They do not need to cross breed, for them to be viable as being the same genetically.

True enough when they are first separated. The point is that with no gene flow between the two populations, they will not continue to be the same genetically. And the longer they are separated, the more genetic patterns will diverge. So, eventually, cross-breeding will not occur, not just because they won't but because they can't, even when no longer physically isolated.

Do you have any other Theory to work from?

I am familiar with most creationist and ID arguments. I do not find any of them offer much in the way of explanation when it comes to such features.

We assume that, that is an assumption based on the premise that Evolution is correct.

Yet the homologies of the tetrapod limb were noted well before they were attributed to evolution. What the theory of evolution did was provide an explanation for why the homologies existed.

Can you offer a better explanation than common ancestry for the observed homologies?

Which Aspect?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question. It was your response to what I said about the nested hierarchy, but I find it too cryptic to determine what you are asking.

 

[Key]

I think what you are actually speaking about are not changes in the alleles (which would be mutations) but changes in how the alleles are distributed in the population. That, of course, is evolution.

Changes in Allele are not mutations in any form, they are variables in the genetic code that are supposed to be variable.

IE: Blue eyes and Brown Eyes.

There are many variables that make up the human body, and it's systems and function, anything within these variables is not a mutation, it is a product of proper genetic replication.

Could you clarify what you mean by "changes that would go beyond the alleles"?

Sure, improper replication of genetic code, that went beyond the variables within the confines as the variables are allowed.

To give an example, a sheep that was born without hoofs, might be an example of progression beyond allele's. As Hoofs are a constant in the sheep genome, variants in size, shape, color, and even density would be a product of allowed variants in the alleles, them not being there at all, would be a mutation.

I am also puzzled by the phrase "the direction that was proposed by the Macro-Aspect of the Theory of Evolution".

AFAIK the theory of evolution does not propose any preferred direction at all.

It has a direction of decent, IE: The reverse direction, not a foward direction. If you subscribe to the Origin Theory, then life to get to the point it is at this state, followed a specified path to this end result, the objective of Origin Theory is to try and back track the path that was there to start with. From the foundation of this path, as we know it, we can produce forward (effecting the coming generations) paths by which we can shape the "evolution" of life yet to come. However, that second part, is not working so well, and the first part, is not so great either.

Many people do not grasp this, but, evolution has a path, at least, in the sense of back tracking it, Where we came from, and what evolved into what from what. Would be the direction of Evolution as stated.

One standard technique is to establish whether mating is random or assortative. Another would look at the viability of hybrids.

That was a rub in it, one of the key components of Species is Hybrids, and there validity. Even with mating isolation, the validity of the hybrid, is still sound, IE: They can produce viable offspring, they just won't.

Now, in some cases, animals will mate, but not produce viable offspring, like for example, Lions and Tigers will mate, producing a hybrid that is not a viable off spring.

So in one case, they can produce off spring, but won't, in the other case, they can and do mate and produce offspring, but the off spring is not viable.

Which would make them "Sub Species" not separate species.

And the very same pesticides killed them both.

In this case, the idea, is that everything "branches down" Going from the top to the bottom. In that front, there is a direction, which has been built off the Origin Theory aspect of Evolution, however, then there is the claim that there is no direction. Which the two are mutually exclusive claims. But again, I am not here to try and debunk Evolution, or point out it's faults.

However, in the case of say Fruit Flies, they did not have any variation, other then cosmetic and breeding isolation (IE: The same idea as say The Humans in Africa and the Humans in Europe). On the platform of genetics they were still the same thing, but for "what ever reasons" (which is the official technical terms about that issue) won't.

In that front, at that time, one could have said, that when the Europeans met the Africans, they were really meeting a different species of human, and have since then, produced viable off spring, but maintain some pathological and cosmetic difference.

So, this makes it an issue, where and why you draw that line as "species", what is, and what is not.

And unless the line is drawn at a viable point, of Can Not, and the Genetic Change has been done to this point, the classification of Species, is just arbitrary, and may or may not be viable support for the demand of species division. It needs to progress beyond the arbitrary line.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... marker ... back soon ....