Challenging Evolution

doubtingmerle · Aug 12, 2004

razzelflabben said:
As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence.

Check out the formal debate Was There a Worldwide Flood?

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

Jet Black said:
you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence. the problem with the fraud argument is that it doesn't hold weight. even if som eare frauds (can we have some examples of fraudulent therapsids please) what about the ones that are not? The point about the therapsid jaw is that it contains features that are seen in both reptiles and mammals particularly the case of having both joiints. the bones though are sufficiently different from either to demonstrate that the jaw is an intermediate between the two. i.e. one cannot stick a mammalian jaw in a reprile and have it have two joints, since the reptillian skull does not accomodate a double joint, the same is true for the mammal. Furthermore the exactness of these jaws also demonstrates how part of the reprillian jaw slowly evolved into the mammalian ear bones. even though the therapsid has two joints, one of them becomes weaker and becomes better suited to sound transmission (though still not as good as a mammal) then there are all the other examples I gave there, though zou still just saz inconclusive, without ever sazing why. what would be conclusive to you? why do you hold that standard? what is inconclusive about the current fossil record?

I didn't know you were the fraud inspector, I do appologize. I thought that scientific claims were open to all scientists to examin for fraud, not left to only one or two people to determine. And BTW, the very nature of a good fraud is that it looks authentic. So we then find that the open minded E does not have to examine supporting evidence for fraud, but when we are talking about C, nothing can be assumed evidence, only fraud. Is this really the statement you want to go by? How does this statement allow for communication or a seeking after the truth? I tell you that I have heard that the evidence was fraudulant and you ask me why I don't believe it to be conclusive? Come now, if I presented you evidence that irrifutably proven a world wide flood, evidence that some claim as fraudulant, would you automatically believe it as evidence? NO, why? because of the report that it was fraudulant. There is not other explaination needed! It is inconclusive evidence!

because of the insistance by YECs that kinds are all uniquely created. note that they seem to be uniquely created complete with all the errors in them too, from the passage of the recurent laryngeal nerve through to ERVs.
but what we have here is a completely unique adult breeding form. caterpillars cannot breed, so the comparison is irrelevant. you claimed that salamanders cannot make fishy creatures, I refuted that claim, that is all.

Now it is starting to make sense, you still believe that C is YEC only. I think your arguements would benefit from going back a few posts to the discussion about C vs. YEC.

Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.

because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.[/QUOTE]
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the TOC and need to look at the theory again. YEC is an old idea, an old theory based on the biblical theory as put forth in Gen.

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

Jimmy The Hand said:
I was making a point about deductive reasoning and also trying to illustrate that science is not limited to watching a test tube.

You are correct, we do not know where 100% of the fossils are therefore we cannot be 100% sure. And that is why science is not math. It's based on an accumlation of evidence not a totality of evidence.

I can assure you that if a scientist discovered a chicken in the same relative geologic timeframe as a trilobite, evolution would be pretty much out the door. That scientist would also be as famous as any scientist since, well, Darwin.

But that hasn't happened. Not to say that it could never happen. But all the evidence found points the other way. That life grew from simple to complex and these changes were caused by natural selection. Evidence that is seen over and over and over and over again.

Nothing is ever sure, but why argue from incredulity? We could also posit that since we can't actually see gravity at work (only its effect) that things are attracted to each other because gangs of angels are pushing them around. But why would we when we continue to see evidence that tells us something else?

But the point is that because of the small number of fossils studied (in comparison to all that are left to be studied), the evidence is inconclusive. I never said that it was not viable evidence, or that it was fraudulant, or that it pointed to C over E, or any number of things. What I said is that the evidence is inconclusive. Inconclusive evidence still allows one to hold to whichever theory he/she would want without discarding scientific data. That is the point! Nothing has been proven or disproven. Suggestions and assumptions can be made, but that is far from fact, or overwhelming evidence.

The Bellman · Aug 12, 2004

razzelflabben said:
I didn't know you were the fraud inspector, I do appologize. I thought that scientific claims were open to all scientists to examin for fraud, not left to only one or two people to determine. And BTW, the very nature of a good fraud is that it looks authentic. So we then find that the open minded E does not have to examine supporting evidence for fraud, but when we are talking about C, nothing can be assumed evidence, only fraud. Is this really the statement you want to go by? How does this statement allow for communication or a seeking after the truth? I tell you that I have heard that the evidence was fraudulant and you ask me why I don't believe it to be conclusive? Come now, if I presented you evidence that irrifutably proven a world wide flood, evidence that some claim as fraudulant, would you automatically believe it as evidence? NO, why? because of the report that it was fraudulant. There is not other explaination needed! It is inconclusive evidence!

This is simply dishonest. ALL claims of science are investigated and reviewed, by other scientists - the best people in the world to find errors and frauds. And, suprisingly enough, they have, indeed, found errors and frauds.

Your implication that some person claiming "fraud" is sufficient to make evidence inconclusive is ridiculous. Far more is needed. The fact that some creationists cite decades-old frauds which were long ago detected and corrected by scientists does nothing at all to demonstrate fraud in the thousands of bits of evidence for evolution which exist.

razzelflabben said:
Now it is starting to make sense, you still believe that C is YEC only. I think your arguements would benefit from going back a few posts to the discussion about C vs. YEC.

I think you need to go back to the "authoritative" creationism sites. They ALL have a number of things in common as far as their beliefs go:

- God created all kinds separately - these kinds have no evolutionary overlap
- God created man separately - he is not descended from or related to any other animal
- the Theory of Evolution is false. Animals evolve within their "kind" only.

Age of the earth (which is basically the sole difference between OEC and YEC) is not at issue here.

razzelflabben said:
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the TOC and need to look at the theory again. YEC is an old idea, an old theory based on the biblical theory as put forth in Gen.

I think YOU misunderstand what creationism is. It is NOT merely the believe that god created. It is a specific belief as to HOW he created.

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Here is the problem: We have discovered many thousands of dinosaur fossils. Every single one dates older than 65 million years old. We have discovered many thousands of hominid (human and near-human) fossils. Every one of them dates less than 8 million years old. Now how can you explain that? The only likely explanation is that dinosaurs lived millions of years before hominids. Do you accept that conclusion?

Okay, step 2. We have found many hominind fossils of different species. Every Australopithecus africanus, for instance, is 3-2 million years old. Every Australopithecus robustus is 2-1.5 milllion years old. Every Homo sapiens--including you and me--is less than 500,000 years old. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html.) Can we not make the obvious conclusion that these creatures lived at different times?

Okay, step 3: You have been shown a chart on this thread that shows that the skulls of hominids progressed and became more human-like with time. How do you explain that? You have no explanation, do you?

That is the problem. The data fits with evolution. Creationism cannot explain this data, can it?

Actually, I have several possible theories to this,
1. the most unlikely, is incorrect dating. This could be anything from human error to error in methods, and as already stated, unlikely, but none the less possible.
2. If the dinosaurs were extinct long before man, their bones would have been preserved before man's. It is hard to preserve a moving target in other words.
3. Mirgration, it is possible that Man migrated to the area after dinosaurs were in that area. This could explain a lot of the discrepencies in the fossil record. Add the possible climatic changes, and a whole lot could be explained.

This is just off the post of my head, and 3 would be the most probable. Though it does not answer all the questions, it would answer many of them and given the inconclusive nature of the evidence, leaves open room for speculation.

Jet Black · Aug 12, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Actually, I have several possible theories to this,
1. the most unlikely, is incorrect dating. This could be anything from human error to error in methods, and as already stated, unlikely, but none the less possible.

ok

2. If the dinosaurs were extinct long before man, their bones would have been preserved before man's. It is hard to preserve a moving target in other words.

I don't understand this.

3. Mirgration, it is possible that Man migrated to the area after dinosaurs were in that area. This could explain a lot of the discrepencies in the fossil record. Add the possible climatic changes, and a whole lot could be explained.

but both dinosaurs and humans are found globally.... and they are globally found only in certain layers i.e. regardless of where you go, you won't find a dinosaur younger than about 65 million years or a homonid over ~3 million years.

This is just off the post of my head, and 3 would be the most probable. Though it does not answer all the questions, it would answer many of them and given the inconclusive nature of the evidence, leaves open room for speculation.

again I fail to see what is inconclusive about the evidence. we have a clear line of ordered fossils with the most primitive at the bottom and the most derived at the top.

Jet Black · Aug 12, 2004

razzelflabben said:
I didn't know you were the fraud inspector, I do appologize. I thought that scientific claims were open to all scientists to examin for fraud, not left to only one or two people to determine. And BTW, the very nature of a good fraud is that it looks authentic. So we then find that the open minded E does not have to examine supporting evidence for fraud, but when we are talking about C, nothing can be assumed evidence, only fraud. Is this really the statement you want to go by? How does this statement allow for communication or a seeking after the truth? I tell you that I have heard that the evidence was fraudulant and you ask me why I don't believe it to be conclusive? Come now, if I presented you evidence that irrifutably proven a world wide flood, evidence that some claim as fraudulant, would you automatically believe it as evidence? NO, why? because of the report that it was fraudulant. There is not other explaination needed! It is inconclusive evidence!

but surely if you are going to claim fraud, you need a justifiable reason as to why that particular bit of evidence is fraudulent. that reason may be a number of reasons including perhaps direct contradtiction with all the other evidence. what would your basis for claiming the therapsidae (all of them) to be fraudulent.

Now it is starting to make sense, you still believe that C is YEC only. I think your arguements would benefit from going back a few posts to the discussion about C vs. YEC.
because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the TOC and need to look at the theory again. YEC is an old idea, an old theory based on the biblical theory as put forth in Gen.

but then how are you defining the theory of creationism? do you include Theistic Evolution under creationism too, because if so the attempt at distinction becomes irrelevant.

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

gluadys said:
No historical accounts, since history is composed by people, and dogs and cats have been in existence at least as long as people, likely longer.

exactly my point

No, this is where your weakness on scientific method is showing up again. Remember that scientific method is a technique used to generate explanations of observations. It is not used to speculate about what has NOT been observed.

Now, science is very much aware that we have not observed everything there is to observe, in the fossil record, or in the rest of nature. That is why scientific theories are held to be provisional.

The aim of a theory is to provide the best possible explanation of what HAS BEEN observed.

In my previous post I have put forth 3 possible answers, what explaination is the best is subjective after certain things are ruled invalid and the whole point of this discussion is that the TOE is not conclusive. So your statements further support my position.

If and when a canid fossil over 70 million years old is found---then and only then do we need a theory to explain that observation.

Science does not reject theories on the speculative basis that some evidence might show up in the next century to invalidate it.

It only rejects theories which are falsified by currently known data. And it continues to work with theories which match currently known data.

So, your objection is based on wishful thinking that maybe, someday, a fossil will be found to invalidate TOE. Science does not operate on the basis of such wishful thinking, but on the basis of the evidence we CAN observe.

However, a theory which can offer explaination of the data cannot be discarded as disproven.

On the basis of the evidence we CAN observe, there was a time (I'm not sure of the details, but I would guess around 55 to 70 million years ago---maybe more recently) when there were neither cats nor dogs. But there were other mammals, mammals which do not exist today. (Large mammals do not appear until after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but smaller rodent and shrew-like mammals are found earlier.)

There are other viable possible answers for this phenomina, and it is the possible answers that leave E unproven and C not disproven.

Well, at least you acknowledge that it is possible. That's the most important step. Showing that it is plausible is the next task for the TOE

And if cats and dogs have a common ancestor, then their respective original species were in the same family. A species does not produce daughter species in different families.

And what proof do we have that cats and dogs have a common ancestor? I have always said that E was possible.

Thanks. At least you have now said openly that you think creationism is a more valid theory. However, you have not yet shown why you think this, or why any one else should..

I have already freely told you what theory I hold too and why. This should be nothing new to you. And when science has conclusive evidence that offers no other viable explaination, I will be forced to change my mind. Until then, I have absolutely no desire to convince you or anyone else which theory is truth, because we do not currently know truth on the issue. I have always said that E is possible, I have also told you why I lean towards C. Why must one be convinced to believe a theory rather than to simply discuss the data that has been observed? This is my goal. A discussion about what data has been observed and what possibilities it holds. Theory is up to individual, science is open to all.

Now, when you say it is more likely that the species existed as separate species from the beginning of creation, are we still speaking only cats and dogs, or are you saying that all species were separate creations from the beginning of creation?

Also, do you think it more likely that all species were created at once, within a relatively short period of time, or that they were created at different times over the whole history of the earth?

I am not sure how to answer this without clarifing your question first.
1. How do these questions help our understanding of how to discuss the evidence without accusations and stereotypeing?
2. Are you asking me what I believe for what my beliefs lean towards?

I cannot answer the above until you answer 2 and your answers to 1 would be most helpful. As I have told you already, I believe that we must seek to know our world and find the answers to our vast majority of questions. This opens me to a lot of possible answers. But because I take the bible literally, I lean towards the Gen account of creation. Leaning not the same thing as following blindly. Not the same thing as wishful thinking, but rather, I have tendancies toward the C account because of my belief system. All the while being open to the E theory if it proves itself to be more than a belief system. (Before people here get testy and attack me for that last statement, let me clarify that I am not saying that everyone who is an E is because of belief system, or that the theory of E is a belief system, only that for claims to be made that are not truth, about the theory, makes it a belief system for those who make the claims. To believe E to be fact, is no different than a C believing that C is fact in other words.)

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

Jet Black said:
erm, no we don't.

You may not, Jet, but many do

If only readers could recall the context..

Can you just picture the scratching of heads right now?

Gnashing of teeth?

Weeping & wailing maybe?

It's because, like separate species of life, this post did not evolve

I just created it

I just spoke it into being in a moment

More to come, as I wade thru the pages since I last posted here...

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

Jimmy The Hand said:
of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".

Again, I can just see the quizzical expressions, as imaginations run riot to recall aright...

Original in Genesis 6

In fact, you only have to reasd as far as Gen 8 to see happy landing, safe & sound

In further point of fact, just look around you

Every human on the planet descended from those survivors, that 1 family

So howdy, distant cousin reading this now!

Repopulating the Earth began in Gen 9...

Genealogies abound in Gen 10 "table of nations"...

Later 'Gators!

Ian

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

gluadys said:
We have directly observed speciation in several plants and animals. Since we know speciation does happen, why is it not a plausible inference that it can happen again? Especially when fossil sequences can hardly be explained otherwise? Or the DNA evidence rapidly rolling in?

I really think you need to stop looking at gaps and start looking at evidence. Can you really offer a better explanation than evolution for the sequences of fossils from Hyracotherium to the modern horse---and I don't mean just the four selected for the famous mural, I mean all the fossils known from this family.

What I am asserting is that the evidence is inconclusive and cannot be claimed as overwhelming or fact. Do you ever recall me making any other assertions? I am sure I have not, for I have no other assertions to make. In fact, though I have tendencies toward C due to my belief system, I really have no real theory about the origin of the world because our scientific evidence is inconclusive. I do not really know why you and others here keep trying to pigeon hole my beliefs and convince me that E is truth. I am quite content to say that we do not know! That the evidence is inconclusive! That there are a multitude of possibilities, and that we have only scratched the surface of what we need to know before we can determine a plausible truth! Why is it so hard for people to say the same thing? Why is it so important to convice people that one theory is more sound than another when either could be true or false? Why is it so important to know truth?, isn't the path to finding truth just as fun as knowing the truth? This is my philosophy, what is yours?

As far as I know, the only people requiring clear-cut species lines with no fuzziness are creationists. If they are prepared to use what nature gives, I have no problem with that.

I have only heard this claim made by E here on this thread and I would greatly like to know why this assertion is being made! I have yet to hear a C claim that species lines cannot be fuzzy. Again, I think this is one of those break down in communication things that I get testy about.

That is basically saying that God created them to evolve. Evolution is the only mechanism I know that provides for animals to adapt to the world around them. Do you have any other alternative in mind?

What about a creator creating them to survive in a harsh environment. Look at it this way, if I live in the city, I can teach my children the rules of the streets, maximizing their ability to survive in the city, the same is true if I live in the wilds, certain skills are required for them to maximize their chance of servival. Now I realize that this is taught, but why couldn't a creator, create these adaptabilities within his creation. To ensure their survival. It would seem quite possible from the standpoint of a creator. Even man, when he creates something, tries to build in survival asspect to his creation. I had a company selling children's ebooks, I built into the company, a new use for the ebooks, for the purpose of maximizing the survivability of the creation. Possible theory.

Yes. I was speaking more generally, not of the neotenous salamander in particular. The lack of iodine affects the expression of a gene. The change in the expression of a gene is a mutation. Just as radiation can change the expression of genes by inducing mutations. Other environmental factors can also induce mutations, and mutations can also occur spontaneously (which is scientific lingo for saying "we don't know why that one happened.")

I am not sure whether you are getting my point or not. Again, I was speaking generally, not of the salamander in particular.

The point I was making is that adaptation is a two-step process. First you need variation. But not every variation will be adaptive, so you need a mechanism for preserving the adaptive variations, and screening out the non-adaptive variations. As Darwin showed, that screening mechanism is natural selection.

Variation + natural selection = adaptation (evolution).

Continued varation + natural selection may lead to speciation. Especially when two groups of the same species migrate to different habitats and therefore adapt in different directions. (allopatric speciation) btw have you researched that term yet?

I understood that you were speaking generally, I was using the neonate to clarify, not limiting to that species. The problem with natural selection, is that even today we see species become extinct without leaving any adaptations in the gene pool. How then does E address this issue? I'm sure it has something to do with time, but that is not a very comprhensive explaination.

Oh, but we have. Remember, there are species for whom a "generation" is only a few months or even a few weeks. So you can observe hundreds, even thousands of generations in the space of a few years. Changes such as these are an observed fact.

So what new species have we observed evolving in these occurances? I haven't seen reports of any.

Right, not every trend of adaptation will lead to speciation. (See the pepper moth thread for an example of evolutionary adaptation which did not lead to speciation.) Speciation is a possible, but not necessary outcome of evolution. On the other hand, we have also observed speciation directly. So we know that it is a factual outcome in some cases. It is not mere speculation that continued change in a species will lead to speciation.

In what cases have we observed speciation to crose species lines? What data proves it is not fraudulant? And how many cases have we obseved? Were the cased observed able to reproduce? Please, where is the evidence to support this claim? I am hungry for truth, not speculation.

Maybe. But to support that theory, the creationist would have to describe a method of getting adaptation other than the currently known one of evolution. We know that evolution leads to adaptation. That is an observed fact. We don't know of any other process that does. Until we do, creationism's claim that there can be adaptability without evolution is an empty assertion.

That is what makes TOE the stronger theory.

We have observed facts, that animal such as the neonate salamander, adapt without evolution, so how then does E predict this? It is all about survival. Changes in our environment lead not to new species as E would predict, but rather to extinction which is what C would predict. So, that would make the TOC the stronger theory.

Sure. If reproductive abilities are lost, the species becomes extinct. Your point?

It is not a sufficent prediction to say that we can assume that species evolve into new species. There cannot be that assumption without first assuming that different species are capable of reproducing. This assumption has been questioned by the evidence and well as not having been observed on a wide scale, unless we manipulate the definition for species. For example, there are those here who assert that the neonate is a different species. I suggest to you that the neonate is the same species or it would not grow into a salamander. To assert it is a new species is a manipulation of the definition of species to prove E. (C can also manipulate the definition) The bottom line, science cannot prove the viable existance of the reproductive mechanism accross species lines, only the speculation that it is possible.

Yes, it should, since it is part of the observed world. All theories should also explain why it is part of the observed world. TOE does. Does TOC? Does ID?

Sorry, I forget what this was in reference too and my computer is not allowing me to see it right now.

ok. I'm not perfect either. Sorry about that.

No problem

no that is not the way science works. What the scientist has to do before making a claim one way or the other is provide opportunities and incentives for neotenous salamanders to inter-breed with ordinary salamanders and record the results.

Possible result A: The two forms of salamander are physically incapable of inter-breeding. Conclusion--they are separate species.

Possible result B: The two forms of salamander never choose a mate from the other group. Conclusion--to all intents and purposes, they are different species.

Possible result C: The two forms of salamander freely choose mates from the other group and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction with both parent groups. Conclusion---they are not separate species.

These are the easy calls. But now, what about these?

Possible result D: The two forms of salamander prefer to mate with their own type but occasionally mate with the other.

Possible result E: The two forms of salamander mate with each other but all the offspring are still-born.

Possible result F: The two forms of salamander mate with each other, but all the offspring are sterile.

Possible result G: The two forms of salamander mate with each other, but only matings between ordinary male salamanders and female neotenous salamanders produce fertile offspring. Offspring of male neotenous salamanders and ordinary female salamanders are sterile.

These are the sort of scenarios where there will be disagreement over whether or not the two groups are different species.

All of these, and other "fuzzy" situations are explained by the TOE as part of the process of speciation. They occur because the speciation is incomplete.

Does TOC have an explanation for them? Does ID?

I am not sure I am following your line of thinking here, if the animal grows into a salamander, then the most logical explaination is that the animal is the inmature form of that salamander. Because it is born with a complete, mature reproductive system does not mean it is not a salamander. In fact, if science can prove that the neonate, when reproducing from the neonate form, produces offspring that cannot mature into salamanders, but remain in the neonate form, then you would have something interesting to talk about and viable evidence for E. Without this, however, the neonate supports the TOC rather than the TOE for the predciction of C is that the neonate would mature into a salamander. The prediction of E would be that a neonate would have offspring that would remain neonates and couldnot mature beyond this state.

I'll take your word for it, but can TOC explain adaptability without evolution?

Already done on another post.

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

DJ_Ghost said:
Well you couldnt fit all the species native to Australia alone on 1.5 decks of a wooden ship unless the thing was unimaginably enormous. Then we have all the species native to Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. The Mamals alone would require tremendous amounts of space. Unless of course Noah was only taking their ancestors on board and awaiting for them to evolve after hey got off! Or unless the global flood was not global at all but limited to a small region in the middle east.

Gen 7:20 says the waters covered all th high mountains under the heavens by a depth of over 20 feet

As you know, dude, water finds its own level..

All mountains on Earth covered by at least 20 feet = global flood, guys!!!

Either way the 1.5 decks thing only works if you reject a literal interpretation of the bible, which is fair enough.

I accept Gen 6:15 - 450' long, 75' wide, 45'high & 3 decks, as satellite X-ray photos proved decades ago

This remaining part is why I chose to highlight this post: as I PM'd you this am, dude, you are a good writer...

Well that's not actually that true, after all no one believed scientists when we said that GM crops would be safe, that's why so many governments have banned them and we see protests against them in countries that have not.

That's not true either, let me demonstrate how it works in my experience;

1). Governments ask a question,
2). They hire scientists to give them an answer.
3). We give them an answer
4). They decide they dont like the answer we gave them
5). They ask a civil servant to give them an entirely different answer.
6). Knowing where his bread is buttered the civil servant gives the government the answer they told him to find.
7). The Scientist gets 2 minutes on the news to try and explain why what he said and what the government are saying differ.
8). The Government builds policy on the answer they got from the civil servant.

This is sometimes followed by

9). Everything goes disastrously wrong.
10). the government claims they took advice from a wide range of sources, including leading scientists in the filed.
11). The newspapers track down the scientists involved in steps 2-3 and point out what the government said in step 8.
12). The Scientist points out whilst he was consulted he was then ignored.
13). The Newspaper prints the bit where the scientists admits he was consulted but mysteriously neglects to print the bit where he points out his advice was then ignored
14). The Government covers the whole lot up before any one asks the right questions by immediately announcing another major policy study on an entirely different subject/invading some where/leaking details of a affair that some back bencher they can afford to be without is having behind his wife's back.

Ghost

Clearly a fan of UK classic TV sitcom Yes Minister - do USA/Oz get that 1?

Any articles/short stories etc published yet,btw?

Must go!

Ian

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

The Bellman said:
No, I don't. All have been thoroughly defined elsewhere. If you are even attempting to debate these topics, you should familiarise yourself with the definitions of these theories, and not rely on those you are discussing the issue with to tell you what they are. I also do not need to define what YOU are; what you are is irrelevant to this conversation. I have addressed some of the points you have posted; I have also noted how those poitns and my rebuttal of them reflects on creationism. Whether or not you are a YEC is irrelevant.

I've no idea what you mean by this. Are you talking about creatinoism? Like it or not, it HAS been falsified to the satisfaction of virtually all of the world's scientists.

This is false. No definition of species fits what you say above. Crossing species lines has been observed, time and time again. Google for "speciation" and you will see a very large number of observed instances of speciation.

It is thus NOT a possibility that species lines cannot be crossed, for it has been observed many times.

It appears you are confused about what a "species" is. What you are trying to use to mean "species" is what creationists know as a "kind" - which they cannot define.

Again you demonstrate that you do not know what a species is. Speciation (evolution over species lines) has been observed many times, thus falsifying creationism if it attempts to use the species as the line over which evolution cannot cross. To avoid this, creationists instead say that evolution cannot cross "kind" lines - but they cannot define what a "kind" is.

Then I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Evolution does not require a specific definition of species. Evolutionary theory dictates that all lines between groups of aminals - species, phylum, genera, etc - are, in fact, arbitrary, because all animals descended from the same, common ancestor. There are NO lines between animals which evolution cannot cross. For this reason, evolutionary theory does not need a definition of species, or phylum, or any other term for a group of animals - these labels are for convenience only.

Creationism, on the other hand, states that "kinds" are inviolate - which means they are actual, not arbitrary, definitions. Yet they cannot cite this definition.

So your statement that "both theories hinge on the definition of species" is completely false - in fact, neither does. Creationism hinges on the definition of "kind" (which they cannot even supply), and evolution doesn't hinge on the definition of any of its arbitrary terms like species, phylum, genera, etc.

Claims regarding evolutionary theory have been examined to see if they are fraudulent. They have been examined by the toughest judges there are - other scientists, who regularly peer-review any and all claims by other scientists. On several occassions, scientists have, in fact, explosed frauds and errors perpetuated regarding evolution.

Creationists, however, do not have such peer review. They rarely submit papers to journals requiring peer review; when they do, those peers invariably point out the huge numbers of errors, frauds, lies and bad science in these papers. Scientists find the errors and frauds in creationism; creationists do not.

Then you should research it further. There are not conflicting reports, and there is conclusive evidence - the noachim flood did not happen. Not only is it physically impossible, but the story of Noah's ark (the animals on the boat) is so far from physically possible it is laughable.

The reason creationism and evolution "play by different rules" (as regards the definition of "species" and "kind") is because the definition of "kind" is crucial to creationism; the definition of "species" is not crucial to evolutionary theory.

Under creationism, there ARE no "fuzzy areas". Every animal which has ever lived belongs to one, and only one, "kind". All of its offspring, and all of theirs, etc., will ALWAYS be of that "kind". There are a limited number of "kinds" - new ones cannot come into being. The definition of "kind" is central to creationism.

Under evolution, however, EVERYTHING is a "fuzzy area". Animals belong to different taxonomic groups depending on who is doing the grouping; species boundaries are uncertain precisely because all animals are related, because there are no inviolate boundaries. That is why all of the taxonomic terms are arbitrary - because they are not inviolate. They move depending on who is defining them, precisely because the boundaries themselves are so fuzzy. This is NOT the case with creationism. The "kind" boundary is NOT fuzzy - it is clear cut and inviolate.

Adaptaion IS evolution.

We have, indeed, seen that change over generations, in field, laboratory and in the fossil record. That is what makes evolutionary theory both theory AND fact.

The adaptability we currently see in the species is evolution. That is what makes evolution both theory and fact and creationism neither.

It can't be fuzzy because creationism REQUIRES that it not be fuzzy. There are no animals that are "between" kinds - that is impossible. The theory insists that there are "kinds" that are rigidly defined and over which evolution can never cross.

Bellman, at this time I cannot comment on your post #499, because I simply do not know what your claims as to the different theories are and communication would thus be lost. For we would most likely end up argueing about things that we agree on without ever knowing we agree. I would however like to thank you for the post for it helped me to understand why the claim is made that C must define kind. I think it shows a lack of knowledge about the theory, but none the less, is very informative and enlightening. Thanks.

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

razzelflabben said:
And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.

The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.

What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.

Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.

I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.

But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.

But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could. It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.

Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.

And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.

I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,

Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote

In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.

Agreed

C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.

Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature. I would imagine that some C beliefs do not allow this, but that is not at the root of the theory and has been addressed in discussions about YEC etc.

I couldn't have put it better...

Now there's a statement that could well get nods from all readers!!

God bless!

Ian

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

Jet Black said:
ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?

.."I thought the major
was a lady
suffragette,
Jet!"

Anyway, the very formation of fossils demanded the cataclysmic pressure of the global flood - likewise their preservation

As canny observers, all thru history, have noticed, the norm is "dust to dust"

Likewise, the recent headline-grabbing book on the Grand Canyon, by 23 leading scientists of many disciplines, affirms that the very layout of strata, from heaviest rock atthe bottom to lightest soil at the top, is entirely thanks to the consistently observed pattern of the behaviour & effects of the abating of flood waters, as top hydrologists would have you know

Fossils are scattered randomly thru the fossil-bearing strata, with no evidence of gradual development of complex life forms from simple ones

The most complex fossils are found even in the Cambrian strata

If DWP have finally paid me what they've owed me for months, I plan to hit Chester Zoo Sat 21 lunch time - to celebrate its 70th year!!!!

Do check out:-

www.chesterzoo.org.uk

All & sundry invited to that biggest & best EU zoo to observe the clear, uncrossable distinctions between different species

Been a long time since I last said...

After pooper-scooping evo-loopy-poop...

don't forget to wash your hands now!!!!!!

God bless!

Ian

razzelflabben · Aug 12, 2004

gluadys said:
Razzelflaben:

So far, I have only responded to the posts you have addressed to me, but the conversation between you and Jet Black deserves some comment.

JB asked you about a number of species in the fossil record and their placement in the fossil record
You responded:

But it is not off-topic at all. You have made the point time and time again that we should treat all the theories as theories. And that is just what JB is doing.

JB missed the point I was making and I clarified it, stating that I would not address his questions right away. This was so that my point was clear before chaning the point and thus the subject. Sorry if this offended you or anyone else here. Since then, I have pur forth some theories to explain the fossil record as I was asked to do.

The point of a theory is to explain observed evidence. He gave you a list of observed evidence for which evolution offers a coherent explanation. I have never seen a coherent explanation of the same observations from the perspective of TOC or ID.

Now why should we treat the theories as equally satisfactory if 2 out of 3 of them cannot explain the observations while the third does? Are not the two which fail to explain the observations failing to do precisely what a theory is supposed to do?

I gave you some possible theories to explain the phenomina in an earlier post today. I think that should be sufficient.

It does not matter. It may matter someday if a fossil is uncovered which the TOE cannot explain. But the point of a theory is to explain what HAS BEEN observed, not to speculate about what difficulties may be posed to the theory by future observations. JB's list was of observations that have already been observed.

The point is, that the fossil record cannot be counted as fact without more record studied, not that the record is falsified or fraudulant or not even that it cannot support the TOE, only that is it insufficient to claim on theory over the other.

Now if TOC cannot explain observations already made, why should we have any confidence that TOC will be able to explain evidence not observed yet?

OTOH, TOE does explain the observed evidence, so we can expect that it has at least an even chance of being able to explain future observations as well. In fact, because TOE can explain current evidence, it is able to predict what observations will be made in the future. It predicted that evidence linking dinosaurs to birds would be found nearly a century before the discovery of feathered dinosaurs.

Already addressed possible explainations.

Can you name one single prediction the TOC has made about what to expect in the way of future observations in biology? Can you name any correct prediction based on TOC?

First let me ask you what that would prove? The discussion is not about one theory being more "correct" than another, but that the two sides can have a discussion without arguing and making assumptions. Secondly, yes.
predicted observations, neonate salamaders will grow into salamaders with the right environment and that the offspring of the neonate will also grow into salamanders. Predicted observations, offspring of animals that cross species lines, will have difficulty or impossible reproductive systems, how's that for a start.

correct predictions, see above, add to it, species barring young of the same species, adaptability of a species withing their environment without changing species, etc.

Is this the best you can do? That maybe we are dealing with fraud?

Are you not aware that these fossils are available to numbers of people doing research on them? People who have no interest in sustaining a fraud. Are you not aware that when the discoverers reported their findings, and when the first researchers studied the fossils and wrote up their conclusions, they had to face peer review from people whose job it is to question their research from all angles?

Why do you think it is that the only frauds ever named in creationist literature are over 90 years old? (Peking man, Haekel's drawings of embryos).

If the bones were indeed from two different animals, you can be sure that fact would have been trumpeted through all the scientific journals and major newspapers by now, just as the Piltdown man fraud was, when it was discovered.

Raising the spectre of fraud with absolutely no evidence to make the case, simply re-inforces the fact that TOC simply does not measure up to TOE as a coherent explanation of observed evidence.

Now every time I turn around, E are claiming that evidence that supports C is fraudulant. I suggest to you that some of the fossil evidence has been suggested to be fraudulant and you go off on me? I did not say it was fraudulant, or even that we shouldn't consider is, only that the possibility for fraud left the evidence inconclusive when making claims about the soundness of the TOE. Again, we see a double standard coming through.

Most creationists do make the point that "kind" is not "species". And we have already seen why. If "kind" = "species" then creationism is falsified on the basis of its assertion that one kind does not evolve into another. For we have observed one species evolving into another.

So, to keep their theory, creationists asserted that "kind" is not equivalent to "species". This means they can assert that even though one species can evolve into another, one "kind" does not evolve into another "kind." But since they do not define a "kind"--except negatively, by saying it is not a species--there is no way to test that assertion.

I am beginning to understand this assertion based on one of Bellmans last posts, but when I look at the original theory, I cannot see how this assertion holds true. I can understand how some would want it too, on both sides of the issue, but not how it does in relation to the original theory, I fear someone will have to further enlighten me on that aspect of the assertion.

Now, if you disagree with standard creationist dogma, please take it up with ICR or AIG, not with us.

If you want to personally disassociate yourself from this aspect of TOC, and say that "kind" is "species", then you have to deal with the observed fact that species do evolve into different species. (Even according to our "fuzzy" definition.)

What I have said from the very beginning is that one cannot pigeon hole someone's beliefs, that it is important to find out want they believe before claiming they are wrong. For example, I can be a C without holding to the beliefs of AIG and in order to have an intelligent converstion with me one must first find out if I hold to those beliefs or some other beliefs within the theory. This is called communication.

Again Jet Black asked you:

You responded:

Well, does a seal inter-breed with land-based mammals? or with dolphins? Have you seen models of a mesonyx or a therapod? If these are not new species, you would have to define species in a way not used in the last four centuries (which includes a couple of centuries before Darwin).

Remember, our biological definition says that if it is not inter-fertile with the ordinary form of salamander, it IS a new species. It doesn't matter that it became a new species through neotony.

Humans are in many ways a neotonous form of chimpanzee. But we are certainly a different species.

I'm pretty sure I already addressed this issue but to recap, you would have valid arguement if the neonate remained neonate dispite it's environment. In fact, if man's environment changed and the "neonate" man grew into a chipanzee, then your point would be well made and I would not have anything more to say on the issue, however, the neonate does mature into a salamander when the environment is right, and humans do not grow into chimpanzees when the environment is changed, which are both predictions that the TOC would make, and would contridict the predictions of the TOE on this issue. I do not look at this however and claim that the TOC is more sound because of this evidence, but rather say that it is inconclusive evidence to support either theory as conclusive.

Creationists did, by asserting that kinds are separate creations with no relationship possible between one kind and another. Where no such relationship is possible, the dividing line between kinds cannot be fuzzy. Just as JB said:

Jet Black also said:
I have found this habit frustrating as well. You continually say the evidence is inconclusive, but never say why you come to that conclusion. What questions are outstanding that makes them inconclusive?

I have addressed this issue many times, lack of evidence, such as the number of fossiles studied, the possibility of fraud, the possibility of other explainations, etc. all make the evidence inconclusive. Add unsupported evidence like the neonate, and decades of observations that contridict the TOE and it is a wonder that anyone would claim that E is fact, but they still do, and they still try to convince people that they know truth, when in reality, we have a small amount of inconclusive evidence, and a vast amount of questions left to answer.

Or is this just a way of avoiding the evidence because your commitment to TOC is threatened when you examine it?

I do not know about the TOC being threatened, but my beliefs are not threatened in the least by the evidence provided and as I have said many times now, some of the things that make the evidence inconclusive are lack of evidence, possibility of fraud, etc.

And by the way, it's not just you. Some creationists are forthright in their adherence to their peculiar interpretation of scripture as the reason for rejecting TOE. I don't agree with them, either scientifically or theologically. But at least I and they know where they stand and why no amount of evidence will ever convince them.

What makes you think that I reject the TOE? I believe it is possible, I also beleive that it is not fact until proven so. The evidence to date is not conclusive, not proof that the TOE is fact.

But those who claim to be taking a "scientific" or "even-handed" approach, always end up in a morass of vagueness, neither able to say what is wrong with the TOE, nor able to offer any TOC-based alternative to the TOE. They are just personally unconvinced for no discernable reason.

And yet when I go off topic an discuss the possibilities of either theory, no one refutes my possible claims, only ignore them, sigh, or ask me why I don't offer other possible alternatives. Hmmm? Why would that be in light of the claim you just made?

If you wish to show that you are the exception, give us reasons for saying the evidence is inconclusive. What other conclusion could it support? How?

I have covered this several times now and if I hope to even address all the posts I have to address today, I am going to have to ask you to read the posts I have already made addressing these accusations.

Jet Black · Aug 12, 2004

mrversatile48 said:
Fossils are scattered randomly thru the fossil-bearing strata,

false

with no evidence of gradual development of complex life forms from simple ones

false

The most complex fossils are found even in the Cambrian strata

false

mrversatile48 · Aug 12, 2004

Jet Black said:
false
false
false

er..

is that false teeth - as in the tooth of an extinct pig that was used to hoax false ET evidence called either Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man

Both were deliberate hoaxes

Just what galaxy are ET fans on!!!!!!!!!!

Jimmy The Hand · Aug 12, 2004

So articulate one, give us one example of a "most complex" fossil found in the Cambrian.

Ishmael Borg · Aug 12, 2004

mrversatile48 said:
er..

is that false teeth - as in the tooth of an extinct pig that was used to hoax false ET evidence called either Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man

Both were deliberate hoaxes

Jet was only doing what scientists do all the time: exposing falsehood. Just like when they exposed the falsehood in the tired, examined-to-death examples you've provided.

Hmmm. Piltdown Man. Never heard that one before. Have you got anything less than half a century old to discuss?

Challenging Evolution

I'll think about it.

Contributor

Contributor

The Bellman

Guest

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

I Have Been Complexified!

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency