Challenging Evolution

[gluadys]

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.

Come on. You were pointed to these 2 or 3 times right back at the beginning of this thread. Are you saying you never read them? Or that you did not understand them?

Nevertheless, here are some again:

Case One: allopatric speciation
Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.


5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed [/i]D. melanogaster[/i] populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. (1) They also showed some positive assortative mating. (2) These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. (3) They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. (4)

To be more specific, the researchers began with a homgeneous population of D. melanogaster. They divided the population into several different groups. They kept one group as a control group---raising it in the familiar environment it had always been in. (3). They placed each of the others in a new and different environment, including, in some cases, unfamiliar food sources such as bread and meat.

After several years, they found each population well-adapted to its new environment. They also found:
some of the adapted populations could no longer reproduce successfully with other populations --- even though they all came originally from the same parent population (1)
some of the adapted populations refused to mate with other populations. (2)
these observations did not apply to the population kept in its original environment. (3)

Now remember what you said on August 9. post #435

Away back in post 158 (july 30) I posted this definition of species. It is basically the biological definition. As far as I am concerned it is the most useful working definition of a species.

Do you have any problems with using it as a standard definition?

If all groups accept the fuzziness, not at all, it seems to work fine for me.

By the biological definition of species (based on reproductive isolation) this experiment produced new species of Drosophila from a common ancestor. Species that refused to breed with other populations descended from the same ancestor and/or were unable to produce fertile offspring when they did mate.

If you check posts by lucaspa elsewhere on this forum (he is a professional biologist) he notes that in some cases the genetic difference between the parent species and the daughter species amounted to 3% of the genome. Humans and chimpanzees are differentiated by only 2%.

Now, is this or is this not a case of direct observation of speciation?
As direct observation, how is it not conclusive evidence that speciation happens? i.e. that evolution happens.

Case 2: Speciation by hybridization

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

Two species of sunflower, the "common sunflower", Helianthus annuus, and the "prairie sunflower", H. petiolaris, grow widely over the western half of the United States. They can interbreed, but only rarely are fertile offspring produced.

However, Rieseberg and colleagues have found evidence that successful hybridization between them has happened naturally in the past. They have shown that three other species of sunflower (each growing in a habitat too harsh for either parental type) are each the product of an ancient hybridization between Helianthus annuus and [/i]H. petiolaris[/i]. Although each of these species has the same diploid number of chromosomes as the parents (2n = 34), they each have a pattern of chromosome segments that have been derived, by genetic recombination, from both the parental genomes. They demonstrated this in several ways, notably by combining RFLP analysis with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

They even went on to produce (at a low frequency) annuus x petiolaris hybrids in the greenhouse that mimicked the phenotypes and genotypes of the natural hybrids. (You can read about the results of these monumental studies in the 29 August 2003 issue of Science.)

So here we have both natural speciation (unless you can explain the three other species of sunflower differently) and a laboratory replication of the same speciation.

The laboratory replication is a direct observation of speciation.

Case 3: A unicellular speciation

Bacteria that eat waste nylon-
The ability of a bacterium to consume nylon must be a mutation, as nylon did not even exist until the 1940’s. These bacteria metabolize short nylon oligomers with enzymes in their system. These enzymes have come from a frameshift mutation of a gene which codes for an unrelated enzyme. This has been repeated experimentally to test the validity of the theory. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas were grown in media with only nylon oligomers available for food. Within a few generations, the bacteria were producing the enzyme needed to metabolize the oligomers.

For another natural example of the same type of speciation in a Flavobacterium see:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Again, the laboratory experimentation indicates that this speciation has been directly observed.

Now, just what is inconclusive about these observations?

 

[gluadys]

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.

See above for examples. What proves that these are not fraudulent? The fact that a) they passed peer review in order to get published in the first place, and b) the papers published describe minutely the methods used and the results obtained. Anyone can read and challenge these experiments; or try to replicate them.

We have observed facts, that animal such as the neonate salamander, adapt without evolution

No, we have observed that a species of salamander has evolved the ability to reproduce in a neonate state. Where did you get the idea that the neotony could occur without evolution?

It is not a sufficent prediction to say that we can assume that species evolve into new species.

We don't assume this. Speciation has been documented by direct observation.

For example, there are those here who assert that the neonate is a different species.

Has anyone said that? I missed it if they did. It could be that it is a different species. Depends on whether or not it can reproduce with the parent species.

I suggest to you that the neonate is the same species or it would not grow into a salamander.

You mean if the iodine is added again? Well, if you manipulate the genome of chickens they will grow teeth. (They still have the genes to do so; but the expression of those genes is ordinarily suppressed.) Does that make chickens the same species as Archeopteryx?

To assert it is a new species is a manipulation of the definition of species to prove E. (C can also manipulate the definition)

No manipulation. If it cannot/will not reproduce with the parent species, it is a different species. If it can/will reproduce with the parent species, it is not a different species. That's what the definition says.

What the definition doesn't deal with well are the in-between cases when we can't give a straight "yes" or "no" to the question of whether it is inter-fertile with the parent species.

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.

It's in reference to nature's fuzzy species lines. You said it should be part of all the theories, and I agreed. I also said all the theories should explain why this fuzziness exists. TOE does. Speciation is a slow process and we should expect to see examples in nature of partial speciation. Fuzzy species lines indicate that we do.

So how would TOC or ID explain nature's fuzzy species lines?

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.

It is an immature form of that salamander. That doesn't stop if from being a separate species. If it does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form, it is a new species.

Because it is born with a complete, mature reproductive system does not mean it is not a salamander.

Of course not. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is a new species of 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,

Let's be clear that if the neonate is capable of reproduction it is mature in the neonate form. And it is a salamander in the neonate form. If its offspring also mature to reproductive capacity in neonate form they have matured into salamanders. What else would they be?

If the environmental condition is changed such that they mature into more ordinary looking salamanders, they have also matured into salamanders. What else would you expect them to be?

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.

No, that is not a prediction of TOE. TOE predicts the salamander form can change in either direction, and that the development of the young will respond to the environmental condition (presence or absence of iodine).

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

Already done on another post.

It's a long thread. Reference please?

 

[gluadys]

I couldn't have put it better...

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

God bless!

Ian

Not all. Have you checked out the reply at post #498?

 

[gluadys]

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.

I have addressed those in the reply to that post. Meanwhile you have not answered this question:

"If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do?"

And I will add this question:

"If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it?"

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.

No, the point is that every iota of data in the fossil record is observed data which the theories are supposed to explain. Even though only a small portion of the fossil record has been examined, we have thousands upon thousands of fossils and everyone of them offers data by which we can determine the adequacy of the theories which try to explain them.

This has proved to be more than sufficient evidence to make the TOE the only viable scientific theory. The TOC does NOT explain this mountain of evidence now. Why should we expect it to do so when we have tripled or quintupled or multiplied that mountain of evidence a thousand times over.

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.

I don't need to argue or to make assumptions to show that TOE explains the evidence and TOC does not.

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.

But these are not unique predictions. The same predictions are made by TOE. So again, TOC is only correct when it coincides with or borrows from TOE. TOE does not need to borrow from TOC.

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.

That is because they have been caught doctoring evidence. No double standard when the fraud is proven. The mere possibility of fraud does not make evidence inconclusive. You have to show that there really was fraud. Otherwise, you are basically bearing false witness. Only, the fact of fraud renders the conclusions invalid.

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.

Since you are drawing your original theory from the bible, I can see why you are mystified. The bible does not give a precise definition of kind either, and creationists assumed, as scientific classification began to come into vogue, that "kind"="species". It was only when it was shown beyond doubt that species do evolve that some creationists opted to break with that definition. That would not be obvious from the biblical text.

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.

Well, that is what I am trying to do: ascertain what you personally believe, rather than assuming you buy into the canned creationist dogma of ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind. Yet every time I ask you directly what you believe, you question why I ask (see above in this post). This puzzles me. If you want me not to label you, why are you so reticent about providing your personal beliefs when asked to do so?

 

[gluadys]

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.

You have asked many times that we not make assumptions about the TOC, and I am diligently trying not to.

May I ask the same of you when it comes to the TOE. The statement above is a false assumption about what the TOE would predict. In fact it is the opposite of what the TOE would predict.

TOE says that natural selection produces adaptation to the environment. If one environment favours a neonate form, and another favours a non-neonate form, TOE predicts we will see the form favored by that environment. It does not predict that either the neonate or the ordinary form is stuck in its current form and cannot change as the environment changes. In fact it predicts that both the ordinary and neonate form will change as the environment changes.

Again, I refer you to the pepper moth thread for another excellent example of back and forth evolution, as well as the recent work on the beaks of Galapagos finches.

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.

Again, you are making assumptions about TOE which are not correct. So here is where you need to listen and learn more about TOE so that you can evaluate it accurately. TOE would not make either of the predictions you assume it would make. Here are some reasons why:

1. An adult neotenous form is still an adult; it did not fail to mature. What it has done is retain features that in its predecessor disappeared with maturity.

2. An adult neotenous form may or may not be interfertile with a non-neotenous form. If it is inter-fertile, then its offspring may or may not be neotenous, as they can receive genetic information from both a neotenous and non-neotenous parent.

3. Whether offspring are or are not neotenous may depend on environmental factors which influence the expression of genes. However, not all neotenous features will be subject to such environmental impact. We would need to study each one on a case-by-case basis. So you cannot generalize from the salamander case to a proposed human/chimp case.

4. If the neotenous form becomes reproductively isolated from its parent species, and its neotenous features are not impacted environmentally, there is no reason it would ever revert to a non-neotenous form.

5. Humans already live in the same habitats as chimps and have not resumed a non-neotenous form. Of course, they have also not resumed an arboreal life-style or a chimp-like diet either. So even in the same habitat, they are not really in the same environment, because they are not in the same ecological niche.

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,

No you have not. Your charge has been that the evidence is not conclusive.

But when asked to be specific about why it is not conclusive, you do not deal with the evidence.

You cite lack of evidence. That is entirely different from looking at the evidence and saying that no conclusions can be made from it. We can have a relatively small amount of actual evidence as compared to the total potential amount of evidence, and we may still be able to draw sound conclusions from it. Furthermore, even a small amount of evidence may be enough to falsify an unsound theory. My position is that the evidence we have is sufficient to rule out TOC.

You cite possible fraud, but that is not looking at the evidence, and you have produced nothing more than vague rumours of fraud. Are you saying science is not allowed to make a case unless and until it chases down and exposes every false allegation of fraud, no matter how nebulous? Is there not an American tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?

You cite possible other explanations, but you do not provide any, or you provide vague notions which you do not link to the evidence in any way that shows how the concept explains the evidence.

You speak of "unsupported evidence like the neonate salamander", but the salamander is real. How is that "unsupported evidence"?

You speak of observations which contradict the TOE, but on the one hand, you have not cited any such observations, and on the other hand you have not given the TOE the chance you are asking for the TOC---namely that we discuss and understand it, so that we do not make incorrect assumptions about what it says, as you have been doing.

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.

What makes you think that I reject the TOE?

Did you miss the phrase "it's not just you"? I believe I made it clear that I was going on to speak of other creationists, not you.

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 I have inadvertently ignored any claim you have made for TOC, please direct me to it. I believe my responses have been very thorough.

 

[gluadys]

I am always surprised by what people object too or applaud, All I am trying to say is that until or unless the evidence provided is proven to not be fraudulant, we cannot assume it to be fact,

On the contrary. We DO assume it to be genuine until there is a reason to suspect fraud. Innocent until proven guilty, remember.

What I don't understand about my comment, is that when I mention scientific studies that support C, the E here are more than quick to point out that they are fraudulant.

Because they are. Or at least they use faulty methodology and sub-standard reporting. These are not "possible" frauds. They are frauds.

There is no double standard being used here.

it would seem that if the E are so afraid to face the facts that the evidence is not conclusive,

Evos are not afraid to face the fact that some evidence is inconclusive; but they do object to very well established evidence being called into question for no discernable reason (other than religious bias). e.g. dating of fossils.

 

[razzelflabben]

We are talking about thousands of measurements of the age of dinosaur fossils. All of them date before 65 million years ago.

We are talking about thousands of measurements of artefacts of hominids. All of them date less than 8 million years ago.

And you are seriously suggesting that all of this order might reasonably be due to faulty readings? That is so unlikey, why even bother to mention it?

Weirder things have happened. Heck, even E would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen. Even C would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen than mere man making some mistakes.

Correct, dinosaurs were extinct long before humans. That is my point. They died millions of years before humans. There is clear evidence for that. Do you or do you not agree?

I could be wrong, but I really doubt that the dinosaurs buried their dead. Man most likely did however. This could account for at least some of the variations in the fossils, in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp? It is only a theory that could explain the differences in the fossil layers, not an explaination to replace the expectations of E. They can both exist until one or the other is proven or disproven.

But how can migration account for the fact that all dino fossils are older than 65 million years, and all hominids less than 8 millions years old? This isn't even an explanation, is it?

If man did not migrate to the areas we have uncovered fossil remains until after the extinction of the dinosaur, it could explain the differences. Remember, we have uncovered only a very small amount of fossil evidence compared with all the fossil evidence there is to discover. Human error, human migration, human burial techniques can all influence the results of the fossil data. Now the data can support the TOE, but I maintain that the evidence is not conclusive to the theory and leaves much room for additional possibilities.

Inconclusive? Thousand of readings in many places using different methods all declare that dinosaurs died out before there were humans. How much more evidence do you need before you conclude that dinosaurs probably went extinct before humans existed? What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?

Conclusive evidence would be evidence that does not allow for any other possibilities. That is what conclusive means. Whether or not you think the other possibilities are possible is irrelevant. What is relavent, is whether or not they are possible.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have 5 min, see if I can finish this post

I am glad you list this as the most unlikely. Today's dating methods are much improved over those of even 20 years ago and are very accurate.

However, that does not remove the possibility of human error, not in the dateing or in the collection of data, much less in the reading of the data and could account for some variations.

They were. That is the point of merle's post. All dinosaur bones were preserved earlier than 65 mya. All hominid bones were preserved less than 8 mya. There is a big gap between the most recent dinosaur find and the earliest hominid find.

I addressed this in my last post.

Dinosaurs lived all over the world. Humans also live all over the world. So, yes, humans have migrated into the areas inhabited by dinosaurs. But in every case there is an approximately 60 million year gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the earliest hominid fossils. So it's not a matter of just missing the dinosaurs by a few months.

However, due to the small number of fossils studied in comparision with the total number of fossils, we cannot be sure that the humans we have uncovered were living in the area at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Still want to maintain the evidence is inconclusive?

I will maintain it is inconclusive until it is proven conclusive. Inconclusive meaning that there are other possible solutions to answer the evidence. Prove otherwise and I will reconsider my stand.
2 min. over I really do have to go for now. Have a great one.

 

[gluadys]

Weirder things have happened. Heck, even E would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen. Even C would be a weirder, more unlikely thing to happen than mere man making some mistakes.

Some mistakes!? In order to show that the dating is wrong you have to show that practically all of several hundred thousands dates (most of them cross-referenced to avoid error) are nevertheless incorrect, and not just by a little bit, but by several orders of magnitude.

I could be wrong, but I really doubt that the dinosaurs buried their dead. Man most likely did however. This could account for at least some of the variations in the fossils,

Nope. It's totally irrelevant whether bones were buried in a natural accident or a planned funeral.

in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp?

It is not about dinosaurs becoming extinct before humans become extinct. It is about dinosaurs becoming extinct 60 million years before the first homind appeared on earth. What is so hard to grasp about that?

They can both exist until one or the other is proven or disproven.

One has been disproven and it's not TOE.

If man did not migrate to the areas we have uncovered fossil remains until after the extinction of the dinosaur, it could explain the differences.

60 million years worth of difference?

Remember, we have uncovered only a very small amount of fossil evidence compared with all the fossil evidence there is to discover.

We evaluate theories on what we know now, not on wishful thinking about what might be discovered in the future. We deal with the future by being prepared to change our theories when necessary---but only when necessary.

Conclusive evidence would be evidence that does not allow for any other possibilities.

And what is there about the actual evidence (not wished-for evidence of faulty dates or future fossil discoveries) that allows for any other possibility than that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years before the first proto-human was born?

 

[USincognito]

in addition, one could logically expect that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did since man is still here. What makes this theory so hard for you to grasp?

Because it's a non-sequitor. There is no "logic" in the statement to follow.

For one thing the earliest Crocodiles and Dinosaurs first appear in the the Triassic, but crocodiles are still here. By your logic, both should be gone since man is still here.

See how it does not follow?

 

[Jet Black]

However, that does not remove the possibility of human error, not in the dateing or in the collection of data, much less in the reading of the data and could account for some variations.

human error generally creates odd points in graphs, not entire correlating data series via numerous independent trials in totally different global regions.

 

[USincognito]

human error generally creates odd points in graphs, not entire correlating data series via numerous independent trials in totally different global regions.

Do those graphs help calibrate for all the deliberate hoaxing razzelflabben is so sure is part of the scientific process?

 

[USincognito]

If man did not migrate to the areas we have uncovered fossil remains until after the extinction of the dinosaur, it could explain the differences. Remember, we have uncovered only a very small amount of fossil evidence compared with all the fossil evidence there is to discover. Human error, human migration, human burial techniques can all influence the results of the fossil data. Now the data can support the TOE, but I maintain that the evidence is not conclusive to the theory and leaves much room for additional possibilities.

While I'll admit this isn't the craziest ad hoc assertion I've read, it certainly borders on one of the "ad hociest." I don't see, especially after the hours of time and pages of evidence glaudys has posted, any efforts of mine really making a difference, but I want to try and give you some perspective on why your objection is so baseless.

Hominid Biogeography

All Australid and Hominid fossils are found in the Eastern Hemisphere. In all the years of searching the earth in Western Hemispere, where tons of dinosaur, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and fish fossils have been dug up over the years, we have never once found a australid or Hominid fossil. This is exactly, because of what geology told us about the Earth's surface, what evolution has predicted.

If we were to ever find a human fossil in the Western Hemisphere, it would immediately falsify evolution. It hasn't and is evidenced to the satisfaction of sciences requirements. If you won't be satisfied until every inch of ground in the Western Hemisphere is checked for human fossils, that's your problem, not sciences.

On the other hand, Creationism says that man was to go and subdue the whole Earth. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Apparently we weren't in dominion over the fowls and living things on the land if we weren't in the Western Hemisphere to have dominion over it. Thus this part of Creationism is falsified.

Animal Fossil Biogeography

We find dinosaurs on every continent. We find them all over the United States. We have unearthed literally tons of dinosaur fossils, but we have never once found them with humans anywhere on the Earth. We never find trilobites with dinosaurs. We never find large mammals with dinosaurs. This is exactly what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over.

The important part about this is your claim that dinosaurs and humans aren't found in the same strata for some unknown reason. But we find humans and large mammals in the same strata. This again is what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over. Why would we always find large mammals in the same strata with humans, but never find dinosaurs if they lived contemporaneously? The reason is that they didn't live contemporaneously.

Archaeological Remains

When we excivate human artifacts and remains we find and we don't find ertain things. We find large mammal bones in firepits and trashpiles. We find mammal bones, antlers and teeth being used as decorations or tools. We find human remains with evidence of attack by mammals, where the bodies were taken to lairs (see the Taung child), or fell out of trees (big cat predation) and aren't buried.

On the other hand, we never find dinosaur bones in firepits or trash piles. We never find dinosaur bones, horns or teeth used as decorations or tools. We never find human remains with evidence of dinosaur attacks on them. Your point about burials falls flat here - are you trying to say that never in the history of humanity has no human died due to dinosaur attack and wasn't recovered or buried - or was eaten to nothing but bones - ever?

All this is exactly as evolution predicts, and the opposite of that predicted by Creationism. And again, I'm sorry if these now many many tons of physical evidence showing why evolution is a fact aren't enough for you because you want ever single ounce of dirt in the troposphere unearthed and checked by paleontologists, but as glaudys has pointed out to you, that's not how science works.

 

[Jet Black]

While I'll admit this isn't the craziest ad hoc assertion I've read, it certainly borders on one of the "ad hociest." I don't see, especially after the hours of time and pages of evidence glaudys has posted, any efforts of mine really making a difference, but I want to try and give you some perspective on why your objection is so baseless.

Hominid Biogeography

All Australid and Hominid fossils are found in the Eastern Hemisphere. In all the years of searching the earth in Western Hemispere, where tons of dinosaur, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and fish fossils have been dug up over the years, we have never once found a australid or Hominid fossil. This is exactly, because of what geology told us about the Earth's surface, what evolution has predicted.

If we were to ever find a human fossil in the Western Hemisphere, it would immediately falsify evolution. It hasn't and is evidenced to the satisfaction of sciences requirements. If you won't be satisfied until every inch of ground in the Western Hemisphere is checked for human fossils, that's your problem, not sciences.

On the other hand, Creationism says that man was to go and subdue the whole Earth. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Apparently we weren't in dominion over the fowls and living things on the land if we weren't in the Western Hemisphere to have dominion over it. Thus this part of Creationism is falsified.

Animal Fossil Biogeography

We find dinosaurs on every continent. We find them all over the United States. We have unearthed literally tons of dinosaur fossils, but we have never once found them with humans anywhere on the Earth. We never find trilobites with dinosaurs. We never find large mammals with dinosaurs. This is exactly what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over.

The important part about this is your claim that dinosaurs and humans aren't found in the same strata for some unknown reason. But we find humans and large mammals in the same strata. This again is what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over. Why would we always find large mammals in the same strata with humans, but never find dinosaurs if they lived contemporaneously? The reason is that they didn't live contemporaneously.

Archaeological Remains

When we excivate human artifacts and remains we find and we don't find ertain things. We find large mammal bones in firepits and trashpiles. We find mammal bones, antlers and teeth being used as decorations or tools. We find human remains with evidence of attack by mammals, where the bodies were taken to lairs (see the Taung child), or fell out of trees (big cat predation) and aren't buried.

On the other hand, we never find dinosaur bones in firepits or trash piles. We never find dinosaur bones, horns or teeth used as decorations or tools. We never find human remains with evidence of dinosaur attacks on them. Your point about burials falls flat here - are you trying to say that never in the history of humanity has no human died due to dinosaur attack and wasn't recovered or buried - or was eaten to nothing but bones - ever?

All this is exactly as evolution predicts, and the opposite of that predicted by Creationism. And again, I'm sorry if these now many many tons of physical evidence showing why evolution is a fact aren't enough for you because you want ever single ounce of dirt in the troposphere unearthed and checked by paleontologists, but as glaudys has pointed out to you, that's not how science works.

rather interestingly we have found, I think it was trilobyte or ammonite fossils with very old (>10,000year old) human skeletons. they had been cracked open and used for decorative purposes.

 

[USincognito]

rather interestingly we have found, I think it was trilobyte or ammonite fossils with very old (>10,000year old) human skeletons. they had been cracked open and used for decorative purposes.

Obviously that's not quite what I was getting at, but neat. I'd always heard, though I'd never followed up on the assertion, that the Chinese "Dragon Bones" used for scapulmancy were dinosaur bones. Not sure if that's true or if I'm conflating information, but that's what I'd heard...

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't see, especially after the hours of time and pages of evidence glaudys has posted, any efforts of mine really making a difference, but I want to try and give you some perspective on why your [razzleflabben's] objection is so baseless.

Oh, but it is making a difference. Maybe not to razzleflabben. But I venture to say that what you folks do here has made a difference to many hundreds of people who have come to read the Creation and Evolution section.

 

[razzelflabben]

I answered your three answers above. But those answers are not relevant to the point I am trying to make here.

You are suggesting that because there is a great deal of fossil evidence which has not yet been discovered or studied, that TOE & TOC are both inconclusive. That is not the case. Science is based always on evidence which has already been discovered even when the amount of evidence, vis-a-vis the theoretical total amount of evidence possible, is very small. We do not have to wait two or three millennia or however long it takes to look at all possible fossil evidence before deciding whether TOE or TOC is the better theory.

And this is the same senario that people used to use when they believed the earth to be flat. Was it flat? Was it a workable theory? When I suggested that at the time based on the information at hand, the earth being flat was a possiblility, I was "attacked" and left to die. Now, because you are talking about the TOE I am suppose to say, oh yea, it is definately a strong theory? Come now.

The better theory is the one which provides the best, most complete, most coherent explanation of the evidence we do have today.

Well if that is all that we need, then C is definately the theory to go with, because of the vast amount of evidence we have gathered over the years suggesting that animals do reproduce after their "kind" own species. All this other "evidence" is speculation at best. Kind of like, hard evidence vs. circumstancial evidence. The more you argue about the validity of the theory, the more problems I see with the assertion that it is the most viable theory. When I can here, I expected to see some evidence that would suggest evolution, the longer I stay, the more I see people trying to fit the evidence into the E hole. This is not good science. Can the fossil record suggest E sure, can it suggest only E no way. Does it disprove C no again.

On that basis, which is the basis of the scientific method, TOE is miles ahead of TOC as the better theory.
True. The point is that TOE does offer an explanation of the evidence, and TOC does not.

I offered you several theories, and I didn't even think about it.

If you know of an explanation for the evidence provided by TOC, feel free to bring it forward. I'll be ready again to admit I made a mistake.

Why focus on mistakes? I have no interest in people doing anything here but learning what each other believes and why. I have asked people to take off the gloves and discuss the evidence rationally. It is not about who is right and who is wrong, it is about what all the theories can add to our understanding of the origins of life and how the origins of life have brought us here. It is about finding truth, not assuming to already know what is truth. It is about exploration of our world not about winning an arguement.

That's news to me. What are the other viable possible answers for these phenomena?
Did you miss the "if" in my statement?
You are side-stepping the point. You said that
emphasis added.

And that is the point I am making here. If we have an original cat species (from whom all modern cats are descended) and an original dog species (from whom all modern dogs are descended) and if these original cat and dog species have themselves descended from a common ancestor, then the original cat and dog species were indeed in the same family.

Sure, IF cats and dogs descended from the same ancestor then, they would be in the same family. That seems like a silly question, like asking if you cousin and I are from the same family. It is the if that we seem to be having problems with. If does not mean that it IS. And as I have shown you, the evidence is inconclusive to say that E IS, it is conclusive enough to say IF. This is something that has been said by several of the C here, E is possible. The majority of the E here however, refuse to accept the possibility and want C to extend into the probability or fact arena before they are satisfied. This is the problem.

Now, I am asking you to approach this as theory, not as fact. I am not claiming that this is what actually happened. But I am saying it is a plausible explanation of the evidence that going back far enough, we do not see cats and dogs in the fossil record. (In other words, there is no evidence that cats and dogs existed as separate species from the beginning of creation.) But we do see other mammals which do not exist today. In theory is it possible that one of those mammals could be a common ancestor of both the modern cat and dog families?

How many times and ways can I say that E is possible? I should write a song. Of course it is possible. But it is also possible that there are other explainations for the fossil evidence studied to date. So I guess, the question should be addressed to you. Looking at C as a theory, not as fact, or belief system. I am not claiming that C is fact, is it a plausible explanation of the evidence we have to date observed under scientific methods. All the evidence collectively. In other words, C can address the issues in the fossil record with possible expalination? If not, then why not?

It is, because you have objected several times, when people have assumed you are disposed to creationism, that they were prematurely labelling you.

Now I have come on here and been accused of being YEC, closed to the possibility of E (see above), accused of being anti scientific method, etc. And all before I said anything that even resembled my belief system. That is the problem, assuming to know what you do not know. That affects communication on the subject, and it is also what turns scientific evidence into a belief system.

Discussing the data is what we have been trying to do, and what you have been avoiding. Instead, you want to do the impossible and take into account data that has not been discovered yet.

Excuse me, when I told people that the fossil record could explain E but it was not conclusive evidence of E, I was taken to task. I answered with why it is not conclusive and I was taken to task, I answered other possible explainations, and I was taken to task. When I said, that the evidence is inconclusive because of the lack of evidence provided, you all get upset and do all but accuse me of oh well, let me tell you a story, I will try to make it short.

We have 5 children, around christmas time a year ago, we watched the pink panther movie. After watching it, one of our children cut out a paper glove, wrote a P on it and placed it where a couple of pieces of candy were laying, taking the candy and leaving the "glove". Accusations flew as to who did it. Our eldest is know for taking candy any time he wants, so some believed it was him. The glove was cut raged like our girl would have done, some some believed it was her. Some though it was the creative genius of our 3rd, our 5th was too young at the time. Etc. I waited for about 3 days, and observed what was going on before passing judgement. 3 days later, I predicted the phantom to be our 2nd. He confessed and we all have a good laugh.

Here is the point of the story, to jump to conclusions before all the information, data, is collected, sets us up for mistakes. To jump to the conclusion that E is the answer to the data before all the data is collected is setting ones self up for mistakes.

We were speaking of cats and dogs and you opined that they were probably separate species from the beginning of creation. I wondered if you thought the same of other species or if you were commenting only on these two.

That all species were created seperately is the direction I lean towards, I think that there is much yet to learn, and that that knowledge could give us new understandings. To date, the evidence I have seen does not disprove the creation story nor does it prove E so I choose to follow the theory which comes the closest to my belief system. My overriding belief system is to seek truth whereever it many be found, so my belief on the origins of life are weak to say the least.

As for the second part of my question, the simultaneous creation of all species (within a few days) is necessarily part of YEC, but not necessary to OEC, which can accommodate several periods of creation separated by millions (billions?) of years.

You have stated that you have not yet made a decision as to which variety of TOC you consider most likely. So when you spoke of species being "separate creations from the beginning of creation", I felt I needed to clarify what you meant by "beginning of creation".

Agian, please note that the theory I lean toward, is C not the theory I hold to be truth. The theory that fits best with the evidence I have been shown and fits my belief system as well, would be that creation of speices happened within a short period of time. This does not mean that the earth is young however, this is a misconception of the original theory. It also doesn't mean that I hold the theory to be truth, only that it has not been disproven to date and has been proven many times over, thus offering the most comprehensive data to support the theory.

So, yes, I am asking in what direction you are leaning, because that would help me avoid stereotyping and trying to continue a discussion on the basis of beliefs I incorrectly assumed you held when in fact, you do not.

I didn't come here to discuss the theories, but rather the way the theories are discussed.

 

[razzelflabben]

The huge amount of evidence for evolution has been proven to be not fraudulent during over a hundred years of constant examination by various scientiests.

On the other hand, there is NO scientific evidence or studies that support creationism.

There are no double standards. Scientific theories, evidence and discoveries are all required to go through the same path of constant peer-review. This applies to theories regarding evolution and theories regarding creationism (if there were any).


No, you cannot. That is impossible to see, since none of us can "see" god creating these kinds.

If you accept the definition of "species" as that of "kind", then creationism has been conclusively falsified, since we have observed MANY instances of speciation.


And it is not evidenced.


Then you should actually read some information about creationism. Creationism explicitly states that the theory of evolution is false, and that evolution (which they like to call "adaptation" or at most "micro-evolution") occurs only within "kinds" (which they cannot define).


We are not talking about the "root of the theory". We are talking about creationism as it is believed today.

All I have heard from you is old school C. And since I asked you to define C so that our discussion can flow, you refuse. So I will put forth the definition you will have to follow for the remainder of this discussion. C is the theory as put forth in the original format found in Gen. The definition for kind will be the same as the definition for species. And the evidence of animals procreating after their "kind" will be allowed into the discussion as evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

Very long response coming up. I am breaking it up into separate posts.



Let me get this straight. We have directly observed speciation. And you are still saying the evidence is not conclusive? You are saying that direct observation is not conclusive?

Well, as to my understanding of speciation, I have not observed it or found evidence that conclusively observes it, so maybe we need to redefine and further explain what speciation is.

Please tell me, if direct observation is not conclusive, what in heaven's name is conclusive? It is well past time that you defined what you mean by "conclusive".

Well, we have multitudes of direct observations that animals reproduce after their species that E discard so that they can disprove C, so maybe the question should be asked of you as well. Conclusive, Not fact, hard evidence, inconclusive, circumstancial evidence, suggestions without sufficient observations to make them fact.

It's not. But when one is true and the other is not, then it is important to know which is which.

I hear that a lot, but, no one has disproven the TOC yet. You make claims that you can, but there is no evidence to do so. There are observations that could suggest so, but no conclusive observations. Why should I or anyone else blindly bleive what is not there. Neither is proven or disproven, that is why they are still theory, and not scientific law. Until one becomes scientific law, what one believes is just as good as what another believes and it is the exchange of ideas that we should desire rather than trying to prove who is right and who is wrong, like bullies or gangs defending a territory.

You're a Christian and you ask this?
Sure, but knowing a truth sets us onto a path toward more truth. Getting stuck in an untruth just leaves us stuck---we don't get the truth or the fun of finding truth.[/quote] If you know anything about me at all, you know that I am a seeker after truth. It is this desire for truth that has brought me to the conclusions I have about the E vs. C debate. Until there is overwhelming evidence, to support one or the other, we do not know truth. How can I say it any clearer? How can I make you people understand? Assumptions do not equal truth! Predictions do not equal truth! We still don't know the truth about our world and origins!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe so, but the breakdown seems to be occurring among C & C so that is where to pursue this further.

The breakdown I see is in the communication between the two camps of thoughts, not in any one group. Many C fail to communicate, and so do many E.

That's not adaptation. That is designing them for that particular niche. If the species is originally created for that specific ecological niche it does not need to adapt to it. It is already fit for that environment. It was the presumption of 19th century creationists that this was the procedure the Creator followed. Each variation on a species was separately created for its own ecological niche. No adaptation was needed.

Okay, if I can adapt to the harshness of my environment, what would you call it, I call it adaptability, not the similarity of the root words. They adapt by design, but it is adaptability none the less. It is the adaptation from one species to the next that E must answer before they can be a viable theory. This is something that they can suggest through scientific observation, but not something that they can prove without a manipulation of the definition for species.

By adaptation, we mean introducing a change into an already existing species so that it can survive in an environment it was not originally created for.

What I am saying is that the way that change is introduced is evolution. In order to give species the ability to adapt to a unique environmental niche that they were not born in or originally designed for, or to adapt to a range of different habitats, the creator gave them the ability to evolve. The consequence of evolution is adaptation.

I do not know of any other means of adapting to a new environment. If TOC has presented one, I am open to hearing about it.



Quite simply. As noted above, adaptation is a two-step process. The second step (selection) cannot take place unless the first step (variation) has taken place.

If a new environmental stress is introduced, natural selection will select the variation best suited to deal with it. But it may be that no existing variation is capable of dealing with the new environmental challenge. If that is the case, there is no magic wand that will make the needed variation appear just because it is needed. And without a suitable adaptation, the species becomes extinct.

But a breakdown in any of this process is a breatdown in the TOE and the theory requires a do over mentality. In other words, the TOE is about try again and see if it works this time whereas the TOC is more geared toward what we have already observed and learning more about our environment.

Maybe that is the greater difference between the two theories, E is bent on proving what has not been proven and C is bent on finding out more about our environment. I think this difference is as much at the root of my lean toward C as anything. To learn more about what we do not know is more of a search for truth than is the quest for finding evidence to support a given theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

Come on. You were pointed to these 2 or 3 times right back at the beginning of this thread. Are you saying you never read them? Or that you did not understand them?

Nevertheless, here are some again:

Case One: allopatric speciation
Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.


5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed [/i]D. melanogaster[/i] populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. (1) They also showed some positive assortative mating. (2) These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. (3) They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection. (4)

To be more specific, the researchers began with a homgeneous population of D. melanogaster. They divided the population into several different groups. They kept one group as a control group---raising it in the familiar environment it had always been in. (3). They placed each of the others in a new and different environment, including, in some cases, unfamiliar food sources such as bread and meat.

After several years, they found each population well-adapted to its new environment. They also found:
some of the adapted populations could no longer reproduce successfully with other populations --- even though they all came originally from the same parent population (1)
some of the adapted populations refused to mate with other populations. (2)
these observations did not apply to the population kept in its original environment. (3)

Now here we have two very distict problems. One it is in the lab. If I except lab experiments as proof, especially lab experiments that are not observed in nature as well, then I could also conclude that cloning in our natural environment is possible and no one here has yet to explain how my alien/clone theory is not possible.
secondly, the reproduction of the new species was incomplete or missing. This pokes all kinds of holes in the E theory.
And let us not forget, that the definition of species can be manipulated to include, because of the fuzziness, that all were of the same species. Therefore, the findings would be consistant with the TOC and allow for the possibility of E.

That would mean that the TOC is the stronger theory in this case. Isn't that the opposite of what you were trying to prove? Before this arguement came up, I was more than content to accept the observations as possible proof of E, now after reexamining the data, I am beginning to question the soundness of that assertion.

Now remember what you said on August 9. post #435

By the biological definition of species (based on reproductive isolation) this experiment produced new species of Drosophila from a common ancestor. Species that refused to breed with other populations descended from the same ancestor and/or were unable to produce fertile offspring when they did mate.

If you check posts by lucaspa elsewhere on this forum (he is a professional biologist) he notes that in some cases the genetic difference between the parent species and the daughter species amounted to 3% of the genome. Humans and chimpanzees are differentiated by only 2%.

Now, is this or is this not a case of direct observation of speciation?
As direct observation, how is it not conclusive evidence that speciation happens? i.e. that evolution happens.

I think the above addresses this question, but if it lacks something, direct observation can be defined as direct from nature, or direct from experimentation. To the first, no, to the latter, yep. But, the in ability to reproduce, or the inappropriate ability to reproduce is what falsifies the TOE in this case.

Case 2: Speciation by hybridization

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

Two species of sunflower, the "common sunflower", Helianthus annuus, and the "prairie sunflower", H. petiolaris, grow widely over the western half of the United States. They can interbreed, but only rarely are fertile offspring produced.

However, Rieseberg and colleagues have found evidence that successful hybridization between them has happened naturally in the past. They have shown that three other species of sunflower (each growing in a habitat too harsh for either parental type) are each the product of an ancient hybridization between Helianthus annuus and [/i]H. petiolaris[/i]. Although each of these species has the same diploid number of chromosomes as the parents (2n = 34), they each have a pattern of chromosome segments that have been derived, by genetic recombination, from both the parental genomes. They demonstrated this in several ways, notably by combining RFLP analysis with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

They even went on to produce (at a low frequency) annuus x petiolaris hybrids in the greenhouse that mimicked the phenotypes and genotypes of the natural hybrids. (You can read about the results of these monumental studies in the 29 August 2003 issue of Science.)

So here we have both natural speciation (unless you can explain the three other species of sunflower differently) and a laboratory replication of the same speciation.

The laboratory replication is a direct observation of speciation.

Probably the most compeling evidence to date. Thanks for the outline. However, there are still many questions that arise, in addition, a review of the theory of C shows us that the plants would produce seeds after their kind, nothing about pollination or grafting. Hybrids then are completely consistant with the TOC. The evidence, though more observations would be required, can suggest consistancy with the TOE but does not prove it.

Case 3: A unicellular speciation

Bacteria that eat waste nylon-
The ability of a bacterium to consume nylon must be a mutation, as nylon did not even exist until the 1940’s. These bacteria metabolize short nylon oligomers with enzymes in their system. These enzymes have come from a frameshift mutation of a gene which codes for an unrelated enzyme. This has been repeated experimentally to test the validity of the theory. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas were grown in media with only nylon oligomers available for food. Within a few generations, the bacteria were producing the enzyme needed to metabolize the oligomers.

For another natural example of the same type of speciation in a Flavobacterium see:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Again, the laboratory experimentation indicates that this speciation has been directly observed.

Now, just what is inconclusive about these observations?

Again, this is lab manipulated only, and must be observed in nature as well. In addition, what we see here is an adaptation, as to a previous post, an adaptation created within the bacteria, to assure survival. This does not equal E though it can suggest E.