Challenging Evolution

[Aron-Ra]

Is there a name for this fallacy which presumes that a non-expert can perceive the strengths and weaknesses in a debate between experts?

Unless I myself have some knowledge in the field, I have no frame of reference for recognizing strong or weak points.

I've just decided I'm going to read everything you post to this forum.

 

[gluadys]

I said that the fossil record that a reptile and mammalian jaw bone existed in the same animal has been suggested to be a fraud and cannot be assumed as proof until or unless proven otherwise.

Who "suggested" fraud? Where? Has the person who "suggested" fraud approached the museum/university/institution where the fossils are held to ask for an investigation? Has s/he contacted a major scientific journal about this possibility? Has the "suggestion" of fraud been accompanied by any evidence for the allegation?

I'm sorry, but a "suggestion" of fraud from a stage or in a video is not grounds for not accepting peer-reviewed evidence. Unless there is something more substantial than an urban legend rumour, science is not obligated to respond to such "suggestions" at all.

If anyone has a serious allegation of wrong-doing, they should use the appropriate channels to bring it to public attention and have a proper investigation of the alleged fraud.

Until then the evidence stands as genuine.

I think the problem here is with the term E.

Unless you can offer another mechanism for the change, the term "evolved" stands.

C could predict, that the neonate could exist, and would offer means of adaptation to the environment.

What means? TOE says "the environmental change affected the expression of the genes governing the development of a normal adult form so that the salamander matured while still in a juvenile form".

By what mechanism would TOC say the neotonous salamander came to be?

If this is your definition of E then we have nothing more to discuss, however, a previous post suggests you are opperating on a different definition for E. What then is your definition for E.

I gave you that definition in post 158 and repeated it later.

Short definition for the 3rd time:

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

Note that by this definition, the neotonous salamander is not an instance of evolution unless there is a whole population of them. A single individual of this sort would merely be a freak. But since it is capable of reproducing, I assume we do have or could have a population of salamanders of this sort. In that case it is an example of observed evolution.

Note too, that this is a small-scale example of evolution. But the continuation of such small-scale evolution over many generations will inevitably lead to greater and greater differentiation from the original species i.e. to macro-evolution.

I don't know, what are the other characteristics of Archeopteryx?

You're kidding. You honestly can't say whether or not a chicken is the same species as Archaeopteryx?

Here is a short list of Archaeopteryx features

Comparison of Avian (bird-like) and Reptilian features found in archeopteryx.

Avian Characteristics
1. Feathers
2. Large “wish-bone”
3. Shoulder structure
4. Back-facing big toe
5. Pelvis intermediate

Reptilian Characteristics
1. Scales
2. Long bony tail
3. Clawed fingers
4. Abdominal ribs
5. No keel on breast bone
6. Teeth
7. Skull Structure
8. Foot bones unfused

http://www.franklincollege.edu/bioweb/bio114/week07.htm

You might like to check out this article as well.
http://www.exn.ca/dinosaurs/story.asp?id=2000033157&name=archives

So what are the answers to these questions with the neonate, I suggest to you that if the neonate matures into the same adult salamander, it is the same species.

It doesn't ordinarily. It matures in the neotonous form.

The environment needs to change to get the other form.

How about, the creator created the ability for the species to survive by allowing for some adaptible occurances.

And how does this ability manifest itself? How do "adaptable" occurrences happen?

You keep skirting around the mechanism, because the only available mechanism is evolution.

You want to have adaptation without evolution and you can't think of a way to get it.

The creator did indeed create the ability for the species to survive by allowing for some adaptable occurences. How? By giving the species the ability to evolve.

TOE explains how the creator endowed the species with adaptability.
TOC, as you see, has no alternate suggestion.

By this definition, my children are a new species, that would explain a lot.

No way. Now, I am by no means advocating incest, but you cannot seriously be suggesting that, once your sons reach puberty, it is impossible for you and your sons to mate and conceive another child? That may be inadvisable and immoral, but it is not impossible.

So are the catapillar, the frog, and even a chicken, because the immature form cannot or does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form.

No, these do not reproduce because they really are immature and not ready to reproduce. What you have been missing is that the neotonous salamander is not immature. It is fully adult and capable of reproduction. But it has retained a juvenile form even as an adult.

Exactly, this is the prediction of the TOC and is proven by the data observed. So if the data supports C why use it to try and support E?

Data which supports both theories does not distinguish between them.

The TOC predicts, that it will not change from the original species, one of salamander.

So TOC is saying that "salamander" is a species? TOC is wrong then. The common term "salamander" does not refer to a species. It is an umbrella term for a huge grouping of species, known in taxonomic terms as Caudata.

Caudata is a taxonomic order. When I browsed through the Tree of Life web site ...

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Caudata&contgroup=Living_Amphibians

...I counted 124 species plus an additional 15 genera and 2 sub-families for which the species were not listed.

So, according to TOC, is "salamander" a Genesis "kind"? Have all these species come from a single common ancestor?

And if all these can come from a single common ancestor, why not all the Carnivora (cats, civets, dogs, wolves, foxes, bears, seals, etc.)

After all, taxonomically, Carnivora is also an order and the various families, genera and species in it are as much like each other as the families, genera and species of salamander are like each other.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Razzelflabben obviously ignored everything Merle just said. When he said that he found thousands of transitional species described in shelves full of volumes of science journals in a University library, Razzelflabben somehow assumed these were all based on faith and dared to ask where they are!

You sure got that one right.

She wants to know where the missing links are? I know where they are. They are in the ellipsis! That's where they are. They are in the part of the post that she cut out. And then she asks where the missing links are?

This is sad, just plain sad.

 

[Peguero]

hello

 

[JohnR7]

hello

Hi

 

[Peguero]

hello

Hi. I took a lot of interest on your the quote posted in your window so i have a quote for you.
"What's love if you don't have the ability to think and choose who you love" .

 

[Peguero]

sorry i'm new i was quoting the person on top.

 

[JohnR7]

"What's love if you don't have the ability to think and choose who you love"

That is nice. I "choose" my wife based on her ability to be able to be loved. What good is it to love someone, if they can not or are not willing to receive that love. God loves us, but not everyone is willing to receive that love from Him.

 

[The Bellman]

That is nice. I "choose" my wife based on her ability to be able to be loved. What good is it to love someone, if they can not or are not willing to receive that love. God loves us, but not everyone is willing to receive that love from Him.

So, god chooses to blackmail people into loving him. "Love me," he says, "or I will punish you eternally." That's no kind of love.

 

[Matt04]

So, god chooses to blackmail people into loving him. "Love me," he says, "or I will punish you eternally." That's no kind of love.

Who's doctrine is this?

Sure, a lot of Christians would love to have you believe that Heaven belongs to 'officially' saved people and no one else, but I tend to think there's a back up plan (let's say) for those that choose not to accept Jesus Christ.

Am I saying that everyone is going to make it to Heaven? No. What I'm saying is I don't think God would let a righteous man go to hell just because He couldn't find it in himself to believe in Christ.

Now for those that outright reject Christ and don't even consider the possibility, I don't know. If you say no, then I guess you just don't want it. What right would you have to go to heaven if you totally denied the possibility?

I've also thought about those that will never have the chance to hear about and receive Christ. Surely God wouldn't just send them to hell for ignorance? Sure, if these people led evil lives, then perhaps they wouldn't make it to heaven. But if they were good people, it wouldn't seem right for them to go to hell.

I haven't really totally worked out this theory in my mind, just something I've been thinking about. Maybe one day I'll write an essay on it to get my facts straight.

 

[mrversatile48]

The new birth is an instant new creation

The perfect new world of Revelation 21/22 is an instant new creation

Some readers may need a miraculous healing

If you are near Southport, do try Miracle Marquee, Mon/Sun 16/23 Aug @ Floral Hall Gardens, Promenade/Marine Way Bridge, 7.30pm each night

Paul Epton & Alex Tee may be familiar

http://www.propheticvision.org.uk/eurovision/healed.html

 

[Matt04]

Mrsversatile, I have no doubt in my mand that God can create a new world and such in less time than we have a word for, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem he did it that way with this world and the creatures on it.

 

[Jet Black]

The new birth is an instant new creation

if you ignore the conception and the 9 months of trouble and joy that a woman has while carrying the baby.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Is there a name for this fallacy which presumes that a non-expert can perceive the strengths and weaknesses in a debate between experts?

Yes there is. Theouless and Thouless considered it a variety of "The fallacy of false credentials", although some Social scientists and Discourse analysists are coining the term "Fallacy of Lay understanding" for it.

Ghost

 

[doubtingmerle]

if you ignore the conception and the 9 months of trouble and joy that a woman has while carrying the baby.

Perhaps the "intant new creation" was a reference to the father's contribution?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Perhaps the "intant new creation" was a reference to the father's contribution?

Hmm, you must be a lot better at it than me, saddly it takes me hours.

Ghost

 

[The Bellman]

Who's doctrine is this?

Sure, a lot of Christians would love to have you believe that Heaven belongs to 'officially' saved people and no one else, but I tend to think there's a back up plan (let's say) for those that choose not to accept Jesus Christ.

Am I saying that everyone is going to make it to Heaven? No. What I'm saying is I don't think God would let a righteous man go to hell just because He couldn't find it in himself to believe in Christ.

Now for those that outright reject Christ and don't even consider the possibility, I don't know. If you say no, then I guess you just don't want it. What right would you have to go to heaven if you totally denied the possibility?

I've also thought about those that will never have the chance to hear about and receive Christ. Surely God wouldn't just send them to hell for ignorance? Sure, if these people led evil lives, then perhaps they wouldn't make it to heaven. But if they were good people, it wouldn't seem right for them to go to hell.

I haven't really totally worked out this theory in my mind, just something I've been thinking about. Maybe one day I'll write an essay on it to get my facts straight.

It's the doctrine of everyone who thinks belief is the criteria for getting into heaven. Never mind what kind of person you've been - works don't count. Believe in me or suffer eternally...that is NO kind of love.

 

[gluadys]

Yes there is. Theouless and Thouless considered it a variety of "The fallacy of false credentials", although some Social scientists and Discourse analysists are coining the term "Fallacy of Lay understanding" for it.

Ghost

Thanks

I like "fallacy of lay understanding". It seems to fit the case well.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am glad you find it helpful. If you want to be specific about any unfairness, I will correct that.

No that is okay, I am already so bored with this discussion it is hard to come here and answer questions. The sad thing is, it could be exciting but instead of discussing things, I am all but called an idiot because I still have many unanswered questions and therefore do not adopt the TOE as fact. This totally takes away all interest in even learning more on the subject because it sounds all to similar to the unwavering C who refuses all scientific observations, in order to hold to their belief system. Both are missing the boat and both are inventing something from nothing.

I have just noted that you have not discussed ID at all or used any of its concepts.

I am trying to follow the thread as it has been flowing. That is all. Knowledge and wisdom and truth cannot be found by closing our eyes to the possibilities around us. In order to find knoweledge, wisdom, and truth, one must seek out all the answers and possibilities, explore, question, experiment, etc. All the things that science seeks to do. Yet when someone comes here and does that, they are treated as not knowing anything, not looking for answers, blinded by belief, etc. I am sorry, but from the thread, I would have to say that it is you among others that do not understand scientific method. Science cannot give us all the answers to life. Science cannot prove beyond resonable doubt the TOE. Accept it! If you want to believe that the TOE is a sounder theory, that is okay with me, but it is not okay to try to tell someone else that they are not accepting the evidence simply because they see the evidence differently. I fully accept that the TOE is possible. What I do not accept is that you can rule out the other theories based on the evidence. Therefore, which theory one holds too is irrelevant. It is purely a matter of individual conviction, not a matter of lack of knowledge, etc. Now when there is enough evidence for science to make the TOE into what is considered a scientific law, or that there is enough evidence to disregard the root of the other theories, not the certain aspects of those theories, then we can talk about which is more sound. Until then, the only thing that we can discuss is the amazing world in which we live and what science can tell us about that world. If you see overwhelming evidence, okay, but overwhelming it is not, what it is is suggestive evidence.

I am not aware of any area in which TOE fails. That is why I did not discuss that. Would you like to enlighten me?

The one that stands our formost in my mind right now, is the difficulty of new species to reproduce. Though this is not a cause to rule out the theory, it does offer many unanswered questions and seems to be why the theory is changing to take on a more C feel than it has had in the past.

No theory answers all questions. The point is, does it answer the questions it tries to answer. Are its answers the best possible given currently available evidence?

So if then I look at your above sentence, am I to assume that you are now claiming that the TOE is no longer a theory, but now it is a scientific law because you are not aware of any area in which TOE fails (failing equal to unanswered questions)? This is getting more curiouser by the minute.

Are there questions of this type which TOE does not answer? or for which it is not the best available answer?

Well, first, the best available answer can be a very subjective thing, so I think that that is not the best question to be asking on such a thread.

As a visual philosopher (which is where my inability to resight names and dates stems from, I do everything in pictures), I can tell you that there are still many holes in the TOE that science cannot address. Why animals today are becomeing extinct rather than evolving, why there are reproductive problems when crossing species lines, how we can know history when the only way to prove history is first hand accounts, even the DNA evidence, is a relatively new device and offers much unanswered questions, not all of which I can put into words because of my extreme visual nature. Then we can deal with the questions that arrise when science assumes only one theory and therefore does not look into the answers the other theories provide for the data. (Accepted that many years ago this was not the case but about the time the YEC was disproven, the theory of C was pretty much thrown out the door and the only theory truely looked at was E, instead of allowing the TOC to adapt to the new data as the TOE is allowed to do.) How is that for a start from someone who is visual not termilogical.

Putting forth possibilities is only the beginning. One must also test those possibilities.

Percisely but one cannot do that if one automatically assumes that the theory cannot offer possibilities. It is the assumptions that further hurt your case.

As I already explained, that is because the TOC has been drastically changed to conform to evidence it could no longer ignore. Evidence which supports TOE. TOC in the last 50 years has adopted a great deal of TOE theory into itself---theory which it used to repudiate.

Now I don't understand this at all, for the root theory of C has not changed at least since our biblical records date. And the TOE is apparently not the same theory as I was taught many years ago, so how is it that the TOC has adopted the TOE, it would seem to me that the TOE has adopted much of the TOC, but why do we even need to discuss this issue, because it really doesn't make any difference who adopted whose, but rather that the theories continue to draw closer together.

 

[notto]

The one that stands our formost in my mind right now, is the difficulty of new species to reproduce. Though this is not a cause to rule out the theory, it does offer many unanswered questions and seems to be why the theory is changing to take on a more C feel than it has had in the past.

I' m not sure if it has been discussed in this thread yet, but doing some reading on 'ring species' might clear this up.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

Ring species evolve as a group spreads out, for instance, around a mountain.

As a species spread out, the group at the end of the spreading line of organisms will start to diverge due to selection within that end of the spread. As this happens, they may diverge to the point where although they mate with their closest neighbors, the don't with those at the beginnin of the line.

For instance, (imagine the groups spreading around a mountain at a particular elevation).

AAA - start
AAABBB - some divergence but AAA and BBB still mate
AAABBBCCC - more divergence, AAA an BBB mate, BBBCCC mate, but AAACCC don't mate.

Continue this until we get
AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH - Where HHH and AAA come into contact on the other side of the mountain. AAA and HHH will not mate but GGGHHH will.

Now, imagine something comes in to separate the line (fire, lack of food, etc and all the inbetweens die out) and all we have left is
AAA______________________HHH

We have just seen evolution create new species without requiring AAA and HHH to mate at all.

This is observed and answers the question of how new species can be created without requiring one to mate with another.