Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

I do think we all understand that this is your position.

If that is finally understood, then I would appreciate that people refrain from claiming (or implying) that I believe it cannot be possible because I ask questions or offer other explainations.

This is what we do not understand.

What questions does TOE not answer?
Since the evidence we do have (the answered questions) confirm that evolution does happen, is not evolution a fact as well as a theory?
Why should we deny that evolution really does happen while waiting for more evidence to give us additional insight into how it happens?

I guess that would depend on the definition of evolution and species and etc. And remember, according the the arguements on this thread, if the theory stands or falls on the definition of species, then the definition cannot be fuzzy so you will need to do better than that to prove your theory to be fact. So what definition shall we go with now so that we can erase the questions as to species lines and the reproductive problems therein associated.

This we also do not understand.

What observations suggest TOC could be possible? (And remember these cannot be observations which would be true for both TOC and TOE, but true only for TOC.)

The observations that for as long as we have been studying life, animals have reproduced after their kind. Kind can be used to refer to species under the same guidelines as above. That is one of the first that comes to mind.

You are also overlooking the point that (except where it fully agrees with TOE) TOC does not simply fail to answer questions. Its claims (global flood, simultaneous creation of species, etc.) are contradicted by the evidence.

This makes it a falsified theory.

Actually, you fail to see how much E has changed to adapt many of the original parts of the TOC. I was totally amazed when I can here and read these posts how similar the two are becomeing. Now you can claim this to be whatever you want, but what it does is prove that one cannot be falsified without the other also being falsified. Aspects of either can be falsified, but the root theories cannot.

You are subtly leaving out a key word.

You are saying (correctly) that dinosaurs became extinct before modern man.

But what others are saying is that dinosaurs became extinct before modern man existed.

Are you willing to add the bolded word to your statement?

Furthermore, the evidence shows that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years before modern man existed.

Are you willing to agree with that complete statement?

Not subtly at all, I made the statement that based on the evidence we could come to the conclusion that the dinosaurs became extinct before man did. I was taken to task for how illogical this was. I ask for someone to show me how illogical it is, you provide evidence to back the claim but ask me to add to that logic the word existed. This is illogical based on the point I was making. Now what I can tell you what I believe, I believe that it is possible that man existed after the dinosaurs, but that it is possible that man coexisted with the dinosaurs. I know what the fossil records indicate but the fossil record still allow resonable doubt for it is like an archeologist digging up an ancient city and claiming that from all the evidence found therein we know all there is to know about the culture and life of the time. I don't know an archeologist yet that would say such things and I certainly don't know a reputable scientist that would claim that the fossil record tells us everything we need to know about the begingings of our world. Is it supportive evidence, sure. Is it overwhelming proof, far from it.

 

[razzelflabben]

I already did. We're trying to establish several things here, most importantly, what exactly a Biblical "kind" is. It is the most critical thing we need to determine in order to settle this debate.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, if you only accept some definition of "micro" evolution. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and the categories we've put them in would be invalid.

Okay, as I understand the theory of C at it's origin, they heiarchy of evolving would end when species are no longer able to reproduce. So if a lion and a housecat cannot reproduce, they are different kinds.

You are mistaken. Our definitions of that aren't relevant here.
Obviously the perceptive failure is yours. Creationism has been disproved. So it is no longer a possibility. There are millions of facts available for the origins of our species, our genus, our order, etc. But all of them point to evolutionary processes exclusively with no available space to squeeze any pre-human myths of Eden into.
To be quite blunt, evolution is the only available Theory of our origins. There has never been a Theory of creationism, and I doubt very much that there ever will be one. In science, a Theory is the study, and explanation of facts. For example atomic Theory is the study of the function and properties of atoms. Creation theory must therefore be the study of that which can't be studied, (because it is believed only on faith) and it would therefore be an explanation for the unexplainable, which currently can only described as magic.

I am beginning to understand what you are asking, being a visual person, some of these long technical posts are harder for me to follow. You are the first person I have ever met that has claimed that C was never a theory. Part of the thoery fits your explaination, part of it is a matter of faith, but part of the theory is very testable from a scientific standpoint and many scientific observations have observed it to be correct.

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

--Stephen Hawking; A Brief History of Time

I have seen both within the TOC. So what point are you trying to make?

So, by proposing a theory of creationism, it is incumbent on you to explain the processes of creation, and to explain what facts you do have better, and more plausibly than any competing concept. Plus you are required to establish testible predictions by which we might potentially falsify this theory. If you can't do either one, then creation simply doesn't qualify as a theory, leaving evolution as the only viable one.

And yet C has done just that.

Wrong again, as I will gladly demonstrate with another quote from Hawking's book:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Which is my point exactly. Theory is not fact, it is theory.

Exactly! That is why I am asking these questions! Here is the only place you're ever going to find the reality of this situation. By insisting on some micro vs macroevolutionary division, the creationist reduces the evolutionary tree of life to a series of small shrubs that do not share any common root. This series of queries is meant to help determine whether this model is accurate or not.
You have never encountered any question more critical than these. Everything else you argue for is off-topic. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is in any or all of these sets of questions.
It doesn't matter. The question is do you think (A) is biologically related to (B) through some acceptibly minimal evolutionary means? Or do you think (A) was specially-created by a god entirely unrelated to (B) and therefore an entirely different Biblical "kind" from it? You don't need any biological clade definitions to determine that.
I research everything I respond to. Don't you? Feel free to look each of these up if you must. Then answer the question, yes or no, as best you can. Then we can look at each of these more in-depth. I suspect only then will you begin to realize why scientists consider the evidence of evolution so "overwhelming" and the evidence of creation so utterly absent.
That's why I asked you to explain, which are created and which are related. You see, I wholly disagree that there is any evidence of creationism whatsoever. All science-based concepts readily attempt to explain even complex data in detail. But creationists all too often want to avoid all the most critical data altogether, dismissing it all as "irrelevent". But only by really attempting to delve into these will you ever be able to hone in on the truth.
I don't think that's quite an accurate assumption. I'm allowing that you probably accept some degree of evolution, which you probably refer to as microevolution. Whether you define that properly or not, my queries still allow that both concepts might be partially true at the same time. But of course, my suspicion at this point is that only one of them is really true at any level at all. Can you change my mind about that?

The main place that E falls short is in the reproductive abilities of animals that are "evolving" if the TOE were to be more than speculation, then we would not see reproductive problems as the interbreeding occurs. This leaves a whole in the theory wide enough to drive a truck through, (at least as I understand the theory. I was told I don't understand the theory and I ask for a definition and of yet to don't have it. So I will have to go with the definition that was taught to me)

Next up, I try to research all information given to me but this time around, I do not have time for a complete researching job and I have said that many times over. I will better explain why later in this post, so be patient for the rest of the story.

I have absolutely no interest in converting anyone to any theory. My only agenda here is to get people to see that theory is theory and not fact. If you agree with this, I really have nothing more in my interest to discuss with you at this time. When I have more time, I could see discussing some of the other data, but that will have to wait time my life slows a bit so that I can put the research into it.

This thread is about challenging evolution. You can't begin to do that if you refuse to deal with the single most powerful evidence of macroevolutionary common ancestry, the twin-nested heirarchy of systematic taxonomy. If you insist on limiting your argument only to species, you'll never present any challenge at all, and will never discover the truth either.
I'm asking you if you think Parentie monitors evolved from a common ancestor with any other variety of monitor lizards? Or were the perentie, and all other monitors magically created, and only look like they're related? I know what is possible in the "theory" of magic: miracles. Anything is possible when you don't have to explain it. But in the Theory of evolution, there are very specific rules, and there should be at least an attempt to seek the best explanation for everything. So that's what I'm asking you for. These really aren't such a tough questions. They're all pretty straight-forward really. So I don't see why you're so hesitent to propose an answer for them. [/;quote] This is the misconception of many people here I am afraid. Merle started the thread by taking my words from another thread out of context, twisting my words to say what I was not saying to him. In fact, much of what I said to him about evolution was that if he continued to assert that the TOE was fact, I would attribute it to a belief system and ask him philosophical and theological questions as one would any belief system. He did not like this so he brought my posts here and made an issue that did not exist, then further trying to divert my attention from the other thread to here dispite my repeated attempt to explain to him that I am streatched to have one active thread at a time. So I explained my statements in the context in which they were written. My assumptions being that 1. Science does not hold all the answers to the questions in this life. and 2. E is a theory and as such cannot be called fact without some belief system to back it. That is the purpose of this thread dispite the title. NOw if you disagree with either of these assurtions, then why do you disagree. Any other discussion is off topic unless you want to discuss why people can take anothers posts without permission, take them out of context, twist them to say what is not there and not be help accountable for that action. That would also be on topic. You are asking some good questions and I wouldn't mind discussing them further, but as I have told Merle and all here, this is a topic I currently don't have time to do the research needed to answer completely. The topic of the thread is....1. Science does not hold all the answers to the questions in this life. and 2. E is a theory and as such cannot be called fact without some belief system to back it. In addition to the above, I would ask you how your questions apply to the topic?

There is only one theory, as there is only one that provides any answers of any verifiable, demonstrable, testible, measurable, or applicable nature.
Not at all. When I ask a series of yes or no questions, I generally expect a concordant series of yes or no answers. Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers? Yes or no? Give me your best guess, and some reasoning behind it, if you would please. Then I can use that to better understand your position, and help you better understand mine.

First off, my position is stated above and has been stated repeatedly on this thread. Secondly, I disagree that there is only one theory but as stated above, the thread is dealing with whether or not the TOE is no longer a theory and has now moved into the realm of fact (scientific law) Thirdly, according to the theory I currently lean towards, I would say they are related it they can interbreed successfully producing offspring with no breeding difficulties.

 

[razzelflabben]

Right so far.




Correct.



ok, here we have the problem, and I am not too sure I understand your question.

First, we are defining a species as a population in which the individuals freely mate within the group, but do not normally (in nature) mate with those outside the group.

Now, we can separate that population into different geographical regions or different ecological niches. While separated, they would not be able to mate with the other groups for purely physical reasons. Would that make the sub-groups different species?

No, not in itself. We could check that out by bringing them back together again. If individuals from the different sub-groups freely mate with each other now that they are no longer separated, we conclude they are still the same species.

But what if, even when they have ample opportunity to mate with the other sub-groups, individuals show a distinct preference for mating only with other individuals from their own sub-group?

Something has happened. For one thing, they have developed a way to recognize individuals from their own sub-group, even when the groups have been brought back together. If we examine them carefully, we may be able to determine what that recognition factor is. This preference for mating within one's own sub-group can be an initial factor in speciation.

And what if, even when individuals from two different sub-groups do mate, their offspring are fewer and/or less viable that the offspring of those pairs where the mating is kept within one sub-group?

This suggests a more profound change that simple preference for one's own group. A careful examination of the genetic factors of the two groups may turn up differences that explain the relative lack of reproductive success. Since both sub-groups were originally the same---but are now genetically different---some degree of evolution has occurred. There has been a change in one or both sub-groups which is beginning to create a reprodcutive barrier between them.

If the two sub-groups continue to mate almost exclusively within their own group, further differences could arise. We could find next that when matings do occur between the groups, that all the offspring are sterile. Or that no offspring are born at all. We could find that new morphological or behavioral changes make it impossible for individuals from the two groups to mate at all. (e.g. they may adapt to their own ecological niche in such a way that they come into their breeding season at different times of the year.)

When we get to this point, that reproductive success and/or reproduction and/or mating itself is impossible, we have complete reproductive isolation and two (or more) species where there was formerly one.

Is that clear? Does it explain why increased difficulty in interbreeding is evidence that evolution is occurring?

(Refer back to the post on observed speciation. This is "allopatric speciation" and was produced in the experiment on Drosophila. We have also seen this occur in nature, with Drosophila again in Evolution Canyon in Israel, in the mosquito evolution in the London subway system, in ring species, etc.)

This explains the large definiton of Evolution, but not the TOE. For the understanding I have of the TOE requires this inbreeding to continue, which is what the TOC predict, that the breeding will no longer be viable, for whatever reason. So when these breeding problems arrise, we see the TOC predicting the observations and the TOE making excusses and trying despreately to explain the data, the very same thing they accuse the TOC doing. HUmmm? Overwhelming evidence? HUmmmmm? TOE fact?

 

[Jet Black]

Okay, as I understand the theory of C at it's origin, they heiarchy of evolving would end when species are no longer able to reproduce. So if a lion and a housecat cannot reproduce, they are different kinds.

I am not sure if you are right here. the creationist theories state that at no point in the ancestry of two given kinds, were there ancestors who could breed with one another (ignoring non sexual reproducers) i.e. none of the ancestors of the lion and the cat could breed with one another. The problem in the present day is that it is impossible to determine whether this is the case for any two given animals. I could give you a reprile and a camel, and there is no way for you to check if they are of two different kinds. I could give you a dog and a banana and you could not tell if they are two different kinds.

The main place that E falls short is in the reproductive abilities of animals that are "evolving" if the TOE were to be more than speculation, then we would not see reproductive problems as the interbreeding occurs.

what do you mean, and why not?

 

[razzelflabben]

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! What more can you expect from someone who criticizes research as "your first mistake".

When you answer my questions, Razzelflabben, you'll discover a lot of your transitionals right there, with many more profound ones waiting in the wings, to be introduced in our next exchange, much more than you could ever need.

HuH???? I said that his first mistake was assuming that the TOE could not be true! If one is seeking truth, one begins by accepting the possibility that they may have the right answers or they may have the wrong answers. Anything else is close minded and does not allow for exploration. Oiy did you take things out of context!

 

[razzelflabben]

I have identified some of razzelflaben's problems of communicaton in this thread as lack of understanding of scientific method and misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions about TOE.

Here I am attempting to show the errors and in some cases to correct them.



1. incorrect assumption about science/scientific method
"Evil" is a moral term. Evolution is about biology. Morality is not explained in terms of biology.

2. incorrect assumption about TOE
The TOE does not present evolution as a program to achieve perfection. (This is a pseudo-claim about evolution sometimes presented in creationist literature, but has no place in real science.) Evolution is a program through which species become better adapted to their environment. Since species live in many different environments and ecological niches, it is inappropriate to consider one more "perfect" than another.




1. incorrect assumption about science/scientific method
Because science is derived from and supported by objective evidence in nature, and because we have not fully explored or understood nature, nothing in science is technically "proved" as a mathematics or logical solution is. All theories are provisional in the sense that they reflect our current understanding of nature.

Nevertheless, it is also wrong to assume that we cannot be very certain that a theory is true. There are degrees of uncertainty from a) highly improbable, to b) not probable to c) could go either way, to d) likely to e) very likely to f) so highly probable we may as well treat it as fact. TOE falls in the last category. It is only "unproven" in the highly technical sense that there is always a very minute chance of evidence turning up to refute it. So for all practical purposes TOE has been proven. Nothing in the nature of science or of scientific theory prevents this.



This probably falls in a general category of logical fallacy. The general proposition "Man makes mistakes" cannot be used to support the proposition "This interpretation is mistaken." While humans do make mistakes, they do not always make mistakes. So we cannot assume that any particular interpretation is a mistake. It must be shown in each case that there is a mistake.



1. incorrect assumption about TOE.
TOE does not assert that any creature must change from what it is. Many creatures have not changed much for hundreds of millions of years---much longer that the whole life-span of hominid creatures.

Whether and how fast any creature will evolve depends on a complex interplay of environmental pressures, available genetic diversity and the impact of natural & sexual selection and of genetic drift.

2. incorrect assumption about evolution
evolution is not a "ladder" or "scale" on which species can be ranked as "higher" or "lower". This is basically the religious icon of the Great Chain of Being, which situates species as closer to (higher) or farther away from (lower) God. It is not applicable to the branching process of evolution.




incorrect conclusion about evidence.

Actually, under some circumstances, the existence of human footprints with dinosaur footprints would not be a problem for TOE. The circumstances required would be that not only human traces be that old, but also traces of the plausible ancestors of humans be that old or older.

And this leads into why the last phrase "it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time" is far from being correct.

Lack of evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is only a drop in the bucket. If the TOC claim of simultaneous creation of species is to be taken seriously, we also need evidence of chimp-dino co-existence, of bear-dino co-existence, of eagle-dino co-existence. Further we need evidence of whale-trilobite co-existence, of crocodile-Acanthostega co-existence, of rose-giant club moss co-existence and many many more observations of the ancient existence of modern species alongside that of now extinct species.

Now it is true that we have explored only a small fraction of the earth for fossils. But we have explored fossil sites of various ages all over the world and found thousands upon thousands of fossils. Surely it is a fair assumption that we have explored a representative sample of all potential fossils. (Just as opinion polls don't rely on calling every individual, but on a representative sample of opinion.)

And in this representative sample we have nowhere found even one instance of the sort of overall co-existence of species simultaneous creation calls for. Not one.

So either simultaneous creation did not happen, or the sample we have is not representative. But what could make each and every one of the hundreds of fossil sites explored so different from the norm that not even one of them includes the barest hint of simultaneous creation?

The score ought to read:
creationism 0
evolution: thousands and thousands of fossils from hundreds of fossil sites.

In my book, that is overwhelming evidence for evolution.



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

Suppose two experienced jet engine mechanics have a debate about a new jet engine. On what basis can I, who know zilch about jet engines, decide whether or not an argument on either side is "strong"?

Or if two dentists are debating about a new dental treatment? Or two professors of English literature are debating a point about Shakespeare's treatment of Macbeth?

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

Interesting, I bring the debate back to the original assumptions and you pull out very old posts to make claims about what I do and do not understand instead of addressing the issues at hand. Very interesting indeed!

 

[razzelflabben]

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.



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



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?



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.




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




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

The environment needs to change to get the other form.



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.




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.




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.




Data which supports both theories does not distinguish between them.



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.

You know what, you can claim whatever you want, I don't have time to go over all this again with you. The claims made at the beginning of this thread were that 1. The TOE is theory not fact, and there is not overwhelming evidence to make it fact, and 2. science cannot and does not hold all the answers to life. If you want to address these issues, and show how this post addresses them, then please do otherwise, I must take my leave of this discussion for I simply don't have time to keep showing people how there are still unanswered questions to the TOE. If you want to discuss the assertions made from the start, I can stick around. If you want to argue E, I must leave, it requires time I simply don't currently have, maybe at a later date.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

This is why reading into people's posts what is not there is just plain wrong. There should be some rule against it, but then again, that is what started this entire post so I guess, it is common place of some here on the forum.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Already discussed this and really lack the energy right now to do so again.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You know what, you can claim whatever you want, I don't have time to go over all this again with you. The claims made at the beginning of this thread were that 1. The TOE is theory not fact, and there is not overwhelming evidence to make it fact, and

Okay, you think there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. We think there is. How are we going to resolve this issue? It seems to me that the only way to tell is to actually look at the evidence. But you seem to be so disinterested when we get to details. Why is that? How can you insist the evidence is not overwhelming if you refuse to discuss the evidence?

2. science cannot and does not hold all the answers to life.

Did anybody here dispute that point?

If you want to address these issues, and show how this post addresses them, then please do otherwise, I must take my leave of this discussion for I simply don't have time to keep showing people how there are still unanswered questions to the TOE.

Oh, you are trying to tell us that there are opportunities for further research in evolution? We already knew that. But thanks for telling us about it anyway. I am sure you intended to be helpful.

 

[gluadys]

I still have many unanswered questions and therefore do not adopt the TOE as fact.

It would be very helpful if, instead of continually alluding to "many unanswered questions" you would say what the questions are.

I expect most of them can be answered.

But when you don't reveal what the questions are, it seems as if you do not want to discover the answers, because then you would not be able to hide behind the excuse of "many unanswered questions".

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.

Where have I said differently? I fully agree with this. But we are not talking about finding all the answers to life. We are talking about ID, creationism and evolution as alternate biological theories.

Science cannot prove beyond resonable doubt the TOE. Accept it!

If you altered that to "beyond all possible doubt", I would agree with it. But I would say science has definitely proven TOE beyond "reasonable" doubt.

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.

It is, if their seeing "differently" is also seeing "incorrectly".

What I do not accept is that you can rule out the other theories based on the evidence.

I have given you reasons to rule out the other theories. Show me where my reasons are wrong.

Now when there is enough evidence for science to make the TOE into what is considered a scientific law,

Sorry--this is more evidence that you do not understand scientific method or scientific terminology. Theories do not become "laws". Laws are (usually) succinct statements of relationships (often mathematical) seen in nature. Like E=mC^2 or the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. Laws summarize a class of observations. They do not explain the observations.

That is what theories are for: to explain the observations. Laws are often part of the body of observations which theories attempt to explain.

So theories are already "above" scientific laws as it were, since they are more or less successful attempts to explain why the laws work as they do.

Let me state it as clearly as I can. Producing and validating theories is the major work of science. Discovering and formulating laws is part of that effort, but only a part. So it is pointless to wait around for somebody to say we now have a "law" instead of a "theory" of evolution. Science does not work like that. Having a well-established "theory" is the goal of the scientist, and in evolution we have a very well-established theory.

or that there is enough evidence to disregard the root of the other theories,

Well, let's look at that root again:

1. God made all living things.

This is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of faith. I, personally, agree with it as a statement of faith. But I know it is not testable or falsifiable by scientific means. Therefore, it cannot be part of a scientific theory.

2. all things reproduce after their kind.

Here we cannot test the statement until "kind" is defined.

But if we take it in the broadest sense that children are similar to their parents, this is not a theoretical statement. It is an observation. An observation is not a theory; it is what needs to be explained by the theory.

Now, most versions of creationism define "kind" as something more than a species, but not as large as the group of all living things. In short they would consider it possible to group living things into a plurality of kinds. Unfortunately, they do not ever give a more precise definition. If they did, the statement would be testable.

Finally, let us look at the question of variety. Living things come in an enormous variety of forms. Why?

TOE addresses itself especially to that question. How did we get such a variety of living organisms? Especially since we observe that children are always similar to their parents?

The root statement you have posted does not even address this question. Taken as it stands one would have to assume that the variety of living organisms is limited to the original number of kinds. i.e. that kinds are fixed and do not vary.

The statement does not even assume (much less attempt to explain) variation within the kind. For all we know, from this statement, there is no variation within the kind. There is certainly no explanation for variation within the kind.

So it is not just "certain aspects" such as young-earth and flood geology that are a problem for TOC. The root itself is completely inadequate to explain our observations, including its key observation, that living things reproduce after their kind.

TOE on the other hand fully explains both that key observation and the origin of the bewildering variety of living organisms.

a) children are similar to their parents because they inherit a genetic code that programs their devolopment along the same line as that of their parents;
b) variety is due to changes in the genetic code, which change the program inherited from the parent, and so change the development pattern seen in the children.
c) the accumulation of particular variants in particular lineages generates different "kinds" of species, which can be plotted on a phylogenetic "tree".

TOC=no explanation
TOE=full explanation

The one that stands our formost in my mind right now, is the difficulty of new species to reproduce.

There have been several posts on this issue now. Have they answered this question? Are there questions still outstanding? Do feel free to ask.

The theory is changing to take on a more C feel than it has had in the past.

Please read the opening post in "The Evolution of Creationism". (It is a slight re-write of a post earlier in this thread.) The reason TOC and TOE are only a thread's difference apart is that creationism has changed its tune drastically. The basics of TOE have not changed since Darwin. There have been additions (notably the input from genetics and molecular biology) and refinements (such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "selfish gene" theories), but no fundamental change from "common descent with modification via natural selection".

Creationism, on the other hand, has changed from a firm adherence to fixity of breeds (sub-species) to total acceptance of evolution within "kinds" which are left undefined and could include groups as wide as phyla. Creationism masks this acceptance of TOE by using different terminology (e.g. adaptability) but it is clearly describing what is known to science as "evolution".

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.

See above on the relationship of "law" to "theory". What I am affirming is

1. TOE is a very well-established theory.
2. No other theory exists which explains the variety of living organisms we observe around us. The "theories" which claim to do so fail miserably.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am not sure if you are right here. the creationist theories state that at no point in the ancestry of two given kinds, were there ancestors who could breed with one another (ignoring non sexual reproducers) i.e. none of the ancestors of the lion and the cat could breed with one another. The problem in the present day is that it is impossible to determine whether this is the case for any two given animals. I could give you a reprile and a camel, and there is no way for you to check if they are of two different kinds. I could give you a dog and a banana and you could not tell if they are two different kinds.

I am basing this information off the root theory as put forth in the Bible. God created living creatures after their kind and that they reproduce after their kind. There are many different beliefs that can be read into this text, but the original does not go beyond to make these assumptions. Therefore, if during the so called process of evolution, we see reproductive problems and the reproduction stops, that is something that would be predicted by the original theory and has been proven by scientific observations.

what do you mean, and why not?

If E says that man for instance, is a decendant of (whatever the correct term is) early primates, then reproductive abilities would have to have been complete and plausible all the way down the ancestrial tree. Now when we experiment with the evolution of species in the scientific arena, we inevitably see some reproductive problems occuring. Now we can explain this in several ways as we have already discussed, but that is not a prediction that the TOE would have made. The TOE would have predicted that the reproductive abilities would be in tact and strong in order for the continued evolvment of the species. Now I have been told that I am saying this because I do not understand the theory of E so maybe you can explain to me what I am missing in the theory. Before you do however, let me make it clear that unlike some E I am not claiming that this disproves any theory (including E), only that the so called overwhelming evidence leaves big holes that make it less than overwhelming proof.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Not really. Consider the time differential between the disappearance of dinosaur fossils from the fossil record and the first appearance of hominid fossils. What is subjective about that?

And is it a matter of conjecture as to which theory best answers the question as to why that time difference exists?

I can tell you that there are still many holes in the TOE that science cannot address.

It seems these are not so much holes in TOE than blinders on your mind. Do you actualy read anything anyone has posted here, or on the web-sites and in the books they have recommended?

Why animals today are becomeing extinct rather than evolving

Some animals are becoming extinct for the same reasons species became extinct in the past. They are not able to cope with a changing environment and new environmental stresses. Other orgamisms are evolving to adapt.

Please do not ask for examples as you have already been provided with many examples. Reread the thread.

why there are reproductive problems when crossing species lines

In the first place, why would there not be?
Secondly, read the recent posts devoted to this topic. If they do not explain this to your satisfaction come back with a specific question.

how we can know history when the only way to prove history is first hand accounts

Whoever told you that does not know what they are talking about. There are many ways to know about historic events ---recent and ancient---without first hand accounts. You have been supplied already with some examples we rely on in daily life. In fact, you recounted one yourself (children, candy, pink panther glove).

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.

Do your best. May I suggest a book which I found very helpful on this question. The Co-operative Gene: How Mendel's Demon Explains the Evolution of Complex Beings by Mark Ridley. It is clearly and simply written for the scientific layperson and contains plenty of illustrations which will appeal to a visually oriented person like yourself.

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.

You have to remember that in the case we are considering, science began by assuming TOC. So its answers have been examined and found wanting. That is why science now uses TOE instead. When ID first appeared on the scene, it was given serious scientific consideration. And I expect that if ID research turns up some really puzzling complexity, it will be considered again. The only thing hindering ID at this point is that it has not successfully identified a genuine irreducible complexity or a means for distiguishing natural from intelligent design.

With TOC falsified and ID in abeyance, the only viable theory going is TOE. That doesn't mean TOE will always be the theory of choice. If and when someone comes up with something better, science will go with that.

(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.)

Actually, at the time TOC was abandoned by science, the most popular form of TOC was old-earth creationism. OEC was adopted by most Christians in the early 19th century and remained the dominant form of TOC for nearly 150 years. By the time young-earth creationism came into vogue again, science had long since adopted TOE and didn't really care about new fashions in creationist theology. Although Morris' seminal book was published in 1950, it took a while for YEC to get a good foothold, even in conservative churches. I didn't even hear about YEC until the early 1980s. I couldn't believe creationists were turning back to such silliness. Old-earth creationism at least limits its criticism of science to evolution, but YEC throws out all of science.

So, sorry, you cannot blame YEC for science's indifference to TOC. It was OEC that was invalidated originally.

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.

I am not making that assumption, and neither is the scientific community. The possibilities you have put forth have been considered seriously and commented on in some detail.

Now I don't understand this at all, for the root theory of C has not changed at least since our biblical records date.

But you are unique in trying to base TOC on only the root theory. Historically, TOC has made claims beyond the root theory. It is those claims that have been modified. Besides, as shown above, even the root theory is not adequate as a scientific theory.

And the TOE is apparently not the same theory as I was taught many years ago,

Key word: apparently

I would also remind you that you studied TOE in high school. It is entirely possible that you misinterpreted what the text and the teacher said. It is also possible that the teacher was not well-versed in this aspect of science, and misintepreted the text.

And--we have much more information about how evolution works today. I expect you learned very little about DNA and how alterations in DNA bring about alterations in species. I don't think any high school course yet explains natural selection well, though I hope to see improvement.

In short it is more likely that there have been big changes in your understanding of TOE than that TOE has made a lot of changes.

so how is it that the TOC has adopted the TOE,

See opening post on "Evolution of creationism thread".

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.

I can understand your perspective. But the change has all been one-way: TOC to TOE. TOE has adopted nothing from TOC. The changes in TOC have all been toward adopting more of TOE (but without admitting it.) If this trend continues, TOC will simply dissolve into TOE. (Though creationists may still not admit it.)

 

[gluadys]

This explains the large definiton of Evolution, but not the TOE. For the understanding I have of the TOE requires this inbreeding to continue, which is what the TOC predict, that the breeding will no longer be viable, for whatever reason. So when these breeding problems arrise, we see the TOC predicting the observations and the TOE making excusses and trying despreately to explain the data, the very same thing they accuse the TOC doing. HUmmm? Overwhelming evidence? HUmmmmm? TOE fact?

Well, then there is something problematical in your understanding of TOE. What did you learn that makes you think TOE requires inbreeding to continue?

How would you ever get new species (which by definition do NOT interbreed with their parental species) if inbreeding must continue?

As I understand it, and I think I have a good, if not detailed grasp of TOE, it requires precisely the opposite. It requires mechanisms which set up barriers to breeding where those barriers did not formerly exist.

Please explain why you think TOE requires continued inbreeding. I have never heard such a claim before.

 

[gluadys]

The claims made at the beginning of this thread were that 1. The TOE is theory not fact, and there is not overwhelming evidence to make it fact

A claim you have failed to establish as true.

and 2. science cannot and does not hold all the answers to life.

A claim no one disputes.

If you want to address these issues, and show how this post addresses them,

I have been doing nothing else but address the first issue.

This post addresses them as follows:

re fraud---you offered this as a possible reason for not accepting some of the evidence for evolution as overwhelming. That is what this response addresses.

re evolution of neotonous salamander--addresses definition of evolution and that it is an observed fact.

chicken/Archeopteryx ---addresses definition of species/kind and observed fact of transitional fossils as required by TOE.

immaturity/neotony---clarification of terms (doesn't address the issue, but always helpful).

"salamander" = Order Caudata--deals with definition of species/kind

I must take my leave of this discussion for I simply don't have time to keep showing people how there are still unanswered questions to the TOE. If you want to discuss the assertions made from the start, I can stick around. If you want to argue E, I must leave, it requires time I simply don't currently have, maybe at a later date.

No one denies there are unanswered questions. But there are a lot fewer unanswered questions than you assert. And even with the unanswered questions, the current evidence for TOE is overwhelming, and evolution is an observed fact.

So by all means, run away. This is what always happens when creationists confront evidence they do not want to deal with. You just lasted longer than most. Thanks.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Knowledge and wisdom and truth cannot be found by closing our eyes to the possibilities around us.

Then why did you ignore the whole content of Merle's post and ask where the transitionals are after he already told you?

 

[Jet Black]

Please explain why you think TOE requires continued inbreeding. I have never heard such a claim before.

well given that the populations maintain a constant siye, inbreeding is inevitable, hence y-chromosome adam and Mt-Eve

 

[gluadys]

And remember, according the the arguements on this thread, if the theory stands or falls on the definition of species, then the definition cannot be fuzzy

On the contrary, it must be, because it has to follow nature, and it is nature that is "drawing" the "fuzzy" lines. To set up a "non-fuzzy" definition would be to set up a false definition.

So what definition shall we go with now so that we can erase the questions as to species lines and the reproductive problems therein associated.

Same ones we have been using.

Biological definition of species (if interbreeding is normal and successful, the populations are one species; if interbreeding does not occur or is unsuccessful, the populations are different species; if successful interbreeding is somewhere in the muddy middle, the populations are closely related, but may be on the way to becoming different species.)

Evolution = changes in species due to changes in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. May (but does not necessarily) lead to speciation (aka macro-evolution).

The observations that for as long as we have been studying life, animals have reproduced after their kind. Kind can be used to refer to species under the same guidelines as above. That is one of the first that comes to mind.

I specifically asked for an observation that would be true only of TOC, not one on which TOC and TOE agree. Now whether or not this definition meets that criterion, I am not sure, because I am not sure what sort of boundary you place on "kind". You say it can refer to species. But you do not say if it can also refer to genera, orders, phyla, kingdoms.

If "kind" refers only to species, then we can say definitely that animals do not always reproduce after their kind, since we have seen that one species can evolve into a different species.

If "kind" can refer to a group as broad as a phylum, there is so much space granted for evolution within the kind as to make it pointless to distinguish between TOC and TOE.

If "kind" is broader than a species, but not so broad as to include all living forms, we need to pinpoint where a kind ends in order to test the theory.

Actually, you fail to see how much E has changed to adapt many of the original parts of the TOC. I was totally amazed when I can here and read these posts how similar the two are becomeing. Now you can claim this to be whatever you want, but what it does is prove that one cannot be falsified without the other also being falsified. Aspects of either can be falsified, but the root theories cannot.

Well, such aspects of TOC as simultaneous creation of species and global flood have been falsified. Depending on how it is defined, the existence of "kinds" may or may not be falsified. (The closer the "kind" comes to including all life forms, the less falsifiable it is; the closer it comes to the definition of "species" or "genus" the more falsifiable it is. In the case of kind=species, it has been falsified.)

So, if the only aspects of TOC which remain are those which are identical to TOE, then only TOE is left as a viable theory. TOC no longer has an independant existence.

I ask for someone to show me how illogical it is, you provide evidence to back the claim but ask me to add to that logic the word existed.

Because, when all is said and done, that is the real issue. Avoiding the word "existed" is avoiding the evidence.

Now what I can tell you what I believe, I believe that it is possible that man existed after the dinosaurs, but that it is possible that man coexisted with the dinosaurs. I know what the fossil records indicate but the fossil record still allow resonable doubt

Not the fossil record we have. And that is the only one that counts.

It is faith, not science, which believes in evidence not yet seen.

 

[gluadys]

Part of the thoery [TOC]fits your explaination, part of it is a matter of faith, but part of the theory is very testable from a scientific standpoint and many scientific observations have observed it to be correct.

What scientific observations. So far you have named only one. Any others?

I have seen both within the TOC.

Please clarify, what have you seen?

And yet C has done just that.

Reference? Example? Please describe how TOC has done this. Or point us to a reference where we can find out.

Which is my point exactly. Theory is not fact, it is theory.

No one is disputing that. What we are saying is that evolution (the process) is an observed fact. So there is both a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution.

The main place that E falls short is in the reproductive abilities of animals that are "evolving" if the TOE were to be more than speculation, then we would not see reproductive problems as the interbreeding occurs.

Why not? Reproductive problems are evidence that evolution is happening. So why would we not expect to see them?

...the thread is dealing with whether or not the TOE is no longer a theory and has now moved into the realm of fact (scientific law)

Has it not sunk in yet that scientific theories do not become facts or laws. They explain facts and laws (laws being a summary of a group of observations). That is why you can have both a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution.

Thirdly, according to the theory I currently lean towards, I would say they are related it they can interbreed successfully producing offspring with no breeding difficulties.

This comes down to saying that only very closely related species---ones which can still interbreed---have a common ancestor. A horse and a donkey are not related through common ancestry because their offspring have breeding difficulties.

Is that what you are trying to say?

On that basis, for example, if some of those 124 + salamander species do not and cannot interbreed with each other, (and we know this is true from observation) then they are not related to each other and must have been created originally as different kinds.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Speaking of "unansered questions".....​

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?​

Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?​

Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?​

Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?​

Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?​

Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?​

Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?​

Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?​

Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? ​

Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? ​

Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?​

Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?​

Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?​

Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?​

Which of these are related? Which of these are created? ​

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?​

Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?​

Are all panthers related to housecats, scimitar cats and all other felids?​

Are all felids related to civets and other viverrids?​

Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other Carnivora?

Are all species of ducks related to each other?
Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

Are modern terrestrial scorpions related to extinct aquatic scorpions?
Are all scorpions related to Cambrian Eurypterids?
Are Eurypterids related to horseshoe crabs?
Are horseshoe crabs related to trilobites?

Are Caucasians, (modern versions of Cro-magnon) related to all other extant human demes?
Are Homo sapiens related to any or all other species of Homo?
Are any Homo species related to any other Hominines?
Are any of the Hominines related to any other Hominids?
Are any of the Hominids related to any other Hominoids?
Are any Hominoids related to other Catarrhine primates?
Are any Catarrhines related to any Platyrrhines?

Please answer yes or no to each of these, or any one of them if these are too many. Just be prepared to explain how you determined that in each case.