Challenging Evolution

[Jet Black]

I believe you mean Verona?

of course I do.

 

[gluadys]

okay so you have won this but that's just because I'm a twelve year old kid and haven't done my howework. Although as a finnishing thought: the bible has been proven to be the absolute most accurate record of history found. If this is true then why wouldn't it be accurate on the times of abraham and noah and company?

Because not everything in the bible is history. Some of it is story---and the story of Noah is one of them. Most of the stories of Abraham too, though he may have been an historical figure as well. It was not uncommon for legends to gather around a well-known leader.

btw, since you are only 12, you may find talkorigins heavy going at times.

Here is a site that might be easier for you, and has neat inter-active quizzes as well.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/museum/k-12.html

P.S. Don't be afraid to go into the teacher's section.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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.

1. There is no "theory" of creation.
(a) there is no explanation of properties or function.
(b) there are no experiments to perform for repeatable results
(c) there are no falsifiable predictions for future observations
(d) there is no process of critical analysis or peer-review to scrutinize these claims objectively.
Creation meets exactly none of the criteria required for any scientific theory.

2. The hierarchy is a structure of descendant groups within parent groups that was originally divised by a creationist, Carl Linn, AKA Carolus Linneaus, "the father of taxonomy". This was the man who first discovered that humans were in fact apes, and he realized this about 100 years before Darwin was born. Linnean taxonomy initially grouped all cats, including lions and housecats, into a single group, Felis. But further studies of morphology and genetics had revealed that the "cat family" was in fact divided into a half-dozen sub-groups or genus:
Genus Panthera includes tigers, leopards, snow-leopards, jaguars, and lions; Panthera leo. There are currently three surviving species of lion.

Genus Felis contains dozens of species including cougars, ocelots, margay, pampas, flat-headed, fishing, serval, leopard cat, marbled cat, Jaguarundi, and the common house-cat; Felis sylvestris. Within that one species, there are another couple dozen distinct breeds, some without tails, some without hair, in other words, they are a very diverse sub-group.

Genus Acinonyx includes both surviving species of cheetah, cats who lack the retractable claws of all other modern cats.
Genus lynx contains, well, lynx obviously, but both the American and Eurasian varieties which again are different species that do not interbreed to produce viable offspring.

This is to say nothing of Machairodonts, a separate extinct sub-family of felids that consisted of two genera, Homotherium (several species) and Smilodon, the most famous of which was Smilodon fatalis, "the sabre-toothed tiger."

There were other extinct genera that were a transitional branch between modern cats and early viverrids, (civets, meerkats, bearcats, and genets) but we'll ignore thos for the moment. Looking just at the innumerable breeds within the few dozen species within these half-dozen (or so) genera, how many distinctly different "created kinds" do you think we're really talking about here? How many cats did Ubar-Tutu have on board his ark?

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.

No, they haven't. There is no part of the creationist model that is in any way testible, and no scientific tests have ever supported creationism over naturalist explanations. But you're more than welcome to try and back up your claim. In fact, I insist that you do.

"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."
--A Brief History of Time

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

That you have seen neither in the "model" (not Theory) of creationism. But you're more than welcome to try and back up your claim. In fact, I insist that you do.

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.

No it hasn't. Not in any way. But you're more than welcome to try and back up your claim. In fact, I insist that you do.

"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."

Wh

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

Is atomic Theory a fact?
Is music Theory a fact?
Is calculus Theory a fact?
Is physics Theory a fact?
Is gravity Theory a fact?

These all seem to be facts because they are all studies of facts.
Evolution Theory is the study of repeatably observable, objectively demonstrable facts of evolution. You "point" is refuted.

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.

You don'tunderstand it at all,. which is why it is so funny that you keep pretending to have found errors that none of the best and brightest of the world's most experienced geniuses and Nobel laureates could ever find even after decades of intense study. You creationists certainly are a confident lot. But I assure you that confidence is grossly-misplaced.

We do see reproductive problems with inbreeding. That's why inbreeding isn't a factor of evolution. Viable, reproductive populations branch out into muliple distinct families flowering out of one common ancestral population. There is no inbreeding and no hybridization involved.

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)

Don't. Its dead-wrong. Try these instead:

Biological evolution is the study of (usually subtle) cumulative changes in the morphology, physiology and genetic composition of reproductive populations over successive generations; which often results in increased biodiversity when continued variation in genetic isolation leads to a divergence of two or more distinct descendant branches from one ancestral population.

Evolution Theory is the study of the observed facts of speciation and the ability of various selective pressures to increase biodiversity as described above. There are many known or hypothesized mechanisms and aspects of evolution Theory to examine including punctuated equilibrium and of course natural selection. My favorite is taxonomy: a means of systematic classification of life-forms that reveals distinct relationships of "groups within groups" that link everything alive today with other groups in the fossil record. This includes many transitional species which appear in the geologic column in a chronology that indicates a fluid sucession of subtle variations over many generations, so that everything that has ever lived is evidently related to everything else through a series of succession in common ancestry. Systematic taxonomy has been greatly refined and built upon in the last couple hundred years, and can now be cross-confirmed by DNA sequencing, making it a twin-nested hierarchy that is still one of the most profound proofs of macroevolution.

"Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa."
--John Wilkins, Talk.Origins

None of these imply hybridization or inbreeding.

I have absolutely no interest in converting anyone to any theory.

Good, because you have absolutely no possibility of doing so.

My only agenda here is to get people to see that theory is theory and not fact.

Well, you've failed that. Theory is the study of facts. Thus there can be no "ToC" because there are no creation facts to study. A fact could be synonemous with evidence. Creation lacks any of this at all, and is limited to faith-based notions instead.

If you agree with this, I really have nothing more in my interest to discuss with you at this time.

But of course I can't agree with this because you've been dead wrong about everything you've tried to assert so far.

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.

You're right. It is a common misconception that evolutionary studies constitutes some sort of faith-based belief system, but they do not. So of course whatever philosophical or theological questions you could ask about that would be irrelevent.


My assumptions being that 1. Science does not hold all the answers to the questions in this life. [/quote]True. But as far as I can see, science has most of them, and religion has exactly none.

and 2. E is a theory and as such cannot be called fact without some belief system to back it.

It is a fact simply because it doesn't need a belief system to back it. Quite the opposite in fact. Evolution survives not on belief, but because it can withstand critical inquiry and indepth analysis in peer review. All of this is based entirely on evidence and experiments; facts, facts which are literally undeniable once understood.

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.

No, this babbling of yours is off-topic. My series of queries, which you still have refused to answer, are still more on-topic than anything else you could want to discuss.

You want to argue that science doesn't have all the answers. So I have shown you a few dozen questions science has a very definite and solidly testable answer for, but for which you have no answer, nor any interest in even finding one.

First off, my position is stated above and has been stated repeatedly on this thread.

Then your position is false because it is based on a few faulty premises.

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)

There's another false premise. A fact is synonemous with evidence, not scientific law. A fact is an element of data which is known to be true because it is consistently demonstrable. That allele frequencies do change in reproductive populations over successive generations is a demonstrable fact, therefore evolution is a demonstrable fact. The study of this fact, (like the study of any other fact) is called Theory.

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.

What could? Lions and housecats? Panthers and felines? Geese and ducks? Synapsids and Diapsids? I gave you quite a list. Could you please be more specific. At this point, simple yes or no answers will suffice, but you need to let me know which quesion you're answering.

The "Theory" [faith-based speculation] you "lean toward" [cling to dogmatically] is nothing of the kind. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you apparently don't want to either.

 

[Aron-Ra]

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!

No I didn't. You ignored everything Merle said about his discovery in the university's volumes on evolution and transitional species. This doesn't fit your world-view, and you have closed your mind to it, so you have excused and ignored everything he said, just like I said you did.

Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you.

 

[USincognito]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've read most of them and I'm still at a loss for what the supposedly unanswered questions concerning evolution are? I keep reading there are "many" but the only ones that have actually been presented actually have been answered.

I also keep reading that there isn't overwhelming evidence for evolution, and yet I have read post after post demonstrating that there is overwhelming evidence. We find transitional fossils exactly as TOE predicts. We find DNA evidence exactly as TOE predicts. We find that as the environment of the Earth changed the speicies on Earth changed exactly as TOE predicts. How are the libraries and museums full of mountains of evidence for TOE somehow "not overwhelming?"

I just don't get it.

 

[razzelflabben]

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?


Did anybody here dispute that point?


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.

I do not have to look at every fossil studied to know that the fossil record is not enough evidence to say without doubt that the TOE is fact. You act as if I am saying that the fossil evidence disproves TOE?!? All I am saying is that it is inconclusive evidence. Any good scientist will tell you that more is needed to make a solid case and yet, I say this, and you insist on looking at every fossil. The fossil record defintately indicates a possibility for the TOE, but it does not rule out the original TOC. It does not prove without doubt (overwhelming evidence) that the TOE is truth. How much clearer can I be? Looking at every fossil will not change the fact that more than a fossil record is needed to prove the TOE with accuracy. You say youselves that it is not proved, but that one set of observations is sufficient to say we have overwhelming proof? Oh, I forget about all the new species that have reproductive problems that are our means of seeing this diversity of living things on our earth, that have all come about from 1 living cell. Now when I was in school, it was taught that all living things evolved from one living cell, now I am seeing that some E have a litter broader interpretation, and that is good, but is not sufficient proof that the TOE is fact, and the TOC is falsified.

 

[razzelflabben]

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".



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.



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.




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




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



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.





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



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




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".




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.

Some of this I simply will not take the time to go over again. But I would like to point you to post # 639 the following paragraph was posted in that post as a beginning to the questions that the TOE still cannot answer. Now it is only a beginning but shows that there are a lot of unanswered questions.

razz..quote....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.


But since I haven't put forth any questions or indicated where the holes in the theory are, I guess we can totally skip this post okay?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Not interbreeding within the species, but breeding. Take the mule for instance, if a horse and donkey produce an offspring, that will carry both the horse and donkey traits, then the resulting animal, if adapting would then need to be fully able to reproduce or the evolution process stops. Now I know that the mule is not necessarily an evolution for survival so don't get off on that tangant, it is simply an example. Another problem is the small population base of the new species that would cause genetic problems in the interbreeding necessary for the species to become large enough to be a viable part of this world. It is not the interbreeding problems with the parent species that create the problems, it is the breeding down the road that create the problems. Though we do not see this in every case of "evolution" studied, it does exist in a fair number of cases and brings into question the validity of the evolutionary process, unless one limits the evolutionary process to a much wider base as the TOC does in the Gen account of the theory.

 

[The Bellman]

there are still many holes in the TOE that science cannot address.

Are there? Let's see...

Why animals today are becomeing extinct rather than evolving

Nope. Evolutionary theory, in fact, PREDICTS this.

why there are reproductive problems when crossing species lines

Nope. Evolutionary theory, in fact, PREDICTS this, too.

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.

Nope. In fact, this is false. If it were true, forensic science wouldn't exist. First hand accounts are, in fact, a very poor way of "proving" something, as any cop will tell you - eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Circumstantial evidence is far better.

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.

Nope. Would be a problem if it were true, but it isn't. ALL other theories have been examined and found to be false. Science doesn't waste time revisiting already falsified theories.

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.

Simply false. Creationism has had man, many advocates since the birth of evolutionary theory. They have all tried repeatedly to modify creationism to make it valid science. All have failed.

But since I haven't put forth any questions or indicated where the holes in the theory are, I guess we can totally skip this post okay?

We can, since it doesn't indicate a single "hole" in the theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

A claim you have failed to establish as true.





A claim no one disputes.





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




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.

Thanks, I haven't run away, only limiting the discussion to what is and is not relavent to the issue, and each and every scientific observation is not relavant for it does nothing to close the holes, only futher explains why the conclusions that were drawn were drawn.

What you seem to be missing so nicely is what the TOC says. The theory is put forth in the Gen. account of the bible and leaves a lot of room for possibilities. It is this theory that I hold the closest too. Because no one has offered a better term for what I believe, I assume the TOC to best discribe my tendancies in the explainations of the origins of life. Now with all the evidences you have present, the only one that would bring real true questions to the TOC as put forth in Gen. would be whether or not there was a world wide flood and the Gen. account of C does not specify flood or not, that comes later in the book. The fossil record, as inconclusive as it is does not diprove the Gen account of creation but does allow for other possible explainations.

I do not know all the areguements you are discussing about the TOC because I do not hold to any strain of the theory, only the root theory. I may be unique, but I do not think for one moment that I am the only person out there that holds to the original theory of C as pur forth in Gen. Within that original theory, you have shown no evidence to disprove the theory, which is the opposite of your claims. You have shown evidence that supposedly supports the TOE but the evidence further supports the original TOC and is what the theory would predict when taken literally from the bible. There are a couple of fossils which would present questions, but they are not in direct conflict, only the conclusions could be. So by your definition, the TOC is the sounder theory and since the TOC far outdates the TOE one would have to wonder how E can claim that the TOC is adapting to the TOE rather than the other way around.

If you want to argue about different aspects of the TOC that have been held over the years, I think you would have to talk with someone who has held those views, for I do not know all of them. What I am argueing is that the TOC is what we read in the Gen account and that theory has not been disproven or proven to be less accurate than the current evidence science has. The TOC as put forth in Gen, has not changed over the years to adapt to the evidence, it has stayed a consistant and has continued to be supported by the observations. Compare that to the TOE. The TOE cannot answer many questions asked of it, they rely on the fossil record as their primary support, they have changed the theory over time, they make claims about other theories that they cannot support, etc. Hummm, the stronger theory?????? Creationism as put forth in the Gen account!!!!

 

[DJ_Ghost]

razz..quote....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,

Except that they are both things we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct, not holes in it that it can not explain.

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

Actually as any police officer will tell you the least reliable testimony is eye witness evidence. Besides which, science relies on falsificationism and not verificationism. Whilst you are correct in saying that this never gives 100%, the margin for error on anything that has withstood so intense a barrage of scientific attempts to falsify it as the theory of evolution, is so small that we can say with near absolute certainty that it is correct. You are trying to take the infinitesimally small figure that separates the theory from absolute proof and inflate it to the point where it is a major gap, which it is not.

Then we can deal with the questions that arise when science assumes only one theory and therefore does not look into the answers the other theories provide for the data.

Except that this is not what has happened with the theory of evolution at all, in fact it just is not how science works anymore at all. We look to falsify a theory not to prove it, so people have looked at alternatives, seen them either falsified or fail to explain the things the theory of evolution explains and so reject them. Evolution is the only theory to have survived the process, no the only theory to have been considered.

(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.

Well then, if the theory of creation was thrown out it is because the falsifying evidence undermined its bedrock assumptions, where as if the theory of evolution was kept but modified it is because the bedrock assumptions where not undermined but one or two of the peripheral hypothesise where falsified, again this is how science works. Theories are a bundle of ideas, some of which are essential to the theory as a whole and some of which are not. If falsifying evidence only falsifies a peripheral hypothesis but not the core ones, then the theory itself is not falsified but needs to be modified, if however falsifying evidence falsifies the bedrock assumptions, the entire theory is blown out of the water and is abandoned, and an alternative theory must be found.

Mark J Smith explains it all much better than I can in “Social Science in Question” (Sage Press, London 1998). I should imagine the natural scientists on the forum can each give a reference of an author from their own field who explains it more clearly than I can as well.

Ghost

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Huh? I did not ignore Merle's post. In fact I have never ignored Merle's posts even though there have been many times I should have.

I told Merle, that one cannot assume to know truth if one is seeking truth. Hum, that is a rough one. In order to truely seek truth, we must do a couple of things, 1. never assume to know truth
2. be open to the possibilities
3. accept the answers that are given then evaluate those answers rather than reading into them for what truth they might hold.
4. never stop looking.

Merle's post showed two fundamental problems with seeking truth, one he assumed he knew truth before he started seeking answers. Never a good sign. Two he now assumes to know truth. Which ultimately means that Merle didn't learn what he claims to have learned, because he still assumes to know truth. Someone who is truely seeking truth, never assumes to have found it, he may believe what he has found to be truthful, but he never assumes to have found truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

I asked, 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.

You change the point and this is suppose to be an explaination of how it is an illogical statement. Come now!

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

What I am saying is that by the TOC, any animal that cannot reproduce after itself and be a fully reproductive intity, was created seperately or became extinct. I hope I said that right, my head is hurting.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

According to the theory, the breaking line is where ever the creature can no longer be a viable breeder.

 

[The Bellman]

According to the theory, the breaking line is where ever the creature can no longer be a viable breeder.

You STILL avoid giving a definition of "kind" or even acknowledging that "species" won't do it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, I am still busy addressing the issues at hand. See my other posts.

But although these quotes are from old posts, you keep repeating these concepts again and again (except the first one).

So I felt it worthwhile to show why these concepts are incorrect.


Btw, I would appreciate a specific reply to this section:

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?

What do you want me to say, that the fossil record is overwhelming proof? That would be a lie. If I convicted someone based on similar evidence, I would be a very poor jurer, for the evidence is very simply not conclusive enough to support the claims of the TOE that all living matter evolved from one living organism. I does suggest the TOE but is far from proof that it is the only possibility. It is like trying to convict a murderer by one piece of evidence. It requires many differnent peices of evidence combined to convice a murderer. Yet you want to use only one piece of evidence to support a theory. It is not a matter of whether or not the fossil record supports the TOE, but rather if the fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE and it simply is not enough evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. If I understand this correctly, you are saying that ALL "species" descended from a common ancestor must be inter-fertile.

And if there are problems with inter-fertility, that is evidence the "species" do not have a common ancestor.

Is that right!

Whooo-eee! That does explain a lot of your "unanswered questions".

And where you got the idea that this is a prediction of TOE is beyond me. TOE has never predicted this. It has predicted the very opposite.

Let's go back to the fact that the very definition of "species" is a population that is reproductively isolated from other populations. Members of one species do not normally reproduce with others, and if they do there are usually some barriers to fully successful reproduction.

Hence, when TOE says that two or more species have a common ancestor, it is saying that at one point there were no reproductive barriers (population of common ancestor), but at a later point in time reproductive barriers appeared which divided the single population into groups which are now reproductively isolated (different species).

In short, TOE says the opposite of what you are stating: that different descendants of a common ancestor will have problems interbreeding and may not be able to interbreed at all.

Got it?

So let me get this right, you want us to believe that an organism started evolving and then suddenly decided that it was time to not change any more so it magically stopped the breeding process. Then later, it desided that it was times to change some more so it started to breed again, and then, it stoped the breeding and then some years latter, it began agian and so forth and so on for millions of years. Yeeeeeks! What evidence supports this back and forth breeding abilities to create the diversities we see today. If breeding stops, the species does not continue, it becomes extinct. In order for evolution to continue, breeding capabilities must also continue.

 

[Jet Black]

So let me get this right, you want us to believe that an organism started evolving

no, populations evolve.

and then suddenly decided that it was time to not change any more so it magically stopped the breeding process.

what? where on earth do you get that idea? differences in evolutionary rates are the result of environmental pressures. of course the members of the population were still breeding.

Then later, it desided that it was times to change some more so it started to breed again, and then, it stoped the breeding and then some years latter, it began agian and so forth and so on for millions of years.

what kind of half-baked strawman are you envisaging? you've been doing relatively well so far and then you launch into this bizarre tirade that makes it look like you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention for however long you have been discussing this.

Yeeeeeks! What evidence supports this back and forth breeding abilities to create the diversities we see today. If breeding stops, the species does not continue, it becomes extinct. In order for evolution to continue, breeding capabilities must also continue.

and breeding always does continue, however the evolutionary pressures are what change. Ice ages, new predators, growing mountains, general drift of the population, there are a vast number of things that can change breeding conditions. and the evidence for all of this is right through the biological and fossil record.

 

[Jet Black]

What do you want me to say, that the fossil record is overwhelming proof? That would be a lie. If I convicted someone based on similar evidence, I would be a very poor jurer, for the evidence is very simply not conclusive enough to support the claims of the TOE that all living matter evolved from one living organism. I does suggest the TOE but is far from proof that it is the only possibility. It is like trying to convict a murderer by one piece of evidence. It requires many differnent peices of evidence combined to convice a murderer. Yet you want to use only one piece of evidence to support a theory. It is not a matter of whether or not the fossil record supports the TOE, but rather if the fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE and it simply is not enough evidence.

well we do have many pieces of evidence. we have the birds, the homonids the cetaceans the therapsids the horses, dinosaurs and tetrapods. we have general suggestions of a significant quantity of the mammals, we have lots of evidence for the emergence of the chordates and vertebrates. it is all in the correct order throughout the fossil record, there are no blindly falsifying bits of evidence, and what is more, the fossil record phylogenetic trees agree perfectly with all the different genetic and biogeographical evidence. you can construct phylogenies based on a number of different, independent aspects of the fossil and biological record, and get the same answer every time. It's like having several photos of someone as they travel round the country, and lots of their bank receipts and the locations of their mobile phone calls and them all matching.