Challenging Evolution

Jet Black · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

what about groups of animals that we have observed to develop an inability to breed with other members of the groups that they once could breed with? we see this in the Israeli naked mole rat, where one end of the population is too different to the other end of the population to breed with them. we see it in mosquitoes, where the mosquitoes that live in the london underground can no longer breed with those that live outide the london underground. we see it in salamanders, we see it in birds, we see it in lots of varieties of plants (the banana is an excellent example of this) we see all these creatures and plants that were not created separately, and yet according to the TOC they should have been created separately. this puts the TOC in a bit of a quandry, since it is saying that something happened that didn't, and we are looking there at a falsification.

Susan Sto Helit · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

You have misunderstood both gluadys's post and the mechanism of speciation. Of course that at no point does a population magically stop breeding. The breeding barrier in the speciation process refers to two or more populations who cannot breed with each other. Obviously intra-species breeding still occurs!

Consider this abstract and simplified example:

Let's say we two populations of the species A, A1 and A2. Populations A1 and A2, for some reason or the other, find themselves subject to different selective pressures. After enough generations, different characteristics are prevalent in each population. Enough accumulation of genetic differences results in two different species (B and C) that can no longer breed with each other (or their hybrids are unviable or infertile).

Note that this is only one of the mecanisms of speciation.

-----SSH

Jet Black · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

does it leave the possibility of whales coming after land animals?

razzelflabben · Aug 16, 2004

Aron-Ra said:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
Good, because you have absolutely no possibility of doing so.
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.
But of course I can't agree with this because you've been dead wrong about everything you've tried to assert so far.
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. [/i]

My assumptions being that 1. Science does not hold all the answers to the questions in this life.

True. But as far as I can see, science has most of them, and religion has exactly none.
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.
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. [/i]

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.
Then your position is false because it is based on a few faulty premises.
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.
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.[/QUOTE]You know what, from your posts I can see that you already know all the answers to science, and life and that no one can add to your understanding the least little bit. So what then is the point of discussing, so that you can indoctrinate people to your line of thinking? Sorry, I think too much for anyone to force their opinions on me just by making a few claims about what they believe and accusing others of believing things they do not.

I show you people where the TOE leaves unanswered questions, offers only partial evidence, and you come back with a long post of technical questions that I am suppose to answer to show that the theory of C with by the way is not a theory because you say it is not, is not possible. I show you how C is possible and is supported by the scientific observations around us, and your respond with a big long post asking me to give you more technical details to show that the theory of C which by the way is not a theory because you say it is not, is not possible. I tell you that the TOE does not have overwhelming proof, though the evidence supports the possibility, and you make a long post asking me to show that the theory of C which by the way is not a theory because you say it is not, is not possible. I say to you science does not hold all the answers to life and you make a long post and ask me to show that the theory of C which by the way is not a theory because you say it is not, is not possible. You ask me to define the TOC and I do, and you ask me to show that the theory of C which by the way is not a theory because you say it is not, is not possible.

But I am the one who is pushing the theory of C???? Enough, remember the post Merle made about how studying changed his life. The mistake he made was in assuming to know truth. Your assuming to know truth will keep your eyes closed to what people like myself are trying to show you and I have no more patience for it at this time. I am not trying to claim truth, or to persuade anyone from their view, only to show you that if I doubt that the TOE is truth, does not mean that I am an uninformed idiot who knows nothing. What it means is that I don't accept the gray areas, the assumptions as truth, but rather as gray areas and assumptions. In other words, I am still seeking truth!

USincognito · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

My God this is maddening! Forgetting for a moment that you're trying to equate one blood drop with thousands of evidentiary fossils that again and again confirm evolution, while denying special singular creation, you're completely ignoring the multiple DNA evidences that bolster evolution. You're ignoring the fact that phylogenies do actually confrim evolution no matter what perameters are applied to them. You're ignoring the fact that biogeography of the fossils - apart from the morphological similarities of the fossils themselves - verify evolutionary theory again and again.

Lets just look at the fossil biogeography and your objection to it for a moment. Your only real objection is that we haven't unearthed and checked every cubic inch of earth on the planet to see if we might find fossils contemporaneously that conflict with evolution. By that logic, O.J. didn't kill Nichole becuase despite his DNA evidence at the scene, because we didn't test the DNA of every human on Earth we can't be sure that he killed her.

Personally, were I a lawyer, and that were you burden of proof, I'd reject you immediately. I've alluded to it since the third page of this thread. Others have alluded to it. I hope you're not a CSI fan because if you are, you're being totally disengenuous.

razzelflabben · Aug 16, 2004

The Bellman said:
Are there? Let's see...

Nope. Evolutionary theory, in fact, PREDICTS this.

no it doesn't

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

no it doesn't

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.

wrong, if that were true, cop's wouldn't canvas people for eye witness accounts.

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.

wrong, aspects of the theories have been disproven, not the original theory, this is like saying that because aspects of the TOE have change, the TOE has been disproven.

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.

No modifications are necessary, the original theory stands.

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

See how easy it is to poke "holes" in the theory, simply by making an assertion, I can disregard all the answers you gave. Now isnt that a good debate tactic? NOT. Come now, you did not address any of the questions, you simply made assertions and expect me to accept them as fact because you do.

Jet Black · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
wrong, if that were true, cop's wouldn't canvas people for eye witness accounts.

that's additional evidence. many murders have been demonstrated without a single witness to the event.

DJ_Ghost · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
wrong, if that were true, cop's wouldn't canvas people for eye witness accounts.

That is simply not true. Criminologists and psychologists have repeatedly shown that eye witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence, now some criminal justice systems take this on board more than others, but all first world ones accept that eye witness testimony can be deeply flawed. However, just because they are fallible does not make them useless. Just like scientists, who piece together theories from multiple forms of evidence, so the police peace together a case from multiple forms of evidence. The police man who relies solely on eyewitness testimony is an idiot.

However, the policeman who ignores any form of evidence that he could reasonably check is also an idiot. The case is built by cross referencing all the evidence, checking to see which bits are obviously false and then coming to a conclusion based on what is discovered. If this sounds like science, it is to an extent, but frankly science tends to be more exacting because long after the verdict scientists still try and falsify the findings. This only happens in the criminal justice system if an appeal is filed

razzelflabben said:
wrong, aspects of the theories have been disproven, not the original theory, this is like saying that because aspects of the TOE have change, the TOE has been disproven.

It is not a question of whether the entire theory or elements of it are falsified it is a question of weather those elements are peripheral or core. If a peripheral element of a theory is falsified, no problem, you modify the theory. If however a core element is falsified it means too much of the theory is wrong to save it, it is necessary instead to abandon the theory and find a new one. I have explained this once, but this is a rapidly expanding thread so I guess you can be forgiven for missing it.

Ghost

mrversatile48 · Aug 16, 2004

doubtingmerle said:
Perhaps the "instant new creation" was a reference to the father's contribution?

This was a reply to my post about examples of momentous events that are /will be instantly done by God

The 2 replies right after my last post both reflect the original misunderstanding in John 3 (& many in this thread, for the same reason)

Nicodemus was actually the official teacher of Israel - top Pharisee - yet Jesus told him that he didn't understand spiritual things

"Marvel not that I tell you that you must be born again/from above/by the Spirit of God"

The Greek word had all 3 meanings, & John meant all 3: that is a regular thing in John's Gospel - using words with more than 1 meaning & meaning both senses of them

Many misunderstandings on this thread are because, 1 , "no-one understands the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, so no-one understands the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God"

"Since, in the wisdom of God, the world, thru its wisdom, did not know God, it pleased God to save those who believe thru the foolishness of the message preached

"For Jews seek a sign & Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: to the Jews, a stumbling block & to the Greeks, foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews & Greeks, Christ, the power of God & the wisdom of God"

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men & the weakness of God is stronger than men" - (1 Corinthians 1:21/25)

It has often been said that evolution isn't the same as atheism

Yes: but many ET fans are atheists & do all they can to denigrate God & the Bible - (which is Man's Maker's Manual)

Also, claiming to be theist is not the same as following Christ, as being a Christian

Postmoderns think that they can "pick & mix" in every area of life

Many think that they do God a big favour by simply acknowledging that He exists

But God expects to be believed, trusted & obeyed

Even Satan knows full well that God exists

Many, like Satan, know full well that God is real

But, like Satan, they rebel against Him

Unless they repent, they will share, with Satan, the Antichrist & the False Prophet, being "cast into the lake of fire & brimstone" - (Revelation 20:10)

Another instant experience

That's why I persist in here

These things are not moot academic points of no consequence

Eternal conscious torment is well worth boycotting

Only Jesus can save you

Ian

DJ_Ghost · Aug 16, 2004

Sheeesh mrversatile48, that was a joke, just like the responses he got. Lighten up a bit.

Ghost

mrversatile48 · Aug 16, 2004

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

Bellman, I'm glad you raised that point

I must go soon, but the entire New Testament teaching is that no-one can earn their way to Heaven

Salvation is by the sheer graace of God, thru faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross

See John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15/16, Ephesians 2:8/9 etc

Such self-sacrifice is the greatest love

God bless!

Ian

DJ_Ghost · Aug 16, 2004

mrversatile48 said:
Bellman, I'm glad you raised that point

I must go soon, but the entire New Testament teaching is that no-one can earn their way to Heaven

Marvellous, so when we get to heaven we can expect to be surrounded by evil men who believe in God and not good ones that dont. With that in mind I am not so sure I want to be a Christian anymore.

mrversatile48 said:
Salvation is by the sheer graace of God, thru faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross

No that's not true, see I Corinthians 7:13/15

mrversatile48 said:
See John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15/16, Ephesians 2:8/9 etc

Such self-sacrifice is the greatest love

Well not if it is done to enable him to deny salvation to anyone who do not believe in it. Frankly I have met many atheists I would rather spend eternity with than some of the supposed Christians I have met.

Ghost

mrversatile48 · Aug 16, 2004

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Very quickly, now SE-USA is headline news..

Georgia recently had a series of winters so severe that all bees & other insects died

So much vegetation died, without their pollenation, that they were forced to import bees

Surely this disproves the ridiculous postulation of aeons between plants arriving on the scene & the bees so vital for their survivla

A 2nd cracker for YEC is translucent rocks with perfect rainbow pattern of impurities inside

If rocks had really taken aeons to solidify from liquid, those impurities would be scattered randomly

Consider the perfect new world of Revelation 21/22

As soon as it is made, it will look as if it has always been there

KInda like Genesis 1: "God said, 'Let there be....& there was...& God saw that it was good...& the evening & the morning were the 2nd/33rd/4th/5th/6th day"

The Hebrew word translated as day is yom

Wherever that word is used, it always means a 24-hour period

Nothing is too difficult for the Almighty

& the clear evidence of His wisdom, power & love is clearly seen in all that He has made, as Romans 1:20 reminds us

Again, God is not only concerned to communicate to academics

THe evidence of your God-given eyes is valid

Likewise that "there is none so blind as those who wil not see"

ET fans wilfully shut their eyes to mmyriad missing links @ every so-called step/link

So...

when we all go to the zoo...

who's bringing bananas for those cheeky monkeys?

M<ust go!

God bless!

Ian

Jet Black · Aug 16, 2004

mrversatile48 said:
Very quickly, now SE-USA is headline news..

Georgia recently had a series of winters so severe that all bees & other insects died

So much vegetation died, without their pollenation, that they were forced to import bees

Surely this disproves the ridiculous postulation of aeons between plants arriving on the scene & the bees so vital for their survivla

flowering plants evolved long long after insects.

A 2nd cracker for YEC is translucent rocks with perfect rainbow pattern of impurities inside

If rocks had really taken aeons to solidify from liquid, those impurities would be scattered randomly

there are different rates of solidification. who said that all rocks take aeond to solidify?

more vacuous nonsense from you.

Aeschylus · Aug 16, 2004

Flowering plants usually rely on insects, but the evidnce shows thta they did not arrive on the scen until after the insects were here.

Mr.Verstaile, even you jhave to admit that your arguments are weak and based on an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.

gluadys · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Some of this I simply will not take the time to go over again.

What do you mean "again". Much of this is new material which you have not gone over even once yet.

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.

All responded to in my post #653

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?

No, it is most certainly NOT okay.

I particular I would like responses to these sections:

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

And

Please read the opening post in "The Evolution of Creationism".

I would like to know if you understand the first italicised section and what your comments are.

I would like to know if you have read the OP of that thread and what your comments are.

I will look for you comments on post 653, and if there are none, I will ask for comments.

I will also look for additional unanswered questions.

doubtingmerle · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Huh? I did not ignore Merle's post.

It seems to many of us here that you have indeed ignored a good portion of my post. For you skipped the portion of my post that detailed "missing links". (No problem so far--you need not include everything.) But then you asked where the missing links were. Now this was either a big blunder, or it was incredibly unethical to ask where the missing links were after reading a lengthy discourse on missing links. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you simply forgot you were responding to a post that detailed missing links. Alas, after you have been reminded of the problem several times by different people, you still can't seem to admit that your response was not appropriate.

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.

Well yes, I assumed that Creationism was true when I started my search, but I am not sure that my assumption was a bad thing based on what I knew. You see, my entire education up to that point in time was from the viewpoint that Creationists had the answers, and that Evoutionists were a bunch of incompetents. But, as I said in that post, I did not declare victory at that point. For I saw that somebody thought the evidence pointed to something else. And so I did the right thing--I looked up the reference that had been provided. That led me to other references and a continued search of both sides (and an eventual switch to evolution). It seems to me that I did the right thing.

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.

I assume to know the truth that the earth is round, the proton has a positive charge, F = m a , evolution occured, etc. But in no case do I block my mind from receiving credible evidence that any of this might be wrong.

A theme running throughout my website is this quote from Einstein, "The important thing is to not stop questioning."

Are you trying to pretend I don't believe in questioning? Gosh, just look at my avatar.

gluadys · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

However, you are missing the point. Assuming that the horse and donkey are derived from a common ancestor, the sterility of the mule shows that the horse and the donkey have already evolved to the point that they can no longer interbreed successfully. The mule is evidence that evolution has already occurred.

It doesn't stop either the horse or the donkey from continuing to evolve separately.

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.

This has been a problem in some cases: in fact the horse family is one of those cases. The cheetah is another. However, in other cases the population affected by evolution is quite large enough for this not to be a problem. So it is not an overall objection to TOE. One has to check it out on a case-by-case basis.

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.

Interbreeding problems with the parent species confirms that we have a new species. It is evidence that evolution has occurred. And if the daughter species in turn becomes the parent of other new species, we would expect the same interbreeding problems with its daughter species. This again would be evidence that evolution has occurred.

Similarly if two or more species are derived from the same parent species, we would expect that they would show interbreeding problems when we try to cross them. That would confirm that they are separate species.

So, say we have this scenario:

Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

We would expect that B will not breed successfully with any of A, C or X.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with A shows that speciation has occurred and B is a new species. If it continued to breed successfully with A it would be at best a variant or sub-species of A. It would not be a new species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with C shows that although both are derived from A, they are different species. If they did interbreed successfully, B and C would be variants of the same species, not two different species.

The fact that B does not breed successfully with X shows that X is a genuine new species, not simply a variant or sub-species of B.

In short, the inter-breeding problems you are pointing to are not a problem for TOE. They are expected evidence that evolution has in fact happened.

And we have seen this scenario, both in nature and in controlled experiments. That is why we can state with confidence that evolution is a fact.

For examples, see previous posts in this thread.

gluadys · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

Good, that's fine by me.

What you seem to be missing so nicely is what the TOC says.

No, I addressed that in the post you chose to skip.

Perhaps you would go back to that now?

gluadys · Aug 16, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

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

Not changing the point. Bringing you back to the point.

The point raised was that no fossil of a dinosaur has been dated at less than 65 million years old. Meanwhile no fossil of a hominid has been dated at more than 8 million years old.

From this evidence we conclude not only that dinosaurs became extinct before man, but that they became extinct almost 60 million years before man existed.

What other logical conclusion can this evidence lead to?

Remember, no using faith in evidence not yet seen.
Science does not do that.
Science bases its conclusions only on evidence already observed.

Challenging Evolution

Jet Black

Guest

Zion Elder Illuminati for Cthulhu

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Legend

I'll think about it.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency