Challenging Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Huh? In the post that you respond to I mention that you think the evdence for the TOE is not conclusive, but I think it is. I did not say you think it disproves the TOE.

Get with the program, please.

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.

Oh really? Please name one good scientist who thinks that more is needed to make a solid case for evoluion. Please include a reference to his published works in referreed publications.

The fossil record defintately indicates a possibility for the TOE, but it does not rule out the original TOC.

What other explanation is there for the series of mammal-like reptiles, and the progression of the jaw and earbones with time?

It does not prove without doubt (overwhelming evidence) that the TOE is truth. How much clearer can I be?

Your position is clear that you think the evidence is not overwhelming.

But I am not sure that you understand that there is a difference between making your position clear, and providing evidence for it. You can state that there is "no overwhelming evidence" for evolution all you want. But what evidence do you have?

Looking at every fossil will not change the fact that more than a fossil record is needed to prove the TOE with accuracy.

You have been given more evidence than just fossils.

You say youselves that it is not proved, but that one set of observations is sufficient to say we have overwhelming proof?

Not overwhelming proof--overwhelming evidence. That is what we have.

Could you get with the program, please?

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

An ass has problems producing fertile offspring when it is mated a horse. But an ass has no problem breeding with another ass.

 

[Jet Black]

An ass has problems producing fertile offspring when it is mated a horse. But an ass has no problem breeding with another ass.

hey Beavis... he said ass .... u uhuh huh uhuhuh

 

[gluadys]

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.

Well, if I understand you correctly, that is basically the position of 19th century creationism: that every species is a separate creation.

See the "Evolution of Creationism" thread OP again.

Mainstream creationists abandoned this position because we have observed that not every species originated as a separate creation or became extinct.

We have observed that some species are derived by evolution from previously existing species.

In short, the TOC, as you have expressed it, is false. There are species we can point to for which we know by observation that they were neither separately created, nor are they extinct.

(See previous posts for examples.)

That is why mainstream creationism changed its position to one of separately created "kinds" instead of separately created species.

 

[gluadys]

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.

In the case of a trial, we are looking at one individual's guilt or innocence. You cannot have a representative sample of an individual.

But you can have a representative sample of a group, and by examining the characterisitics of that representative sample, you can make valid predictions about the characteristics of the whole group.

What I am suggesting here is that the hundreds of fossil sites investigated so far are a reasonable representative sample of all fossil sites, both explored and unexplored.

And that the fossils found so far are a reasonable representative sample of all fossils, both discovered and yet to be discovered.

Consider this. In 1830, geological exploration had barely begun. But William Smith, based on his observations in England, set out a sequence of fossils one could expect to find in each geological layer.

Today, nearly 2 centuries later, with thousands more fossils found, not only in England, but all around the world, his suggested sequence still holds true. We still find trilobites in the same strata Smith found trilobites in, and nowhere else. We still find dinosaurs in the strata Smith found dinosaurs in, and nowhere else. We still find modern birds in the strata Smith found them in, and nowhere else.

Why would that be unless Smith's little sample of English fossils was representative of all fossils found since 1830?

Why should we not consider that this pattern is very likely to continue through future exploration of the fossil record?

 

[gluadys]

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.

Wow! Talk about twisting words!!! Where did I say anything about breeding stopping and starting? Or magic?

And no species "decides" to evolve.

Nope. none of what you have just said applies at all. Breeding continues throughout, but under different circumstances.

Phase one: We have population A. All members of population A are inter-fertile with each other.

Phase two: We divide population A into geographical or ecological sub-groups A1, A2, and A3. We keep group A1 in the same original environment where we found population A to begin with, and move group A2 and A3 to new environments. We (or nature*) also set up barriers to prevent members of A2 and A3 from breeding with those of A1 or with each other.

*An example of a natural barrier is the appearance or disappearance of a land bridge. Marine populations were separated into two groups when the isthmus of Panama rose above water. Terrestrial populations that could migrate from Siberia to America were no longer able to do so when the land bridge sank below water after the last ice age. So the Asian and American populations were separated.

Phase three: We allow groups A2 and A3 time to adapt to their new environments. We observe how they develop different characteristics. Note that there is no problem with each group continuing to be inter-fertile within its own group. There is no cessation of breeding.

Phase four: We eliminate the barriers we raised earlier. Now the three groups, A1, A2 and A3 can make contact with each other.

Suppose we find that members of group A2 continue to be inter-fertile with group A1. We conclude that A1 + A2 is still our original population A. A2 has developed some adaptive features, but it is still the same species it already was.

On the other hand, suppose we find that members of group A3 no longer successfully inter-breed with A1 or A2. They only have reproductive success when one A3 mates with another A3. In this case we conclude that A3 is no longer part of population A. It has become a new species.

We give it a new species name and call it species B.

Phase 5: We now have two populations A and B. Population A is a parent species to population B. Now let us repeat our whole experiment again with population B. Divide it into three groups: B1, B2, B3. At this point the three groups are completely interfertile.

Phase 6: Let's suppose that we get the same sort of result with population B that we originally got with population A. When B1 and B2 are brought back together they are still interfertile. So we continue to call them both population B, recognizing some variation in the species. But B3 is no longer inter-fertile with B1 or B2. We only get successful mating when B3s mate with B3s. This indicates B3 is no longer part of population B. So we give it a new species name and call it population C.

Now we have three populations A and B and C none of which inter-breed with each other. But all are still happily and successfully breeding within their own group. A is the parent species to B, and B is the parent species to C.

Phase 6. While population B is segmenting into B and C, population A can still be segmenting separately. We can create another new group this way:

Population A (which is our former A1+A2) is divided into groups A, A4 and A5 (because A3 became B)

This time lets assume that neither A4 nor A5 can successfully interbreed with the original A population when the groups are brought together again. Neither can they breed with each other. So we consider them both a new species and call them D and E.

So now we have 5 species altogether.

Population A (our original species which now exists in two variants A1 + A2)

Populations B (=B1+B2), D and E (originally A3, A4, and A5) each not interfertile with either A or each other.

and

Population C (originally B3)

Furthermore all five of these populations can give rise to further new species in the same way. (And this is just one way of getting new species!!)

Note that at no time has it been necessary to stop breeding within a group. Nor is it necessary at any time to resume breeding between groups that have been separated. A can generate new groups such as D and E without resuming interfertility with B. B can generate C without resuming inter-fertility with A.

Now since you are a visual person I suggest that you get out a piece of paper and draw all of this so that you can see it.

Draw a circle and label it population A. Divide it into 3 parts. Use arrows to show the movement of A2 and A3 to different environments.

Use another arrow to show that A2 rejoins A1 (so you will get an arrow going each way from A1 to A2 and back again). But relabel (and maybe use a different colour ink) A3 as B.

Divide your A3-->B circle into 3 parts. Again use arrows to show the movement of B2 and B3 to new environments. Use two new arrows from A to show the movement of A4 and A5 to new environments.

Now you should have 4 circles across the middle of the page: A4, A5, B2, B3

Using different colours show that A4-->D, A5-->E, B2 returns to B1, B3-->C

And altogether you now have 5 populations where you used to have just one:
the original A. D, E and B derived from A. And C derived from B.

Not one of these has a problem breeding in its own group. All have problems breeding with the other groups (even though they all began as population A.)

But all five of these groups can further sub-divide and produce still more species. None of them need to resume inter-fertility with a parent or cousin group to do so.

It is really no different from a family tree.

 

[gluadys]

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

True, because it is not.

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

So what? The foolishness of some people does not invalidate a good theory.

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

True, but many theists are Christian and many Christians are theistic evolutionists (or, if you prefer, evolutionary creationists).

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

Maybe, but some Christian TEs are post-modern and some are not. In any case Christian TEs do not think they can "pick & mx" when it comes to the scriptures or the essential beliefs of Christianity.

But God expects to be believed, trusted & obeyed

As Christian TEs do to the best of their ability with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[gluadys]

Nope. Evolutionary theory, in fact, PREDICTS this.

no it doesn't

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

no it doesn't

Razzelflaben: please cite the textbook on evolution which indicates The Bellman is wrong and you are right.

Given your very poor track record in understanding the TOE, I don't think you are qualified to say what it does and does not predict.

 

[gluadys]

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

No, it doesn't. The plants that first lived on land were non-flowering plants like mosses, ferns, esquesites (sp?) and some gymnosperms. They did not produce pollen and did not need the help of pollinators to survive.

By the time the plants that need pollinators arrived on the scene, the pollinators were already there.

 

[Jet Black]

By the time the plants that need pollinators arrived on the scene, the pollinators were already there.

it's worth mentioning that the earliest pollinators needn't be as symbiotic as the modern insect pollinators such as bees. the earliest pollinators were probably just after the nutrition contained within the pollen (many insects still eat pollen) and around the stigma and so on. Those plants that produced the larger sticker pollen would do better than those that did not. then those plants that specifically attracted insects (petals) would do better than those that did not. then those plants that provided some other benefit to stop the insects from eating the pollen (nectar) would do better than those who did not. note the last point isn't set in stone. some of the orchids and so on pull really nasty tricks on insects, such as convincing a male that there is a nice ripe female for the taking, others smell like rotting dung and so on.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Now if an animal or plant cannot reproduce after "evolving", then how pray tell can evolution from a single cell occur. For if the living thing that evolved, cannot reproduce, then it becomes extinct and evolution stops. Now you are telling me that instead of evolution stopping, it magically continues on without the ability to reproduce. And you think that C is mystical!?!

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.

Let's compare apples to apples for a moment. The fossil record is to the TOE as the blood splatters are to a murder scene. We can deduct much from the fossil record, just as we can deduct much from the blood splatters, but if that is the only evidence that we have, the suspect will go free. The same is true of the TOE fossil evidence alone cannot prove the theory. You are taking a small amount of evidence and calling it conclusive. I am telling you that all you have is splattered blood at the murder scene. NOw if you can collect more evidence that would seem to be unique to the theory, we might be able to begin to draw different conclusions, but the speciations, etc. that we currently observe are not unique to the TOE nor are they more than suggestions of what can occur. This is why fossil records are inconclusive. Not because they are or are not consistant in their findings, but rather because a murder case with only blood evidence is a weak case. Is it starting to become clear to you yet?

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.

Now I have yet to see any of you who claim to hold to scientific method try to prove the TOE wrong. If I am to believe this statement, then we can disregard the earlier posts about scientific method and watch you E try to disprove the TOE. Care to change your statement a bit? Note the words in your own post, ...in fact it just is not how science works anymore at all. We look to falsify a theory not to prove it....

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.

Yea, and you have yet to prove that the core theory of C has been disproven, only various asspects of the theory. So if this is the direction you want to go, then prove your claim.

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

What are you explaining with this book, I lost something in the reading of this last pharagraph.

 

[gluadys]

Verrrry interesting.

The one post of mine Razzelflaben chose NOT to respond to, or even to acknowledge was post 653.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

I worked with species, a couple of different definitions of species, and showed you all how you had not disproven the TOC. Now I give you a definition for kind that would be consistant with the original theory and you ask for a definiton for kind as if my post (that you quoted) never existed. Please do be reasonable, I have no time or patience for this nonsense.

 

[razzelflabben]

no, populations evolve.
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.
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.

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.

And the speciations we observe question if a species that evolves is able to viably reproduce. Some of you here, are claiming that this is what evolution predicts, and I ask you if that is what evolution predicts, then all living things would have become extinct before they were able to evolve. And now because I put forth what if sounds like you are saying, suddenly, I am not listening and argueing strawmen. If a living organism is not able to reproduce, the organism will become extinct or else, live forever. The arguement of E is that all living organisms evolved from a single cell. Now if new species cannot be viable able to reproduce, then we must suspect that the organism will either die out or live forever, not mysteriously change into a new species without reproducing. But, evolution predicts this so the aspect of how evolution occures then must be some magical change that occures when an organism dies, is that it?

 

[Jet Black]

I worked with species, a couple of different definitions of species, and showed you all how you had not disproven the TOC. Now I give you a definition for kind that would be consistant with the original theory and you ask for a definiton for kind as if my post (that you quoted) never existed. Please do be reasonable, I have no time or patience for this nonsense.

the problem with working with species, is that it is all you are doing, and hence nothing new gets added to the table. it still does not allow you to define what a kind is, or how you might test for one. the "kinds" are meant to have been individually created, and cannot breed out of their own kind. This means that we should be able to say historically, that given two sexually reproducing organisms, their most distant ancestors could breed if they are the same kind, or that none of their ancestors however far back we go, could breed, if they are a different kind.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

So let us look at that blood at the murder scene comparison again. WE have blood splatters, we can type the blood, see what direction the blood came from, we can DNA the blood to see who it belongs too. We can test the blood for drugs, etc. etc. etc. but if that was the totallity of the evidence, how many people on the jury do you think would convict. Even OJ got off and there was infanitaly more evidence in that case to convice him. All I am saying is that blood splatters (fossil evidence) though they can offer a lot of information, cannot prove or disprove any of the theories, more information is required to be certain of anything. YOu people act like fossil evidence is the entire crime scene, in reality, it is only the blood splatters. Do you not understand that, or are you just being blind to it because you like believing you have all the answers?

 

[Jet Black]

And the speciations we observe question if a species that evolves is able to viably reproduce. Some of you here, are claiming that this is what evolution predicts, and I ask you if that is what evolution predicts, then all living things would have become extinct before they were able to evolve. And now because I put forth what if sounds like you are saying, suddenly, I am not listening and argueing strawmen. If a living organism is not able to reproduce, the organism will become extinct or else, live forever. The arguement of E is that all living organisms evolved from a single cell. Now if new species cannot be viable able to reproduce, then we must suspect that the organism will either die out or live forever, not mysteriously change into a new species without reproducing. But, evolution predicts this so the aspect of how evolution occures then must be some magical change that occures when an organism dies, is that it?

ok I see, you have misunderstood somehow. all members of a species can reproduce with one another. speciation occurs when a group of those individuals become separated from the main group and over time these two groups change such that they are no longer genetically compatible with one another, but they are still genetically compatible with members of their own group. Horses and donkeys are a prime example of this. Horses breed with horses, no problem. Donkeys breed with donkeys, but horses have alot of trouble breeding with donkeys, and when they do, the offspring are almost always infertile. This means that the two groups are genetically isolated from one another and continue to drift, until eventually you won't even get mules anymore. This is why it is important to consider the evolution of populations, you error has occured because you think that evolution happens to individuals.

 

[Jet Black]

So let us look at that blood at the murder scene comparison again. WE have blood splatters, we can type the blood, see what direction the blood came from, we can DNA the blood to see who it belongs too. We can test the blood for drugs, etc. etc. etc. but if that was the totallity of the evidence, how many people on the jury do you think would convict. Even OJ got off and there was infanitaly more evidence in that case to convice him. All I am saying is that blood splatters (fossil evidence) though they can offer a lot of information, cannot prove or disprove any of the theories, more information is required to be certain of anything. YOu people act like fossil evidence is the entire crime scene, in reality, it is only the blood splatters. Do you not understand that, or are you just being blind to it because you like believing you have all the answers?

please stop ignoring what I say:

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.

I bolded the relevant section and underlined the relevant words that you really need to read in order to stop me from repeating myself for the third or fourth time. I have presented these points to you a great number of times now, and still you claim that I think the only evidence is the fossil record.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

huh? if they cannot reproduce, they become extinct, and yet, you ask me how they were created? It they breed, after their kind, they were created. Back it up, if the lion breeds with another cat and the offspring are a viable breeding group, able to reproduce and mature into a larger population, then the lion and the other cat were created. If on the other hand, the lion and the other large cat cannot breed or produce offspring that are not viable breeders, then we can go further back to find the original kind. Look at it like a family tree, if my great uncle had no children, then the family line stops at him, at least down his line, and in order to find the head of the family, or the roots as it were, we have to look further back. when there are no other viable heirs, we stop. Now, if we do not see any other cats breeding with lions, then we cannot automatically assume that the lion was the original creation, not can we assume that it was not, because we do not have a pedigree for the lion, only suggestions in the fossil record. These suggestions, are not provable with any methods we have today. So the TOC then would suggest that if the lion is only capable of successfully breeding with a lion, it is likely to be an original creation rather than a vast amount of evolution. The door is open to possibilities, just like I have said many times over, that is how we seek truth, by looking at the possibilities.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

And if they are no longer able to breed, even between themselves, we have extinction, not evolution. The data I have seen questions the ability of the "new" species to be viable breeders, which in turn questions the validity of the TOE.

--------ssh

 

[razzelflabben]

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

That would be a bit of a streatch