Challenging Evolution

[Jet Black]

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.

then how would you test for that. i.e. how would you demonstrate that there is no common ancestor between a dog and a lion, or a chipmunk and a banana?

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.

false, will you please please please stop ignoring the vast majority of what I say. the fossil record is categorically not the only bit of evidence we have for common ancestry. there are a great deal of other evidences which I have pointed out to you ad nauseum.

 

[Jet Black]

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.

two groups of individuals. does the inability of the horse to breed with the donkey and produce viable fertile offspring result in the extinction of both?

 

[Jet Black]

That would be a bit of a streatch

indeed it would. so how would the cetacean - whale intermediates (partially land dwelling partially sea dwelling) animals fit into the TOC? here we have another clear lineage from the fossil record

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

So as not to be accused of ignoring posts, I refer you to the posts comparing the fossil record to blood splatters at the scene of a murder. Both can provide much evidence, including DNA, but niether is enough evidence by its self to convict. It really isn't that hard of a concept, why get angry about it? My objection is that fossil evidence is not overwhelming proof any more than blood splatters at the scene are conclusive evidence for who committed the crime. Maybe you should watch CSI a bit more, there is always more than one thing for them to examine.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

And they all require more than a single source of evidence.

 

[Jet Black]

And they all require more than a single source of evidence.

I agree. though perhaps a videotape of the murder being commited might work on it's own.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

And they all require more than a single source of evidence.

Their are multiple sources of evidence for evolution.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Already discussed in other posts

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

But, no one here has been able to show how the core of the TOC has been disproven but continue to make claims that it has.

 

[razzelflabben]

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 don’t. With that in mind I am not so sure I want to be a Christian anymore.



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



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

Underline and highlight the word supposed, because a follower of Christ is not necessarily the same thing as a christian.

 

[lucaspa]

But, no one here has been able to show how the core of the TOC has been disproven but continue to make claims that it has.

Razzelflabben, do me a favor and list what you consider the "core of TOC". Thanks.

As I understand YEC, the core is:
1. All species were created within a 144 hour period. Therefore they are contemporaries.
2. "kinds" do not change into other kinds. And "kinds" must be able to breed in their own kind.
3. A global flood explains all geological features.

First, #3 was falsified before 1831. No global flood to make geology. Several threads on this forum have discussed specific falsifications. More can be found in Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood. Still more can be found by going back the Lyell's Principles of Geology and Buckland's Reliquae Diluvae

Without a flood for geology, the fossil record falsifies #1. It's obvious that not all species are contemporaries.

#2 is basically the biological species concept. Species are populations that freely interbreed to produce fertile offspring but either do not or cannot interbreed with other populations.

Well, we've observed the formation of new kinds/species. Here is just a partial list of them. http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

All those are falsifications as far as I can see. Can you show me how they are not?

 

[lucaspa]

So as not to be accused of ignoring posts, I refer you to the posts comparing the fossil record to blood splatters at the scene of a murder. Both can provide much evidence, including DNA, but niether is enough evidence by its self to convict. It really isn't that hard of a concept, why get angry about it? My objection is that fossil evidence is not overwhelming proof any more than blood splatters at the scene are conclusive evidence for who committed the crime. Maybe you should watch CSI a bit more, there is always more than one thing for them to examine.

1. But the blood splatters are enough to eliminate a suspect, right? So, one piece of evidence is enough to falsify a theory. And the fossil evidence falsifies creationism. After all, all you need is one transitional series of fossils. And we have hundreds.

2. Have you read Origin? You don't have one piece of evidence indicating common ancestry, but dozens. Comparative morphology, comparative physiology, developmental biology, biogeography (areas where one species merges with a hybrid zone which then merges with another species), genetics including retroviral insertion sequences in mammalian DNA, and now phylogenetic analysis.

All in all, more than enough to eliminate reasonable doubt as to the validity of evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

And the speciations we observe question if a species that evolves is able to viably reproduce.

They do? Please cite some examples. All the examples I have seen of speciation has the new species completely able to reproduce within that species -- breed after its kind. Here are two examples of observed speciation where the new species is able to viably reproduce:
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

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.

Why? Did your mother have become infertile after you were born?

If a living organism is not able to reproduce, the organism will become extinct or else, live forever.

WHOA! We are not talking about individual organisms, but about populations of organisms. The composition of the population changes over generations.

Species is not an individual organism. It is a group of organisms that can interbreed to make fertile offspring.

Now, take a species and split it into 2 populations that cannot be in contact. Across a river, a mountain range, different cages in a lab. Call the original population A and the split one B. Have B face a different environment than A so that B adapts to the new environment over at least 2,000 generations. Then bring B back into contact with A. What you find is that B can't interbreed with A anymore. Now, members of A can breed with other members of A and members of B can interbreed with other members of B. But members of B either won't mate with members of A, can't mate, or the offspring of such mating are not fertile.

What we have now is two species where we originally had one. This is allopatric speciation.

No species went extinct.

Now if new species cannot be viable able to reproduce

And that't the flaw of your argument. Your premise -- the "if" -- is wrong. Since the premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. Here is your conclusion:,

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

Again, wrong premise, so the conclusion is wrong:

so the aspect of how evolution occures then must be some magical change that occures when an organism dies, is that it?

Nope. Evolution occurs among populations of living organisms.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

All responded to in my post #653

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

Oh I get it, now you want me to believe that Darwin's orginal root theory answered all these questions and more. Come now, I can give you answers for all these things, but you wouldn't accept the answers because, it isn't consistant with you dealings with C or because you can't believe it happened that way, or you would ignore it as many of the things here have been ignored. After their kind does not mean a clone, it means similar in appearance and structure. That is a hard one. I really don't see Darwin talking about the genetic code you are putting forth as belonging to the theory of E

And

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

I can't find the thread you are refering me to so I can't read it.

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.

I haven't read it because I haven't found it so I cannot comment. Why don't we deal with the issue of overwhelming evidence for awhile? or lack thereof?

 

[gluadys]

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

Then you need to look at more data. This data only applies in some cases. It is not a general rule appyling to all new species.

 

[Jet Black]

I can't find the thread you are refering me to so I can't read it.[/i]


I haven't read it because I haven't found it so I cannot comment. Why don't we deal with the issue of overwhelming evidence for awhile? or lack thereof?

it's on the first page dude.

http://christianforums.com/t736563

I hope your attemts at scientific enquiry are more rigorous.

 

[gluadys]

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.

What do you mean by "even between themselves"?

Do you mean the new species will have difficulty maintaining inter-fertility with the parent species?

If so, that is what we expect to see. That is evidence that evolution is happening.

Or do you mean that members of the new species will have difficulty breeding with each other because of inbreeding?
It is a problem in some cases that when a population is too small, inbreeding will make adaptation and survival difficult. But this applies only to specific cases.

You need to check more data.

Many species start off with sufficient numbers that inbreeding is not a problem.

Lack of viability in the new species is a feature of some specific situations. It is not a general rule.

 

[Jet Black]

Or do you mean that members of the new species will have difficulty breeding with each other because of inbreeding?
It is a problem in some cases that when a population is too small, inbreeding will make adaptation and survival difficult. But this applies only to specific cases.

neither. he thinks that the group will have trouble breeding with itself i.e. as it becomes more distant from the parent stock, it won't be as good at breeding. i.e. if donkeys split off from horses and then drifted away, then as they are evolving, the donkeys won't be very good at breeding with other donkeys.

of course this ignores basic genetic drift.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Well seeing how I don't recall ever saying anything on this entire forum about missing links, it seems strange to me that I am being taken to task for saying where are the missing links?!? I have said that there is not conclusive evidence, but that is about the extent of it. I don't even use the words missing link except to quote the words from others, don't believe me, ask my family. I don't deal with missing links! Period.

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.

When we believe what we are taught, never questioning, we have no truth even if what we are taught is truth. It is in questioning, that we find answers. what does God say, ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. It is the pat answers that have bothered you since we first met, and that is good, what you fail to see is that answers have been provided, they just aren't the same answers you found. I have looked at both theories, studied the evidences, not most recent, but evidences none the less, and my conclusion is different than yours, does that mean that you have found truth and I have not, or does that mean that I have found truth and you have not? What it means, is that if the evidence was conclusive proof, we would not be having this discussion between two people who seek truth. So, either the evidence is not overwhelming, or you are not being totally honest, because I know that I do seek to know truth. If you are being honest about seeking truth, then the only logical conclusion is that there is not overwhelming evidence for either case and what one holds too is based solely on what he/she deems sufficient proof.

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.

I know you question a lot, I also know you repeat questions that have been answered a lot as if you are looking for a different answer, the answer that suits your thinking. If it doesn't line up with what you think the answer should be, you twist it around, or take it out of context, or ask again as if you didn't read it in the first place. These are not signs of someone who is seeking truth, but rather someone who likes to question. I have a great deal of respect for you because you do question things, because your post indicates a willingness to change, both things few are willing to do, but I also struggle with you because you seem to lack a desire to find truth, assuming that you have already gained it and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. You may not feel that way, but that is often how you can come accross to me and some that I have talked to on a private level. This arogance is not becoming to a questioner.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.




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.






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.

So again we mimick the TOC and call it unique to the TOE. That's reasonable I guess, but will be sure to keep the arguements about E vs. C hot and heavy which is apparently the way most of you like it.

If this is true of the TOE, then we cannot assume that one living cell organism started the whole thing, because a few million years of evolution would have produced none breeding life forms and thus, the evolutionary process would have ceased and since the claims are that it is still occuring, and that the living creatures all decended from one organism, we still have a big problem with the theory as most here are putting it forth. BTW, this is the part of the "new" theory of E that most astonishes me and my husband and how similar it is to the original TOC

 

[The Bellman]

no it doesn't
no it doesn't

No offence, but you have shown that you don't know much about the theory of evolution. It DOES predict both of these things.

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

Sorry, false. Eye witness accounts are useful - nobody denies that. However, they are NOT the only - or even the best - method of evidencing the occurance of something.

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.

Creationism has been disproven as a whole. It is false.

No modifications are necessary, the original theory stands.

It "stands" as completely falsified.

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.

No, I expect you to accept them as fact because they ARE fact. The most basic knowledge of evolutionary theory shows this. Really, you should actually learn something about the theory you attempt to discuss.

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.

You have been shown that if "species" is used for "kind", then creationism is completely falsified, because speciation has been repeatedly observed. I have shown this several times, demonstrating that your use of "species" for "kind" means that creationism is falsified.