Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

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.

I was asked for a stopping point, I gave one based on the original TOC. But that wasn't good enough, you wanted more of a definition and you still refuse to acknowledge that I gave you one.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Right, but where your explaination fails, is that populations are made up of individuals and if the individuals cannot reproduce there is no population.

This is not to say that the TOE is not possible, but that there is still question to the viability of the theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

please stop ignoring what I say:


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.

Where do the genetic and biogeoraphical evidences come from please?

 

[razzelflabben]

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?Well, through observations of breeding habits, fossil records, genetic testing, experimentations, etc. The same you would do for the TOE. How exactly do you test for the evolution of one cell to the wide variety of species we have today? How is that testable? Or does that mean, hummm, I am recalling some previous post, that the TOE is not a scientific one?

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.

Okay, you have a chance to prove me wrong. Outline what evidence you provided that was 1. not related to the fossil evidence and 2. unique evidence to the TOE

Just and outline is fine, because the DNA evidence is related to the fossil finds, speciation is not unique to the TOE, etc. etc. etc. Which brings us back to fossil record. What did I miss?

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

Ahhh, I think I am getting it, because the mule is not a viable fertile offspring, it does not become extinct, but how then does it evolve into a viable fertile creature????

 

[razzelflabben]

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

What glasses are you wearing that make the fossil record that clear? Wouldn't ocean fossils be different in makeup to the land fossils, oh, we can't look at those differances because it might give us an alternative story to consider?

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Do you have a videotape of a single cell evolving into an earth full of creatures and plants, please share it, I am sure it would be helpful to this discussion.

Or is the forum terminology "site". I'm still learning the lingo, it that the right response?

 

[razzelflabben]

Their are multiple sources of evidence for evolution.

Already asked for an outline of what proof is
1. unique to the TOE
and
2. is not related to the fossil evidence, that is fossils tested for DNA is still the evidence found in the single evidence, fossils.

 

[Jet Black]

Where do the genetic and biogeoraphical evidences come from please?

they come from the DNA of living organisms and the distribution of the animals around the planet. from the former we can parsimoniously construct phylogenetic trees from various features in the Genetic code, from Alu sequences through ERVs, pseudogenes and chromosome banding patterns. This can be done otherwise completely independently of knowing what the organism actually is (i.e. you could just send the DNA in a test tube to a lab and they could construct the tree for you). The generated phylogenetic trees match the phylogenetic trees that we would expect from analysis of the fossil record.

to give an example, ERVs, or Endogenous RetroViral sequences are viruses that insert themselves into the genome and become crippled in some way before they can do the rest of what viruses do. Occasionally they will embed themselves in a gamete, either a sperm or an egg, and become integrated in the animal that develops, remaining within every cell of this animal. By genetic drift, these retroviral sequences may become embedded in the entire population, and hence will also be present in the entire population of any groups that split off from the main group and speciate in their own right. looking at whether an ERV is present in an organism or not can indicate relatedness to other organisms, so for example if we have an ERV that is present in humans and chimps, but not Gorillas, then this ERV was inserted after the human-chimp line broke away from the Gorilla line. We would not expect to find that same ERV in the Orang-Utan line, since the Orang Utan line split away before we and chimps split from the Gorilla. so using these principles we can construct entire phylogenetic trees based purely on ERVs (if ERV A is present in species 1 and 2 but not in 3, then 1 and 2 are more closely related than either is to 3). These phylogenic trees match what we expect. ALU sequences are chunks of mobile DNA within our DNA, and can serve a similar purpose of identification. Pseudogenes are genes that have been crippled in different organisms, and can again be used to construct phylogenic trees.


Biogeography allows us to look at the distribution of different organisms around the planet and again construct phylogenetic trees, based on migration patterns, distribution patterns and also take into account geographical phenomenon such as plate tectonics. again the phylogenetic trees from these techniques also match the phylogenetic trees as expected from an analysis of the fossil record, and also DNA.

 

[Jet Black]

just for completeness, here is a phylogenic tree constructed from ERVs

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

The best source for the core of the TOC is the original source. The Gen. account of creation. A translation of which can be found in the Bible beginning in Gen 1. For areas where there is unclear information, one can cross reference. BTW, though the world wide flood is part of the bible, and part of Gen, it is not part of the original theory of the origins of the world. It is the "next" step in the story of our origins. We aren't even ready to discuss that yet, because we still can't understand what is and is not allowed in the original theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Who said that the blood was from the suspect? The blood can be from the victum, someone the victum knows who cut themselves, another victum, the suspect, that is what the blood splatters in part will determine, but, without other evidence to support the theories that arise from that evidence, we have no case. We must go deeper to find supporting evidence. This cannot be done simply by doing DNA tests, because that will not tell us if the blood is the suspects, the victums, or someone elses. In short, the blood splatters have not eliminated anyone.

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.

No I haven't read Origins. (I get blames for not answering every question with a yes or no, because I elaborate on the answer sometimes) Where does the information for comparative morphology come from and how is it observed. the same for comparative physiology, and how is it unique to the TOE? How about developmental biology, same questions, heck the same questions for each of these areas.

In order for it to be evidence that goes beyond the fossil record, we must meet two criteria, well three really.
1. Must rely on something other than fossils to test.
2. Must be unique to the TOE
3. Must prove the TOE as more than just a guess, in other words, we cannot assume that because we can interbreed to species and they produce an infertile offspring that evolution can occur, because if reproduction is not possible, evolution stops, so one would then have to prove that the infertile offspring can in some way reproduce before the evidence is viable to the theory of E.

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

Then outline it according to the above criteria.

 

[Jet Black]

3. Must prove the TOE as more than just a guess, in other words, we cannot assume that because we can interbreed to species and they produce an infertile offspring that evolution can occur, because if reproduction is not possible, evolution stops, so one would then have to prove that the infertile offspring can in some way reproduce before the evidence is viable to the theory of E.

you are misunderstanding again. It is not the infertile offspring that is the new species, it is the two parents of the infertile offspring that are the separate species - note that the parents can still breed with their own species no problem. they can clearly reproduce with one another (otherwise no offspring) however it is very difficult and the offspring are infertile. this makes the two groups genetically separate and hence separate species.

 

[mrversatile48]

Before I delve into the posts since I was last here, I would like to quote something from todays newpaper. Though it is not about E or C or ID, it does reinforce my claim that fossil record is not conclusive evidence. It does so by showing in a very clear was the doubts that should exist in our scientific view if we are doing more than experienceing a belief system.

A resent archaeological find, suggesting a cave used by John the Baptist. The quote begins here.... But some scholars said Gibson's finds aren't enought to support his theory, and one colleague said that short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.

Now please explain to me how such and inscription is necessary to provide overwhelming evidence to the existance of John the Baptist in history, but a fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE? No nonesence arguements please.

..all of which support Bible inerrancy

Must go!

Ian

 

[mrversatile48]

Ahhh, I think I am getting it, because the mule is not a viable fertile offspring, it does not become extinct, but how then does it evolve into a viable fertile creature????

The easy way or the hard way, guys??

Ian

 

[Jet Black]

Before I delve into the posts since I was last here, I would like to quote something from todays newpaper. Though it is not about E or C or ID, it does reinforce my claim that fossil record is not conclusive evidence. It does so by showing in a very clear was the doubts that should exist in our scientific view if we are doing more than experienceing a belief system.

A resent archaeological find, suggesting a cave used by John the Baptist. The quote begins here.... But some scholars said Gibson's finds aren't enought to support his theory, and one colleague said that short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.

Now please explain to me how such and inscription is necessary to provide overwhelming evidence to the existance of John the Baptist in history, but a fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE? No nonesence arguements please.

because here we are making a very specific claim about the existance of an individual. the things we can draw from this so far are that (1) people were baptised here and other rituals were carried out here (2) someone belonging to a sect that did not allow members to cut their hair worked here. (3) someone may have had their head severed here. there is nothing identifying a particular individual, though I think it is pretty likely that it was John. I will let the scholars argue it though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3571502.stm

 

[Susan Sto Helit]

Who said that the blood was from the suspect? The blood can be from the victum, someone the victum knows who cut themselves, another victum, the suspect, that is what the blood splatters in part will determine, but, without other evidence to support the theories that arise from that evidence, we have no case. We must go deeper to find supporting evidence. This cannot be done simply by doing DNA tests, because that will not tell us if the blood is the suspects, the victums, or someone elses. In short, the blood splatters have not eliminated anyone.

What do you mean? Of course DNA evidence can be used to eliminate suspects (or to conversely, prove -- at the very least -- that a given person was at the crime scene). The DNA extracted from the blood is compared to victim's and the suspects' DNA.

Where does the information for comparative morphology come from and how is it observed. the same for comparative physiology, and how is it unique to the TOE? How about developmental biology, same questions, heck the same questions for each of these areas.

Comparative morphology comes from our anatomical analyses of different organisms, obviously. Same with developmental biology.

In order for it to be evidence that goes beyond the fossil record, we must meet two criteria, well three really.
1. Must rely on something other than fossils to test.

We have plenty more evidence than the fossil record alone, as other people have already pointed out in this thread.

2. Must be unique to the TOE

Incorrect, evidence can and does apply to a great deal of theories. Scientific fields are not hermetically sealed.

3. Must prove the TOE as more than just a guess, in other words, we cannot assume that because we can interbreed to species and they produce an infertile offspring that evolution can occur, because if reproduction is not possible, evolution stops, so one would then have to prove that the infertile offspring can in some way reproduce before the evidence is viable to the theory of E.

And here we go again. The infertile hybrid offspring has got nothing to do with the mechanism of speciation, except as proof that a) the two populations are now separate species, otherwise their hybrid offspring would be fertile b) the two species are still genetically close enough that viable offspring can be produced, which is evidence of close common ancestry.

------SSH (these are my screen-name's initials, by the by, you don't have to repeat them when quoting, as the quote itself already has my name)

 

[razzelflabben]

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

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

I don't even understand what that last sentence is asking so I don't know how to answer it. I did not say that the observations alway suggest infertility, but rather that some did suggest reproductive problems. I noticed you said "breed after its kind" as everyone on this forum will tell you, we have no definition for kind, so you need to explain what you mean by that. Do you know a definition that no one else here knows or are you reading into the theory so as to make a point? BTW, it is not about E vs. C it is about whether or not the evidence is overwhelming (I thought I would mention this now because before when I have humored those here by answering such question, they have gotten way off topic, and then accused me of not addressing the issues) So then on two levels, we have this information being inconclusive. level one, many of the evidences of speciation presented on this thread, allow for doubts as to the viability of the breeding of the "new" species. Inconclusive evidence for or against. and level two, this information is not unique to the TOE, and at least in part is permitted in the original theory of C.

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

Right, I get that, I have gotten it for several posts now, but populations are made up of individuals and if none of the individuals are viably able to reproduce, we have no population. Populations always start with two individuals, not hundreds or thousands, for it to become a population, it is necessary for viable breeding to happen. If none of the population are viable breeders, there is no population. But, I am all wrong, it is all about that mysterious population that just occured, (not because of design mind you). As I was taught the TOE everything evolved from a single cell. What caused that first living cell to "breed" when it became a viable living organism, where was the population that allowed it to mate, thus beginning the evolutionary process. Oh I forgot, we can't ask such questions because there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, therefore there are no unanswered questions remaining. I keep forgetting that, I have been told that enough here that you would think that I got it by now. I'm just dense and stupid I guess.

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

And yet the whole theory of E is reduced to one organism? Hummm, sounds like a strong theory to me. NOT. If it began with a single organism, then it must also stand or fall as an individual organism.

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.

Right, but in this case, we are not talking about the ability to reproduce, obviously, they can reproduce. How are we missing this? It is in the continued "evolving" that we see possible reproductive problems.

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:, Again, wrong premise, so the conclusion is wrong: Nope. Evolution occurs among populations of living organisms.

But, how is it illogical to claim that populations are made up of living organisms, just like the whole thing supposedly began with one living organism, and therefore, your proof is short about a few million organisms. The TOE is based on the idea of a single organism, not a population of organisms. If, only a couple of the "new" species were not viable breeders, then your arguement would hold water, but if the entire population, even if that population is 1 or 2 strong, have reproductive problems, the whole arguement fail to offer proof. Now I won't do like some here and claim that that disproves the theory, but it certainly falls short of overwhelming evidence.

 

[gluadys]

Before I delve into the posts since I was last here, I would like to quote something from todays newpaper. Though it is not about E or C or ID, it does reinforce my claim that fossil record is not conclusive evidence. It does so by showing in a very clear was the doubts that should exist in our scientific view if we are doing more than experienceing a belief system.

A resent archaeological find, suggesting a cave used by John the Baptist. The quote begins here.... But some scholars said Gibson's finds aren't enought to support his theory, and one colleague said that short of an inscription with John's name in the cave, there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there.

Now please explain to me how such and inscription is necessary to provide overwhelming evidence to the existance of John the Baptist in history, but a fossil record is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE? No nonesence arguements please.

It would be necessary in order to show that the person baptizing there was John the Baptist and not someone else.

With fossils, we are not trying to indicate that this fossil was one particular individual. It is enough to show that the species existed and to have enough material to show what sort of species it was and how its characteristics were similar to or different from other species.

 

[gluadys]

Right, but where your explaination fails, is that populations are made up of individuals and if the individuals cannot reproduce there is no population.

This is not to say that the TOE is not possible, but that there is still question to the viability of the theory.

As a general rule, evolving populations can and do reproduce. That is what we all have been trying to tell you.