Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · Aug 17, 2004

gluadys said:
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.

What creature does this not apply too? If the species cannot reproduce, it lives for ever or becomes extinct, even if the species is a sexual, it has to be able to reproduce in order to continue to exist. Please site where this is not the case?

gluadys · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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

Why the double standard here? You have consistently used evidence for TOE as supportive of TOC and you have provided no evidence which is unique to TOC in its favour.

btw: I agree with your standard. Evidence for each theory should be unique to that theory. But you need to apply it to TOC as well.

What evidence for TOC can you supply that is unique to TOC and not shared with TOE?

DJ_Ghost · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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!?!

You really dont understand the theory of evolution at all do you? It predicts that SOME branches on the evolutionary tree will die out not all. Evolution only ends when ALL LIFE ends. Some species will become extinct if the theory is correct. So saying it is false because species become extinct shows a failure to understand it.

razzelflabben said:
Let's compare apples to apples for a moment.

You brought it up not me. I am pointing out why eye witness testimony is the least reliable since you made the false claim that its not.

razzelflabben said:
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.

Well first off that isnt true, there is a very high profile case in the UK just now where some one was in fact convicted on just the blood splatter evidence. However that is by the by, and mostly me being pedantic. The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution we have at all, as several people have pointed out in this thread and others. We have actually observed speciation, Jet Black and Lacuspa can tell you more.

razzelflabben said:
The same is true of the TOE fossil evidence alone cannot prove the theory.

Just as well its not the only evidence we have then.

razzelflabben said:
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.

We know what you are telling us, and we are telling you that you are wrong because the fossil record is not the only evidence for the theory. Your argument is built on a falsehood.

razzelflabben said:
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?

Your argument is clear to me and always has been, but its based on false assertions, as you have been told and as people have patiently explained.

razzelflabben said:
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.

What you have seen is irrelevant, that is the scientific method and people have been actively trying to falsify the theory for 150 years. The fact that you havent noticed does not mean it has not happened. Also, every time a falsification attempt fails, the theory grows stronger, naturally the falsification attempts slow down as people see fewer and fewer points of weakness and can come up with fewer points that would falsify it that have not already been tested and/or ruled out by previous attempts. The reason you dont see us doing it here now, on this forum at this second is because it has been done so often there is little to no room left for us to do it. Believe me, the second any scientist thinks he has identified a way to have another crack at it he will be off doing just that with his eye firmly on the Noble prize he knows he will get if he succeeds. Everyone who has tried has failed, everything we can think of that would falsify the theory has been tried. THAT is why we have a good, sound reason to think the theory is correct, but the second something else that may falsify it comes along it will be looked into.

razzelflabben said:
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....

No I would not care to change my statement one iota, the modern scientific method has been falsificationist not verificationist since Karl Popper. If you do not believe me then look it up and find out and you will quickly understand why I do not wish to change the statement. My statement was correct, falsificationism requires that we try to falsify a theory rather than verify it. As Lacuspa pointed out you can always find evidence to support a theory, the real test is in being unable to find evidence that will falsify it.

razzelflabben said:
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.

This forum is full of examples of falsifications of the theory of creation, also does it not strike you as odd that most major Christian denominations would have abandoned the theory of creation if it had not been resoundingly falsified?

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

The book explains why modern science is falsificationist and not verificationist, it goes into detail on the whys, wherefores and history. It explains the modern scientific method, falsificationism, and the history thereof. I pointed you at it only because I feel Smith explains these more clearly than I do.

Ghost

Jet Black · Aug 17, 2004

Another demonstration of speciation is that of ring species. In ring species the animals are located around some geological feature, such as a mountain range or the whole planet. each species can breed with it'S neighbour, since there are only very small differences between them and their neigbour. However at the ends of the species exist two groups that cannot breed with one another, since the accumulated behavioural and genetic differences are too large to allow breeding to occur between the ends of the ring species.

DJ_Ghost · Aug 17, 2004

Jet Black said:
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.

Good Grief! Where did she get that idea?

Mind you re-reading some of her posts with that basic mistake in mind suddenly makes a lot more sense of some of her objections! I think she and I have been at cross purposes on that then, I never imagined she could have gotten that idea.

Ghost

Edit; Gender correcter, sorry about that.

gluadys · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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 mule doesn't evolve. Evolution requires the ability to reproduce. Left to itself the mule becomes extinct.

But the horse and donkey can both continue to reproduce and to evolve.

If they become even more different from each other than they are now, the time will come when they cannot even produce a mule when crossbred.

But they can still continue to reproduce each on their own, and to evolve each on their own.

The fact that they can produce a mule today is an indication of recent common ancestry. From the perspective of evolutionary history it is not so long ago that we had only one donkey/horse population that was entirely inter-fertile. Now we have two separate populations and it is not possible for a mating between them to reliably produce fertile offspring.

Therefore the evolution of each group (horse and donkey) will proceed separately in the future.

Consider a family tree comparison. Great-great-grandpa Jones lived in Wales with all his children. They all lived in the same village, and could easily visit with each other. After a couple of generations (to avoid inbreeding) some of his great-grandchildren might even marry each other.

But then young David Jones and his wife moved to London. Visits became rare. The London-Joneses had to communicate with the Welsh Joneses by letter or telephone instead of daily visits. Their children grew up knowing friends and neighbours in London, not the clan in Wales, and after a generation or two the two groups seldom correspond.

David's brother, Hugh emigrated to America. For that family, communication with both the original Welsh clan and the London-based clan was even more difficult and expensive. After a few generations, the American Joneses don't keep in touch with their British cousins at all.

Same with horse/zebra/donkey. We start out with one common population (HZD). But, just like David and his family, part of the group separates and becomes the donkey group. And just like Hugh and his family, another part separates and becomes the zebra group. And communication (mating) between them becomes rarer, more sporadic and more difficult and may cease altogether.

But, of course, each group is still in close communication (inter-fertile) with other members of its own group, so each group can still continue to evolve separately from the others.

USincognito · Aug 17, 2004

I don't have any comments to this thread in reply to my previous comments since they've gone unreplied to (razzelflabben - no beef, and don't bother, you've already replied to more expansive posts), but I just want to make the following comments - I am humbled by the intellectual prowress of the members currently viewing this thread.

Jet Black · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

true, but nobody is saying this happens. please note:

population A splits into populations B and C, perhaps by a river forming or something, it doesn't matter. at this stage, if we try to breed a member of B and C, they will breed successfully. now over time, B and C will gradually accumulate changes to their genome, and eventually those changes will be such that a member of population B can no longer breed with a member of population C. we can see this spatially in some american salamanders, the black headed gull, and the israeli naked mole rat.

Populations always start with two individuals, not hundreds or thousands, for it to become a population, it is necessary for viable breeding to happen.

false, a population does not always start with two individuals. That is like saying that America was colonised by only two people, and all the people in America today are descendents of those two people.

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.

most single celled organisms reproduce asexually. there are however many intermediates between asexual reproducers and sexual reproducers. for example many bacteria transfer genes to one another. certain algae and so on can merge cells together and then split off again, mixing DNA. many organisms produce one generic type of gamete which fuses with another gamete and so on.

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.

again no. It is a rather grey area as to whether we consider early life as a single organism or not. Lucaspa posted several references in a different thread I think about protocells, in which many protocells are created on one pan of amino acids. so from here we see that a number of organisms could spawn life.

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.

again, the earliest organisms are asexual reproducers, so there are no reproduction problems.

razzelflabben · Aug 17, 2004

Jet Black said:
it's on the first page dude.

http://christianforums.com/t736563

I hope your attemts at scientific enquiry are more rigorous.

THanks for the help. I also wanted to give you a special thanks for that last edifying comment. I was not aware that I was suppose to already know how to navigate the forum in order to prove my abilities to research, because when I was learning reasearch technics, the computer was still somewhat of a novalty, but so be it, you can consider me an idiot, stupid, unlearned, narrow minded, or any number of other things you want to label me, I know the truth of what I know and do not know, what I can and cannot do, and the one thing that everyone who knows me will agree on is this, I am smart, knowledgeable, passionate for truth, and can research with the best of them. That is enough for me, because they are the ones who know me.

As to the post, first let me thank Gladys for keeping my name out of the post therefore, I have no reason to take time I don't have to defend my position.
Secondly, the post is interesting and explains a lot, but what it fails to do is explore the original theory or C as it did the theory of E. What the post did, is explore the original theory of E and how it has changed and then goes into a critique of how the original theory of C has been interpreted and changed over time. This is an unfair evaluation of the theories as they have evolved over time and leaves me wondering even more about what is and is not evidence in science, because if we cannot even fairly critique the theories, how can we be sure that the scientific observations have been fairly critiqued? Just a question at this point, no accusations. It is about seeking truth, and truth cannot be found in a biased observation of the data, bias allows for justification, not truth. It is the human nature to view things through these biased glasses, but whenever possible, the glasses must come off and we must look at things as though we could be wrong, or we will never even hope to know truth.

Gladys writting on the issue is very good, and her knowledge is wonderful, she impresses me often, but the post would truely be enlightening if she presented a fair evaluation of the theories and how each has evoled.

Jet Black · Aug 17, 2004

USincognito said:
I am humbled by the intellectual prowress of the members currently viewing this thread.

the soles of my boots need licking, get to it boy

lucaspa · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

What you have done is confuse two theories:
1. John the Baptist existed as a historical person -- when you said "the existance of John the Baptist in history"

2. John the Baptist was in that particular cave. This is where the article said "there could never be conclusive proof of his presence there"

Do you see the difference between the claims? The argument in the paper is about the much narrower claim of whether John the Baptist was in that particular cave, not whether he existed. Apples and oranges.

Now, if you can establish that John was in the cave, you go a long way to establishing his existence. However, if John was not in the cave, then that is all you have found.

So, failure to find a particular lineage only shows you don't have that lineage. BUT, finding a series of individual fossils (like the picture I showed you with the snails) linking two very different taxa is like finding John's name carved in the cave.

Jet Black · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
THanks for the help. I also wanted to give you a special thanks for that last edifying comment. I was not aware that I was suppose to already know how to navigate the forum in order to prove my abilities to research, because when I was learning reasearch technics, the computer was still somewhat of a novalty, but so be it, you can consider me an idiot, stupid, unlearned, narrow minded, or any number of other things you want to label me, I know the truth of what I know and do not know, what I can and cannot do, and the one thing that everyone who knows me will agree on is this, I am smart, knowledgeable, passionate for truth, and can research with the best of them. That is enough for me, because they are the ones who know me.

no no, I get a bit short tempered sometimes. I hope you can accept my apologies for any untoward comments that I might have made. sorry about that.

razzelflabben · Aug 17, 2004

gluadys said:
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.

Right, but it does present some questions as to the viability of the TOE when everything began with a one celled organism. An issue by the way that the TOC can address in relation to other passages in the bible.

DJ_Ghost · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

The fossil record is not the only evidence we have. You have been pointed to 29 others by previous posts.

Ghost

Jet Black · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Right, but it does present some questions as to the viability of the TOE when everything began with a one celled organism. An issue by the way that the TOC can address in relation to other passages in the bible.

as I said earlier, though you probably haven't had time to read that yet, this is a bit of a strawman in a way. the earliest protolife most likely formed a colony as illustrated by Fox's protocells that lucaspa has documented, and so it is not strictly true to say that there was a "first organism" nevertheless, even if there were, bacteria reproduce asexually, so there is no problem there. sexual reproduction can evolve later.

gluadys · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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?

We are looking at the differences. We are also looking at fossils which combine the characteristics of terrestrial and marine mammals---such as the four-legged Ambulocetus natans clearly capable of walking and swimming, and whose head and body are very whale-like. Given earlier fossils with somewhat whale-like characteristics of head and ear, yet with hooved feet, and later fossils which could only swim and had small non-functioning hind-limbs, the transition from a land-based mammal to a whale looks pretty reasonable.

http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

Aron-Ra · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Huh? I did not ignore Merle's post. In fact I have never ignored Merle's posts even though there have been many times I should have. {/quote]Yes you did. You ignored the content and the point culminated by it

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

Click to expand...

This is actually one of my most cherished philosophies. But I phrase it differently. I say "You cannot seek the truth if you can't first admit that you don't already know it."

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

Click to expand...

But you're guilty of the same thing, don't you see? You managed to discard all that he discovered literally without a thought, just like you are trying to automatically dismiss all that everyone is trying to tell you now. If you were capable of the kind of objectivity you claim to practice, then after 800 posts, you should an expert on evolution. Yet you still think hybrids are involved in that process no matter how many dozens of dozens of times qualified experts have corrected you on that error.

You cannot claim to be seeking truth because you will not admit that you don't already know it.

razzelflabben · Aug 17, 2004

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

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.

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

It "stands" as completely falsified.

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 wrote this post to show sarcasm, but now you are saying that the TOE is fact? That is exactly the thinking that started this thread, the assumption that theory is fact. The assumption that some here have asserted doesn't exist. Hummm?

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.

And yet you totally ignore the definition I presented for kind, why would that be, in fact, I don't recall anybody here working with that definition except to say that I didn't give it. More curiouser and more curiouser

Aron-Ra · Aug 17, 2004

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

Had you actually attempted to answer these questions, you would know that can't be the case. But then, had you actually attempted to answer these, you would realize that your whole priori perspective on this is wrong, and not just that one assumption.

lucaspa · Aug 17, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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

TOC requires that there be some gap between "kinds" doesn't it? That is, if all life is speciation from a single kind (say a single cell) then that would be evolution, wouldn't it?

Therefore, there have to be gaps in DNA among living plants and animals such that a kind is not connected via DNA to another kind. A connection means evolution.

BTW, Razzel, this is called hypothetico-deductive method and making deductions with consequences. TOC says there is no common ancestor and living organisms are not related thru historical connections. Separate creations. Right?

Phylogenetic analysis is based on the analysis of DNA sequences, and thanks to new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. So we can compare DNA sequences from species to species and from species in plants to species in animals, etc. So many species that some of them have to come from different kinds, no matter how you define "kind".

OK, did we find independent DNA sequences unconnected to any other DNA sequences? That is what we should have found if TOC is true. If TOE is true, then the DNA sequences should be related by the historical connections of common ancestry.

"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."

There you go. TOC is falsified and TOE is 'proved'. True statements can't have false consequences. TOC has this as a false consequence. It isn't true. God's Creation tells us God didn't create by TOC. God created by evolution.

The reference for all that, including the quote, is:
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

Science is in your public library. Take the kids to the library and look it up for yourself.

Challenging Evolution

Contributor

Legend

Trad Goth

Jet Black

Guest

Trad Goth

Legend

a post by Alan Smithee

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Legend

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Trad Goth

Jet Black

Guest

Legend

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency