Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

Razzel, you blew by this question in order to question the common ancestry of donkey and horse. So let me put the question to you again:

Now, please go back to the lab studies that I have referred to where different populations of a single species are placed in separate environments and you get 2 new completely interfertile populations -- new species -- but they can't breed with each other -- different kinds. How is that mimicking the TOC?

How are the lab studies mimicking TOC? I'd really like to know.

The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.

I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Razzelflabben.

Friendly suggestion: After almost 1,000 posts, this thread has become unwieldy with all sorts of different questions, claims, and challenges. Maybe you could take the questions you still have and start new threads for each (not too many at a time, though!). Just a suggestion... -Ish

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't see your problem razzelflabben. where does it go wrong for you?

population A is split into 2 populations, B and C. population B continues to breed amongst itself, and population C continues to breed amongst itself. over time B and C drift apart such that after a time T, no member of population B can breed with a member of population C, however all the members of B can breed with one another, and all the members of C can breed with one another. no loss of breeding viability within those groups ever occured.

can you tell me what you find wrong with that?

The problem is when breeding stops all together and only the original populations are breedable.

 

[gluadys]

Right, but this does nothing to close the hole that offers the possibility that E does not happen.

Excuse me, but if you have really understood all that, what hole are you speaking of that still needs to be closed. How can it be possible that evolution does not happen when we have directly observed it happening?

Don't you see, things like ring species and other speciations, do nothing to prove the TOE only to prove the possibility of E.

How can speciation only prove the possibility of evolution? Speciation is the end-product of evolution. For goodness sakes, species change is evolution even without speciation. When you have species change producing speciation, you have even more evidence than you need to show that evolution is a fact.

What in the world more do you think is needed to show that evolution is a fact, not just a possibility?

...especially when one realized how compatable the evidence is to the original TOC. You know, that theory that has repeatedly been falsified, that is compatable with the evidences you present.

Does TOC predict speciation? One species/kind changing until it becomes another species/kind that can no longer inter-breed with the original species/kind?

If you answer yes, please explain how it can predict speciation and still assert that creatures are created "after their kind".

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, stop and think about this a moment. A grave is dug. That means that the fill of the grave is different in composition from the layers of sediment around it. Right? As you dig the grave, you break up the layers with your shovel or whatever tool you are using. Then you just dump what you scooped out back in, with it all mixed up. So, as a paleontologist later looking at the site, as you carefully excavate, you see that the dirt/rock around the body is all broken up bits and pieces. Then you come to the edge of the grave and have a transition from all jumbled up to regular layers.

From history, we know that not all burial was dug. Some were in caves. And BTW, how does this prove that the fossil record is conclusive?

Razzel, you don't need to play the martyr. And that isn't going to make your ideas valid or invalid. What you need to do is think about the ideas you are posting in an attempt to show them wrong. Before you post them. If you can't show them wrong after a real honest, hard try, then put them out there to see if we can.

Now whether or not you understand this, I do consider myself dumb, but some of the comments made on this thread have been counter productive to the disucssion because they assume that I am not smart enough to perpose a viable possible explaination. I am thinking, that is why I have questions, and why I question the conclusiveness of the evidence. If I wasn't thinking, I would blindly follow the teaching without ever offering questions or hypothesis.

However, if you don't use basic common sense on your ideas or put a little thought into them, then you can hardly complain if someone impolitely comments that the idea is silly. You can rightly call them on their manners, but that isn't going to save the idea.

What basic common sense would you have me apply, that burial can only occur by digging a hole. Do try to use more common sense than that when putting forth an arguement okay?

 

[gluadys]

* Jet Black is really confused as to what would convince razzelflabben now

I guess.

She agrees that speciation occurs, but still insists evolution is "only a possibility for which there is no overwhelming evidence."

PS cute hippy flares.

 

[Logic]

The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.

Now you're talking about a hell of a lot more evolution than evolutionists think could occur in that small of a time frame.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

The problem is when breeding stops all together and only the original populations are breedable.

Why would breeding stop, unless you're talking about hybrids again? The original population split (geographic isolation maybe?), and the more time passes, the more genetic changes each population accumulates. Shortly after the split, if members of the different populations met and attempted to breed, chances are that fertile offspring would result. But as time passes, this becomes less and less likely. Later, sterile hybrids may occasionally result from union between members of the different populations. But even this becomes less and less likely with time. At some point, no viable offspring will be possible. The populations would have each accumulated too many genetic changes to allow it.

 

[gluadys]

But somewhere along the way, two completely sexually different creatures would have had to evolve that were compatable in every way reproductively.

No, not at all. Males and females do not have different sets of genes, since both get the same set of genes from both their mother and their father. (with the exception of some genes that are found on the X chromosome, but not on the Y chromosome. And those are just missing from the Y chromosome. No different genes are put in their place.)

We get male and female because the combination of X and Y chromosomes affects the development of the embryo differently than the combination of two X chromosomes. It is a matter of how the genes are expressed, not a matter of having different genes.

How big was this first population of male/female reproductive creatures, and how did they evolve as similar enough to reproduce but different enough to allow reproduction?

Probably quite large, though I couldn't give you an exact figure. What you need to take into account is that there is an intermediate step between asexual reproduction and male/female reproduction.

That is hermaphroditic reproduction. Many plants and animals are hermaphroditic. They are not male and female. They have the reproductive parts of both males and females. Hermaphroditic animals have both ovaries and a penis. They produce both eggs and sperm. They can take the role of either male or female in a mating, and they can mate with every other mature member of their species.

Sometimes they even have duels to determine who will be the male and who will be the female.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/episodes/hunt_explo2.html


Now, if you begin with a hermaphroditic species, and everyone having the same genes, you get to a male/female species when some individuals begin to specialize in being male or female.

This is easy to see in plants. Some trees, for example, produce two kinds of flowers, one male and one female. Its not a big step from that to have an all-male plant and an all-female plant.

 

[gluadys]

How pray tell, The fossils prove that "John existed" (evolution is possible) finding the lineages and connections is "proving John was in the cave" (overwhelming evidence of the TOE) apples to apples

And finding some lineages and connections (such as in observed speciation) shows that evolution actually happens.

Finding evidence of further lineages and connections provides additional evidence that evolution has happened.

Finding additional evidence of the relatedness of all life supports common descent.

So we have direct evidence that evolution is a fact, and lots of evidence that it is not just a fact today, but has been a fact in the past as well, including evidence of a common ancestor of all living organisms.

And more to the point, we have NO contradictory evidence.

That is what really puts the icing on the cake and makes the evidence in favour overwhelming.

 

[gluadys]

I have examined and addressed all that were presented and found all wanting as overwhelming evidence.

On what basis?

It is not enough to assert the evidence is not overwhelming. You have to show the problems with it. You have to show why it is not conclusive.

Otherwise you are just hand-waving.

 

[gluadys]

Now we are getting somewhere. We are both looking at the evidence and interpreting it differently. So how do we determine who is looking at it correctly and who is not? Who determines? I perpose to you, that if there are multipe ways of looking at the evidence and both sides see things differently, neither is right or wrong, but neither is there overwhelming proof for either, because it is purely a matter of perspective.

Well, first you have to show that there IS another interpretation. You have said you are interpreting the evidence differently, but (as usual) you have not said what that different intepretation is. We cannot determine anything at all until you do.

Once you have explained what your interpretation is, we determine what predictions each theory makes about the evidence and then we check the predictions against the evidence.

The theory which makes the most correct predictions is the stronger theory.

If a theory makes a prediction which is shown by the evidence to be false, then that theory is deemed to be false. (That could apply to both theories in which case we would have two false theories and no good theory.)

 

[The Bellman]

* Jet Black is really confused as to what would convince razzelflabben now

Isn't it obvious? Nothing. She's been shown the evidence repeatedly, and shown where creationism has been falsified; she still refuses to admit either that evolution is overwhelmingly evidenced or that creationism has been falsified.

Truly it has been said that "you can lead a creationist to facts, but you can't make them think."

 

[gluadys]

Okay, Has that DNA tested the original single cell? Has it tested all living and none living organisms since that single cell existed? How far back has it gone?

Slight correction: population of single-celled organisms. We would not be looking for one single cell.

If you mean that we developed from a single cell, no that is E.

No, that is not evolution. TOE says we developed (ultimately) from a common ancestor. The common ancestor is a population of single-celled organisms, not a single-cell.

Misrepresenting what TOE says, even if it is inadvertent, does not get us closer to the truth.

If you mean that some evolution is possible, yes, the TOC can accept this.

Does the "some evolution" which TOC can accept include speciation?

If you answer yes, please explain how TOC can accept speciation (one species/kind becoming another species/kind) and still assert that living creatures were created after their kinds.

So you are saying we are comparing the DNA to that single cell again?

No, we are comparing the DNA of different species. Not of single cells, but of populations of organisms both multi-cellular and single-cellular.

When did we locate this cell? I don't recall it on the news.

Don't be silly. Any cell which was part of the ancestral population has long since died and probably left no fossil evidence. What we may be able to do one day is reconstruct the genome of the common ancestor. Much in the way linguists are reconstructing the original Indo-European roots of all the Indo-European languages.

If the DNA is conclusive evidence of E, then how can there be differences in humans from one to the other? Wouldn't they be identical sequences, as we would see from species to species? What are we using to compare DNA, not fossils again I hope?

There will be both identical sequences in some places and a great deal of variation in others. Both the similarities and the differences help to sort out the "family connections" and point toward a common ancestor. And no, it is completely independant of fossil evidence.

That is what makes the agreement of this line of evidence with that of the fossil evidence so remarkable.

It is as if you had two different maps, drawn by different people, using a different perspective, and they both led you to the same buried treasure.

 

[gluadys]

100 pages and counting down (up?) to 1,000 posts.

Is this some kind of a record for CF?

 

[gluadys]

But it is absolutely necessary for TOC. Because, without it, the fossil record is clear that water animals came before birds and that land mammals were around before whales. That contradicts a literal Genesis 1, thus falsifying TOC right there. Also, with a literal Genesis 1, every fossil plant and animal should appear in every layer. Remember, they were all created within a 72 hour period, therefore all the plants and animals lived at the same time. But the fossil record is clear that different plants and animals lived at different times. The Flood is needed to give the geological record. Without the Flood, TOC is shown to be false by how the fossil record is laid out, whether you think the fossil record supports evolution or not. It shows TOC to be wrong.

It would appear you are reading into the theory.

WHAT is lucaspa reading into TOC, and why should it lead to different conclusions than what he gave?

Please explain your assertions. How do you expect anyone to understand the original TOC better if you never explain it to us?

 

[gluadys]

But a truely historical account would includehow the theory evolved to the point of what Darwin encountered.

It didn't. It was taken for granted and didn't need to evolve. It only began evolving under pressure of the growing evidence for TOE. So the history is complete as it stands.

 

[gluadys]

Or, the woodpecker migrated in some way, and the bone stuctures basically work. What is your point? How does this falsify C and overwhelm E?

Yes, the woodpecker migrated. That is the conclusion TOE comes to, since obviously it was not created for the treeless grasslands of Argentina. But what about the bone structures. Why would TOC predict the same bone structures being used over and over for different functions. Would it not make more sense to design new bone structures that would be more efficient for each function?

TOE explains that the basic bone structure appeared in a common ancestor and was inherited and adapted to various different functions.

How does TOC explain this?

But, back to the topic, animals adapt, they are different and unique, that doesn't equal E.

On the contrary, you have just described exactly what evolution is.

And you have also adopted the latest fashion of creationism which is to state that "Evolution is not evolution."

Rather that is suggestive of C.

How? How does TOC explain variation and adaptation?

So evolution predicts, that when two species reproduce, the offspring will be unable to reproduce?

That the offspring will have difficulty reproducing, yes.

Okay, then I ask again, how then does evolution occur. If the new species cannot evolve because it cannot reproduce, then how can it evolve?

Because it is rare (especially in animals) that the offspring of inter-breeding is a new species. But evolution does not depend on inter-breeding. Evolution depends on successful breeding within the horse and donkey species, not by mules. After all, we already have many sub-species of horses. If one of them developed a problem in cross-breeding with other sub-species, it would become genetically isolated from other horses, and be a new species. But it would still breed easily within its own species boundaries. Unlike the mule.

Oh boy isn't this fun! This is not unique to the TOE, nor does it prove a single cell organism that started the whole process. Especially when we consider that the inbreeding in plants leaves one without viable seeds for germanation. That's why people like the heriloom plants, because their seeds reproduce.

It would be nice if you commented on the speciation which lucaspa presented. This is off-topic.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Sorry this is a long one.

I have examined and addressed all that were presented and found all wanting as overwhelming evidence.

Are you looking for a single piece of evidence that is overwhelming? If so I don’t think you will find it, you have to fit them all together, it is only when one looks at the entirety of the body of evidence that one finds an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of the theory, no one piece on its own is going to do it for you. Sciences does not work like that, and its the very point you were making with your criminal justice analogy, that one needs more than one source of evidence.

Also can you explain to me why it is that you have repeatedly made the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence evolutionary scientists are using, and then, all of a sudden you admit that it is not the only form of evidence that evolutionary scientists are using?

If you have, as you claim here, examined all the types of evidence that where presented, then even if you don’t find them compelling you must still admit that they are being brought to the table. Hence its just not true to make the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence that is being examined.

Also, can you please stop using the terms evidence and proof as interchangeable because they are not.

In fact, many times over I have said that it does not falsify the TOE. What it does do is bring into question the validity of the theory. The TOC can and does explain why branches on the evolutionary tree die out. I have not heard and explaination from the E as to why it occurs,

You haven’t? You are stating that you have never heard the term “survival of the fittest”?

The bottom line, this does not offer overwhelming proof of any theory. Which is the point of the thread.

Proof is for maths, everything else has to make do with evidence.

I did not say it was reliable, but it does offer proof.

There is no such thing as proof that is not reliable. You are using Proof when you mean evidence.

is it that eye witnesses along with other evidence makes such strong case, that we can call it overwhelming evidence?

BINGO! That is it exactly. Theories (like legal cases) are based on lots of different forms of evidence, none of which is enough to be conclusive on its own, but when it is all put together, it leaves little to no doubt. You can not truthfully claim that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution, because it is not, as many people have pointed out.

Join the race to provide further evidence that is 1. not related to the fossil record and 2. is unique to the TOE

Well Jet Black has repeatedly presented you with evidence that is not linked to the fossil record and both he and I mentioned the fact that speciation has been observed. Can you explain to me why you want it to be unique to the theory of evolution? You do not need evidence that is unique to one theory, what you need is evidence that fits the theory, a lack of falsifying evidence that falsifies the theory and the presence of falsifying evidence for all competing theories. Now we have all that. The evidence Jet keeps asking you to address is consistent with the theory of evolution, there is no evidence to falsify its inclusion and as he has pointed out he can not see how the theory of creation could account for it. Now its okay if you don’t understand some of the evidence he presented, I will be honest, I don’t understand all of it, but then he is the biologist and I am the criminologist.

Are you 100% sure of this,

Yes I am. Good grief, if you do not believe me look up modern scientific method in a modern scientific textbook. Yes this is how it is done, I know because I have done it several times myself and I have seen other scientists do it. We look for falsifying evidence to use to test our ideas, we then expect some one else to come along and try and prove us wrong, and we hope we got it right and can withstand their best efforts to make us look silly.

when I made posts on this thread that questioned the theory of E based on the scientific observations, the results were less than favorable, which would suggest just the opposite,

All that tells us is that the arguments you presented were not sufficient to falsify the theory because people saw flaws with your arguments or answers to your questions. That's what you got, answers to your questions. You may not consider them sufficient but the evolutionary scientists on this thread do consider the arguments against your points valid, that is because you are going over ground they have seen people go over before and they are satisfied that they have seen answers to the questions. I hope I am being clear here, because I am not sure I am.

Now I personally would like to give you and the other E the benefit of the doubt and assume that the problem is one of communication break down but, that becomes ever increasingly hard to do. If the theory of E is open to science disproving it, then, it would stand to reason that challenge would be welcomed rather than critisized.

The two are not exclusive. Criticism means to look at critically and to weigh up the pros and cons. Evolutionary theory is open to challenges, but your challenges are based on misconceptions. Your challenges have been dismissed not because people do not wish to hear it but because they feel they have an answer for all the question you feel you are raising.

Maybe you should discuss the issue with the other E here before you get back to me on it, so that you have a good solid explaination for the reactions I got when I challenged the theory.

It is not that you challenged the theory that got you the reaction, its that your challenge has been seen and debunked before. You base it on a couple of fairly big mistakes (no I am not calling you thick, this is complicated stuff and you are not a biologist) and you have claimed repeatedly that the fossil record is the only evidence we have when it is not. People are frustrated that's all. So are you, I know. Its not surprising you are pretty much on your own here and you have a lot of other commitments, so by the time you are getting back to the discussion you are seeing page after page of responses. Frankly the fact you have not found it overwhelmingly daunting is a testament to your endurance. Also keep in mind that not everyone in this debate is a scientist, so not everyone is going to debate in the manner a scientist might debate.

Which is exactly why the E who claims overwhelming evidence should react calmly to challenge rather than rudely and attack like a pack of hungry hyenas every time a challenge is presented. A challenge should not leave the challenger feeling stupid, but rather enlightened at the knowledge he has gained, if indeed, the theory can withstand the challenge.

Yes I agree. Problem is there are a lot of people wanting to say their part, and by the time you get back to the thread it must look like a bit of a dog pile. Frankly how you can be bothered to read all the posts is beyond me, since there seems to be no one backing you. Its not surprising you miss one or two posts, its more surprising that you miss so few. And yes, some people have treated you shoddily on occasion. I may be one of them, if so I apologise, I disagree with you but I don’t want to insult or belittle you because of it.

I don't know what you mean by the last statement about christian denominations.

Sorry I am not always as clear as I intend. I simply meant that most major Christian denominations accept evolution as the method by which God created the variety of life we see today.

I do know that a careful study of the original theory as put forth in the book of Gen. reveals a theory that can stand up to most if not all the evidence presented that supposedly falsifies the theory.

Well it would need to stand up to all of it. I also think this may be worth exploring more (I am going off to re-read Genesis tonight I think). Creationism is generally attached to a number of hypothesise that we know are wrong. The Geological evidence falsifies the global flood (but not a local one. I think if memory serves it actually supports a fairly extensive local one), it falsifies the age of the earth etc. Now you keep mentioning a newer model of creationism but if you have set it out for us then its been in a post I missed. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum can be found by looking at that. Some of what I am picking up from your other posts makes me wonder if what you are talking about is just a form of Theistic Evolution, but other things you say make me think it may not be.

Christian denominations bore me as much as this thread does, simply because most if not all, claim one thing but live by another. This double standard troubles me terribly and I will refute it as often as I can.

Okay fair comment.

Thanks for clarifying what you wanted me to learn from the book.

You are welcome. As it happens this book came up on a discussion on the Soc. Sci. Faculty forum of my university recently (after I brought it up here) and apparently not everyone finds Smith as clear and concise as I do. The undergraduates and the ecologists especially seem to find him obtuse, so perhaps its not the best reference for you. I will try and think of another if you are interested.

Ghost

 

[razzelflabben]

Who's we, paleface? You may have been told that the common ancestor was a one-celled organism, but I can't see you being told it was a "one living cell organism". That makes no sense.

Opps a living single celled organism. Yep, that is what we were taught.

We have overwhelming evidence for
1. Common ancestry.

Where?

2. The common ancestor was a one-celled organism.

Where?
I see a lot of speculation for both, but no inscription for either.

However, you can't combine those to say that there was only one one-celled organism. Do you see how the combination doesn't follow?

What I believe about the theory and what I have been taught about the theory are not necessarily the same thing. Why do people assume that we all automatically believe what we are taught? I think things through, ask questions, make assumptions, and evaluate the evidence seperately from what my teachers have said.

That's not a problem. I'm afraid it is Argument from Ignorance. You have to remember that there is a differnce between what you know and what is known. The evolution of sex can be understood by looking at living organisms that are intermediates in the process.
1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system.
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.
3. Evolution of Sex. Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of 8 review articles discussing the topic.
3a. http://www.nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/

Also do a search on "Volvox" on the web. Fascinating creatures. Have only two types of cells -- body cells and sex cells. No male and female but reproduce sexually.

1. That all life can be classed in a nested hierarchy.
2. That not all species will be found in all layers of the fossil record.
3. That DNA sequences will not be independent observations but will be interrelated thru historical connections.
4. The characteristics of a hive mammal. Predicted before the naked mole rat was discovered.
5. That, as we go back in time, lineages will become less and less distinct.
6. "For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered."
7. That you can treat AIDS by giving anti-viral drugs for a period of time, then remove them for a period, and then institute them again. And this is a successful way to keep HIV under control.
8. That guppies placed above falls so that predators can't get to them will evolve so that they are larger and mate later. 2. Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Evaluationof the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poeciliareticulata). Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article isPredatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

So now we are asked to believe that reproductive ability has nothing to do with evolution? I know that is not what you intend to say, but come on, how does any of this show overwhelming evidence that something we cannot test is true?