Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Jimmy The Hand
And how do YOU explain ERVs?
input, input.
Okay, I know I am tired, but this doesn't make any sense as to overwhelming evidence for the TOE. The fossils demonstrate, the DNA demonstrates that E is the only answer? How far back are we going with this evidence?USincognito said:You're conflating the two evidences.
- The fossils demonstrate common descent through mesurably progressive changes in morphology.
- The DNA demonstrates common descent through genetic similarities like ERVs and pseudogenes that could only exist common descent is true.
As far as the phylogenies go. We could not construct them with fossil and DNA evidence if all species were suddenly and seperately created. Instead of branching lines on a bush of life, we would have nothing but straight lines from older versions of species to newer ones. But when we do the comparisons, we find that everything fits. Sometimes a branch needs to be pruned or redirected, but on the whole, phylogenies can be constructed accurately. This is something that could not be done if sudden, special creation were true.
DJ_Ghost said: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.
Well, when you do have the time to clarify "kinds" please do so. Because right now your kinds = species. Which is, of course, why Linneaus used the word "species", which is Latin for "kind".razzelflabben said:Close enough for me at this time. Don't currently have the will to try to clarify anything.
That's a bit petulant, isn't it? You say you believe me, and then deny that by saying the references I gave are in the same category of figment of the imagination as the papers you read. Perhaps you can tell us where to find the papers you read so we can check them out for ourselves? Like I gave you the references for what I say so you can look them up.No I believe you, all the things I have read that question the ability for breeding are a figment of my imagination, just like the papers I read that warned people that this was not conclusive evidence.
You didn't answer my question. You just asked one of your own. Not fair. Here's my question again. Please answer it.How do new species occur? The mixing of genes? If I breed two creatures that have similar but not identical genes, which set of genes does the offspring take? Remember, the answer cannot be both or you just answered your own question.
Where do these populations come from?Look around you. Where do they come from now? From breeding of individuals. The point is that evolution involves populations, not 1 or 2 individuals.
Variations have 2 basic sources:How do we get variations, if this is inconsistant with the TOC?
1. Sexual recombination. Remember, most traits are not caused by a single gene. You need several genes, for instance, to get the shape of your nose. Each person has two forms -- alleles -- of each gene. One from your father and one from your mother. When you make sperm or egg, the cells reshuffle those alleles into combinations you don't have in your body cells. Then there is the shuffle from the other sexual partner. So the kids have variations due to this recombination.
2. Mutations. These are errors in copying the DNA. Asexually reproducing organisms have only this method to get variation.
Now, since in TOC kinds can only breed within a kind, how can separated populations of kinds change enough so that they can't breed with one another again? Don't kinds have to remain as they are created?
I don't think you really have that much time! In terms of natural selection being a means to get designs,What proof do you offer?
1. Breeders have been using natural selection for thousand of years to design plants and animals the way they want.
2. people use natural selection to design when the design problem is too tough for them. Genetic algorithms are natural selection run by humans where humans set the environment but natural selection does the designing. Natural selecton is even good enough to get patents! www.genetic-programming.com
In terms of natural selection designing plants and animals, there is SO much proof. Please do a search on Pubmed using "natural selection". In the fly experiment producing new kinds, it was natural selection that designed the flies to the different temps and diets. But an experiment I like was done in the wild. The researchers knew the environment well enough to predict ahead of time how natural selection would change the animals.
Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.
This is an excellent study of natural selection at work. Guppies are preyed upon by species that specialize in eating either the small, young guppies, or older, mature guppies. Eleven years ago the research team moved guppies from pools below some waterfalls that contained both types of predators to pools above the falls where only the predators that ate the small, young guppies live. Thus the selection pressure was changed. Eleven years later the guppies above the falls were larger, matured earlier, and had fewer young than the ones below the falls. The group then used standard quantitative morphology to quantify the rate of evolution.
So we have a study in the wild, not the lab, of natural selection and its results. In this study natural selection was measured quantitatvely, and even predicted since it was predicted that, in the absence of predators that fed on large guppies but in the presence of ones that fed on young guppies, the guppies would grow larger and mature earlier to avoid the predators. That is exactly what happened.
razzelflabben said:.
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?
It appears that no scientific evidence will convince her. Could you utter a few divinely inspired words for us? That might help.Jet Black said:Jet Black is really confused as to what would convince razzelflabben now
razzelflabben said:Okay, I know I am tired, but this doesn't make any sense as to overwhelming evidence for the TOE. The fossils demonstrate, the DNA demonstrates that E is the only answer?
How far back are we going with this evidence?
Not a single single celled organism but a population of them. The source was chemistry. The problem is that there are several ways chemistry could make a population of cells and we don't have enough info yet to determine which, or maybe all, were used.razzelflabben said:A common ancestor, that was a single celled organism that was not a single celled organism at all but rather a population of single celled organisms that came from an unknown source to populate the earth. I got it, makes total and complete logical sense. Of course I might be dreaming right now but it makes sense.
It wasn't meant to. Remember the claims. It was only to explain that you don't start out with sexual reproduction. It evolves later.Right that explains all the reproductive processes we know today.
Apples and oranges. having overwhelming evidence doesn't mean the lack of unanswered questions. 3 or 4 new questions always pop up out of every answer. For instance, wouldn't you consider the evidence for gravity overwhelming? Yet there are lots of unanswered questions: is gravity a warping of space as in Relativity? Is it an exchange of particles? Is it a "force"? But you don't go jumping off tall buildings because gravity is "still a theory" do you?Nope sorry, I was told on this thread that all the unanswered questions were answered. You must not have been following the thread. There are no unanswered questions in the TOE that is because we have overwhelming evidence to support the TOE.
We have enough lineages and enough evidence among living organisms to know they are relatives and have a lineage. We don't need them all. Just like you don't have to drop every rock in the universe to know gravity is true. BTW, there is nothing above theory. Even "laws" are really theories. And as Gluadys and I have both pointed out, we do not "assume". Evolution is a conclusion.But not that they did. That is why it is still a theory. Because we assume that it did.
I'm not talking TOE here. I'm talking life from non-life. That isn't part of TOE, remember? Even by your definition, TOE concerns all life diversifying from the common ancestor. Getting the first cell is not in TOE. Gravit isn't in evolution, either. Neither is the theory on the dual nature of light. Or the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system.As you think likely, I thought we had overwhelming evidence!!!! Are you trying to convince me that there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE or are you trying to convert me to the TOE?
gluadys said:Do you mean "not answered"? What questions were not answered?
Or do you really mean "not asked"? Do you have more questions you haven't asked yet?I am staying up to try to catch up, but I feel like I am missing a lot by doing so. I'll give it a shot. Some of my questions have gone unanswered, but most have been answered. I accept the answers but do not accept that it provides overwhelming evidence to support the TOE. To many questions still exist for us to know with certainty what is and is not when we are talking about the origins of the world. Why is this so hard to understand? I understand at least most of what you are saying as to the evidence to support the theory, but simply find to many questions and possibilities to call the evidence conclusive or overwhelming. So if that makes me stupid, then I wear the title proudly. It that makes me uninformed, than again, I wear the name proudly. I would rather assume to not know truth and continue in the quest than to assume what is not there an cease looking.
That is up to you.I am using the definition you gave as a working definition of TOC. That does not mean I accept the theory.
Actually, there have been many posts showing me that population a and b produce c and c cannot reproduce with a or b but can with c, which is totally not what I was saying and a concept I got many moons ago. I am not ignorant, but I do seek to know truth, not just assume to know it.Come on. No one is saying you are dense to say what cannot reproduce must become extinct. That is something we all agree is self-evident. All we are showing you is that it is not a problem for evolution because there are still plenty of species reproducing and evolving.
I understand your position better, but I still see a real problem, because the single cell populations would at some point have to produce compatable organisms in male and female genders.You did not understand that species usually begin as populations not pairs of one male-one female. So you saw what seemed to be a real problem. But now, you see, I hope, that it is not a problem, because there are lots of organisms in the new species, so reproduction continues easily.
I don't know, maybe it is the glass is half full, the glass is half empty thing.We just didn't understand why you were seeing a problem none of us could see.
but the quote says, life was created after its kind. Life being different from reproducing. Reproducing is part of the equation, but not all of it.Yes, as I said, the definition of kinds as populations that "reproduce after themselves" is identical to the scientific definition of species. So this says "kinds" = "species".
The problem comes with the next part: "life was created after its kind". You see we know from observation that some species (=kinds) were not directly created. We know from observation that they have evolved from other species (=kinds).
That is the equivalent of saying that we know that evolution does not exist because there was no living cell to start the whole process. Even the TOC allows for the process of life. We have a beginning and a process, to deny the TOC the process is simply not fair rules.So if "kinds" = "species" then the TOC has been falsified because we know of existing "kinds" which were not directly created. We know they evolved from other "kinds".
Speciation is a fact, evolution is a theory.Well, this is related to my issue with you. You claim that evolution is not a fact.
Actually, I am too tired to know what I said, but what I mean is that people who claim the TOE fail to understand what theory is. Theory cannot be fact. It is the nature of theory. To claim it as fact, is to ignore what a theory is.But it is. You have claimed that someone who says evolution is a fact does not understand the TOE. But most people who say evolution is a fact understand the TOE very well. I am not trying to show you evolution is possible. You already know that. I am trying to show you that evolution has happened and is happening and will probably continue to happen as long as there is life on earth.
Actually, the main topic has become whether or not there is overwhelming evidence for the TOE, not what the evidence is or suggests. If we make assumptions, guesses, predictions, we still lack overwhelming evidence.That is not going off topic.
I think I said I would not argue with that, not that I agreed with the statement. I think a better statement would be that the TOE overwhelmingly supports the fossil record. But oh well.This only means we have talked too much about one evidence for evolution and not enough about other evidences. I am glad to see you acknowledge that the fossil record does overwhelmingly support TOE. We can move on to other evidences, and you will find this is true of all of them.
Delt with,You said that when the TOC says creatures reproduce after their kind, it did not mean an exact "cookie cutter" copy, but only similarity.
It does not specify one or the other, but allows room for the prediction in that if a creature was to reproduce after it's kind, then in the case of male and female, the offspring would not be identical.But as far as I can see, TOC only says "reproduce after their kind"? So where does TOC predict that "after their kind" does not mean "exact copy"? Why couldn't it be an exact copy?
Okay, look at it this way. I tell you that I am going to make cookies the same way my mother made them. Does that mean that I am going to clone her every move, or that I am going to make then using the same process that she did? The logical answer would be same process. If I am reproducing after my kind, that would mean, that same process of reproduction that my kind uses. If that is asexual, then I would reproduce asexually. If that was male and female, then that is how I would reproduce.No, you are making this up as you go along. How does "reproduce after their kind" become a prediction of "some by cloning and some by sexual reproduction"? The biblical definition says nothing at all about how creatures will reproduce after their kind. You are adding that in. But you can't add it in to a theory until you show how the theory predicts that.
How many observations have been made that show that when a dog has pups, they are pups and not some other creature? But, I forgot, the TOC cannot be observed through scientific methods. I alway forget that one.more serious objection to TOC is that even if we accept that there are two modes of reproduction (asexual, sexual), TOC still does not tell us how these methods of reproduction assure that offspring will be the same kind as the parent. How can we be sure that a fig tree will produce figs and not thistles? How does the TOC explain the mechanism that makes sure that reproduction will be "after their kind"?
Yeah sure, if you say so, so many people on this thread seem to know what I believe and say before I ever get a chance to say what I think and believe. You really taught me a lesson about what I believe and how that belief stacks up to the scientific evidence. Thanks, I don't think I could have gotten through life without that lesson in reality., as shown above, the predictions are bogus. You just threw them in. You did not derive them from the theory.
I have heard this many times here as well and find it totally amazing that this claim is made when the TOC clearly predates the TOE.s perfectly ok for TOC to change to fit the evidence. All good theories do this. What is remarkable is that the evidence has always led the TOC to mimic TOE, never the reverse.
Which brings up my alien/cloneing theory which no one is brave enough to comment on.1.yes
2. This is not a legitimate part of the theory since it is not derived from the proposition that living things reproduce "after their kind."
3. If "kind"="species", this has been falsified for we know of species which evolved from other kinds instead of being directly created.
4. You want to bet? There is a group (fruitcakes to be sure) which claim they have already cloned a human. They have not produced evidence, so I don't believe they have. But theoretically, it is perfectly possible to clone humans. We have cloned sheep and cats and other animals, so it is likely that unless there is universal agreement not to try, someone will clone a human before the next century is out.
5. The evidence says humans evolved from an earlier species. Humans are not a directly created kind. They are male and female because they evolved from a sexually reproducing species.
Yep, again, we can disreguard the scientist that write the papers claims that it is not proof, because clearly the E here know more than the scientist that are writing the papers.Is that enough to clarify the matter?
You mean unique to TOE don't you? All 29 are unique to TOE. Every single one is a falsification of TOC. As for those which do not depend on the fossil record, I counted 22 of the 29 which are not related to the fossil record.
He doesn't use a straightforward numbering system of 1-29, but divides the material into 5 parts, so that each piece of evidence has a number such as 2.3 or 5.1. Judging only from the titles, the sections I found that seem to fit your criteria are: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.5, all of parts 3 & 4 and all of part 5 except 5.4.
I was really hoping to catch up tonight, but it just isn't happening. Speciation can occur on a small level within the framework of the TOC. It is not predicted as such, but room is alowed for it to occur.gluadys said:Oh, you are going to have to explain this one to me.
You have stated:
Now when a speciation event occurs, part of the kind will no longer reproduce with another part of the kind. (Each part can keep reproducing with its own section of the kind, so there is no problem with reproduction.)
So what is a group that is no longer able to reproduce with another part of the created kind? Is it a new kind? But it was not specially created---and that is another part of the definition of kind. So, how can it be a kind?
And where does the "original theory" of TOC say that speciation is acceptable?
Thank you I think. So now we come back to discussing the fossil evidence. I have stated why I find the evidence not conclusive and I am so tired I can barely see the words I'm typing, can we please move on. If you want to see it my way fine, if you don't, fine, just understand that we cannot find truth if we assume to already know truth. And that folks is the bottom line of my arguement.USincognito said:To put a little different spin on the dinosaur/human issue, the core problem with your argument razzel, is that it's not the location of the remains, it's the dating of the remains. The only way you could make the point that we might have reason to find humans and dinosaurs in the same geological time period is to argue against dating techniques.
And I want to apologize for being a tad harsh with you when we discussed this last week. I should have focused more on your conclusion and assertion (which are faulty) than your logic (which was correct). I shouldn't have tied them together the way I did.
The skulls don't represent proof of progress onwards and upwards. They represent connecting intermediates between ape-like ancestors and modern humans. To get "onward and upwards" you have to specific a direction that is "up". Evolution can't do that. Are you more "onward and upward" than your grandfather? Or are you just connected via the intermediate of your father?mrversatile48 said:I'll let open minded readers examine the earlier posts here that were presenting a long series of skulls as proof of progress onwards & upwards
That's not a ladder, it's a branching bush. And it doesn't start with amoebas. Both amoebas and humans are cousins, each at the tip of a branch of the bush.The evolutionary ladder/chain is surely universally known as a "how-to-go-from amoeba to modern man",
since these groups are also "modern man", why would they interpret even your misrepresentation that way? Because you tell them to?& many such presentations are interpreted by Afro-Caribbeans & Asians, quite understandably, as racist insults
Most white supremecist claptrap is based on creationism. Supposedly the non-white races are "separate creations". Want to see the literature?I left school in '66, but I've never forgotten feeling insulted, on behalf of African friends, by such white supremacist complete claptrap
Please explain to us specifically how it can occur.razzelflabben said:Speciation can occur on a small level within the framework of the TOC. It is not predicted as such, but room is alowed for it to occur.
I beg to differ. You haven't really addressed any of them. You have tried to twist them into something they are not and asserted. Assserting is not addressing.razzelflabben said:I have examined and addressed all that were presented and found all wanting as overwhelming evidence.
Don't want ES cells. Adult stem cells work better.Jet Black said:I take your shells and raise you permission to clone stem cells
Right. The common ancestor was a single-celled organism. But not that there was only one such organism!razzelflabben said:Opps a living single celled organism. Yep, that is what we were taught.
You've been shown it. Phylogenetic analysis, for one. Remember? Comparative morphology and physiology for another.We have overwhelming evidence for
1. Common ancestry.
Where?
Genetic analysis. As we look at the phylogenetic trees constructed from the DNA of living organisms, the sequences unambiguously points to a single-celled organism. Plus, as we go to the earliest fossils, they are all single celled with no multicelled around.2. The common ancestor was a one-celled organism.Where? I see a lot of speculation for both, but no inscription for either.
Then please stop making them the same thing. If you disagree with what you were taught about evolution, then say so. But what you are doing is presenting what you were taught as evidence that evolution is that.What I believe about the theory and what I have been taught about the theory are not necessarily the same thing.
LOL! You asked for a list of predictions made by evolution that have been found so you could see "conclusive" evidence for evolution. I provide an extensive list and what do you do? You change the subject! LOL! Sorry, Razzel, but that impassioned post of yours about being "passionate to learn the truth" is being held up to ridicule -- by you. What you are doing now is using every debating trick in the book to avoid acknowledging truth.So now we are asked to believe that reproductive ability has nothing to do with evolution?
LOL! every prediction I listed either can be tested or has been tested and found! How can something that is constantly tested be impossible to test? Debating tricks bring no glory to God. Running from the truth is not what God wants you to do. God has nothing to fear from evolution. Neither do you. Evolution is how God created.but come on, how does any of this show overwhelming evidence that something we cannot test is true?
razzelflabben said:Actually, there have been many posts showing me that population a and b produce c and c cannot reproduce with a or b but can with c, which is totally not what I was saying and a concept I got many moons ago. I am not ignorant, but I do seek to know truth, not just assume to know it.
I understand your position better, but I still see a real problem, because the single cell populations would at some point have to produce compatable organisms in male and female genders.
but the quote says, life was created after its kind. Life being different from reproducing. Reproducing is part of the equation, but not all of it.
So if "kinds" = "species" then the TOC has been falsified because we know of existing "kinds" which were not directly created. We know they evolved from other "kinds".
That is the equivalent of saying that we know that evolution does not exist because there was no living cell to start the whole process. Even the TOC allows for the process of life. We have a beginning and a process, to deny the TOC the process is simply not fair rules.
Speciation is a fact, evolution is a theory.
what I mean is that people who claim the TOE fail to understand what theory is. Theory cannot be fact. It is the nature of theory. To claim it as fact, is to ignore what a theory is.
I think I said I would not argue with that, not that I agreed with the statement. I think a better statement would be that the TOE overwhelmingly supports the fossil record. But oh well.
But as far as I can see, TOC only says "reproduce after their kind"? So where does TOC predict that "after their kind" does not mean "exact copy"? Why couldn't it be an exact copy?
It does not specify one or the other, but allows room for the prediction in that if a creature was to reproduce after it's kind, then in the case of male and female, the offspring would not be identical.
No, you are making this up as you go along. How does "reproduce after their kind" become a prediction of "some by cloning and some by sexual reproduction"? The biblical definition says nothing at all about how creatures will reproduce after their kind. You are adding that in. But you can't add it in to a theory until you show how the theory predicts that.
Okay, look at it this way. I tell you that I am going to make cookies the same way my mother made them. Does that mean that I am going to clone her every move,
or that I am going to make then using the same process that she did?
The logical answer would be same process.
If I am reproducing after my kind, that would mean, that same process of reproduction that my kind uses. If that is asexual, then I would reproduce asexually. If that was male and female, then that is how I would reproduce.
more serious objection to TOC is that even if we accept that there are two modes of reproduction (asexual, sexual), TOC still does not tell us how these methods of reproduction assure that offspring will be the same kind as the parent. How can we be sure that a fig tree will produce figs and not thistles? How does the TOC explain the mechanism that makes sure that reproduction will be "after their kind"?
How many observations have been made that show that when a dog has pups, they are pups and not some other creature?
Thanks, I don't think I could have gotten through life without that lesson in reality.
I have heard this many times here as well and find it totally amazing that this claim is made when the TOC clearly predates the TOE.
Which brings up my alien/cloneing theory which no one is brave enough to comment on.
You mean unique to TOE don't you? All 29 are unique to TOE. Every single one is a falsification of TOC. As for those which do not depend on the fossil record, I counted 22 of the 29 which are not related to the fossil record.
He doesn't use a straightforward numbering system of 1-29, but divides the material into 5 parts, so that each piece of evidence has a number such as 2.3 or 5.1. Judging only from the titles, the sections I found that seem to fit your criteria are: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.5, all of parts 3 & 4 and all of part 5 except 5.4.
Yep, again, we can disreguard the scientist that write the papers claims that it is not proof, because clearly the E here know more than the scientist that are writing the papers.
razzelflabben said:I was really hoping to catch up tonight, but it just isn't happening. Speciation can occur on a small level within the framework of the TOC. It is not predicted as such, but room is alowed for it to occur.
gluadys said:So what is a group that is no longer able to reproduce with another part of the created kind? Is it a new kind? But it was not specially created---and that is another part of the definition of kind. So, how can it be a kind?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?