Challenging Evolution

[mrversatile48]

Unfortunately, many creationists disagree with Mr. Trust. Creationism was, and is, a major justification for racism. See a partial list of publications at the end of the post.

Now you are starting to get it. Racism will corrupt any other idea for its own ends.

I'm sure. Now, you imply that they use evolution as their justification. But the issue is: is the justification correct? Does evolution, as it is accurately understood, really justify racism? The answer is a resounding "NO!" So what we have is a misuse of evolution. Just like you would, I presume, say that the following people are misusing creation.

Isaac de la Peyere, Preadamitae, 1655, English edition, Men Before Adam, 1656. Peyere was a French theologian and Huguenot. The book claimed that Adam was not the first man and that the Bible is not the history of mankind, but only the history of the Jews. He was censured by the Pope but kept looking for support for his theory. Part of his rationale came from his interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. His pre-Adamite theory later became the basis for 19th century theories of polygenism and modern racism. You can see the thread yourself in the works below--other races not descended from Adam, just the white race. A discussion of this work can be found in Encycl. Judaica, 1972. So the idea of races did not originate with Darwin, but with a card-carrying Christian. And the concept of racism came over 200 years *before* Origin of the Species was written.
Charles Carrol The Negro a Beast; or, In the Image of God, 1900 American Book and Bible House. "The Negro created a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master -- the White man" "All scientific investigation of the subject proves the Negro to be an ape, and that he simply stands at the head of the ape family." (of course, he is wrong about the science, since evolution shows all the races to belong to the same species) Genesis prohibits mating with "beasts" [Negroes]: they were created a different "kind". God destroyed mankind in the worldwide Flood because man had corrupted his kind by amalgamation with Negro beasts. Negroes were taken on the Ark along with other animals. Has a chapter "The Theory of Evolution Exploded; Man was Created a Man, and Did Not Develop from an Ape" Says there are only 2 origin theories, and they are in "absolute conflict": biblical creation and atheistic evolution.
The Carrol book was so "good" that it served as the basis of a Destiny Publishers book, In the Image of God, 1967, Destiny Publishers. "The Bible stands as an impregnable bulwark against Christendom's modern slogan that all men, regardless of color, are blood brothers ... The simple truth regarding the origin of races demonstrates conclusively that the Negroes and the white race do not have a common ancestry." (quite a contrast to evolution, which says they do and are the same species) The book goes on to cite many Bible passages proving the "beasts" are bipedal servants of "man" and distinct from other animals. Presents scientific evidence of physiological differences which demonstrates that Negroes were created to be beasts of burden. Cites A Hislop's The Two Babylons, 1916, to prove that Nimrod--founder of all false religions--was black. The "atheistical theory of evolution" is a "spurious doctrine" which aligned itself with apostasy and led to "disbelief in the scientifically accurate but simply-worded statements of the Bible."
Walter T. Galusha Fossils and the Word of God, 1964, Exposition Press. God divided man into four colors and wants them to stay separate. The Devil, however, "will try to get them to unite and in this way defeat God's purpose." Is standard creationist fare for the rest, including support for creation of Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood (2130 BC according to book).
Gottlieb C.H. Hasskarl, The Missing link, or, the Negroes Ethnological Status, 1898, Democratic News. The title says it all. Hasskarl also wrote The Terrible Catastrophe, or, Biblical Deluge; illustrated and corroborated by mythology, tradition, and geology, to which is added a brief interpretation of the creation, with notes from theologians, philosophers, and scientists.
James Laurence Hutton, Acts: Deluge--The Other Cheek and the Dragon, 1969, Priv. pub. Cain's evil race mixed with Seth's (the Sons of God), corrupting their blood. "The Bible proves that when races mix, it is a perfect set-up for Satan."
Charles Lee Magne, The Negro and the World Crisis, 1974, New Christian Crusade Church. Explicitly states that KJV is inerrant. There is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the White Nordic Israel race by using "Negroes". Whites are descended from Adam, but Negroes are the top animals--members of the ape family and are a pre-Adamic creation. His creationists tendencies are shown by favorable quotations of Rousas J. Rushdoony, author of The Mythology of Science and instrumental in getting Whitcomb and Morris' Genesis Flood published.
W. Clyde Odeneal, Segregation: Sin or Sensible?, 1958, Destiny Publishers as a reprint of original article in Destiny magazine. Asserts that God created races after their own kind; nature attests to this "Divine Law" "Segregation is an Anglo-Saxon principle because more than all the other races combined, the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and related races are predominantly the Bible-reading, Bible-disseminating peoples of the world." States that "miscegenation was the principle [sic] sin which brought on the great flood of antiquity." Says that racial equality is a communist notion; notes that leading anti-segregationists are non- or anti-Christian. And give the de riguer anatomical differences between whites and blacks.
B.H. Payne, The Negro: What Is His Ethnological Status?, 1867. Carroll cites this one as the originator of the theory that Genesis describes a pre-Adamic creation of "Negroes". According to Payne, Negroes are the most cunning of the "beasts" and were "created" to be servants of the Adamic (white) race.
Keen Polk Everything After Its Kind (pamphlet), 1932, private publication. "A new and critical study of the origin of the Negro, according to Holy Scriptures." Keen thinks that blacks are the "beasts of the field" of Genesis. The Adamic line (whites again) interbred with the blacks as referred to the sons of God and daughters of men of Genesis 6. Reads Leviticus as specifying the death penalty for sexual relations with "beasts", who are the "Negroes" of Keen's definition. "The Negro has been put here upon earth by God for some purpose. We may rest assured that purpose was not racial or social equality."
Alfred Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century, 1930 (latest edition 1982, Noontide Press) Rosenberg was the official Nazi philosopher and editor of the nazi newspaper Der Volkische Beobachter. Rosenberg presents a racial view of history. God created man as separate races--not as individuals or mankind as a whole. Only the race has a soul, and no two have the same soul. The higher races must rule over the lower, not interbreed with them. Cross-breeding destroys the literally divine combination of physical heredity and spirit. Rosenberg "proves" Egyptian, Libyan, and Indian rulers were pure Nordics. Jesus was also a pure Nordic untainted by Jewish blood.
Alexander Schiffner, The Origin of the Races; and Pre-Adamic Man, 1968, Prophetic Herald. According to Schiffner, once again the "Negro" is the "beast" of Genesis, and was created, along with "the yellow race" before Adam. Once again with Genesis 6, Schiffner says that the "sons of God"--the white men--mated with Negroes. God punished them for this sin with the worldwide Flood, but Negroes (presumably a pair) were taken on the Ark with the "other" animals.
Alfred P.K.E. Schultz, Race or Mongrel, 1908, L.C. Page. "A brief history of the rise and fall of the ancient races of earth; a theory that the fall of nations is due to intermarriage with alien stocks; a demonstration that a nation's strength is due to racial purity; a prophecy that America will sink to early decay unless immigration is rigorously restricted. Schultz also wrote The End of Darwinism: Not Change But Persistence is Characteristic of Life.
Gerald Burton Winrod, Science, Christ and the Bible, 1929, Fleming H. Revell. This book is based upon Winrod's sermons. Winrod was described by Marsden as a vocal anti-Communist, anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi fundamentalist. "Between the proved facts of science and the truth of Christianity there is perfect harmony, but between the guesses of scientists and the dogma of religionists there is discord." "Noah prophesied that Ham's descendants --the black race -- would be a servant people." Says that Nimrod was black. Favors the Anglo-Israel doctrine that America and England descended from the Israelite tribes of Mannasseh and Ephraim.

Those "birthpains" - of all kinds of disasters - that Jesus forecast to come more frequently & intensely as His return nears - sure includes the spiritual disasters of false prophets/teachers/messiahs & increasing persecution of the godly - culminating in the Antichrist

There are many antichrists active now

 

[mrversatile48]

So? Since evolution isn't atheism, what does this have to do with evolution or science? See the second quote in my signature.

Many evolutionists are atheists & use ET to try & keep people from saving faith in Christ

Yes, some Christians acquiesce to ET - but mostly thru being dazzled by presentational pzazz...

Blinded with pseudo-science

Reminds me what I forgot to echo in several posts by Razz..

We have both seen & read much Darwin dross

Like many top scientists of every discipline from astronomy to micro-biology, we reject ET rants as rubbish

We find more than enough evidence of Intelligent Design to worship, thank & praise the Almighty Creator for all His many blessings

Romans 1:20 & 12:1 both show God's own verdict that man has no excuse to reject Him - even just from seeing Creation all around us

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Many evolutionists are atheists & use ET to try & keep people from saving faith in Christ

And a few (not many) christians are creationists who do more than any atheist could to undermine christianity with their ignorance.

Yes, some Christians acquiesce to ET - but mostly thru being dazzled by presentational pzazz...

Is that your name for evidence?

Blinded with pseudo-science

Please explain how ET is pseudo-science. Make the time.

Like many top scientists of every discipline from astronomy to micro-biology, we reject ET rants as rubbish

Lie. There are not many.

We find more than enough evidence of Intelligent Design to worship, thank & praise the Almighty Creator for all His many blessings

Let's see it. That's why we're here. (I realize that you think this is primarily a preaching venue, but you are mistaken.)

Romans 1:20 & 12:1 both show God's own verdict that man has no excuse to reject Him - even just from seeing Creation all around us

If you really look honestly at creation all around us, you'll find evolution to be the best theory to explain the diversity of life we see in it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Razzleflabben has initiated an all-out attack on my intergrity, apparently because I responded to her posts about evolution. You can read that attack here on the parent thread to this thread. For now I will simply remind folks that, as far as I can tell, all the charges that she brings against me are false. However it will take an enormous amount of my time to go through that large thread and document what exactly happened. In the meantime, her post stands there for anybody to read. Anybody is welcome to read the charges against me. I assure you that I am innocent.

Her chief concern seems to be that I somehow misrepresented her in the OP of this thread. I have repeatedly asked her how I misrepresented her. She has steadfastly refused to answer that question. I have repeatedly told her that I will apologize if I said something about her that was wrong, but I need to know what is wrong. She has steadfastly refused to tell me what is wrong.

It is sad that she takes the time to write a post filled with accusations, and does not answer when I ask her specifically what I am accused of. If I am to be accused, don't I have the right to know what the charges are?

That is why I bring the issue here. You can all read the opening post for yourselves. Could somebody please tell me what I said that misrepresented her, and why she has all this anger against me? For she refuses to tell me what the problem is.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

No, you were saying that a and b produce c but that c could not reproduce with c. Horses and donkeys making mules and mules being sterile with other mules.

The only demonstration of that was my post on hybridization. Most of the posts have been talking about a population A that produces populations B and C where A breeds with A, B breeds with B, C breeds with C but not A with B, A with C, or B with C.

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.

That's what I tried to show you in the references I gave you on the evolution of sexual reproduction. The basic steps are:
1. Bacteria share genes. They do this now by copying a portion of their genome into a separate strand of DNA called a "plasmid". Bacteria then exchange plasmids passing the DNA to another cell and getting DNA from the other cell.

2. Instead of making just a portion of the DNA into a plasmid, a single celled organism copying the entire DNA strands. BTW, each chromosome is a DNA strand and then sending one strand to the other cell and getting a strand back. Now you have an organism that has two copies of each chromosome instead of one. A diploid organism -- we are diploids

3. Having the single celled organism occasionally come together to make a primitive multicelled organism. Nearly all bacteria do that now. Once in a colony, the cells specialize a bit. But a good modern example is the amoeba Dictyostelium is one-celled. It mostly reproduces asexually. But when food is low, several Dictyostelium will reproduce sexually. Since they are one-celled, there is no 'male' or 'female', it's much simpler than that, but still sexual reproduction. Then they aggregate into a multicelled organism that even makes a primitive eye. The organism sends out "baby" Dictyostelium encased in protein (spores) to try to find a better spot with more food.

3. Once you have a multicelled organism, then comes the necessity of speciallized sex cells. The volvox is an animal of about 20-100 cells. It has two types of cells: the body cells and the sex cells. Since they live in water, one volvox will send it's sex cells into the water to go to another volvox and combine with it's sex cells to make a "baby". Any volvox can send the cells out or receive them. So there is no 'male' and 'female' as we understand it.

4. Specialize the male and female role. There are several intermediate steps in this among living animals, too.

life was created after its kind. Life being different from reproducing. Reproducing is part of the equation, but not all of it.

But can one kind change into another kind?

Speciation is a fact, evolution is a theory.

What was the name of Darwin's book? Origin of the Species. So, once we see the origin of species, evolution too is a fact. Remember, that the earth is round is a theory. Any doubt that this is fact? The sun at the center of the solar system is a theory. Any doubt about it? That objects attract is a theory. Do you ever doubt it? Evolution is just like that. It is a theory but the observation makes it a fact.

Theory cannot be fact. It is the nature of theory.

See above. I'm afraid you do not understand all the implications of theory and fact.

Actually, the main topic has become whether or not there is overwhelming evidence for the TOE, ... we still lack overwhelming evidence.[/quote] We don't lack overwhelming evidence since your admission that speciation is a fact. That's it. That's evolution! Game, set, and match!

I think a better statement would be that the TOE overwhelmingly supports the fossil record.

Observations support theories, not the other way around. The fossil record overewhelmining supports TOE. Delt with,

How many observations have been made that show that when a dog has pups, they are pups and not some other creature?

But evolution does not work in one generation.

But, I forgot, the TOC cannot be observed through scientific methods. I alway forget that one.

Why not? If TOC is really a scientific theory, then it must be observed thru scientific methods. When was the last time anyone observed species coming into existence out of nothing?

Which brings up my alien/cloneing theory which no one is brave enough to comment on.

It has all the problems of TOC. After all, TOC could just as easily be by alien genetic engineering as God zapping species into existence. However, in each case, you end up with genomes that are indpendent of other genomes, because they are manufactured, not evolved from common ancestors. So phylogenetic analysis falsifies the alien theory as well as TOC.

And we could detect such a thing. I work in the lab with gene engineered animals. A mouse line that has been gene engineered to have a bacterial gene for an enzyme. Another mouse line has been gene engineered to have a bacterial gene called green fluoresent protein. The rats literally glow green in the dark under UV light. Both these mice lines are discontinuous with previous mice, because the genes were introduced literally from one generation to the next. So the ancestors of the mice lines don't have the gene. If we would do the phylogenetic analysis on wild type mice and the ROSA and GFP mice, they would be "independent" observations.

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.

Actually, we do. But notice, Razz, that these "scientists" never submitted their papers to peer-review by scientists who did not already share their ideas! When I submit a paper, guess who gets to decide whether it will be published? Scientists who are my competitors and disagree with me! I have to convince them that the data and conclusions are valid. These guys didn't have to do that. So ... they have the same problem you do: no matter what the evidence, they won't admit that it is overwhelming. Not because the evidence isn't overwhelming, but because they are so wedded to TOC that they cannot face the truth.

 

[lucaspa]

Many evolutionists are atheists & use ET to try & keep people from saving faith in Christ

Again, SO?

The question is: what is evolution. Scientific theories are collections of statements about the physical universe. They are independent of any single person.

Now, are the statements of evolution atheistic? NO! So what you have are atheists misusing evolution for their own ends. If you want to combat that, the way to do so is not to say evolution is invalid, but to argue that the atheist use of evolution is invalid! Which it is.

Yes, some Christians acquiesce to ET - but mostly thru being dazzled by presentational pzazz... Blinded with pseudo-science

This ignores history.
1. Remember, from 1700 - 1831 creatinism was the accepted scientific theory. The scientists who showed it to be wrong were all Christians and many of them ministers. (Rev. William Buckland, Rev. Adam Sedgwick, Rev. Baden-Powell to name just 3) They are the ones that came up with the original data falsifying creationism and supporting evolution. They could not have been "blinded with pseudo-science".

We have both seen & read much Darwin dross

Razz admits that she has never read Darwin. Have you?

Like many top scientists of every discipline from astronomy to micro-biology, we reject ET rants as rubbish

Sorry, but none of the 100 scientists the Discovery Institute came up with were "top scientists". How many scientists are there? Over a million in the US alone. So that is less than 0.01% of scientists. Now, get a million people and you can get 100 of them to agree to any silly idea. I bet you could find 100 people in there that think heliocentrism is rubbish. You could certainly find many more than 100 that think Chrisitanity is rubbish.

We find more than enough evidence of Intelligent Design to worship, thank & praise the Almighty Creator for all His many blessings

Ah yes, ID. This is the second historical area where you have made a mistake.

The history shows that Christians accepted evolution a lot faster than scientists did. By 25 years after Origin came out and the famous Wilberforce-Huxley debate, the Anglican Church had completely accepted evolution as how God created. American churches did the same. See the quote below by Rev. McCosh, the premier clergyman in America from 1870-1900.

The reason is that ID gets God into a lot of trouble. As long as you wear blinders and look at only some designs, you can get by. But if you look at all designs in plants and animals, then it is clear that if God directly made each species, or even kind, then the designs attest to a god that is stupid, sadistic, and suffering from Alzheimer's. Since God is none of those, Christians jumped on evolution as salvation for getting God of the cross that ID had put Him on.

Romans 1:20 & 12:1 both show God's own verdict that man has no excuse to reject Him - even just from seeing Creation all around us

And why doesn't this verse work just as well with God creating by evolution?

 

[lucaspa]

Those "birthpains" - of all kinds of disasters - that Jesus forecast to come more frequently & intensely as His return nears - sure includes the spiritual disasters of false prophets/teachers/messiahs

Yes. Look at all those professional creationists and Biblical literalists propounding worshipping a literal Bible instead of God. And persecuting anyone who doesn't agree. I just had one of those via PM demand that I stop using my given name because he doesn't like my stance on evolution! Talk about being persecuted!

There are many antichrists active now

Oh yes: Hovind, Yahya, Phillip Johnson, the authors of The Fundamentals, Dembski, Henry Morris is dead now, Ken Ham, Jonathan Wells (who follows Moon) ... Yes, quite a few, and growing in number by making converts among innocent Christians like Razzel.

 

[mrversatile48]

[/i]

And a few (not many) christians are creationists who do more than any atheist could to undermine christianity with their ignorance.



Says he with his fangs dripping gore from the last 1 he ate????



Is that your name for evidence?




Lemme see..F E Dense?? A confession of crass stupidity from a Fan of Evo-loopy-poop?????




Please explain how ET is pseudo-science. Make the time.




Like..for the umpteenth time?????????


True science is based on observation..You need to walk round with your eyes open..Look at leaves..flowers..grass..

All things created show clearly Intelligent Design by the Almighty Creator!

Millions of missing links..between ALL supposed stages/steps..

All things, left to themselves, tend to DECAY..not to IMPROVE!!




Lie. There are not many.




Lie down in the coffin before the sunlight fries ya brain even more!!



Let's see it. That's why we're here. (I realize that you think this is primarily a preaching venue, but you are mistaken.)




Is that why YOU preach evo-loopy-poop LIES?????????



If you really look honestly at creation all around us, you'll find evolution to be the best theory to explain the diversity of life we see in it.

Just disproved...yet AGAIN...above!

 

[mrversatile48]

Again, SO?

The question is: what is evolution. Scientific theories are collections of statements about the physical universe. They are independent of any single person.

Now, are the statements of evolution atheistic? NO! So what you have are atheists misusing evolution for their own ends. If you want to combat that, the way to do so is not to say evolution is invalid, but to argue that the atheist use of evolution is invalid! Which it is.

This ignores history.
1. Remember, from 1700 - 1831 creatinism was the accepted scientific theory. The scientists who showed it to be wrong were all Christians and many of them ministers. (Rev. William Buckland, Rev. Adam Sedgwick, Rev. Baden-Powell to name just 3) They are the ones that came up with the original data falsifying creationism and supporting evolution. They could not have been "blinded with pseudo-science".

Razz admits that she has never read Darwin. Have you?

Sorry, but none of the 100 scientists the Discovery Institute came up with were "top scientists". How many scientists are there? Over a million in the US alone. So that is less than 0.01% of scientists. Now, get a million people and you can get 100 of them to agree to any silly idea. I bet you could find 100 people in there that think heliocentrism is rubbish. You could certainly find many more than 100 that think Chrisitanity is rubbish.

Ah yes, ID. This is the second historical area where you have made a mistake.

The history shows that Christians accepted evolution a lot faster than scientists did. By 25 years after Origin came out and the famous Wilberforce-Huxley debate, the Anglican Church had completely accepted evolution as how God created. American churches did the same. See the quote below by Rev. McCosh, the premier clergyman in America from 1870-1900.

The reason is that ID gets God into a lot of trouble. As long as you wear blinders and look at only some designs, you can get by. But if you look at all designs in plants and animals, then it is clear that if God directly made each species, or even kind, then the designs attest to a god that is stupid, sadistic, and suffering from Alzheimer's. Since God is none of those, Christians jumped on evolution as salvation for getting God of the cross that ID had put Him on.

And why doesn't this verse work just as well with God creating by evolution?

Going to church doesn't make 1 a Christian any more than going to McD's makes you a burger

If God says 1 thing & all 6.5 billion people disagree, God is the 1 that is right

"& the evening & the morning were the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th day..

God said, Let there be...

& there was

& it was good/perfect"

 

[razzelflabben]

It's about the speciation scenario. Remember

Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

B cannot interbreed with A, C or X. But, of course, members of B can and do mate and reproduce with one another, as do those in groups A, C and X.

You said this mimicked TOC.

I am asking where TOC suggests this scenario or is even compatible with it. Everything I have heard about TOC says this contradicts TOC. It doesn't mimic it.

So explain why you think this works from TOC, please?I am so far behind, overwhelmed by the response to my accusations that there is not overwhelming evidence, (especially from those who claim that it is not a belief system), frustrated at not being able to keep up, bored with trying to repeat my answers to a dozen or so posts because everyone is saying the same thing and then complains if I don't respond to a post. I am tired of feeling like people here feel like they have to talk down to me, I assure you that my college professors didn't talk down to me. And, I am just plain tired. So please bare with me as I try to explain to you why I do not find the evidence overwhelming. I thought I had covered that many times already but apparently, I either didn't cover it or some here will not be content until I change my mind and claim to know truth and that truth is the TOE.

For an animal to reproduce after it's kind, it would also need to reproduce in the same way that it's parents do. This process means that in the case of male and female reproduction, the creature is a part of both parents.

Right.
We do understand that. But evolution does not lead into that kind of dead end. This is what we are trying to show you.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

That is exactly my point. If we see species that interbreed but cannot reproduce, then the question must be asked, to what extent will the reproducing continue. We can assume that it will stop or we can assume it is limited to a few species. Either way, the observations are inconclusive. We are still making leaps of faith to claim we know what is not known. We do not know to what extent reproduction will continue because our observations are inconclusive. Thus, we lack overwhelming evidence.

And what we are trying to say is that such a situation is not relevant to speciation. The species that result from speciation keep on reproducing each within its own species.

But, the issue is that it is not conclusive

If you don't get continued reproduction, you don't get a new species. No speciation has happened.[/quote] Right, but if the new species cannot reproduce, evolution stops. That is what I am talking about.

We are not talking about sub-species. Generally speaking, sub-species are still inter-fertile with the parent species. We are talking about new species which can no long inter-breed with the parent species but which do keep on reproducing within their own species.

That is what you are talking about. What I am talking about and have been trying to get people to understand is that if even one "new" species is not a viable breeder, it is an assumption to claim that species evolve. There is question. That question means that the evidence is not overwhelming.

More likely it is different from what you thought you were taught. If it is what you were really taught you had an extraordinarily ignorant teacher.
No.

Please note the difference:

a single cell

a single population of single-celled organisms

We cannot state that life descended from "a single cell". For one thing, there was probably never any time in the history of earth when there was only one single cell.

We CAN state that there is very strong evidence that all life rose from a single population of single-celled organisms.

In TOE, "Common ancestor" refers to a population, not to an individual.

I think I have this one covered, if there are still questions, let me know.

Well, don't expect everything in one post. And don't expect to get ALL the answers, because we don't have them all yet.

Now I was told that there were no unanswered questions which is why the TOE is said to have overwhelming evidence. Now I am being told that we don't have all the answers to the questions. This is why I am saying that there is not overwhelming evidence, because there are too many unanswered questions. So which is it, no unanswered questions, or still unanswered questions? That should clear up this entire thread with one simple answer.

However, we can answer (or suggest very plausible answers) for some of them.

suggesting plausible answers is not proof of anything. Therefore, not overwhelming. No more overwhelming than the explainations that can be found in the original TOC and the room it allows for explainations.

First you need to realize that there were several crucial stages before single-celled organisms evolved into multi-celled creatures.

Some important ones were:

1. How did simple (prokaryote) cells become complex (eukaryote) cells?
2. Why did sex evolve in single cells? (Note that I said sex and not sexual reproduction. I also did not say "gender". Single cells which engage in sharing their genetic material are not male and female.)

Then we can get to:

3. How did multi-cellular organisms come to be?
4. How did multi-cellular organisms engage in sexual reproduction? (Still not talking gender. These animals were not male and female, or, if you prefer, they were both male and female at the same time.)

Then we get to:
5. Gender specialization.

And through all of this we need to keep in mind:

a) the mechanism of heredity in a-sexual and sexual reproduction
b) the mechanisms of variation
c) how natural selection works
d) how species change as a result of a) b) and c)
e) how these changes lead to speciation, and
f) how repeated speciation leads to the phylogenetic tree with its groups of genera, families, orders, classes, etc.


And, of course, through all of this we also need to keep in mind the observations which show that all of this really does happen and has happened in the past.

See why universities need whole libraries to house everything there is to learn about evolution?

What I can assure you is that there IS evidence, convincing evidence, for every item above.

And probably the simplest way for you to learn that is to get a good introductory text on evolution and just start reading it.

Now, first off this assumes that I have never read or studied anything about the TOE. That would be a false assumption. I may not know everything there is to know about it because quite frankly, it bores me and I think there are a whole lot of more important things to focus on, but none the less, I know more than you give me credit for knowing. You assume because I tell you what we were taught, that that is what I believe, heck you people even believe that I lean towards C because of what I have been taught. I assure you, I was taught E, not C.

Secondly, if there is overwhelming evidence to convince us of all the above and more, where then are the unanswered questions you spoke of? Why do the people here accept there are unanswered questions then assert that we have overwhelming evidence to answer those questions? Where is the logic in this?

 

[razzelflabben]

It's not?!?!?!?

I am beginning to think you do not know the theory you claim to lean towards.

Also, if TOC does not predict these observations, then, as a theory it is inferior to TOE which does make these predictions. A theory that does not predict observations is useless as a theory as it gives no direction to future scientific research.

And I still need to be convinced that the observations do not contradict (falsify) TOC.




Please define "inter-breeding" and "breeding". Perhaps the problem is that we are using the words differently.

By "breeding" I mean mating one individual with another individual of the same species. i.e. horse with horse, donkey with donkey.

By "inter-breeding" I mean mating an individual of one species with an individual of a different species. i.e. horse with donkey.

If you agree with these definitions, then I don't see why there would be any problem with the new species being viable breeders. But there is definitely a problem with the new species inter-breeding with the parent species. That is what makes the new species new.




Would you please can this type of remark. It is childish.

I will can these kind of remarks when people stop treating me like I don't know the difference between interbreeding and breeding. I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me. If I was talking about interbreeding, I would have specified interbreeding. This type of response make me feel like you people view me as an uneducated idiot and though I view myself as stupid, I assure you that is not what the tests, and people who know me think. I would appreciate being treated with this type of respect, if you intend this type of comment to be dropped.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have already gone over this, and you're still catching up, you probably haven't seen the replies, and that's cool, you are coping admirably with a large colume of people answering your questions. but it goes like this. It is the parent species of the donkey and the horse species, that has split into the donkey speckes and the horse. the donkeys and the horses have drifted away from one another genetically and now they are two new species. The mule isn't the new species, the donkeys and the horses are the new species if you still don't get it, PM me please, then it will be easier to discuss.

I'm pretty sure I understand your point. But I have an additional question for you so please don't assume I didn't understand you. What is the mule? What do we call him?

 

[razzelflabben]

by comparisons of the genomes that code for certain proteins that we share with seveal single celled organisms. there are more diffrences between us and them for example than there are between us and dogs. note that these are often mutations that result in no functional difference, since they code for the same amino acid.

it's ok, you're still catching up I go into this stuff in alot more detail a bit later I think. it's all the ERV and ALU stuff.

I thought people here (I have lost track of who is saying what) are predicting that the genomes are more similar than different according to the predictions of E.

 

[razzelflabben]

Before I dele into this post, let me say that this is new evidence to me and I am trying to learn as we go. But some things don't fit the criteria for overwhelming as I can tell so far.

no we aren't really. these are independent sets of data that just happen to match. we are not relying on one in order to sort out the other. It is like tracking someone round the country by looking at where mobile phone calls were made from, and where their credit card was used. they are two independent methods that chart precisely the same route around the country.

Be careful with this analogy, because someone could steal the cell phones and credit cards, leaving a false trail. But that is kind of the point huh?

aah, the dismissal. I fail to see what is inconclusive about endogenous retroviral sequences. we know full well what they are - they are viruses that have been inserted into the genome and been crippled by a mutation. ALU sequences are bits of floating DNA that copy themselves around the genome. they are independent to ERVs but can be used to demonstrate the same sort of phylogenetic tree. Chromosome banding patterns are another example. they can be independently used to construct phylogenetic trees.

so now we have 4 different methods of constructing a phylogenetic tree

(1) we can use the fossil record to construct the tree
(2) we can use ERVs to construct a tree
(3) we can use ALUs to construct a tree
(4) we can use chromosomal banding patterns to construct a tree.

and without ever actually comparing these prior to getting the result, we find that our trees are all the same, we get the same order of ancestry regardless of which method of tree construction we use.

What base, control group are we basing our findings on so that we can determine that the tests and the results are consistant, not with each other but with the evidence. If I have no control group, I was taught, the results are inconclusive. So what then is our control group?

really? why would the TOC predict identical ERV sequences in identical locations in unrelated organisms? The odds of an ERV being embedded in a particular location in any cell are billions to one. the odds of an ERV being embedded in two gametes from two completely different organisms and then becoming fixed within the populations via genetic drift is absolutely astronomical.

You know what, I am tired of people assuming that I am trying to prove the TOC or comparing everything to C so I am going to avoid answering any more questions about the TOC, let us focus instead on the supposed overwhelming evidence. But before I get a million posts argueing with this discission, let me say, that even if we assume the TOC falsified, that does not equal overwhelming proof for the TOE. And assuming no other viable theories is proof of nothing. Hopefully that discission will help me catch up a bit.

but you have just dismissed these pieces of evidence as "not overwhelming" without ever actually pointing out how they might be erronous. you can claim it is not overwhelming until the cows come home, but such statements mean nothing until you actually detail why it is not overwhelming. can you give alternate explanations to why we see the distributions of ERVs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the distributions of ALUs that we do? can you give an alternate explanation as to why we see the comparisons in chromosome patterns that we do? can you explain why all of these totally independent methods return precisely the same phylogenetic tree?

I tried to point out the unanswered questions that the evidence leaves, and your answers leave other unanswered questions, it is the unanswered questions that cause me to look at the evidence and say it is not conclusive.

So let me ask you a question. Why is it so important to convince people that the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it? This is something I have never been able to fathom. Why the issue is so important to so many people. I wouldn't have ever come here if it wasn't for correcting the misconceptions that were posted about me in the OP. I don't get why this topic is such a hot issue?

 

[Jet Black]

We have both seen & read much Darwin dross

liar. well you may have read it, but judging by all the errors you make when describing it, I doubt you actually understood a word of it.

 

[Jet Black]

I thought people here (I have lost track of who is saying what) are predicting that the genomes are more similar than different according to the predictions of E.

read what I said again. the more distant we are to an organism, the more differences there are in the amino acid sequences coding for a certain protein.

 

[razzelflabben]

no no no!

species A is geographically split into 2 populations we will call them B and C. At the moment, B and C can still breed with one another, but since they no longer share a common gene pool, this allows B and C to drift away from one another, while still maintaining full fertility within the population. (B and C become more different from each other over time) This is the speciation bit. B and C become different species because they do not share a common gene pool anymore.

If I put all your posts together, I think what you are saying is that if the new species in not able to reproduce, it is not evolution, but if it is able to reproduce it is evolution. That in and of itself leave a lot of questions, but I will wait to see if I got that right.

 

[Jet Black]

I'm pretty sure I understand your point. But I have an additional question for you so please don't assume I didn't understand you. What is the mule? What do we call him?

well the mule is a hybrid, but it is an infertile one. It exists because the horse and the donkey species haven't totally separated, but they are separate enough to not be able to mix the genes in their gene pools (the mule doesn't really count, because no genes can cross from the horse gene pool to the donkey one, since any crosses are infertile) actually some hinnys (female mules) can breed, but it is very rare. I think there have been about 2 pregnant hinnies on record.

 

[razzelflabben]

not really. there is a big difference between saying a particular individual was somewhere. I think it is conclusive that baptisms were performed in that cave, but the claim that a particular individual mentioned in a text worked there is a much much more specific claim and so the standards required to support that claim are far more stringent. the TOE comparison is not good, because the standards required are much lower, because we are talking about general populations and not individuals.

What evidence proves that the cave was used for baptisms? We know that it was set up for that purpose, but what evidence do we have that it was not abandoned for some reason before being used for baptism? That would also require more evidence now wouldn't it?

 

[razzelflabben]

good, then you should be able to see that small genetic differences can build up into large genetic differences and these may result in speciation. If we took a tractor and ran over all of the israeli naked mole rats in the middle of the population, then the ends would be totally isolated from one another genetically and would never be able to breed with one another again - speciation in other words.

I can see how it is possible, that has never been an issue, but I can also see from the evidences of speciation, that it is possible, that evolution from on populations is not possible. There in lies the problem.