Challenging Evolution

[gluadys]

But there are no unanswered questions remember, that means, that we must have evidence of this single celled population. If it is not in the fossil record, then how can we examine it and prove it's existance? You are the one asserting overwhelming evidence. I would like to see this single celled population, or proof of it, so that we can see what we looked like million and millions of years ago.

The evidence is in the different phylogenies all leading to the same tree. Remember, a phylogeny is a map of ancestors and descendants, just like a family tree is.

But, it proves the species are similar, how does it prove that the species are decendants form the same population? It is not the similarities that determine one human being from another, but rather the differences, even in the DNA.

Yes, differences distinguish one human being from another. But similarities show who that human being is related to and how close the relationship is. The differences in the DNA between you and your brother will be much smaller than the differences in the DNA between you and a second cousin. Or, to put it the other way around, you DNA will be more similar to that of your brother than to that of your second cousin.


Similarly a father's DNA will be more like that of his children than that of another person's children. That is the basis of paternity tests when there is a question of who the father is.

I had this DNA stuff all wrong, I thought it was the differences that proved who, what, and how at the crime scene, now you are informing me it is the similarities.

So now you know it is both.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Re: OP Evolution of Creationism.

Sorry, it was vague out of context.

 

[razzelflabben]

Leaving out key words again. No, raising questions is not equal to falsification. Even not finding the answers is not falsification. Falsification occurs when a theory says "This must be so." and evidence answers "But it is not so."

But to get back to key words, you did not speak of raising questions, you spoke of calling into question the validity of TOE. That is quite different than asking questions.




See the recent study on the Galapagos finches which shows clearly how subtle changes in the environment led to subtle changes in the characteristics of the species.

Migration of part of a species to a different habitat is another way of getting subtle changes in the environment. It is not so much that the environment changes, as that the species gradually moves into a different environment. But the consequences are the same. Ring species are an example of that.




As for what caused their extinction, it is widely believed that the meteorite which impacted the earth and caused the Chicxulub (sp?) crater led to severe environmental changes which hastened the extinction of the dinosaurs. Some people also point to the global effects of the volcanic activity in India around the same time.

And yes, at least some dinosaurs are extinct because they evolved into a different creature: birds. So in this case we can say that both processes brought about the extinction of dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs became extinct because of the changes in the environment likely caused by meterorite impact and/or major volcanic activity. And a few dinosuars are extinct because they evolved into birds.



Well, don't just complain about people making wrong assumptions. Correct the wrong assumptions by saying what is wrong with them.

When people assume (as often happens on these boards) that I am male, I don't fuss about it. I tell them I am female.



No, we should believe the evidence. The overwhelming evidence that all supports TOE with not a solitary shred of evidence pointing in a different direction.

okay, you correct the problem of gender, but I choose to ignore it and add to the assumption that you are asexual. So you correct that and I ignore that to claim that your are an asexual ape, see the problem. We aren't talking about gender here, we are talking about a belief system or ideas, that were corrected but the corrections were ignored in order to make more assumptions. Eventually, I don't try to correct it anymore because it is simply fruitless. Look at Merle, I told him what he wants to know about 10 times now, I have forgiven him with out his even asking, I have told him to drop it, but he comes back on bringing it up again, claiming I didn't give him the aswers, how many times can someone be corrected before they stop assuming to know what they do not?

 

[razzelflabben]

Great!!!! So, that means the evidence is overwhelming that evolution is a fact, not just a theory.





No, this is where you are getting derailed again. Speciation is the end-product of evolution. If you have speciation, you have evolution. If you have observed speciation, you have observed evolution. No assumptions. Observations and conclusions from the evidence.




No, we are claiming that since speciation is the end-product of evolution, observed speciation is overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, not just a possiblity. And since speciation is a prediction of TOE, the observation of speciation (and of many of the predicted mechanisms of speciation) is overwhelming evidence for TOE.

You cannot separate speciation from TOE.



Observed speciation together with the observation of many of the mechanisms which lead to speciation (mutations, variation, genetic drift, natural selection) constitutes overwhelming evidence for TOE since this is what TOE predicted. And one can add in other predictions of TOE that have also been observed to be fact: the way DNA evidence of various sorts all end up creating the same phylogenetic tree, and the way that tree matches trees drawn up on the basis of morphology or geography or fossil distribution.

Your going to have to explain that one better, I don't understand how, speciation is the TOE. There is more to the theory than observed speciation. For example, if I introduced you to my children, you could easily believe they are my children. But how can you assume that I did not adopt them? That is an assumption that the evidence does not predict.

That is how I see speciation, it is easy to believe that they happen (are my children) but to assume that equals the TOE is like assuming my children are adopted or not.

 

[gluadys]

Of the speciations we have observed, which became more than a "mutation" of thier parent. In other words, which looked so differently that we can put them in a new phylum, family group. This would be proof of the TOE.

No, it would be a contradiction of TOE. What TOE predicts is speciation. And it predicts that a new species will always be very closely related to its parent species. So it will always be in the same genus as the parent. No new species would ever be in different phylum or even a different family.

Now, speciation over time will lead to the formation of the larger taxonomic groups, just as reproduction within a species will lead from a couple, to a nuclear family (couple + children) to an extended family (couple + children + aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents) to a clan (many extended families descended from the same great-gr-gr----grandparent) to tribes (like the tribes of Israel each descended from one of Jacob's sons) to nations (like the many different nations descended from Noah and his sons).

Just do all of this with speciating populations instead of individuals.

I don't recall saying that males and females were different species. These last to paragraphs are exactly what I have been talking about. I am not an idiot people. You need to listen.

I did listen. Here is the question you asked in your own words (bolding added)


"...how did thousands of organisms evolve into a viable breeding source of male and female (later down the line) because there would not have been a need for male and female species to evolve. "

 

[razzelflabben]

I am afraid you would have to rely on fossils for this one as present-day species inherit their mode of reproduction, so they are set as hermaphroditic or gendered. Any species which has not changed from hermaphrodite to gendered reproduction is not likely to do so now----though we can always hope that mother nature will reveal a case just so we can show you one.

btw, fossil evidence wouldn't be of much help either, as reproductive tissue is soft tissue and almost never fossilized.

However, I would not put it past the resources of a professional biologist (e.g. lucaspa) to come up with evidence I am not aware of. (Remember science looks for evidence, not proof.)

Bring on the evidence, that would be a great start to proving that the TOE has overwhelming evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

And those questions are? How do you expect to get answers to questions if you don't ask them?

And what assumptions are you talking about? If you can't say what they are, how do we know they are anything more than figments of your imagination?

Start with your own posts, you have used the word assume many times.

 

[gluadys]

I understand what you are saying, but I am talking about reproductive problems, not interbreeding. Come on, give me a little credit.

What reproductive problems. Like I just said,we do not know what problems you are talking about. Now maybe that is because we are very dense and need to be hit over the head with it ten times over.

But the two salmon species lucaspa mentioned were not having reproductive problems. So, where is the problem?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You did not examine or address my questions to you, and in them I promised you would find the overwhelming evidence you were looking for.

I must have missed it, point me to it or give it again, and I'll give it a go.

OK, sure. When I showed you these before, you were supposed to determine where you believe the impassible boundary was between these species that would determine created "kinds". But instead of stating a simple yes or no in any instance, you ignored all these specific questions, and said only this:

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

But that does not answer any of these, and you completely evaded the point I was trying to make, which was this: As you have demonstrated, the creationist concept of evolution seems to be that there are already a set number of species, (all specially-created) and that new species can only come about through hybridization, which of course is impossible, as has been explained to you many times in this thread already.

But while you imagine separate ancestral lines converging in few ones (through cross-breeding) the reality is just the opposite: One ancestral line, branching off into many. The thing is that each of these new branches branches out again, flowering into even more groups, each of which in turn flower into even more. The result is a collection of descendant groups with ancestral [family] groups.

Think of each species as siblings with a common parent, and also cousins with common grandparents and so on.

For example, as illustrated in the questions I asked, each of the organisms I listed, (scorpions, Bengal tigers, ducks, Perentie monitors, and people) were animals. Animalia is a biological kingdom, one of the highest parent categories of life. Assuming all life stems from common ancestry, then the scorpions I mentioned would be most distantly-related cousins, and the earliest ones to branch off. All the remaining groups I mentioned were tetrapods; vertebrate animals based on a four-limbed body structure which they inherited from the four-legged fish that all of them evolved from.

I keep thinking that if you're going to critique evolution, then you should know something about it first. But I guess I still need to explain this for you to understand what it is I am asking you to do here.

The tetrapods then branched into two groups, synapsids and diapsids. Diapsids are the true reptiles. These split again into archosaurs, with four-chambered hearts, and Lepidosaurs, with two-chambered hearts. (Turtles are considered anapsids, and have three-and-a-half chambers, sort-of). Anyway, Lepidosaurs split into several more groups including Lizards and eventually monitor lizards.

Ducks are also diapsid reptiles, but they descended from dinosaurs which descended from the archosaur side of Reptilia. Consequently, ducks are still classified as diapsid archosaurian dinosaurs.

The synapsids also split into several groups, one of them becoming mammals, (after a whole bunch of intermediary stages). The mammals split again into several more groups, including Carnivora and the Primates, which are the parent groups which begat tigers and humans, respectively.

I know you don't care about all of this since you said you think science is boring. But if you're going to bother arguing against it, you're going to have to learn it. And after nearly 1,200 posts in this thread, you should have been an expert by now. So I would suggest you either make an effort to learn what everyone has been trying to tell you, or bow out gracefully without trying to claim that no one has shown you anything "overwhelming" yet, because lots of people have several times over. Its time you opened your eyes and looked at some of it.

Now answer each of my questions with a simple yes or no.

 

[gluadys]

Missed the main point, but move on, it is apparent that you people know more about what I think and believe than I do. Can you tell me more about what I believe so that I can know what to post next. And please make sure to spoon feed it to me, it only takes me a few dozen posts to get a concept I understood back in high school.

Well, I gave you a chance to correct me.

I hope I have explained that right. She can correct me if I have not.

You should have taken it. For someone who says one of her main concerns is lack of communication, you seem to be very reluctant to improve communication by clarifying your ideas when offered the chance to do so.

 

[razzelflabben]

on my way to saying good night, I know I missed a lot of responses, but I feel good about reading every post and getting caught up this far. If I missed something important, I'm hopeful you all will bring it up again instead of making accusation

No, it would be a contradiction of TOE. What TOE predicts is speciation. And it predicts that a new species will always be very closely related to its parent species. So it will always be in the same genus as the parent. No new species would ever be in different phylum or even a different family.

But overwhelming evidencce for the TOE would include the observation speciation beyond the species level. Otherwise, if is only assumptions.

Now, speciation over time will lead to the formation of the larger taxonomic groups, just as reproduction within a species will lead from a couple, to a nuclear family (couple + children) to an extended family (couple + children + aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents) to a clan (many extended families descended from the same great-gr-gr----grandparent) to tribes (like the tribes of Israel each descended from one of Jacob's sons) to nations (like the many different nations descended from Noah and his sons).

Just do all of this with speciating populations instead of individuals.

This is the theory, but what evidence so we have to support the Theory. See how different the TOE is from the speciation we observe? We are assuming that the speciation continues into these extended groups. Where is the proof that they do. I know all the DNA, etc. , what those are not observations, they are experiments that predict. I want overwhelming evidence if you are going to claim it.

I did listen. Here is the question you asked in your own words (bolding added)

"...how did thousands of organisms evolve into a viable breeding source of male and female (later down the line) because there would not have been a need for male and female species to evolve. "

Yeah, what isn't clear? we have a population of organisms, they are reproducing asexually, evolving into organisms that contain both male and female reproductive organs, who evolve into male and female of the same species. Two problems, 1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.
2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.

 

[Physics_guy]

1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.

They didn't - they already were the same species. All sexual reproduction is is the ability to transfer genes from two parents to get different recombinations. Today exist species that can reproduce in quasi-sexual and quasi-asexual ways and other species that can change from male to female.

2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.

I can think of a whole lot of cases where it would improve the survival of a species. It allows for gene transfer which can be very valuable - allowing the best traits in two individuals to be culled by natural selection instead of just one.

 

[gluadys]

because when I do, I am accused of not addressing a certain post.

Just say at the beginning of the post that this is what you are doing. Even put in people's names if you want. i.e: to aron-ra, gluadys, jet black, lucaspa, etc ....

Lots of people use a single post to reply to several people.

No,you have never covered why you think the evidence is not overwhelming. You have just repeated and repeated your opinion.

Too many unanswered questions, too many assumptions, too little evidence to disprove other possibilities. That should about cover it.

No, it is a perfect example of what I mean by not covering it.

---too many unanswered questions
what unanswered questions? name three.

----too many assumptions
what assumptions? name three.

---too little evidence
What would be enough? what more do you need beyond direct observation?

I understand that that is the theory which is where my problem lies,

It was intended as an answer to your problem. So why doesn't it solve the problem for you?

...complain about people talking down to you. This is why. You keep bringing up the red herring of different species inter-breeding and producing a hybrid which cannot reproduce itself.

Huh? where was I talking about inter-breeding? no wonder you think I am putting up red herrings, you don't understand any questions I ask.

You were speaking of the mating of a donkey and a horse which produces the mule. That is what I call inter-breeding. Isn't that what you call inter-breeding?

Sure, let us forget the hybrid, they do not support the TOE so let us ignore them completely. Sounds reasonable.

Actually the hybrid does support TOE. It is evidence that the horse and donkey have a recent common ancestor.

Are you asking me if I understand common ancestor or if I still have questions about common ancestory?

I am asking if you understand that "common ancestor" refers to a species, a population, not an individual.

I expect you do have more questions about common ancestry.

Don't see anything that addresses the question I asked about suitable mates, only assumptions about what I don't know.

ok, when time permits, we can revisit that question.

Is the definition here for evolution, (speciation)?

Yes, understanding that means not only the final separation of one population to another, but also the various steps leading up to it. Speciation is a long process which takes many generations.

What definition are we using here. For my assertion has always been the claim that there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, not evolution as defined by speciation.

Still using the same definition. If you are using a different one, throw it away. It is a straw man definition.

But, note that they are all related to the TOE which has always been the issue, are you just now coming to the understanding that there is a difference between speciation and the TOE or are you still asserting they are identical?

They are identical. When you understand that, you will have gone a long way toward a correct understanding of TOE.

You still haven't answered the question, do you understand that there is a difference between speciation (evolution) and the TOE?

The only difference is that speciation is evolution and TOE is the explanation of speciation and its consequences.

 

[gluadys]

yep, look at it a moment. species that cannot breed become extinct. Your definition, breed=mating individuals of the same species. Would a species that cannot breed become extinct?

A species that cannot breed would not come into existence in the first place. You cannot get speciation unless both the parent and the daughter species can breed.

btw, you did not confirm if you agreed with my definition of inter-breeding.

 

[gluadys]

And I have made none of the assertions, so why attack me? If you want to talk about some of these issue, we can do so on another thread at a later time, but carrying forth such an agenda here is not productive to your position.

I answered your question. You wanted to know why the issue was important to me. I didn't claim that you personally were involved in these activities, so I was making no attack on you.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, I am excited about being on the verge of catch up, so see if I can clarify, looks like I was asleep when I made the post.

Speciation is possible, probable, and is what one could call overwhelming evidence to support. However, to jump the speciation line, and say that the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it, makes assumptions in the observations of speciations that we have not yet observed and therefor lack sufficient evidence to claim the TOE as overwhelming. Is that clearer?

OK. The problem here is an incorrect assumption about TOE.

TOE does not assume any "jumping" of the speciation line.

Speciation is it. There is no equivalent of speciation at a higher level of the taxonomic order. There is no such thing as genusiation, familiation, orderiation, classiation or phyliation.

We do not get those kinds of jumps in evolution. All the higher taxonomic orders are a result of accumulated speciations. So when we have observed speciation (and we have) we have observed evolution.

All that remains to work out is who speciated whom.

And that is where the construction of phylogenies comes in. We use the various lines of evidence, both fossil and non-fossil, to figure out who is related to whom and how far back the relationship goes to get to their common ancestor.

 

[gluadys]

But being crated to adapt to ones environment could also address the issue of why there was not mass extinction.

Well, there was mass extinction. More than once. The current human-generated mass extinction is the sixth one.

What does being "created to adapt to one's environment" mean?

Does it mean anything different than being created to evolve?

If so, what's the difference? How does adaptation work if it doesn't work via evolution (mutations, gene sorting, natural selection)?

 

[gluadys]

Your going to have to explain that one better, I don't understand how, speciation is the TOE. There is more to the theory than observed speciation. For example, if I introduced you to my children, you could easily believe they are my children. But how can you assume that I did not adopt them? That is an assumption that the evidence does not predict.

That is how I see speciation, it is easy to believe that they happen (are my children) but to assume that equals the TOE is like assuming my children are adopted or not.

Well that is one of the differences between individuals and species. Individuals can adopt children. (And not just humans either. Sometimes animals adopt other animals too.)

But with species, there is no adoption. So all species are related by inheritance via a common ancestor.

 

[gluadys]

But overwhelming evidencce for the TOE would include the observation speciation beyond the species level. Otherwise, if is only assumptions.

Finally we get to what I expected was the problem all along. You want overwhelming evidence of what creationists call "macro-evolution". (I hear the buzz word today is now "vertical evolution".)

Well you will never get that because it is a straw man. No such thing as the ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind's definition of macro-evolution occurs in nature.

And of course, that is why they created those straw man definitions---because they don't occur in nature--so it is quite impossible to provide overwhelming evidence for them.

The scientific definition of macro-evolution is speciation. Micro-evolution are those small changes in a species that occur while it is becoming more and more different from the parent species, but is not a fully-separate species yet. Speciation is the final step in the process of evolution.

To get higher taxonomic groups, keep on repeating the process of speciation.

This is the theory, but what evidence so we have to support the Theory. See how different the TOE is from the speciation we observe?

Only the straw man definition of TOE is different. Put the straw man definition on a bonfire and get rid of it. Use the scientific definition which adheres to what we see in nature instead.

We are assuming that the speciation continues into these extended groups.

I think it is a pretty fair assumption that if speciation can happen once, it can happen more than once.

I think it is a pretty fair assumption that if speciation is happening today right in front of our eyes, that it was happening in the past.

Species change. They become new species because they change. They become ancestors of two or more new species, because the population divides and both groups change in different ways.

So how do we not have speciation continuing into these extended groups?

As long as individuals keep on reproducing, will we not get families, clans, tribes, etc. How could we not? What would stop it?

As long as species keep changing and speciating, what would stop the extension into larger groups?

Can a husband who has children who reproduce prevent himself from becoming a grandfather? And after his own decease, as his grand-children and gr.grandchildren continue to reproduce, can he stop his descendants from becoming many many related families?

So if speciation is happening again and again and again (and I would need pretty solid evidence that it is not) how do we stop these larger groups from appearing.

Population A=one species

Population A---> populations B AND C

A and B and C together constitute three species in the same genus

Population B---> population D

Population C---> populations E, F and G

Populations B and D are two species in the same genus. (Genus X)
Population C, E, F and G are four species in another genus. (Genus Y)

All the species in Genus X and Genus Y together with their common ancestor population A constitute a family.

Just keep going. What would put a stop to it as long as species exist and change?

Two problems, 1. how did the evolving species become the same species, same mutation, I can predict your answer, but I want to hear it.

Which species? The male species and the female species? Or some other species?

2. What mechanism would require seperate male and female organisms. I canot think of any case in which this would be necessary for survival of the species if reproduction was going on.

Nothing would require it. Species were already reproducing before gender.

But if having gender gave a species an advantage of some sort, then a species with gender would replace a very similar species (probably its own ancestor) without gender.

 

[mrversatile48]

If you don't get continued reproduction, you don't get a new species. No speciation has happened.

Right, but if the new species cannot reproduce, evolution stops. That is what I am talking about.

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.

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

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.

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?[/QUOTE]

I know how you feel, Razz!

My mum taught me to read when I was 2, & I always "had my nose in a book"

So I'd already studied many things before they came up at school

At 13, I had to choose between Latin & biology

Both staff & students were stunned when I said I'd already studied ET, rejected it, but knew I'd have to parrot such poppycock to get a pass in the exam, so I chose Latin, as it was new to me, challenging, & gave me a fair chance to pass, whereas the dice were unfairly loaded against me getting a pass in biology, despite my going deeper into it than most folk

It was hilarious when peers called me brainwashed!

It was mainly the class clown of course- (hi Sco' if you're out there!)

So I answered in kind: "Don't be stupid - I'm only @ 2/3 hours a week in church, & that's hardly enough for brainwashing, but I'm with you lot 40 hours a week & you still can't browbeat me into your tomfoolery!"

It has occurred to me several times, this past week of praying for youth awaiting big exam results, that a lifetime isn't enough to learn everything about everything

& yes, our presnt & future direction & development is relevant to topic

We must prioritise, so my prayer for them was as my prayer for readers....

"Lord, so teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts to wisdom"

Proverbs 1:2/7's intro to that book puts it so beautifully, but it applies to the whole of Man's Maker's Manual, the Bible..

"for attaining wisdom & discipline,
for understanding words of insight,
for acquiring a disciplined & prudent life,
doing what is right & just & fair,
for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge & discretion to the young -
let the wise listen & add to their learning
& let the discerning get guidance.."

Just time to skip to the key verse (7)..

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom"

The end of Daniel prophesied, @ 2,500 years ago, that the endtime would see both travel & knowledge vastly increase

Other endtime Bible prophecies combine high tech with occult revival at the same time - forecast 2000, 2500 & 2800 years ago - all with the most uncanny accuracy for our day

1 of the saddest prophesies is that "men will be ever learning, but never able to acknowledge the truth"

A similar 1 said that "The time will come when men will no longer endure sound teaching, but will instead gather to themselves teachers who will only tell them what they want to hear"

Another says, "They deliberately choose to reject the truth & believe lies"

Those, & other prophecies fulfilled in our times, are not evidence of progress to Utopia, but of decadence demanding judgment

Man's Maker's Manual - the most vital book of all to study

Read, mark & learn

Yet I'm reminded of the much-loved prophecy of Christ, written @ 2800 years ago, that I was asked to read out on Sunday: Isaiah 53..

"Who has believed our report?
& to whom has the arm of the Lord been been revealed?

verse 3 - "He was despised & rejected"

Must go!

Ian