Challenging Evolution

[The Bellman]

Ohh but the theory of gravity and evolution are not the same type of theory Bellman!

No, they're not.

The theory of evolution explains how life developed over a long period of time, whereas the theory of gravity is a constant, immutable observation discovered with mathematics.

The theory of gravity is not an observation at all. Theories aren't observations, they're attempts to explain observations.

It is ignorant of you to say the theory of evolution is just as established or understood as gravity is, being that they are inherently different types of theories.

No, they're not.

The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity. To prove evolution, one has to use observation and reason, not math formulas!

Much of modern science does not object to evolution. That is false, and you cannot support it.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Can anyone say God?

I haven't seen the math that points to God. He may exert the attraction between every particle and every other particle, but I need more than your faith to believe it.

 

[Logic]

You'd probably need a hell of a lot more than my faith :O.

 

[Logic]

Scientific Proof of Mechanism of Gravity

 

[Valkhorn]

The problem is that much of modern science objects to evolution, and not gravity

Straw Man, anyone?

 

[pureone]

Straw Man, anyone?

No thanks, I've been burning so many lately that I'm getting a sore throat and runny eyes.

 

[USincognito]

I've been perusing the days posts and I'd like to publically address puddleglum with 2 requests.

1. Please don't quote long replies in their entirety just to respond with one word or "aahahhaha" or whatever. Excise the quote.

2. You're in over your head dude. I'd recommend reading up a bit more than the sources you claim to have read before posting. If you have a question, fine, but your assertions make me cry.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

You'd probably need a hell of a lot more than my faith :O.

Sorry... you confused me. I'd love to say it won't happen again, but...

 

[Logic]

Sometimes I like to argue for the other side, usually sarcastically .

 

[Physics_guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Wolly

The theory of evolution explains how life developed over a long period of time, whereas the theory of gravity is a constant, immutable observation discovered with mathematics.

You creationists need to learn a bit of physics before you make such assertions. In truth, the theory of gravity (if you could say there really is one) is on far less solid ground than the theory of evolution. The mechanism of gravity (what the theory of gravity tries to explain) is truly not understood (we understand gravity over large distances but have no real understanding of how it works over short distances), while the mechanisms of evolution are both well understood and observed.

 

[gluadys]

razzelflabben:

Thanks for the comments.

I seem to be hearing three messages:

a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, I’ll spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.

a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)

a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Decent basic critique.

Thanks. Could you tell me when you say that there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution, do you mean the statement(s) I labeled a-1 or a-2 or both?

Also do you agree that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution? If not, why not?

Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method.

Not at all, just the assumptions that are going along with the scientific method that I have a problem with.

Could you specify a few of the more important assumptions going along with the scientific method which you object to? Not a list of twenty please. Two or three will be enough.

I have found in talking with people, that few people on either side of the issue understand the theory of creationism of ID as put forth in the Bible. A good starting point in understanding what is involved in the theory is The Genesis Record (I think that is the exact title) big book discussing the theory and what posibilities the theory allow for and what possibilities are not allowed for. To date, I have not seen sugnificant scientific data that makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. For example, many evolutionists focus on old earth, new earth data to prove creationism false. In truth, the theory of creation as purposed in the bible (primary teaching on creationism) does not exclude the posibility of old earth creation. Now many creationists only claim young earth but this is only one strand of the theory and old earth does nothing to disprove the heart of the theory. This is only one example of what I am talking about.

I take it then that you do not include yourself in the Young-Earth Creationist camp. That is the one that gets the most attention as it is most out-of-sync with all science--not just evolution. But they are also a relatively recent phenomenon. Most creationists from about 1840 to 1950 were Old Earth Creationists. I understand the ID movement includes people with a variety of viewpoints on this issue. It does make it easier to concentrate on evolution when we remove the age of the earth question from the table.

I am, in fact, much more interested in following through on what each theory allows for, prohibits and requires.

The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?

You did not say whether you agreed with this statement or not. Do you?

Absolutely but again, we must understand the theory before we can dismiss it as not being able to predict data.

Right. There is no way to make predictions on the basis of a theory that is not understood. If one attempts to do so, the predictions will not be correctly derived from the theory.

Here is another example, the DNA evidence presented on this thread in relation to trees. From the standpoint of creation as put forth in the bible, one would expect that trees that are similar would have similar but different DNA.

But you have misunderstood what they have been saying. They have not been referring to trees as in pine, oak, palm, etc. They have been referring to phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic trees are to biology what family trees are to genealogists. The "tree" is a diagram that shows the family relationships between species.

Check out the Tree of Life project at the University of Arizona. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Also the short tutorial on cladistics and cladograms at the University of Berkeley's online Museum of Paleontology.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html

Creation does not say that there are no similar elements in nature, such as, alligators and croc's have similar teeth structure.

True, but it does not explain the source of the similarities or the source of the differences. Evolution explains both.

Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.

Certain strains of the theory yes, but not the theory as presented by the primary authority.

All versions of creationism I am familiar with are failed theories regardless of their stance on the age of the earth. So you will have to show me why the "primary authority" is exempt.

Of the evidence I have seen precented to support evolution, it does as much to support ID as evolution.

You may need to guide me a little on ID theory as I am less familiar with it than creationism.

My impression is that a fair number of IDers are basically theistic evolutionists or close to it, so naturally evidence which supports evolution would also support their vision of ID. The crux will be those ideas in ID which are not in agreement with evolution. I am thinking here of irreducible complexity as defined by Behe and specified complexity as defined by Dembsky.

Again, what data fails to support the other two theories, not specific strains of the theory.

I may be dealing with a "specific strain" of creationism here. If so, you can correct me and provide the version of the "primary authority" and why it is exempt from this criticism.

Creationism affirms that living species are divided into groups (which may include anywhere from one to many species) commonly called "kinds". Each kind is a separate, distinct creation, and the common ancestor of all species within the kind. There is no genetic relationship (though there may be genetic similarity) between one kind and another.

On the basis of this assumption, we can predict that living things cannot be placed on a single phylogenetic tree, but that each kind must have its own separate phylogeny, unconnected to that of other kinds.

Evidence to date does not support the assumption of several different and unconnected phylogenetic trees, but rather the assumption of the common descent of all species, and their placement on a single phylogenetic tree.


ID affirms the existence of "irreducible complexities" especially at the level of molecular biology, for which no evolutionary pathway is possible. No incontrovertible instance of such a phenomenon has been found. It is also difficult to see how the existence of any irreducible or specified complexity can ever be documented without a means of discriminating between intelligent design and design by natural selection. Until this problem is overcome, ID remains an unsupported and unsupportable theory.

What observed instances of evolution? I thought that according to the theory of evolution, millions of years were needed to observe evolution!

You have already been pointed several times to observed instances of speciation. No, the theory of evolution does not require millions of years to see evolution. The key is not how many years, but how many generations. We can see evolution happening in species which have a rapid generational turnover---including speciation. It is only in species with a longer life span that it becomes impossible to observe evolution within a human life span. And for some species, it is not possible to observe evolution even within recorded human history. That is true of our own species for example. However, since evolution is the same process in all species, long or short lived, we have no reason to suspect that evolution does not occur in longer-lived species. Science, after all, requires that a phenomenon be observable, directly or indirectly. It does not necessarily require that it be personally observed.

What observations of evolution have we witnessed,

Again, go to the references you have already been given. If any are not clear to you, come back with questions.

Micro evolution is genetics, and is consistant with ID, macro evolution is not a proven anything unless you have new evidence.

What do you mean by "genetics"? Both micro and macro evolution involve genetics and both require more than genetics. And depending on the particular version of ID being presented, macro evolution is consistent with ID.

Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.

According to this statement, then ID is also fact and theory.

ID will not be a fact until it can meet the challenges I set out above:
a) a way to discriminate between natural and intelligent design, and
b) an incontrovertible example of a biological phenomenon which has been intelligently designed rather than naturally designed.


To keep the discussion a little on track, I would like to start focussing on the relationship of genetics and evolution. Is that ok with you?

 

[USincognito]

Thanks for you lengthy replies the other day razzelflabben. I've been back at work the last two nights, but just haven't been able to summon the wherewithall for a protracted discussion.

Since I feel that glaudys is doing a much more effective job discussing the nature of science with you, I'd like to pare down the subject to evidences for evolution. I'll stick with Edogenous retroviruses for now.

Is eboli not passed form primaties to man? Not proof of anything but that the genetic makeup is similar enough to share certain diseases. Possible theory, it's all about the possibles.

No. They suspect that Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a mutation in Simian Immunodeficiency Virus that made the jump. But all manner of viruses make the jump. That's why we have Swine flu and Bird flu, but they've mutated and their DNA has changed so that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a statistically impossible occurance happening in order for the same virus to have an insertion, in the identical place in the genes of both a human and a chimp (and also gorillas, oragutans, gibbons, old world monkeys and new world monkeys).

Check out this thread, especially the detailed post on the first page, the responses to an argument mirroring yours on page 3 (also on page 1 - independant insertions) as well as Loudmouths post on page 5 which I'll post here to show you why the independant insertion argument fails.
http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

from page 5

For those who have had difficulty in understanding the OP's, I will try and summarize and use analogies where appropriate.

1. A viral genome is inserted into a cell, but the cell is not killed. This is contrary to the normal viral lifecycle. It is a rare occasion when a virus will insert its RNA/DNA and the infected cell doesn't die. An analogy: A person is bitten by a rattlesnake but the venom does not create any reaction in the person who is bitten. Secondly, each viral insertion is random, or nearly random. There are viral insertion hotspots, but this only reduces the chances from 1 in a billion to 1 in 10 million. The chances of two separate viral insertions, by the same virus, occuring at the same spot is very unlikely.

2. The non-lethal viral insertion happens in a germ line cell. This would include eggs or sperm. The cells that make up your functional body, such as organs or muscle, are somatic cells. Germ line cells, in contrast, only serve as reproductive cells. Also, the number of somatic cells outnumber germ line cells by many orders of magnitude. Just guessing, but a ratio of 1:million might be accurate. Therefore, for this to happen in a germ line cell is rare.

3. The infected germ line cell is part of a reproductive event. For instance, out of the million of sperm, 1 or two are infected. One of those sperm end up fertilizing an egg. Again, we are talking about a one in a million chance.

4. This insertion then becomes part of the entire gene pool of a population. This viral insertion must make it from one individual to the entire population over numerous generations. An analogy: Everyone in the world coming into contact with the same dollar bill. This would take time and chance, and not every dollar bill would make it into everyone's hands. Therefore, not every viral insert makes it into the genome of every organism in a population.

Why endogenous retroviral insertions are strong evidence for common descent:

The chances of two populations, not just individuals, of having the same viral insertion in the same exact spot in their DNA sequence is extremely small. Even if two different species were infected by the same virus, the chances of the ineffective virus inserting in the same spot is close to impossible, or highly improbable. Then you have to add in the fact that these ERV's are found throughtout two different populations. Again, this is improbable. However, if your theory is that humans and apes had a common ancestor, and the common ancestor had these viral insertions, then it would be expected that apes and humans would have viral insertions that are identical. This is what we find. The theory of common ancestory explains why a highly improbable event (two different species having the same ERV) is in fact probable.

An analogy: Two students right a 3 billion word thesis. The professor reading the theses finds that they are almost identical. On top of this, the teacher finds that in one paragraph, not only is the wording identical, but the misspellings are identical. Would the teacher conclude that, given the chance of two people misspelling the same word in an identical paragraph is small, the two authors copied off of each other? Or that one author copied off of another? Of course, and for good reason. It is this same reasoning that ERV's support common ancestory between apes and humans.

We have three options if we take an evolution, ID or creationist perspective.

1. The ERVs are leftovers from a viral insertion of a common ancestor evidencing common descent. We can falsify this by finding ERVs in species that don't match the phylogeny (old world monkeys and humans, but not in chimps and gorillas).

2. The ERVs were created individually in each species at the time of special instantaneous creation. We can falsify this only via the Bible in that ERVs are an indication of evolution, not special instant creation and God is not the author of confusion.

3. ERVs are designed into each species at the time of their special creation or, have been designed in such a way as to facillitate the instertion being in the exact same place in each species. I can't think of any potential falsifications because the first ID option falters under point 2 above, and the latter is untestable from what I can see. A third ID option would merely have ERVs being part of theistic evolution, in which case there's no point in arguing whether evolution is fact or not if the person already accepts it.

 

[razzelflabben]

In order to deal with this question, we are need to deal with two other questions:

1. What is evolution? How do you know it has occurred and you have observed it?

Because most of the people I talk to are not scientists, I talk about the lay persons definitions for such things. What is evolution? A theory in which the explaination of how life came to being is explored, through the idea of common decent. How do you know it has occured and you have observed it? I do not know of any evidence to support the assumption that we do know the evolution has occurered nor have we been able to observe it.

2. What is a species?

It is groupings of animals. As to my discussions with non scientists, it is what identifies a lion as a lion rather than a tiger.

And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.

Whose answers to these questions do we accept?

If they are theories, then there are no wrong and right answers, if it is fact, then there is absolute proof, for example, we can fly around the earth, take pictures from outerspace, etc. This moves us from the realm of theory to fact when dealing with the issue of the world being flat.

Different groups and individuals, different dictionaries, offer different definitions. Some of these definitions are good, some bad, some just use different criteria.

Much of the creo-evo mutual incomprehension derives from the fact that each camp defines "evolution" and "species" differently. Using creationist definitions (even when transferred to ID) means that some instances of "evolution" as defined by science are disallowed by creationists as not being "evolution" by their criteria.

And when talking to the general public, it is vital to either preface everything with the definitions you want to use or to discuss the subject according to the popular definition. This is called teaching.

In order for us to understand each other, we need to get around this dilemma of one person offering an example of evolution based on one set of criteria, while the other person refuses to accept it as an example of evolution based on a different set of criteria.

Agreed

So, my first question is: what are your personal responses to the questions above?

Second question: what are the sources you have based these responses on?

Basic high school and college education as well as general population understanding of the questions given. I have many times stated that I am not a scientist and since the scientific community is small in comparison, one must understand what is generally understood, vs. what is understood by only a few that keep changing the rules.

Third question: do you think, if you looked into a standard biology textbook, you would find it defining these terms in the same way you do?

Grant it I have been out of school for a while, but that is the basic source of my definitions.

Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?

Are you talking to a group of scientists, or a group of people who are trying to understand science? That would change the answer.

I want to assure you that I am not seeking to duck your question or the defence of evolution in the sense of common descent. But I have often seen creationists (not so much IDers) reject what scientists consider clear evidence of evolution on the basis that it is "not evolution, only adaptation". I see you distinguish between "genetics" and "evolution"--and we will need to clarify what that distinction is.

My position is that if the micro-instances of evolution which we can easily document are merely "adaptation" or "genetics", then so is macro-evolution. So is common descent. For scientifically, there is no known difference in the processes which produce small evolutionary changes and those that produce speciation and differentiation on larger scales.

Exactly, however, adaptations are not rules out in the ID theory stated in the bible nor is evolution (the totality of the theory) proven by the same. What we have proven is that genetic adaptation is observable and documentable.

So, I believe it is important that we agree on the definitions we will use (and I have a bias in favour of using the standard scientific definitions) before we continue.

What do you say?

So define.

P. S. I have much to comment on in your other post too, but it will have to wait until this evening.

I try, but get things done slowly sometimes, so not problem.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is referring to the fact that if you reject evolution as a theory with enough scientific backing, the same holds for germ theory. The theories are arrived at by the same process. So if the process isn't right with evolution theory, why would it be right when germ theory is considered.


.

I understood this, I just didn't understand it being directed at me and not general discussion but that's okay, some interesting points none the less. Thanks

 

[razzelflabben]

What is proven by ring species is that species can gradually change, till they are so far apart that the species at the beginning/end of the ring cannot reproduce anymore. From this you can infer that new species can develop through gradual changes. This is evolution as fact.

There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way. If you have a good reason, I'll be very interested to hear it.

Ring species is talking about genetics in the same way everything in evolution is talking about genetics, namely that genetic differences give rise to phenotypic differences, which ultimately make the differences between different groups of animals from the same species so large that they won't be able to reproduce anymore. I don't understand how this is a problem. I also don't understand what you mean with 'pure genetics'?

Let's look at your own words, paragraph 2 and I quote

There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way.

See the use of the word assume. This referes to lack of evidence to support this assumption. Thus we have theory not fact.

 

[Tomk80]

Let's look at your own words, paragraph 2 and I quote

There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way.

See the use of the word assume. This referes to lack of evidence to support this assumption. Thus we have theory not fact.

Yes, that is what you do in science. Based on observation you make an assumption which you subsequently try to disprove. Here, there is no reason to think the assumption is incorrect. Hence, the theory stands.

However, the fact which is observed is that two species who cannot reproduce with each other can have a series of intermediate species which in fact can reproduce with each other. That is a fact, which is demonstrated (amongst others) by ring species.

Do note that I am talking about two different things here. The latter is a fact which is observed. The former, the no boundaries thingie, is a theory for which no falsification has been found, no matter how hard we've looked. This is what I mean with evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

[gluadys]

Finally: how would you like to resolve this dilemma of different people using different criteria to define what is and is not "evolution"?

Are you talking to a group of scientists, or a group of people who are trying to understand science? That would change the answer.

In this case, I am talking to you personally. I have already stated that I have a bias toward using the criteria and definitions used by scientists and found in standard science textbooks. What I am wondering is whether you are ok with this or if you have a bias in the other direction and would be uncomfortable with scientific lingo.

And when talking to the general public, it is vital to either preface everything with the definitions you want to use or to discuss the subject according to the popular definition. This is called teaching.

I agree, and I am glad you are in favour of teaching. If you are agreeable to using standard scientific vocabulary and definitions, I promise to explain all new vocabulary.

The problem with popular definitions is that they tend to be vague and ill-defined. And sometimes quite removed from the definitions of the same terms when used scientifically.

For example, I asked for your definitions of “evolution” and “species”.

For evolution you said:

A theory in which the explaination of how life came to being is explored, through the idea of common decent.

But that joins together what scientists see as two different and independent theories. From a scientific perspective, evolution is not a theory “in which the explanation of how life came into being is explored.” That is the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution. The theory of evolution assumes that life already exists and is indifferent about how it came to be. Darwin devoted only one single sentence to the origin of life in Origin of Species, right at the end when he mused that the first forms or possibly only one form of life was breathed into being by the Creator. So we need to exclude the question of the origin of life from a discussion of evolution.

That leaves the idea of common descent. No question this is part of the theory of evolution, but it is only a part. Most of the theory of evolution is actually about species changing over time. Darwin spent a lot of time on something we all take for granted now: establishing the fact that species do indeed change and that many varieties and closely related species are not the product of special divine interventions, but of natural processes of variation and inheritance.

So from a scientific perspective, your definition of evolution included something which does not belong and failed to include most of what does belong.

Similarly with your definition of “species”. You defined a “species” as

It is groupings of animals. As to my discussions with non scientists, it is what identifies a lion as a lion rather than a tiger.

This is ok as far as it goes. But it has three problems.

The first is that you have limited the definition to animals. The definition needs to include plants, fungi, protista, and prokaryota as well as animals. In short, all living things, not just a sub-group of living things.

The second is that it does not describe what it is that “identifies a lion as a lion rather than a tiger”.

The third is that it does not differentiate between levels of groupings. We could just as easily say “it is what identifies a mammal as a mammal rather than a reptile” as to say “lions” and “tigers”. But no one thinks of mammals and reptiles as species, but as large groupings of species.

I hope this explains why I prefer to use the more exacting definitions of science.

And even before we deal with these questions, there is another issue to deal with.

Whose answers to these questions do we accept?

If they are theories, then there are no wrong and right answers, if it is fact, then there is absolute proof, for example, we can fly around the earth, take pictures from outerspace, etc. This moves us from the realm of theory to fact when dealing with the issue of the world being flat.

The reference was to definitions, not theories. Now, I would agree that there can be considerable latitude in definitions, but as you agreed further on, for clarity of communication we need to agree on definitions and criteria.

Just one additional comment here. You speak of moving “from the realm of theory to fact”. I want to be clear and know that you are clear on the concept that theories do not “grow up” to be facts. Theories and facts are different things. Theories explain facts or they fail to explain facts. They do not become facts. In the case of the theory of a spherical earth, that theory was sustained and validated by the pictures of earth taken from the surface of the moon. On the other hand, the theory of a flat earth was falsified by the same pictures. The fact: that the pictures depicted a spherical earth, put both theories to the test and eliminated one of them as a correct theory on the shape of the earth. The theory (and it is still a theory) that the earth is a sphere, explains the facts (i.e. the pictures) better than the flat earth theory. The same theory also explains many other facts about navigation, astronomy, seasons and weather, and so forth.

What happens is that when a theory is so strongly validated by all the available facts, we come to treat its core statement “the earth is a sphere” as a fact. And we are probably right to do so. But I understand that this habit makes it difficult at times to decide whether we are speaking of a fact or a theory.

I have many times stated that I am not a scientist and since the scientific community is small in comparison, one must understand what is generally understood, vs. what is understood by only a few that keep changing the rules.

I am not a scientist either. Last formal science class I took was a Biology 101 class for non-science students and that was 40 years ago. I don’t read scientific journals either. Can’t understand them. So, like you I am dependent on popularized science and the help of scientists who reach out to educate people like you and me.

btw, I need to take issue with this “keep changing the rules” business. It is really not fair. There is nothing wrong with changing rules when it is appropriate to do so. Does your oldest child still have the same curfew as when s/he was 3 years old?

Did you ever see “Fiddler on the Roof”? (stage or movie doesn’t matter). Do you remember the scenes where Tevye struggles with the needs of his daughters vs. the rules of tradition. How his oldest daughter pleads with him not to force her into the marriage he has arranged, but allow her to wed the young tailor instead. And how his second daughter refuses to ask permission to marry, but asks instead for a blessing on her choice of husband. The rules change when they need to change. In science as in any human activity.

Exactly, however, adaptations are not ruled out in the ID theory stated in the bible nor is evolution (the totality of the theory) proven by the same.

As I said, it is one of the principles of science that all theories are tentative---until new evidence invalidates them. Of course, there are some theories which we don’t ever expect to be invalidated (e.g. spherical earth, heliocentric solar system), but in principle even these theories are “provisional”. That is why scientists do not speak of “proving” a theory, but of “falsifying” a theory. We can never be 100% certain a theory is right (even if we are currently 99.99999999% certain), but we can be 100% certain a theory is wrong.

There is also a difference between something being compatible with a theory and the same thing being required by a theory. You say that ID does not rule out adaptations, and I agree. But does ID rule adaptations in? Because that is the relation between adaptations and evolution. Without adaptations there could not be evolution.

Your wording suggests ID permits the fact of adaptation. Evolution goes farther: it requires adaptation. If there were no adaptations, the theory of evolution would be falsified---we would know for certain, 100% certain, that it was wrong. Can you say the same for ID?

The fact that evolution requires adaptations, means that adaptations cannot be shrugged off as “not evolution”. Adaptations are essential to evolution and so the fact of adaptation is evidence in favour of evolution.

If ID only permits adaptations, but does not absolutely require them, then adaptation may be compatible with ID, but it is not evidence in favour of ID.

What we have proven is that genetic adaptation is observable and documentable.

Right, and since adaptation is an essential component of evolution, we have observed and documented a crucial aspect of evolution.

So define.

This may involve some new vocabulary for you. So next post.

 

[gluadys]

Definitions:

Species: the nearest thing we have to a workable definition of species is the biological definition. This defines a species as a population whose members freely mate with each other and produce viable offspring, but cannot or do not mate with those outside the group. Different species are "reproductively isolated."

This is workable, with some fuzziness in differentiating closely related species, for species that reproduce wholly by sexual means. But it doesn't work for single-celled species that reproduce a-sexually by simple cell division. In the latter case, scientists have to proceed on the basis of morphological and genetic differences and arbitrarily declare where one species ends and another begins.

But for our purposes the biological definition is as good a working definition as any.

Evolution: for succinctness, nothing beats the Curtis and Barnes definition of evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

But if the definition is short, it may take some explaining about what alleles are.

Alleles are variations in a gene. If you think of a gene as a set of instructions or a recipe for creating a protein, then alleles are variant forms of the recipe. An analogy would be the stuffing (or do you say dressing) served on many American tables on Thanksgiving. All across the country cooks are hauling out a recipe for stuffing. That is what the gene is: the basic recipe. But it is highly doubtful (except where someone has purchased a commercial prodcut) that any two recipes are exactly the same. That is what alleles are: the variations on the basic recipe.

Many people with no background in science have never even heard the term allele. And sometimes even scientists get lazy and speak of "genes" when they really mean "alleles". So it is not surprising that a person may think that blue-eyed people and brown-eyed people have different genes for different eye-colour. They don't. The gene, which is the same gene in all humans (and probably a lot of non-humans too) is a recipe for producing pigment. But just as you can vary a recipe for stuffing a turkey, you can vary a genetic recipe for producing pigment. Each variation is an allele or variant form of the same gene. And some alleles result in the production of blue pigment and others result in the production of brown pigment.

Similarly, there is one gene for blood type, but it comes in three different alleles. The various combinations of these alleles in the genome of individuals produces four different blood types.

Now if in a population, a gene has no variant forms, all members of the species will be identical for whatever that gene codes for. But if it has more than one variant form, more than one allele, then you get individual differences in regard to the trait that gene codes for.

So, to get back to the definition of evolution. What do we mean by a change in the frequency of alleles?

The classic example is the increase, and then decrease, in industrial melanism in the pepper moth. Here we have a population with a gene coding for the production of pigment. The gene comes in two alleles, one of which produces more pigment than the other. This is seen visibly by some of the moths being darker than the others. From the records kept by moth and butterfly collectors, we know that the darker variation was rare all over England until the onset of the industrial revolution. Then in regions of the country with a heavy build-up of smoke emitting factories, the darker version became more common, even dominant for a while. Then, with the installation of pollution-fighting equipment, the former ratio of light to dark was restored.

Now, this is not a huge difference. It did not result in speciation. The moth did not turn into a different kind of animal. So by many creationist definitions, no evolution happened. But by standard scientific definitions, evolution did happen, twice. First the allele that produced darker pigment appeared more frequently, then it appeared less frequently again. So, according to biologists, this is a valid example of evolution by natural selection.

Now, I grant that you cannot get macro-evolution from a process that reverses itself. To get the sort of changes we associate with macro-evolution requires the co-operation of several factors to encourage a permanent change and a permanent difference between population groups. But even with those factors in place, evolution is still basically a change in the frequency of alleles in a populations.

A more substantial definition of evolution comes from Futuyma:

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

This definition specifically includes macro-changes. But it also specifically includes "slight changes in the proportion of different alleles". The "successive alterations" which give rise to "snails, bees, etc." are successive alterations in the frequency of different alleles.

 

[razzelflabben]

What is proven by ring species is that species can gradually change, till they are so far apart that the species at the beginning/end of the ring cannot reproduce anymore. From this you can infer that new species can develop through gradual changes. This is evolution as fact.

There is no reason to assume these changes have a boundary in some way. If you have a good reason, I'll be very interested to hear it.

Ring species is talking about genetics in the same way everything in evolution is talking about genetics, namely that genetic differences give rise to phenotypic differences, which ultimately make the differences between different groups of animals from the same species so large that they won't be able to reproduce anymore. I don't understand how this is a problem. I also don't understand what you mean with 'pure genetics'?

Let us look at the paper I read for information at the end of the article it say, "The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed. "

Now from a scientific standpoint, two problems arise when applying this information to the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory at least as it was taught to me in school is based on the idea of survival of the fittest. The natural selection of the environment, thus allowing genetic changes of adaptation to the next generation. Now species rings are interesting to say the least but it leave two huge holes in the evolutionary theory. One is that the new species are vulnerable to predators. This vulnerabiliiy removes the mutations from the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. Two, They also seem to have difficulty finging mates. Now this does not mean that they cannot reproduce but for the species to thrive into the next change, it would be necessary to reproduce abundantly. Therefore, though the data supports evolution in the idea that species can mutate, it does not fit with the idea of survival of the fittest not even with the idea that mutations are carried into the next phase, that of crossing family groups.

So let us look for a moment on how the species rings fit into the theory of C or ID. The root of the theory simply says that God (a supreeme being) created the world and all that is in it. And that all creatures reproduce after their kind. From this we can take that if the mutations still leave us with a salamader, that theory is totally supported and thus the data fits better with C/ID than with evolution.

Not this is not to say that there is nothing about this data to support evolution, only that to say that it supports evolution or that it proves C wrong is in gross error of the theory. It can disprove strains of both theories, but not the theory itself.

I really am trying to stay caught up, please be patient.

 

[razzelflabben]

I apologize for being slow in responding, I am really trying to keep up and give some appropriate attention to your posts. this is exactly why I wasn't ready for this thread but I was drug into it so I am making the best of it I can, Please be patient.

razzelflabben:

Thanks for the comments.

Thanks. Could you tell me when you say that there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution, do you mean the statement(s) I labeled a-1 or a-2 or both?

Both is fine.

Also do you agree that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution? If not, why not?

Absolutely. in fact, going from the original theory of Creationism as precented in the bible, there are only two absolutes, one is that God (supreme being) created the world and all that is in it. The second, that all living things reproduce after it's kind. It's kind is not specified and is open to many different interpretations. The general idea as best as I can tell is that lions, will reproduce lions, etc. This opens up a world of possibilities some of which can co-exist with evolutionary theory. For this reason, the only way the C could be disproven by science is it 1. We prove no God exists. This is not possible to do and most scientists will acknoledge this. or 2. To prove that family groups (not sure what technical term is being used today) evolve into new family groups (I have seen no evidence to prove this either) For further discussion, see my previous post on species rings. Also note, they are still salamanders which is consistant with the theory. Now as mentioned before, evolution has different strains if you will, that can be proven or disproven. C has this same characteristic, strains that can be proven or disproven, for example, old earth, new earth.

Could you specify a few of the more important assumptions going along with the scientific method which you object to? Not a list of twenty please. Two or three will be enough.

The only assumptions I have problems with are that evolution is fact. And that there is overwhelming evidence to support E and disprove C/ID. Appart from that, I have very little problem with science or even E. But I find the assumption that there is overwhelming evidence, and the assumption of fact that does not exist, offensive and misleading. I have some problems with belief system but that is a totally different thread and was touched on in this thread. The heart of that disagreement is that when one moves a theory to a fact, without appropriate data, it becomes a belief system and thus opens the door for philisophical and theological discussion. It is only when theory is accepted as theory that these discussions are inappropriate.

I take it then that you do not include yourself in the Young-Earth Creationist camp. That is the one that gets the most attention as it is most out-of-sync with all science--not just evolution. But they are also a relatively recent phenomenon. Most creationists from about 1840 to 1950 were Old Earth Creationists. I understand the ID movement includes people with a variety of viewpoints on this issue. It does make it easier to concentrate on evolution when we remove the age of the earth question from the table.

The last research I saw was inconclusive but did lean toward old earth. Without the conclusiveness, I consider both theory and do not really lean one way or the other. As I study new evidence, this can easily change.

I am, in fact, much more interested in following through on what each theory allows for, prohibits and requires.

The purity of the theory originates in the biblical account of creation. God (supreme being) created the world and all that is in the world. Each was created to reproduce after it's kind. As discussed earlier, there is no set on what kind means but my research suggests family groups, eg lions to lions, tigers to tigers, etc. Mules would evidence to support this theory in that mules cannot reproduce.

You did not say whether you agreed with this statement or not. Do you?

Absolutely, the statement being
The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?
That will take us back to my last post on species rings.

Right. There is no way to make predictions on the basis of a theory that is not understood. If one attempts to do so, the predictions will not be correctly derived from the theory.

Which supports my position of disproving C/ID

But you have misunderstood what they have been saying. They have not been referring to trees as in pine, oak, palm, etc. They have been referring to phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic trees are to biology what family trees are to genealogists. The "tree" is a diagram that shows the family relationships between species.

Check out the Tree of Life project at the University of Arizona. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

Also the short tutorial on cladistics and cladograms at the University of Berkeley's online Museum of Paleontology.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html [/quote] I read up on some of it, and found somthing interesting in your latter referal,


"But, before we begin this journey, hear this warning in the everlasting words of Father Jacobus (from Hesse's Magister Ludi):

-- To study history one must know in advance that one is attempting something fundamentally impossible, yet necessary and highly important. To study history means submitting to chaos and nevertheless retaining faith in order and meaning. It is a very serious task, young man, and possibly a tragic one. "

Further support for my opinion.

True, but it does not explain the source of the similarities or the source of the differences. Evolution explains both.

It explains that the source of the similarities and differences are both God or supreme being which every you hold to. The source is God.
​

All versions of creationism I am familiar with are failed theories regardless of their stance on the age of the earth. So you will have to show me why the "primary authority" is exempt.

Show me how the theory is failed, I have shown you the primary theory.

You may need to guide me a little on ID theory as I am less familiar with it than creationism.

My perticular strain is as stated above. Other strains are best discussed by those who hold the view as they have a better grasp on thier own views and reasons for their views.

My impression is that a fair number of IDers are basically theistic evolutionists or close to it, so naturally evidence which supports evolution would also support their vision of ID. The crux will be those ideas in ID which are not in agreement with evolution. I am thinking here of irreducible complexity as defined by Behe and specified complexity as defined by Dembsky.

It sounds like a fair evaluation of some of the strains.

I may be dealing with a "specific strain" of creationism here. If so, you can correct me and provide the version of the "primary authority" and why it is exempt from this criticism.

see above

Creationism affirms that living species are divided into groups (which may include anywhere from one to many species) commonly called "kinds". Each kind is a separate, distinct creation, and the common ancestor of all species within the kind. There is no genetic relationship (though there may be genetic similarity) between one kind and another.

On the basis of this assumption, we can predict that living things cannot be placed on a single phylogenetic tree, but that each kind must have its own separate phylogeny, unconnected to that of other kinds.

Now the way I understood the research you presented for review, this is streatching things a bit, give me some time to review it again.

Evidence to date does not support the assumption of several different and unconnected phylogenetic trees, but rather the assumption of the common descent of all species, and their placement on a single phylogenetic tree.

see above

ID affirms the existence of "irreducible complexities" especially at the level of molecular biology, for which no evolutionary pathway is possible. No incontrovertible instance of such a phenomenon has been found. It is also difficult to see how the existence of any irreducible or specified complexity can ever be documented without a means of discriminating between intelligent design and design by natural selection. Until this problem is overcome, ID remains an unsupported and unsupportable theory.

Until E can show macro evolution, E is an unsupported and unsupportable theory in the say way.

You have already been pointed several times to observed instances of speciation. No, the theory of evolution does not require millions of years to see evolution. The key is not how many years, but how many generations. We can see evolution happening in species which have a rapid generational turnover---including speciation. It is only in species with a longer life span that it becomes impossible to observe evolution within a human life span. And for some species, it is not possible to observe evolution even within recorded human history. That is true of our own species for example. However, since evolution is the same process in all species, long or short lived, we have no reason to suspect that evolution does not occur in longer-lived species. Science, after all, requires that a phenomenon be observable, directly or indirectly. It does not necessarily require that it be personally observed.

And this same so called evidence, or observations can explain the theory of C or ID as well. So again, we come back to my basic problem.

Again, go to the references you have already been given. If any are not clear to you, come back with questions.

I do not see any that disprove C as I have presented it nor that prove E without question. Show me again, I may be dense, but I do believe in seeking truth.

What do you mean by "genetics"? Both micro and macro evolution involve genetics and both require more than genetics. And depending on the particular version of ID being presented, macro evolution is consistent with ID.

But genetics, are not the totality of the theory, at least not on the level that we currently can reproduce or obseve genetics. Genetics as we know them to date can also be used to explain C and ID.

ID will not be a fact until it can meet the challenges I set out above:
a) a way to discriminate between natural and intelligent design, and
b) an incontrovertible example of a biological phenomenon which has been intelligently designed rather than naturally designed.


To keep the discussion a little on track, I would like to start focussing on the relationship of genetics and evolution. Is that ok with you?

Don't know where that will get us but give it a go. The tract of this thread is that E does not have overwhelming evidence to make it fact, nor is there sufficient evidence to disprove C or ID.