Challenging Evolution

razzelflabben · Jul 31, 2004

USincognito said:
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.

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

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.

Your arguement is compelling but does not prove E to be fact or C/ID false. I could discuss other posibilities but that does nothing to explain the assertion that E is fact. I have never said that E is not possible, or that science cannot support it, I have said that there is not overwhelming evidence to support it or disprove C/ID and you still haven't presented it. Do not confuse me with someone who argues that E is false. For all I am saying is that it is still theory!

razzelflabben · Jul 31, 2004

gluadys said:
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.

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:

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

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.

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 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 dont read scientific journals either. Cant 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 doesnt 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.

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 dont 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.

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

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

I think my posts today have addressed all these issues, if I missed something, let me know and I will try to get back to it.

mark kennedy · Jul 31, 2004

So adaptation is essential for evolution but there is no mechanism for it. Hmmm

Aeschylus · Jul 31, 2004

mark kennedy said:
So adaptation is essential for evolution but there is no mechanism for it. Hmmm

Yes there is, infact adaption is something that has been directly observed on many occasions for many different lifeforms.

The Bellman · Jul 31, 2004

mark kennedy said:
So adaptation is essential for evolution but there is no mechanism for it. Hmmm

Except that there is, as you have been told many times and are fully aware.

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

razzelflabben said:
Your arguement is compelling but does not prove E to be fact or C/ID false.

razzelflaben: could you go a bit beyond assertion and explain this statement? Why do you find ERVs not to be compelling evidence for evolution? Why do you find them not to be compelling evidence against creationism? Why do you find they do not falsify ID?

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

razzelflabben said:
I think my posts today have addressed all these issues, if I missed something, let me know and I will try to get back to it.

gluadys said:
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.

I would like a comment on this section in particular. I need to know if it is clear to you why adaptations are evidence in favour of evolution, but not in favour of ID. Or C either, for that matter.

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

mark kennedy said:
So adaptation is essential for evolution but there is no mechanism for it. Hmmm

Are you sure a mechanism is necessary?

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

razzelflabben said:
gluadys said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Well this is a much more fluid definition of creationism than I have ever seen before. The two absolutes are entirely compatible with macro-evolution (common descent).

1. God created the world and all that is in it. This is simply the first credo of Christianity and other theistic faiths. All supporters of theistic evolution agree with that.

2. All living things reproduce after their kind. This is a basic observed fact. The theory of evolution (including macro-evolution) does not dispute this. To understand what macro-evolution is you need to understand that it does not at any time violate this observation.

Now I take it for granted that when we say living things reproduce after their kind, we are not saying parents produce cookie-cutter clones of themselves. There is room for variation, so that children may have characteristics unique to themselves and still be considered the same species as their parent. Right?

3. Kind is not specified and is open to many different interpretations.

I am glad to see you acknowledge this. But most creationists do set limits to the acceptable interpretations. While they may not agree on how many kinds were created, or what they were, they usually insist that there were many more than one or even half-a-dozen kinds created. I have met creationists who are quite happy to acknowledge that all domestic dogs and their wild cousins (wolves, jackals, foxes, etc.) have evolved from one ancestral canid kind. But I have not met a creationist who is willing to say that the original canid species, along with the original feline species, and the original ursine species evolved from an original mammalian carnivore kind.

At the same time, I have not met a creationist who can explain why the first is possible, but the second is not. If a canid kind can radiate into wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and dogs, why can an orginal mammalian carnivore kind not radiate into canids, felids and ursids, with each of these further radiating into their genera and species?

In conclusion, what can we say of the theory of evolution in respect of what you call the "original theory of creationism"?

The TOE does not deny the first principle. It simply acknowledges that science has nothing to say about God.

The TOE insists on the second principle with the same vigour as creationism and never predicts a violation of it.

As for the third point (which is a commentary, not a new principle), the TOE can live with that, but would point to the evidence which suggests that however many kinds were first created, all living species are descendants of one kind--that kind being either a prokaryotic cell or a precursor of a prokaryotic cell that lived somewhat over 3.5 billion years ago.

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)

No problem with 1.

The problem lies in 2. It depends on what you mean by "family groups". If by "family group" you mean species, that has already been proven. Species do evolve into new species. This has been observed. Most creationists accept that most Genesis kinds have evolved into groups which consist of more than one species i.e. populations which no longer interbreed with each other. I mean, if you are going to say that tigers, lions, panthers, cheetahs, jaguars and house cats are all descendants of a single original species (the feline kind), there is no way to deny that species evolve into new species.

ok so far?

But if you are going to look for the evolution of a group of species into another group of species you will never find it. And if this is the "overwhelming evidence" you are looking for to confirm evolution as fact, you can stop looking now.

Because the theory of evolution denies that this can happen!

Remember what we said about predictions?

You observed that (in regard to creationism and ID)"we must understand the theory before we can dismiss it as not being able to predict data."

And I responded: "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."

And here we have an example of that. Your imperfect understanding of how evolution works has led you to derive a false prediction from it: namely that we should be able to document one family group evolving into another---crossing family lines as it were.

But the theory of evolution does not predict that. In fact it categorically denies that this can happen.

Let me explain in a little more detail. You may be familiar with the classic Linnean taxonomy in which species are grouped in to genera, genera into families, families into orders, orders into classes, and so on through phyla, kingdoms and domains. But we need to remember that taxonomy is a convenient filing system. The only natural grouping of organisms is species. Every rank above that is simply a more inclusive grouping of species. You can say that pines, firs, spruce and junipers are examples of conifers. But you cannot identify any tree as a conifer and not also identify it as a pine or fir or spruce, etc. And even when you have identified it as a pine---it is never just a pine, it is a black pine or a white pine or a jack pine or one of dozens of other species of pine tree. The only grouping which has an actual existence in nature is the species. All groupings above that are convenient labels by which we organize our conceptions of living things.

From this fact we must conclude that genera do not evolve, families do not evolve, orders and any other taxonomic category do not evolve. Only species evolve. And when species evolve they do not evolve into new genera, or orders or families. They evolve into new species.

Given principle #2 above, that all things reproduce after their kind, the only level at which evolution is possible is at the species level, and species to species transitions are the only transitions possible.

And, as has been well-documented, we have many instances of observed speciation.

So, our conclusion from #2 is two-fold:

If by "family group" you mean "species" creationism has be disproved, since species evolving into new species has been observed.

If by "family group" you mean a higher taxonomic category than species, you are making an incorrect prediction about what evidence for evolution will show based on an imperfect understanding of how evolution works. "Family groups" above the level of species are merely taxonomic labels, not living realities. They do not evolve. Only species evolve.

Now, I expect you are going to want a lot of clarification on this. I am also aware I have not fully responded to this post yet, but as this is already an overlong post, I will leave further discussion for later.

JohnR7 · Jul 31, 2004

gluadys said:
2. All living things reproduce after their kind.

It looks like you have not bought any plants recently. They have come up with lots of hybrids that do not reproduce or even come back the next year. That way you have to go back year after year and keep spending money to buy plants from them. Better to learn how to grow plants from seeds. Then they will not only reseed and come back year after year, they often increase so you have to cut them back and limit their growth.

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

JohnR7 said:
It looks like you have not bought any plants recently. They have come up with lots of hybrids that do not reproduce or even come back the next year. That way you have to go back year after year and keep spending money to buy plants from them. Better to learn how to grow plants from seeds. Then they will not only reseed and come back year after year, they often increase so you have to cut them back and limit their growth.

I try never to buy hybrids. My gardening is as organic as I can make it.

But you are wrong. Hybrids, if they reproduce at all, do reproduce after their kind. But in the F2 generation, the genetic factors are resorted so they do not look like the F1 generation which you bought from the seed house. Basic Mendelian genetics.

Homozygous yellow pea mates with homozygous green pea

YY x yy

F1 generation: all Yy --- all yellow

F2 generation: 25% YY (yellow) 50% Yy (still yellow) 25% yy (green)

Combine several characteristics in this way each sorted independently and your F2 generation will be a crazy quilt of different variations---all from reproducing according to their kind.

Ishmael Borg · Jul 31, 2004

Statement:

Gluadys said:
2. All living things reproduce after their kind. This is a basic observed fact. The theory of evolution (including macro-evolution) does not dispute this. To understand what macro-evolution is you need to understand that it does not at any time violate this observation.

John's quote-mining (he doesn't even quote anything Gluadys writes herself!):

Gluadys said:

2. All living things reproduce after their kind.

Click to expand...

John's strawman knock-down response:

JohnR7 said:
It looks like you have not bought any plants recently. They have come up with lots of hybrids that do not reproduce or even come back the next year. That way you have to go back year after year and keep spending money to buy plants from them. Better to learn how to grow plants from seeds. Then they will not only reseed and come back year after year, they often increase so you have to cut them back and limit their growth.

This is just plain dishonest John. What's worse, your response isn't relevant to anything being discussed here. Why do you do it?

gluadys · Jul 31, 2004

The only assumptions I have problems with are that evolution is fact.

Apparently you are confusing scientific method with scientific conclusions. That evolution is a fact is a conclusion from scientific evidence. It is not an assumption of the scientific method.

Scientific method does not say anything about the theory of evolution at all. In fact, it does not say anything about any scientific theory.

Scientific method is a system for doing science of any kind. It makes no assumptions about any one theory, any line of evidence or any conclusions that result from applying the scientific method to the study of nature.

It simply tells you how to approach the study of nature scientifically.

The basic steps of the scientific method are:

Ask a question or formulate a problem to be solved.
Make and record observations relevant to the question/problem.
Devise a possible answer/solution to the question/problem which explains the observations made.
Formulate a testable prediction deduced from your possible solution. (This is called a hypothesis. It takes the format "If X (possible solution), then Y (prediction)"
If Y proves false, then X is incorrect. Go back and try again.
If Y proves true, then X MAY be true, but it has not been PROVEN true. Just because it passed one test, it doesn't follow that it will pass all tests. However, for the time being, it can be considered a working hypothesis.

If the working hypothesis remains unfalsified by multiple tests, it is generally accepted as an established theory.

Now that you know what the scientific method is, do you have any problems with it?

And that there is overwhelming evidence to support E

Again, this is not an assumption of the scientific method, or even an assumption at all. It is a conclusion from the evidence.

and disprove C/ID.

I notice you are putting these together. Not a good idea.
The evidence does disprove creationism.
I am not sure that ID can be disproved, as I see no way to test it. Inability to test it, however, makes it an unscientific theory.

I have some problems with belief system

We can leave that to a different thread, but just noting that the scientific method is not tied to any belief system. Nor is the theory of evolution.

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.

Let's clarify a bit. Are you suggesting that "family groups" were each created separately?

Do you think each family group was created as a single species or as a group of species? i.e. in the bean family, was the original creation one species of bean from which others evolved, or was it already divided into kidney beans, soy beans, fava beans, etc?

Mules would evidence to support this theory in that mules cannot reproduce.

How? Are you saying that horses and donkeys were originally different family groups? I thought most creationists considered them both to be descendants of the horse "kind"?

That will take us back to my last post on species rings.

It does? How?

Which supports my position of disproving C/ID

How?

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):

snip

Further support for my opinion.

Sorry, I am not following your train of thought here.

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

Click to expand...

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.

My bad. I should have specified "does not provide a scientific explanation for...."
God, by definition, is not a scientific explanation. We have no way of explaining the patterns of similarity and difference on the basis that they are created by God since we have no way to access the logic of God's mind.

Put it this way: the patterns of similarity and difference we see in living species are what we would expect to see if evolution really happens. They are predictable from the theory, since the theory says they must be either inherited from the preceeding generation (similarity) or produced by mutation (difference). So evolution predicts that closely related species will have a similar morphology and genetic pattern due to inheritance from a common ancestor, and that differences are due to variations introduced since the two lineages were split.

But we cannot predict this pattern of similarity and difference if the source is God's free choice in creation. Sure, God could freely choose to produce a pattern of similarity and difference identical to what we would expect to see on the basis of evolution. But God could also have chosen an entirely different pattern of similarity and difference---one that could not possibly be the result of evolution. God did not have to make alligators and crocodiles look like they are genetically related descendants of a common ancestor. He could have given them characteristics that showed they could not possibly be related.

So God as source of similarity and difference does not explain what we see, since God could always have chosen something different from what we see. Evolution on the other hand, can only produce the pattern we see. If evolution is true, no other pattern is possible.

That makes evolution an explanation, while God (apart from evolution) is not. God is an explanation only if we assume (as theistic evolution does) that God chose to generate new species via the process of evolution.

My perticular strain[of ID] is as stated above.

Sorry, I guess I am the one who is a bit dense here, but I didn't see you define your particular strain of ID.

It sounds like a fair evaluation of some of the strains[of ID].

Is it a fair evaluation of your strain? If not, how does yours differ?

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

Macro-evolution has been demonstrated, but as noted in the previous post, you apparently have an incorrect image of macro-evolution and so look for evidence that is impossible while not recognizing evidence provided as macro-evolution.

What is necessary is to correct your misinformation about the process of evolution and the characteristics of macro-evolution.

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.

Well, your basic problem here is that you have things turned around. It is not the job of facts to explain theories. It is the job of theories to explain facts.

The evolutionary explanation for speciation is descent (heredity) with modification (mutation and/or genetic sortation + natural selection) and development of a reproductive barrier that separates a population into two or more species. There are several different methods of creating a reproductive barrier.

As far as I can see, neither creationism nor ID can explain speciation, except by borrowing the explanation of evolution and making evolution a part of their theory.

If you disagree, I would be happy to see speciation explained by either other theory without recourse to evolution.

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.

Perhaps we need to look at some of them individually. I need to have an idea of what you do and don't see here. Would you like to pick one to discuss in more detail? Also when you say they don't "prove evolution without question". do you mean that you do not agree that evolution happened here? Or that it doesn't support the theory of evolution? Those are different questions.

But genetics, are not the totality of the theory,

I know. That was the point I was making. It was you who said " Micro evolution is genetics". I wanted to know what you meant by that.

Genetics as we know them to date can also be used to explain C and ID.

And again, we do not call on facts to explain theories. We call on theories to explain facts. I will be interested to know how creationism and/or ID explain the facts of genetics.

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.

I suggested it because of your statement about genetics. And because you seem to have a poor grasp on how evolution works that impedes appreciation of what the evidence says. Genetics is the beginning point for understanding how evolution works.

I'll start something on it in an upcoming post.

gluadys · Aug 1, 2004

razzelflabben said:
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.

No, it doesn't. You are extrapolating from a situation that involved hybrids that does not necessarily apply to all cases. In this particular case it is not the new species which is vulnerable to predaters, but the hybrids of the two groups. Both non-hybrid groups were ok. This means that the mutations which generated the two groups on either side of the hybrids did not lead to lack of fitness. Lack of fitness applies only to the hybrids, and when hybrids are no longer possible, the speciation will be complete.

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.

Again, this applies only to the hybrids. The hybrids are losing out as being less fit than either of the non-hybrid groups. Since the gene flow through the hybrids is all that is keeping the non-hybrid groups linked, when that link disappears, we will have two distinct species instead of one. This is not a problem for evolution. This IS evolution.

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.

Please see my earlier post on species evolving. Mutations happen to individuals. If a mutation benefits the individual, it will be passed on to its offspring and will spread through the species. That changes the species. That is evolution. Evolution does not happen by mutations crossing family group lines. There is no way that species which are reproductively isolated can pass mutations to one another.

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.

No, it does not. Because the theory of evolution does not predict that the offspring of a salamander will not be a salamandar. In fact it predicts the opposite: that it WILL be a salamander. And when a salamander species breaks up into two species, both species WILL be salamanders.

However, what evolution does predict is a mechanism of variation (and we actually have two) and a mechanism by which favorable variations are preserved (natural selection). It also predicts that given these two mechanisms, and a population placed in two different habitats, that the two groups will develop differently and may become different species. Ring species are evidence of all of this happening as predicted.

Now how does creationism predict ring species?

How does ID predict them?

Most importantly, how does either theory predict these events other than by borrowing evolution and making evolution part of its own theory?

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

I will try to answer all the post in a moment, but I think that some further clarification about why I was proded to this thread might help the discussion.

In discussions such as this, I find argueing for one theory or the other to be a strawman agrument for each has elements that can be proven or disproven by scientific method and though I do not believe science to hold all the answers to life, I do find it to give many answers that man lacks.

I also maintain that for one to claim that science does hold all the answers, or that science can disprove or irrifutably prove any of the theories, it becomes a belief system. All belief systems are open to philosophical and theological discussion which makes some angry because the theory of evolution does not even touch these areas of explaination which the others do. This anger often turns into debate and argueing about whether or not E, C, ID are fact or theory.

This constant debate and argueing is misleading and harmful to finding truth on all sides. If a common ground of understanding can be found, then arguements can cease and the exchange of ideas can prevail. But statements made without this common ground of finding truth are not beneficial to anyone except those who want to prove a point. The only E,C,ID point I have to make is that with proper understanding of words and ideas, there is common ground.

Even in the face of so called overwhelming evidence, the similarities in the theories do not allow much room for disproof of any of the theories, only strains of the theories, and this should be recognized by all groups. Because of this, discussions should be about evidences found, not about which theory is right or wrong. Now, take a look at all the discussions on this board over the years and how many are bent on proving one theory right and another wrong. This is poor scientific method to say the least and leads one to believe that there is no common ground. It also leads one to believe that E is as much a belief system as C or ID.

So what then is my point. My point is stop argueing over what is not there and start communicating about what is there!!! If you have a belief system of E admit it proudly and seek within that belief system to find the philosophical and theological answers people ask about belief systems. Stop hiding behind science and scientific methods. If you are C or ID, stop trying to deny scientific observations and explore how these observations fit into your belief system. You see, the make up of each of the theories is such that science cannot prove or disprove either in our lifetimes. So to all sides of the issue, I say DEAL WITH IT, THEORY IS THEORY!

But then again, sometimes I can be an idealist and a discussion such as this that is not bent on proving one theory over the other is an idealist one I am guessing from the sounds of it.

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

gluadys said:
razzelflaben: could you go a bit beyond assertion and explain this statement? Why do you find ERVs not to be compelling evidence for evolution? Why do you find them not to be compelling evidence against creationism? Why do you find they do not falsify ID?

There are many possibilities within the theory in support or defense of each theory. For example, as you have said before and I agreed, there are elements of each theory woven into each theory. ID has elements of C and E woven into it, C has elements of ID and E, and E has elements of C and ID. For me to disprove without doubt, or prove without doubt any of the theories, is an incredibly small window of observation, so small in fact that it would not be compelling at all. This is what makes the discussion of which theory is scientifically proven or disproven a strawman arguement, it is a hot and popular debate, but strawman none the less.

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

gluadys said:
I would like a comment on this section in particular. I need to know if it is clear to you why adaptations are evidence in favour of evolution, but not in favour of ID. Or C either, for that matter.

I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that none of the theories are proven or disproven by this evidence, which brings us back to my original assumptions, that there is no overwhelming proof for or against any of the theories. Suggestions are much different than proofs and to assurt otherwise is falsifing the observations.

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

gluadys said:
Well this is a much more fluid definition of creationism than I have ever seen before. The two absolutes are entirely compatible with macro-evolution (common descent).

1. God created the world and all that is in it. This is simply the first credo of Christianity and other theistic faiths. All supporters of theistic evolution agree with that.

2. All living things reproduce after their kind. This is a basic observed fact. The theory of evolution (including macro-evolution) does not dispute this. To understand what macro-evolution is you need to understand that it does not at any time violate this observation.

Now I take it for granted that when we say living things reproduce after their kind, we are not saying parents produce cookie-cutter clones of themselves. There is room for variation, so that children may have characteristics unique to themselves and still be considered the same species as their parent. Right?

3. Kind is not specified and is open to many different interpretations.

I am glad to see you acknowledge this. But most creationists do set limits to the acceptable interpretations. While they may not agree on how many kinds were created, or what they were, they usually insist that there were many more than one or even half-a-dozen kinds created. I have met creationists who are quite happy to acknowledge that all domestic dogs and their wild cousins (wolves, jackals, foxes, etc.) have evolved from one ancestral canid kind. But I have not met a creationist who is willing to say that the original canid species, along with the original feline species, and the original ursine species evolved from an original mammalian carnivore kind.

and we cannot prove that they did all come from one original mammalian carnivore kind. That is not provable. So you have made my point, we can disprove strains of the theories, (all of the theories), but we cannot disprove the theory totally and should not boast to be able to do so, for this sets the stage for arguements and strawman arguements at that.

At the same time, I have not met a creationist who can explain why the first is possible, but the second is not. If a canid kind can radiate into wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and dogs, why can an orginal mammalian carnivore kind not radiate into canids, felids and ursids, with each of these further radiating into their genera and species?

Okay, try this one on as a theory. Because in the instances we have scientifically observed, there have been reproductive problems that would limit the evolution of an original mammalian ancestor for all carnivore kinds. (please note that I am not saying that E is disproven, or that C and ID are proven, only that C and ID can explain this in light of our current scientific discussions on this thread).

In conclusion, what can we say of the theory of evolution in respect of what you call the "original theory of creationism"?

The TOE does not deny the first principle. It simply acknowledges that science has nothing to say about God.

The TOE insists on the second principle with the same vigour as creationism and never predicts a violation of it.

But again, the second has not been proven to successfully occur so be are back to theory which is the entire premis of my posts.

As for the third point (which is a commentary, not a new principle), the TOE can live with that, but would point to the evidence which suggests that however many kinds were first created, all living species are descendants of one kind--that kind being either a prokaryotic cell or a precursor of a prokaryotic cell that lived somewhat over 3.5 billion years ago.

I am not sure I am understanding your point here, if sounds like you are saying that all life comes from a single cell when only moments ago you said that E offered the possibility for a variety of original original animals to start the E process. Can you clarify your point?

No problem with 1.

The problem lies in 2. It depends on what you mean by "family groups". If by "family group" you mean species, that has already been proven. Species do evolve into new species. This has been observed. Most creationists accept that most Genesis kinds have evolved into groups which consist of more than one species i.e. populations which no longer interbreed with each other. I mean, if you are going to say that tigers, lions, panthers, cheetahs, jaguars and house cats are all descendants of a single original species (the feline kind), there is no way to deny that species evolve into new species.

ok so far?

But if you are going to look for the evolution of a group of species into another group of species you will never find it. And if this is the "overwhelming evidence" you are looking for to confirm evolution as fact, you can stop looking now.

Because the theory of evolution denies that this can happen!

Remember what we said about predictions?

You observed that (in regard to creationism and ID)"we must understand the theory before we can dismiss it as not being able to predict data."

And I responded: "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."

And here we have an example of that. Your imperfect understanding of how evolution works has led you to derive a false prediction from it: namely that we should be able to document one family group evolving into another---crossing family lines as it were.

But the theory of evolution does not predict that. In fact it categorically denies that this can happen.

Let me explain in a little more detail. You may be familiar with the classic Linnean taxonomy in which species are grouped in to genera, genera into families, families into orders, orders into classes, and so on through phyla, kingdoms and domains. But we need to remember that taxonomy is a convenient filing system. The only natural grouping of organisms is species. Every rank above that is simply a more inclusive grouping of species. You can say that pines, firs, spruce and junipers are examples of conifers. But you cannot identify any tree as a conifer and not also identify it as a pine or fir or spruce, etc. And even when you have identified it as a pine---it is never just a pine, it is a black pine or a white pine or a jack pine or one of dozens of other species of pine tree. The only grouping which has an actual existence in nature is the species. All groupings above that are convenient labels by which we organize our conceptions of living things.

From this fact we must conclude that genera do not evolve, families do not evolve, orders and any other taxonomic category do not evolve. Only species evolve. And when species evolve they do not evolve into new genera, or orders or families. They evolve into new species.

Given principle #2 above, that all things reproduce after their kind, the only level at which evolution is possible is at the species level, and species to species transitions are the only transitions possible.

And, as has been well-documented, we have many instances of observed speciation.

So, our conclusion from #2 is two-fold:

If by "family group" you mean "species" creationism has be disproved, since species evolving into new species has been observed.

If by "family group" you mean a higher taxonomic category than species, you are making an incorrect prediction about what evidence for evolution will show based on an imperfect understanding of how evolution works. "Family groups" above the level of species are merely taxonomic labels, not living realities. They do not evolve. Only species evolve.

Now, I expect you are going to want a lot of clarification on this. I am also aware I have not fully responded to this post yet, but as this is already an overlong post, I will leave further discussion for later.

It seems you have further made my point.

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

gluadys said:
Apparently you are confusing scientific method with scientific conclusions. That evolution is a fact is a conclusion from scientific evidence. It is not an assumption of the scientific method.

Scientific method does not say anything about the theory of evolution at all. In fact, it does not say anything about any scientific theory.

Scientific method is a system for doing science of any kind. It makes no assumptions about any one theory, any line of evidence or any conclusions that result from applying the scientific method to the study of nature.

It simply tells you how to approach the study of nature scientifically.

The basic steps of the scientific method are:

Ask a question or formulate a problem to be solved.
Make and record observations relevant to the question/problem.
Devise a possible answer/solution to the question/problem which explains the observations made.
Formulate a testable prediction deduced from your possible solution. (This is called a hypothesis. It takes the format "If X (possible solution), then Y (prediction)"
If Y proves false, then X is incorrect. Go back and try again.
If Y proves true, then X MAY be true, but it has not been PROVEN true. Just because it passed one test, it doesn't follow that it will pass all tests. However, for the time being, it can be considered a working hypothesis.

If the working hypothesis remains unfalsified by multiple tests, it is generally accepted as an established theory.

Now that you know what the scientific method is, do you have any problems with it?

I believe that I have answered this before, I have no problem with scientific method. I do have a problem with the idea that scientific method can answer all of life questions, but that is another thread. My problem with the theory of E, C, and ID is not one of scientific method.

Again, this is not an assumption of the scientific method, or even an assumption at all. It is a conclusion from the evidence.
I notice you are putting these together. Not a good idea.
The evidence does disprove creationism.
I am not sure that ID can be disproved, as I see no way to test it. Inability to test it, however, makes it an unscientific theory.

And yet parts of the theory of E are not able to be tested so why is it considered scientific theory?

We can leave that to a different thread, but just noting that the scientific method is not tied to any belief system. Nor is the theory of evolution.

Neither are belief systems butBoth can be tied to a belief system. Some believe that scientific method holds all the answers to life. This is a belief system. Some believe the TOE to be fact, this is a belief system. Though the origins of C or ID have roots in a belief system, neither is by theory a belief system in and of itself. This is an important distinction that few understand.

Let's clarify a bit. Are you suggesting that "family groups" were each created separately?

Do you think each family group was created as a single species or as a group of species? i.e. in the bean family, was the original creation one species of bean from which others evolved, or was it already divided into kidney beans, soy beans, fava beans, etc?

How? Are you saying that horses and donkeys were originally different family groups? I thought most creationists considered them both to be descendants of the horse "kind"?

I do not see how my opinion fits into this discussion. I can only see how my own tendencies would lead to debate off topic. Can you clarify your questioning in relation to the original assurtions?

It does? How?

How?

In order for evolution theory to be supported, the genetic mutation, or new species would have to bread in order to continue this mutation. Though the species can continue to breed, the breeding is more dificult because of the mutation. This suggests a flaw in the theory but does nothing to prove the theory wrong which is what I have said from the beginning. NO Proof for or against.

Sorry, I am not following your train of thought here.

The quote says that history cannot be proven. In other words, this scientific method to look at the history of the tree cannot be proven as history. Thus my point, there is no overwhelming proof.

My bad. I should have specified "does not provide a scientific explanation for...."
God, by definition, is not a scientific explanation. We have no way of explaining the patterns of similarity and difference on the basis that they are created by God since we have no way to access the logic of God's mind.

Put it this way: the patterns of similarity and difference we see in living species are what we would expect to see if evolution really happens. They are predictable from the theory, since the theory says they must be either inherited from the preceeding generation (similarity) or produced by mutation (difference). So evolution predicts that closely related species will have a similar morphology and genetic pattern due to inheritance from a common ancestor, and that differences are due to variations introduced since the two lineages were split.

But we cannot predict this pattern of similarity and difference if the source is God's free choice in creation. Sure, God could freely choose to produce a pattern of similarity and difference identical to what we would expect to see on the basis of evolution. But God could also have chosen an entirely different pattern of similarity and difference---one that could not possibly be the result of evolution. God did not have to make alligators and crocodiles look like they are genetically related descendants of a common ancestor. He could have given them characteristics that showed they could not possibly be related.

So God as source of similarity and difference does not explain what we see, since God could always have chosen something different from what we see. Evolution on the other hand, can only produce the pattern we see. If evolution is true, no other pattern is possible.

That makes evolution an explanation, while God (apart from evolution) is not. God is an explanation only if we assume (as theistic evolution does) that God chose to generate new species via the process of evolution.

This does not prove that God cannot be part of the equasion but offers much opertunity for scientific methods, to answer questions such as, why would a supreme being create crocs and gators similar but with differences, why if it is genetic differences, would it stop where it has, is it continueing, what advantages are there to the different designes, etc.

Sorry, I guess I am the one who is a bit dense here, but I didn't see you define your particular strain of ID
Is it a fair evaluation of your strain? If not, how does yours differ?.

My strain ends at the basics, with tendencies outside the basics, but nothing that is solid. 1. God created the world and all that is in it. 2. Plants and animals reproduce after thier kind.

Macro-evolution has been demonstrated, but as noted in the previous post, you apparently have an incorrect image of macro-evolution and so look for evidence that is impossible while not recognizing evidence provided as macro-evolution.

What is necessary is to correct your misinformation about the process of evolution and the characteristics of macro-evolution.

Well, your basic problem here is that you have things turned around. It is not the job of facts to explain theories. It is the job of theories to explain facts.

The evolutionary explanation for speciation is descent (heredity) with modification (mutation and/or genetic sortation + natural selection) and development of a reproductive barrier that separates a population into two or more species. There are several different methods of creating a reproductive barrier.

As far as I can see, neither creationism nor ID can explain speciation, except by borrowing the explanation of evolution and making evolution a part of their theory.

If you disagree, I would be happy to see speciation explained by either other theory without recourse to evolution.

But as stated, each theory is part of the others, E contains elements compatable with C and ID. C has elements of E and ID, ID has elements of E and C. The theories are compatable on many levels. For this reason, the window of disproof is extremely small, in fact, so small that it would be all but impossible, if not impossible to disprove one without sheding considerable doubt on the other two.

Perhaps we need to look at some of them individually. I need to have an idea of what you do and don't see here. Would you like to pick one to discuss in more detail? Also when you say they don't "prove evolution without question". do you mean that you do not agree that evolution happened here? Or that it doesn't support the theory of evolution? Those are different questions.

It does not support the theory of evolution without doubt. See above, because of the shared elements, absolute proof is an improbable thing. Because of the make up and design of the theories, the absolute proof needed would be impossible by your own critiques of scientific method.

I know. That was the point I was making. It was you who said " Micro evolution is genetics". I wanted to know what you meant by that.

ID does accept the possiblities of genetics, even creationism in it's purest form accepts the possibiltiies for genetics this does nothing to disprove any of the theories or prove the any of the theories as fact.

And again, we do not call on facts to explain theories. We call on theories to explain facts. I will be interested to know how creationism and/or ID explain the facts of genetics.

I suggested it because of your statement about genetics. And because you seem to have a poor grasp on how evolution works that impedes appreciation of what the evidence says. Genetics is the beginning point for understanding how evolution works.

I'll start something on it in an upcoming post.

But, it is only the beginning point. Not the beginning, middle and end, therefore not overwhelming proof especially when one considers the possibilies that are built into the other theories when looking into genetics.

razzelflabben · Aug 1, 2004

gluadys said:
No, it doesn't. You are extrapolating from a situation that involved hybrids that does not necessarily apply to all cases. In this particular case it is not the new species which is vulnerable to predaters, but the hybrids of the two groups. Both non-hybrid groups were ok. This means that the mutations which generated the two groups on either side of the hybrids did not lead to lack of fitness. Lack of fitness applies only to the hybrids, and when hybrids are no longer possible, the speciation will be complete.

Again, this applies only to the hybrids. The hybrids are losing out as being less fit than either of the non-hybrid groups. Since the gene flow through the hybrids is all that is keeping the non-hybrid groups linked, when that link disappears, we will have two distinct species instead of one. This is not a problem for evolution. This IS evolution.

Please see my earlier post on species evolving. Mutations happen to individuals. If a mutation benefits the individual, it will be passed on to its offspring and will spread through the species. That changes the species. That is evolution. Evolution does not happen by mutations crossing family group lines. There is no way that species which are reproductively isolated can pass mutations to one another.

No, it does not. Because the theory of evolution does not predict that the offspring of a salamander will not be a salamandar. In fact it predicts the opposite: that it WILL be a salamander. And when a salamander species breaks up into two species, both species WILL be salamanders.

However, what evolution does predict is a mechanism of variation (and we actually have two) and a mechanism by which favorable variations are preserved (natural selection). It also predicts that given these two mechanisms, and a population placed in two different habitats, that the two groups will develop differently and may become different species. Ring species are evidence of all of this happening as predicted.

Now how does creationism predict ring species?

How does ID predict them?

Most importantly, how does either theory predict these events other than by borrowing evolution and making evolution part of its own theory?

This has already been covered, but what C and ID do not do is assume things in our environment. E assumes things to be so and then sets out to prove them. C and ID offer basics and then asks science to fill in the gaps. It is the gap theory put forth in reverse. It is not God that fills the gaps, but man asking science to fill the gaps. Many think this poor scientific method, I purpose to you that it is the purest form of scientific method. Observation, them see where that fits into our ideas and draw a conclusion based on observation rather than on preconcieved ideas.

Challenging Evolution

Contributor

Contributor

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Legend

Legend

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency