Challenging Evolution

[Jimmy The Hand]

of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Hi!

I'm fairly sure it awas Henry Morris, in Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood, who said that it had been calculated that all the species who needed to go on the Ark would fit into 1.5 decks, & the food needed for humans & animals fit on half a deck, leaving a full deck for Noah & his family

Well you couldn’t fit all the species native to Australia alone on 1.5 decks of a wooden ship unless the thing was unimaginably enormous. Then we have all the species native to Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. The Mamals alone would require tremendous amounts of space. Unless of course Noah was only taking their ancestors on board and awaiting for them to evolve after hey got off! Or unless the “global” flood was not global at all but limited to a small region in the middle east.

Either way the 1.5 decks thing only works if you reject a literal interpretation of the bible, which is fair enough.

What I'm highlighting is the strange irony that so many folk automatically believe scientists,

Well that's not actually that true, after all no one believed scientists when we said that GM crops would be safe, that's why so many governments have banned them and we see protests against them in countries that have not.

who so often say just what they are paid to say by Govt/big business, yet totally discount the unique wisdom, knowledge, integrity & power of Almighty God

That's not true either, let me demonstrate how it works in my experience;

1). Governments ask a question,
2). They hire scientists to give them an answer.
3). We give them an answer
4). They decide they don’t like the answer we gave them
5). They ask a civil servant to give them an entirely different answer.
6). Knowing where his bread is buttered the civil servant gives the government the answer they told him to find.
7). The Scientist gets 2 minutes on the news to try and explain why what he said and what the government are saying differ.
8). The Government builds policy on the answer they got from the civil servant.

This is sometimes followed by

9). Everything goes disastrously wrong.
10). the government claims they “took advice from a wide range of sources, including leading scientists in the filed”.
11). The newspapers track down the scientists involved in steps 2-3 and point out what the government said in step 8.
12). The Scientist points out whilst he was consulted he was then ignored.
13). The Newspaper prints the bit where the scientists admits he was consulted but mysteriously neglects to print the bit where he points out his advice was then ignored
14). The Government covers the whole lot up before any one asks the right questions by immediately announcing another major policy study on an entirely different subject/invading some where/leaking details of a affair that some back bencher they can afford to be without is having behind his wife's back.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".

Ah yes, or the "Gloop, Gloop" effect as we jokingly called it at college, after the noise made as all those problems converge to an ultimate, and obvious conclusion.

Ghost

 

[artybloke]

Well you couldn’t fit all the species native to Australia alone on 1.5 decks of a wooden ship unless the thing was unimaginably enormous.

And it wouldn't float.

 

[razzelflabben]

Indeed it can't. Remember speciation means a new species, not a new genus or order. The new species will always be closely related to, and very much like the parent species. It would take a sequence of many, many, many speciations to increase the difference between an ancestor and a descendant species to the point where they belonged in different taxonomic categories.

And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.

What good would that do, when it is nature that is the source of the fuzziness---not our inability to describe species?

The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.

Without evolution there would be no adaptability.

What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.

To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and

Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.

b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).

Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.

I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.

ult will be a change in the characteristics of the species over generations. That's evolution.

But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.

change is significant enough, it may lead to new species. Note that the process is evolution, whether or not it leads to new species.

But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could. It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.

But over time, it is pretty much inevitable that you will get new species through the accumulation of many changes.

Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.

Sure it does. You can't show that speciation has occurred unless you have criteria for what is and is not a species. And in many cases we can say that a group is a species. It is only in borderline cases where things get fuzzy. Just as most of the time there is no question as to whether a colour is green or blue. But when you get to those in-between cases of greenish-blue or blue-green, it is not so easy to categorize them.

And having a better definition doesn't help, because the fault is not in the definition. The fuzziness is part of the reality of nature.

And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.

It is not a matter of manipulating the data. (Manipulated data would have a hard time getting through peer review.)

I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,

Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote

In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.

Rather it is recognizing that it is nature itself that is creating the fuzzy species line.

Agreed

And that TOE explains this reality; TOE expects the lines to be fuzzy, because if evolution is fact, the species lines must be fuzzy during the process of speciation.

C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.

I don't know if you are saying that creationism expects the species lines to be clear-cut. But if it does, its expectations are not supported by observation.

Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature. I would imagine that some C beliefs do not allow this, but that is not at the root of the theory and has been addressed in discussions about YEC etc.

 

[razzelflabben]

well the fact that as we descend through the fossil record, the canidae fossils become less and less canid like.

Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

If a storm passes your house in the night, filled with lightning, and the next morning you find a tree with a long charged scar down its trunk.

Is it an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns?

 

[Jet Black]

Already addressed the inconclusive nature of the fossil record. We need more proof in order to assert more than simply assumptions. Assumptions not equaling fact.

ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?

 

[Jet Black]

And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C. Thus, we have theory pitted against theory. This was my beginning point. If science cannot observe many many many speciations, thus creating an entirely new animal, that is a viable part of it's environment, then we have not disproven C or proven E. To claim otherwise is a lie, and I take objection to it.

but where do you define an entirely new animal? Is archaeopteryx an entirely new animal? is cynodont an entirely new animal. why do some therapsids have both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw at the same time? Surely that's pretty stupid if you are designing something, since a joint reptillian and mammalian jaw, while more advanced than a reprillian jaw depending on the lifestyle, is far inferior to a mammalian jaw in the same lifestyle. are humans and chimps entirely new animals. the human just appears to be pretty much a neotenic primate with a few other changes to it. genetically they are about the same.

The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly.

oh creationists can have just as much flexibility in their definition of species as they like, after all it is just a copy of the biological definition of species after all. The problem is the extra definition, namely that of "kinds." which are supposedly inviolate. I suppose a creationist could add the extra definition that a species is a sub-kind which has become genetically separated from other sub-kinds, but still the kind is sat there nigling away, waiting to be defined.

What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.

but remembe rthat the creationist places artificial barriers on this adaptability without ever really defining those limits. so often we hear "well ok they can vary, but only a bit".... but never how much they can vary. can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.

Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.
Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.

neotenic. the point is that you claimed that large variations cannot occur, when this demonstrates that they can.

I will wait to comment until I am sure I am understanding your statements here.

But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.

how much change do you require before it becomes obvious to you?

Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote

In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species. This does not mean that E has been proven, it means that I have manipulated the definition enough to suggest that E is fact. This is what I was refering too, not manipulating the data to show that the neonate is something it is not.

again, the creationists have as much flexibility in the species definition as biologists, where they don't have the fizziness is in kinds, because kinds shouldn't be flexible (each animal produces after it's own kind, two of each kind went onto the ark) and so on....

 

[razzelflabben]

If a storm passes your house in the night, filled with lightning, and the next morning you find a tree with a long charged scar down its trunk.

Is it an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns?

First off, without eye witnesses, we would even be assming that lightning struck the tree. it would require more observation to determine if the lightening scared the tree or something else happened while you were sleeping.

Secondly, yes it is an assumption that lightning when it meets resistance burns until more observations are done and further scientific data obtained.

Thirdly, what is your point? That animals evolve beyond species, this is a much huger leap than simple lightening and without further evidence to back it, lightening stricking a tree is still speculation not fact, until other evidence is observed. BTW, I wouldn't want to be the scientist standing there observing the tree when it was being hit by lightening, would you

 

[razzelflabben]

ok, explain the order of therapsids, homonids, cetaceans, carnivores, sea snails and theropods to me then. there are lots more I can hunt down if you like, though there are a few other things, such as the lack of sharks teeth in the cambrian, lack of whales in the cambrian, lack of mammals in the cambrian, lack of birds in the cambrian, lack of pretty much any modern organism in the cambrian really. lack of homonids in the jurassic, lack of homonids in the devonian, lack of homonids in the silurian, lack of birds in the silurian, lack of passenger pigeons pretty much anywhere - do we need to go on? there is no particular reason for the ordering of all the fossils, and it seems pretty strange that there isn't a single whale, shark or cod right at the bottom of the geological record. and absolutely no trilobytes and ammonites later on in the fossil record. absolutely all of these things fit in with the pattern of evolution, increasingly derived characteristics appear higher up in the strata. It's not like you find any reptiles in romer's gap or anything, just primitive tetrapods. care to offer an explanation and tell me why all of this is inconclusive?

Right now, I won't even try to address the questions you are asking because they totally evade the point I was making, thus getting off topic again. The point I was making is that the shear amount of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, makes the observations inconclusive. For example, what percent of fossil evidence has been uncovered and studied? 90%, not even close I am sure, how about even 50% again, I am sure we don't even come close to that number, in fact, even archealogical studies, which are much more modern, I have heard are less than 1% uncovered and even fewer have been studied and logged. Now I don't know the actual numbers of fossil records, but I would imagine the numbers are similar or worse, so how then, does less than 1% of the data reviewed equal factual evidence? I am saying that it does not prove anything except that we have a lot more fossils to study. We can offer alternative explainations all day, but the bottom line is that there isn't enough data to make an accurate prediction for the data.

 

[razzelflabben]

but where do you define an entirely new animal? Is archaeopteryx an entirely new animal? is cynodont an entirely new animal. why do some therapsids have both a reptillian and a mammalian jaw at the same time? Surely that's pretty stupid if you are designing something, since a joint reptillian and mammalian jaw, while more advanced than a reprillian jaw depending on the lifestyle, is far inferior to a mammalian jaw in the same lifestyle. are humans and chimps entirely new animals. the human just appears to be pretty much a neotenic primate with a few other changes to it. genetically they are about the same.

Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals. This would leave one to wonder what is truth and what is not. Do not misunderstand me, there have been observations that would suggest E, my point however is that the observations are inconclusive.

oh creationists can have just as much flexibility in their definition of species as they like, after all it is just a copy of the biological definition of species after all. The problem is the extra definition, namely that of "kinds." which are supposedly inviolate. I suppose a creationist could add the extra definition that a species is a sub-kind which has become genetically separated from other sub-kinds, but still the kind is sat there nigling away, waiting to be defined.

I have heard this arguement made several times on this thread, and I simply fail to see where you are getting this assumption. According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species. That is no more a requirement for the TOC than it is for the TOE. You are going to have to explain to me how C requires a more hard definition of kind than species, because it simply doesn't make sense in light of the original theory.

but remembe rthat the creationist places artificial barriers on this adaptability without ever really defining those limits. so often we hear "well ok they can vary, but only a bit".... but never how much they can vary. can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.

Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? If yes, then it could be assumed that the theory of C would predict that it cannot happen, at least to the degree that the animal could reproduce the change. If no, then I would guess that it is possible in the C theory. So it all hinges on how science defines species. So let me ask you, are they then new species?

neotenic. the point is that you claimed that large variations cannot occur, when this demonstrates that they can.
how much change do you require before it becomes obvious to you?

The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.

again, the creationists have as much flexibility in the species definition as biologists, where they don't have the fizziness is in kinds, because kinds shouldn't be flexible (each animal produces after it's own kind, two of each kind went onto the ark) and so on....

Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.

 

[Jet Black]

Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals. This would leave one to wonder what is truth and what is not. Do not misunderstand me, there have been observations that would suggest E, my point however is that the observations are inconclusive.

you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence. the problem with the fraud argument is that it doesn't hold weight. even if som eare frauds (can we have some examples of fraudulent therapsids please) what about the ones that are not? The point about the therapsid jaw is that it contains features that are seen in both reptiles and mammals particularly the case of having both joiints. the bones though are sufficiently different from either to demonstrate that the jaw is an intermediate between the two. i.e. one cannot stick a mammalian jaw in a reprile and have it have two joints, since the reptillian skull does not accomodate a double joint, the same is true for the mammal. Furthermore the exactness of these jaws also demonstrates how part of the reprillian jaw slowly evolved into the mammalian ear bones. even though the therapsid has two joints, one of them becomes weaker and becomes better suited to sound transmission (though still not as good as a mammal) then there are all the other examples I gave there, though zou still just saz inconclusive, without ever sazing why. what would be conclusive to you? why do you hold that standard? what is inconclusive about the current fossil record?

I have heard this arguement made several times on this thread, and I simply fail to see where you are getting this assumption. According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species. That is no more a requirement for the TOC than it is for the TOE. You are going to have to explain to me how C requires a more hard definition of kind than species, because it simply doesn't make sense in light of the original theory.

because of the insistance by YECs that kinds are all uniquely created. note that they seem to be uniquely created complete with all the errors in them too, from the passage of the recurent laryngeal nerve through to ERVs.

Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? If yes, then it could be assumed that the theory of C would predict that it cannot happen, at least to the degree that the animal could reproduce the change. If no, then I would guess that it is possible in the C theory. So it all hinges on how science defines species. So let me ask you, are they then new species?

note that creationists do not object to the formation of new species, their claim is an historical one; that there is no common ancestry. this goes against all the evidence (which you claim is inconclusive without detailing why)

The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.

but what we have here is a completely unique adult breeding form. caterpillars cannot breed, so the comparison is irrelevant. you claimed that salamanders cannot make fishy creatures, I refuted that claim, that is all.
[/QUOTE] Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.[/QUOTE] because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

I was making a point about deductive reasoning and also trying to illustrate that science is not limited to watching a test tube.

You are correct, we do not know where 100% of the fossils are therefore we cannot be 100% sure. And that is why science is not math. It's based on an accumlation of evidence not a totality of evidence.

I can assure you that if a scientist discovered a chicken in the same relative geologic timeframe as a trilobite, evolution would be pretty much out the door. That scientist would also be as famous as any scientist since, well, Darwin.

But that hasn't happened. Not to say that it could never happen. But all the evidence found points the other way. That life grew from simple to complex and these changes were caused by natural selection. Evidence that is seen over and over and over and over again.

Nothing is ever sure, but why argue from incredulity? We could also posit that since we can't actually see gravity at work (only its effect) that things are attracted to each other because gangs of angels are pushing them around. But why would we when we continue to see evidence that tells us something else?

 

[USincognito]

What happened to 1 Trinity 3? I spent a lot of time preparing my response to him and would appreciate him replying to it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Now I don't know the actual numbers of fossil records, but I would imagine the numbers are similar or worse, so how then, does less than 1% of the data reviewed equal factual evidence? I am saying that it does not prove anything except that we have a lot more fossils to study.

Here is the problem: We have discovered many thousands of dinosaur fossils. Every single one dates older than 65 million years old. We have discovered many thousands of hominid (human and near-human) fossils. Every one of them dates less than 8 million years old. Now how can you explain that? The only likely explanation is that dinosaurs lived millions of years before hominids. Do you accept that conclusion?

Okay, step 2. We have found many hominind fossils of different species. Every Australopithecus africanus, for instance, is 3-2 million years old. Every Australopithecus robustus is 2-1.5 milllion years old. Every Homo sapiens--including you and me--is less than 500,000 years old. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html.) Can we not make the obvious conclusion that these creatures lived at different times?

Okay, step 3: You have been shown a chart on this thread that shows that the skulls of hominids progressed and became more human-like with time. How do you explain that? You have no explanation, do you?

That is the problem. The data fits with evolution. Creationism cannot explain this data, can it?

 

[gluadys]

What historical accounts are we relying on that say there was a time when there were neither dogs nor cats.

No historical accounts, since history is composed by people, and dogs and cats have been in existence at least as long as people, likely longer.

The amount of fossil records currently exposed, by the shear volume are inconclusive evidence. In order for there to be conclusive evidence, we would have to 1. have eye witness accounts, which is impossible due to the presumption that man did not exist at that time either, or 2. we would have had to had examined the vast majority of fossil remains, in and of itself an impossible task. Therefore the idea that dogs and cats have never existed in our ancient world, is an unproven theory. So to clear things up from the start, this is an assumption based on theory.

No, this is where your weakness on scientific method is showing up again. Remember that scientific method is a technique used to generate explanations of observations. It is not used to speculate about what has NOT been observed.

Now, science is very much aware that we have not observed everything there is to observe, in the fossil record, or in the rest of nature. That is why scientific theories are held to be provisional.

The aim of a theory is to provide the best possible explanation of what HAS BEEN observed.

If and when a canid fossil over 70 million years old is found---then and only then do we need a theory to explain that observation.

Science does not reject theories on the speculative basis that some evidence might show up in the next century to invalidate it.

It only rejects theories which are falsified by currently known data. And it continues to work with theories which match currently known data.

So, your objection is based on wishful thinking that maybe, someday, a fossil will be found to invalidate TOE. Science does not operate on the basis of such wishful thinking, but on the basis of the evidence we CAN observe.

On the basis of the evidence we CAN observe, there was a time (I'm not sure of the details, but I would guess around 55 to 70 million years ago---maybe more recently) when there were neither cats nor dogs. But there were other mammals, mammals which do not exist today. (Large mammals do not appear until after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but smaller rodent and shrew-like mammals are found earlier.)

It is possible, however, I highly doubt this to be the case.

Well, at least you acknowledge that it is possible. That's the most important step. Showing that it is plausible is the next task for the TOE.

Remember when I said that the adaptability of animals to their environment is why I doubt that evidence will ever be found to support the evolution of animals crossing the species lines. In order for them to cross the species lines, it would be necessary for them to first be in the same family.

And if cats and dogs have a common ancestor, then their respective original species were in the same family. A species does not produce daughter species in different families.

No, I think it is more likely that the species existed as seperate species from the beginning of creation.

Thanks. At least you have now said openly that you think creationism is a more valid theory. However, you have not yet shown why you think this, or why any one else should.

Now, when you say it is more likely that the species existed as separate species from the beginning of creation, are we still speaking only cats and dogs, or are you saying that all species were separate creations from the beginning of creation?

Also, do you think it more likely that all species were created at once, within a relatively short period of time, or that they were created at different times over the whole history of the earth?

 

[gluadys]

And it is this sequence of many many many speciations that have not been proven or observed and what identifies E in contract to C.

We have directly observed speciation in several plants and animals. Since we know speciation does happen, why is it not a plausible inference that it can happen again? Especially when fossil sequences can hardly be explained otherwise? Or the DNA evidence rapidly rolling in?

I really think you need to stop looking at gaps and start looking at evidence. Can you really offer a better explanation than evolution for the sequences of fossils from Hyracotherium to the modern horse---and I don't mean just the four selected for the famous mural, I mean all the fossils known from this family.

To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing.

As far as I know, the only people requiring clear-cut species lines with no fuzziness are creationists. If they are prepared to use what nature gives, I have no problem with that.

What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them?

That is basically saying that God created them to evolve. Evolution is the only mechanism I know that provides for animals to adapt to the world around them. Do you have any other alternative in mind?

To get adaptability, you need:
a) a mechanism which introduces variants into the gene pool and the organism (mutation, sexual sortation), and

Am I understanding you correctly? In the case of the neonate salamander, one would need the lack of (I think it is) iodine to create the variant.

Yes. I was speaking more generally, not of the neotenous salamander in particular. The lack of iodine affects the expression of a gene. The change in the expression of a gene is a mutation. Just as radiation can change the expression of genes by inducing mutations. Other environmental factors can also induce mutations, and mutations can also occur spontaneously (which is scientific lingo for saying "we don't know why that one happened.")

b) a mechanism which selects, spreads and preserves the adaptive variants while ignoring or repressing the others (natural selection).

Again, am I getting your point or am I missing it? The neonate is able to reproduce in it's neonate state.

I am not sure whether you are getting my point or not. Again, I was speaking generally, not of the salamander in particular.

The point I was making is that adaptation is a two-step process. First you need variation. But not every variation will be adaptive, so you need a mechanism for preserving the adaptive variations, and screening out the non-adaptive variations. As Darwin showed, that screening mechanism is natural selection.

Variation + natural selection = adaptation (evolution).

Continued varation + natural selection may lead to speciation. Especially when two groups of the same species migrate to different habitats and therefore adapt in different directions. (allopatric speciation) btw have you researched that term yet?

But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.

Oh, but we have. Remember, there are species for whom a "generation" is only a few months or even a few weeks. So you can observe hundreds, even thousands of generations in the space of a few years. Changes such as these are an observed fact.

But notice your own words here, it may lead not fact that it does lead to, but rather the possibility that it could.

Right, not every trend of adaptation will lead to speciation. (See the pepper moth thread for an example of evolutionary adaptation which did not lead to speciation.) Speciation is a possible, but not necessary outcome of evolution. On the other hand, we have also observed speciation directly. So we know that it is a factual outcome in some cases. It is not mere speculation that continued change in a species will lead to speciation.

It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all.

Maybe. But to support that theory, the creationist would have to describe a method of getting adaptation other than the currently known one of evolution. We know that evolution leads to adaptation. That is an observed fact. We don't know of any other process that does. Until we do, creationism's claim that there can be adaptability without evolution is an empty assertion.

That is what makes TOE the stronger theory.

Not if reproductive abilities are lost. Which is always a possibility and data would suggest that this possibility exists.

Sure. If reproductive abilities are lost, the species becomes extinct. Your point?

And this fuzziness should pertain to both groups, and all theories.

Yes, it should, since it is part of the observed world. All theories should also explain why it is part of the observed world. TOE does. Does TOC? Does ID?

I did not say that it was a manipulation of the data, only the manipulation of the definition,

Razz quote So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. end of quote

ok. I'm not perfect either. Sorry about that.

In other words, depending on how I define the fuzzy areas, I can claim that the neopate salamander is a different species.

No, that is not the way science works. What the scientist has to do before making a claim one way or the other is provide opportunities and incentives for neotenous salamanders to inter-breed with ordinary salamanders and record the results.

Possible result A: The two forms of salamander are physically incapable of inter-breeding. Conclusion--they are separate species.

Possible result B: The two forms of salamander never choose a mate from the other group. Conclusion--to all intents and purposes, they are different species.

Possible result C: The two forms of salamander freely choose mates from the other group and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction with both parent groups. Conclusion---they are not separate species.

These are the easy calls. But now, what about these?

Possible result D: The two forms of salamander prefer to mate with their own type but occasionally mate with the other.

Possible result E: The two forms of salamander mate with each other but all the offspring are still-born.

Possible result F: The two forms of salamander mate with each other, but all the offspring are sterile.

Possible result G: The two forms of salamander mate with each other, but only matings between ordinary male salamanders and female neotenous salamanders produce fertile offspring. Offspring of male neotenous salamanders and ordinary female salamanders are sterile.

These are the sort of scenarios where there will be disagreement over whether or not the two groups are different species.

All of these, and other "fuzzy" situations are explained by the TOE as part of the process of speciation. They occur because the speciation is incomplete.

Does TOC have an explanation for them? Does ID?

C can accept this fuzziness due to the adaptability that God created within the species.

Because of the vastness of the universe and the adaptability observed within the species, C can easily accept this fuzziness in nature.

I'll take your word for it, but can TOC explain adaptability without evolution?

 

[The Bellman]

Okay, if this is your stand, then before I can address any of your posts, you will have to define what E is, what C is, what ID is, and what I am, for I have posted my beliefs on the issue and your definitions do not fit. Once you give complete and accurate definitions for each, maybe we can have a reasonable discussion so that we are one the same page.

No, I don't. All have been thoroughly defined elsewhere. If you are even attempting to debate these topics, you should familiarise yourself with the definitions of these theories, and not rely on those you are discussing the issue with to tell you what they are. I also do not need to define what YOU are; what you are is irrelevant to this conversation. I have addressed some of the points you have posted; I have also noted how those poitns and my rebuttal of them reflects on creationism. Whether or not you are a YEC is irrelevant.

Who is suggesting that we throw away decades of observeration? Your error lies in thinking that decades of observation "prove" that animals reproduce after their own kind.

I'm not "stuck back on proving the YEC false." It has been proven false to the satisfaction of thw world's scientists (who know vastly more about the subject than you or I). What I have been doing is demonstrating that one of the major flaws of creationism is that they cannot even define the most important biological definition necessary to creationism - that fo "kind".

We must not be talking about the same theory.

I've no idea what you mean by this. Are you talking about creatinoism? Like it or not, it HAS been falsified to the satisfaction of virtually all of the world's scientists.

To cross species lines would means, a cat being from the species of dog. This is not proven by any means that I currently know of and is theory based on the possibility that science has observed. So it the possibility that species lines are not crossed. Thus both are theories. A mastif and a yorky, are subspecies of a bigger group called species, as I understand clasifications. Am I missing something important here?

This is false. No definition of species fits what you say above. Crossing species lines has been observed, time and time again. Google for "speciation" and you will see a very large number of observed instances of speciation.

It is thus NOT a possibility that species lines cannot be crossed, for it has been observed many times.

It appears you are confused about what a "species" is. What you are trying to use to mean "species" is what creationists know as a "kind" - which they cannot define.

Again, that would depend on the definition of species. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that a salamander can viably sustain a mutation that would produce an offspring vastly different from itself. Remember that fuzzyness in the definition of species. To falsify C on the grounds that that line is fuzzy, grossly steps of the line of the scientific methodology we have discussed earlier. Instead, it suggests more discussion as to defining species on both side, not just one.

Again you demonstrate that you do not know what a species is. Speciation (evolution over species lines) has been observed many times, thus falsifying creationism if it attempts to use the species as the line over which evolution cannot cross. To avoid this, creationists instead say that evolution cannot cross "kind" lines - but they cannot define what a "kind" is.

I have heard here how E does not require a specific definition for species to be proven, I differ with this assumption. I think that if E cannot be more specific in it's definition of species, it cannot ever be proven or disprove C. Why, because the whole theory relies on the change from one species to another. It makes it or breaks it on this one point. So if the E wants to prove that E is fact, all that is required is to manipulate a fuzzy definition of species and fit the observations. And the E finds this acceptable all the while saying that the C cannot do the same thing. It is double standards like this that leave many to question the entire theory of E rather than just parts of the theory. Both theories hinge on the definition of species! It is up to both to come up with a definition that is testable.

Then I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Evolution does not require a specific definition of species. Evolutionary theory dictates that all lines between groups of aminals - species, phylum, genera, etc - are, in fact, arbitrary, because all animals descended from the same, common ancestor. There are NO lines between animals which evolution cannot cross. For this reason, evolutionary theory does not need a definition of species, or phylum, or any other term for a group of animals - these labels are for convenience only.

Creationism, on the other hand, states that "kinds" are inviolate - which means they are actual, not arbitrary, definitions. Yet they cannot cite this definition.

So your statement that "both theories hinge on the definition of species" is completely false - in fact, neither does. Creationism hinges on the definition of "kind" (which they cannot even supply), and evolution doesn't hinge on the definition of any of its arbitrary terms like species, phylum, genera, etc.

Now if everytime the C have evidence to support there claims, it is considered fraud, I wonder why we should believe the data that supports E without first examining it to see if it is fraudulant? I am not saying that it is not possible, only that the data presented is inconclusive. inconclusive data leaves room for other theories does it not?

Claims regarding evolutionary theory have been examined to see if they are fraudulent. They have been examined by the toughest judges there are - other scientists, who regularly peer-review any and all claims by other scientists. On several occassions, scientists have, in fact, explosed frauds and errors perpetuated regarding evolution.

Creationists, however, do not have such peer review. They rarely submit papers to journals requiring peer review; when they do, those peers invariably point out the huge numbers of errors, frauds, lies and bad science in these papers. Scientists find the errors and frauds in creationism; creationists do not.

As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence. BTW, how large of an area would be required to house three forth of the known species of animals, (by two's), over three forths of the animal species known are insects, how much room do they take up? source The Handy Bug Answer Book.

Then you should research it further. There are not conflicting reports, and there is conclusive evidence - the noachim flood did not happen. Not only is it physically impossible, but the story of Noah's ark (the animals on the boat) is so far from physically possible it is laughable.

The only good discussing the definition for species would have is that E and C would be better able to communicate rather than simply arguing back and forth not getting any closer to understanding each other. It is fine to have fuzzy lines, as long as everyone in the discussion is able to "play" with the same fuzziness. To require C to not allow a fuzziness to their definition is not playing by the same rules and proves nothing. Both theories are reliant on the definition of species, both should have the same right to interpret the fuzzy areas and explain thier view accordingly

The reason creationism and evolution "play by different rules" (as regards the definition of "species" and "kind") is because the definition of "kind" is crucial to creationism; the definition of "species" is not crucial to evolutionary theory.

Under creationism, there ARE no "fuzzy areas". Every animal which has ever lived belongs to one, and only one, "kind". All of its offspring, and all of theirs, etc., will ALWAYS be of that "kind". There are a limited number of "kinds" - new ones cannot come into being. The definition of "kind" is central to creationism.

Under evolution, however, EVERYTHING is a "fuzzy area". Animals belong to different taxonomic groups depending on who is doing the grouping; species boundaries are uncertain precisely because all animals are related, because there are no inviolate boundaries. That is why all of the taxonomic terms are arbitrary - because they are not inviolate. They move depending on who is defining them, precisely because the boundaries themselves are so fuzzy. This is NOT the case with creationism. The "kind" boundary is NOT fuzzy - it is clear cut and inviolate.

What about God creating the animals to adapt to the world around them? That would stand to reason as being a viable explaination for adaptability from a C standpoint and one that cannot be disproven. To prove it, one would have to remove God from the equasion and then dispove the TOE which currently is no more possible than disproving the existance of God.

Adaptaion IS evolution.

But we have not seen that change over generations, only suspect that it occurs, that is what makes E theory not fact.

We have, indeed, seen that change over generations, in field, laboratory and in the fossil record. That is what makes evolutionary theory both theory AND fact.

It is equally possible that there was a creator that created the adaptability we currently see in the species and that it has nothing to do with E at all. That is exactly what makes both theories and neither fact.

The adaptability we currently see in the species is evolution. That is what makes evolution both theory and fact and creationism neither.

Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.

It can't be fuzzy because creationism REQUIRES that it not be fuzzy. There are no animals that are "between" kinds - that is impossible. The theory insists that there are "kinds" that are rigidly defined and over which evolution can never cross.

 

[gluadys]

Razzelflaben:

So far, I have only responded to the posts you have addressed to me, but the conversation between you and Jet Black deserves some comment.

JB asked you about a number of species in the fossil record and their placement in the fossil record.

You responded:

Right now, I won't even try to address the questions you are asking because they totally evade the point I was making, thus getting off topic again.

But it is not off-topic at all. You have made the point time and time again that we should treat all the theories as theories. And that is just what JB is doing.

The point of a theory is to explain observed evidence. He gave you a list of observed evidence for which evolution offers a coherent explanation. I have never seen a coherent explanation of the same observations from the perspective of TOC or ID.

Now why should we treat the theories as equally satisfactory if 2 out of 3 of them cannot explain the observations while the third does? Are not the two which fail to explain the observations failing to do precisely what a theory is supposed to do?

The point I was making is that the shear amount of fossil evidence, or lack thereof, makes the observations inconclusive. For example, what percent of fossil evidence has been uncovered and studied?

It does not matter. It may matter someday if a fossil is uncovered which the TOE cannot explain. But the point of a theory is to explain what HAS BEEN observed, not to speculate about what difficulties may be posed to the theory by future observations. JB's list was of observations that have already been observed.

Now if TOC cannot explain observations already made, why should we have any confidence that TOC will be able to explain evidence not observed yet?

OTOH, TOE does explain the observed evidence, so we can expect that it has at least an even chance of being able to explain future observations as well. In fact, because TOE can explain current evidence, it is able to predict what observations will be made in the future. It predicted that evidence linking dinosaurs to birds would be found nearly a century before the discovery of feathered dinosaurs.

Can you name one single prediction the TOC has made about what to expect in the way of future observations in biology? Can you name any correct prediction based on TOC?

Well, I don't know in each case, and that would be another discussion all together, but we like to talk alot about the fraudulant data observed, I have heard reports that in some of the bones uncovered, where rptillian and mammalian jaws coiside, it is because they are bones of two distinctly different animals.

Is this the best you can do? That maybe we are dealing with fraud?

Are you not aware that these fossils are available to numbers of people doing research on them? People who have no interest in sustaining a fraud. Are you not aware that when the discoverers reported their findings, and when the first researchers studied the fossils and wrote up their conclusions, they had to face peer review from people whose job it is to question their research from all angles?

Why do you think it is that the only frauds ever named in creationist literature are over 90 years old? (Peking man, Haekel's drawings of embryos).

If the bones were indeed from two different animals, you can be sure that fact would have been trumpeted through all the scientific journals and major newspapers by now, just as the Piltdown man fraud was, when it was discovered.

Raising the spectre of fraud with absolutely no evidence to make the case, simply re-inforces the fact that TOC simply does not measure up to TOE as a coherent explanation of observed evidence.

According to the biblical record, it is highly possible for kind to mean species and is a workable theory. So why are you then asserting that C require an additional definition for species.

Most creationists do make the point that "kind" is not "species". And we have already seen why. If "kind" = "species" then creationism is falsified on the basis of its assertion that one kind does not evolve into another. For we have observed one species evolving into another.

So, to keep their theory, creationists asserted that "kind" is not equivalent to "species". This means they can assert that even though one species can evolve into another, one "kind" does not evolve into another "kind." But since they do not define a "kind"--except negatively, by saying it is not a species--there is no way to test that assertion.

Now, if you disagree with standard creationist dogma, please take it up with ICR or AIG, not with us.

If you want to personally disassociate yourself from this aspect of TOC, and say that "kind" is "species", then you have to deal with the observed fact that species do evolve into different species. (Even according to our "fuzzy" definition.)


Again Jet Black asked you:

can a mesonyx vary so much it becomes a dog or a cat? can a theropod vary so much it becomes a bird. can a land bound animal vary so much that it becomes a seal, can a seal vary so much that it becomes totally water born? none of these limits are ever defined in the creationist model, however they are still claimed to be there.

You responded:

Do each of these instances produce a new and different species? [snip] So let me ask you, are they then new species?

Well, does a seal inter-breed with land-based mammals? or with dolphins? Have you seen models of a mesonyx or a therapod? If these are not new species, you would have to define species in a way not used in the last four centuries (which includes a couple of centuries before Darwin).

The problem with your point as I have already discussed, is that the neotenic is not a new species, but rather a neonate form of an already existing species. Just as a catapillar is not a new species of a butterfly, a neonate is not a different species of a salamander.

Remember, our biological definition says that if it is not inter-fertile with the ordinary form of salamander, it IS a new species. It doesn't matter that it became a new species through neotony.

Humans are in many ways a neotonous form of chimpanzee. But we are certainly a different species.

Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule?

Creationists did, by asserting that kinds are separate creations with no relationship possible between one kind and another. Where no such relationship is possible, the dividing line between kinds cannot be fuzzy. Just as JB said:

because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.

Jet Black also said:

you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence.

I have found this habit frustrating as well. You continually say the evidence is inconclusive, but never say why you come to that conclusion. What questions are outstanding that makes them inconclusive?

Or is this just a way of avoiding the evidence because your commitment to TOC is threatened when you examine it?

And by the way, it's not just you. Some creationists are forthright in their adherence to their peculiar interpretation of scripture as the reason for rejecting TOE. I don't agree with them, either scientifically or theologically. But at least I and they know where they stand and why no amount of evidence will ever convince them.

But those who claim to be taking a "scientific" or "even-handed" approach, always end up in a morass of vagueness, neither able to say what is wrong with the TOE, nor able to offer any TOC-based alternative to the TOE. They are just personally unconvinced for no discernable reason.

If you wish to show that you are the exception, give us reasons for saying the evidence is inconclusive. What other conclusion could it support? How?