Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

See above for examples. What proves that these are not fraudulent? The fact that a) they passed peer review in order to get published in the first place, and b) the papers published describe minutely the methods used and the results obtained. Anyone can read and challenge these experiments; or try to replicate them.

Were did I say that this evidence was fraudulant. I said that the fossil record that a reptile and mammalian jaw bone existed in the same animal has been suggested to be a fraud and cannot be assumed as proof until or unless proven otherwise.

No, we have observed that a species of salamander has evolved the ability to reproduce in a neonate state. Where did you get the idea that the neotony could occur without evolution?

I think the problem here is with the term E. C could predict, that the neonate could exist, and would offer means of adaptation to the environment. If this is your definition of E then we have nothing more to discuss, however, a previous post suggests you are opperating on a different definition for E. What then is your definition for E.
[quoteWe don't assume this. Speciation has been documented by direct observation.

Has anyone said that? I missed it if they did. It could be that it is a different species. Depends on whether or not it can reproduce with the parent species.[/quote] Yes it was suggested, I don't currently have time to go back and find the post. It is why the neonate was brought into the discussion in the first place.

You mean if the iodine is added again? Well, if you manipulate the genome of chickens they will grow teeth. (They still have the genes to do so; but the expression of those genes is ordinarily suppressed.) Does that make chickens the same species as Archeopteryx?

I don't know, what are the other characteristics of Archeopteryx?

No manipulation. If it cannot/will not reproduce with the parent species, it is a different species. If it can/will reproduce with the parent species, it is not a different species. That's what the definition says.

What the definition doesn't deal with well are the in-between cases when we can't give a straight "yes" or "no" to the question of whether it is inter-fertile with the parent species.

So what are the answers to these questions with the neonate, I suggest to you that if the neonate matures into the same adult salamander, it is the same species.

It's in reference to nature's fuzzy species lines. You said it should be part of all the theories, and I agreed. I also said all the theories should explain why this fuzziness exists. TOE does. Speciation is a slow process and we should expect to see examples in nature of partial speciation. Fuzzy species lines indicate that we do.

So how would TOC or ID explain nature's fuzzy species lines?

How about, the creator created the ability for the species to survive by allowing for some adaptible occurances. Such as neonates. These survival mechanisms allow for a fuzziness in the definition of "kind" species.

It is an immature form of that salamander. That doesn't stop if from being a separate species. If it does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form, it is a new species.

By this definition, my children are a new species, that would explain a lot. So are the catapillar, the frog, and even a chicken, because the immature form cannot or does not mate or successfully reproduce with the original mature form. Fuzzy definition again?

Of course not. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is a new species of salamander.

Let's be clear that if the neonate is capable of reproduction it is mature in the neonate form. And it is a salamander in the neonate form. If its offspring also mature to reproductive capacity in neonate form they have matured into salamanders. What else would they be?

If the environmental condition is changed such that they mature into more ordinary looking salamanders, they have also matured into salamanders. What else would you expect them to be?

Exactly, this is the prediction of the TOC and is proven by the data observed. So if the data supports C why use it to try and support E?

No, that is not a prediction of TOE. TOE predicts the salamander form can change in either direction, and that the development of the young will respond to the environmental condition (presence or absence of iodine).



It's a long thread. Reference please?

The TOC predicts, that it will not change from the original species, one of salamander.

 

[chosen_boss]

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has. Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

 

[USincognito]

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has. Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

Welcome to the forum chosen. I'd like to recommend that you spend some time in the Christians Only section of CF before venturing back here. You seem to be really outgunned, and I'd hate for a adherance to a literal Genesis to threaten your faith in light of the evidence you will be presented.

 

[chosen_boss]

Welcome to the forum chosen. I'd like to recommend that you spend some time in the Christians Only section of CF before venturing back here. You seem to be really outgunned, and I'd hate for a adherance to a literal Genesis to threaten your faith in light of the evidence you will be presented.

Thank you for your concern. But I know what I believe in, why I believe it, and have a well rooted faith in God. Nothing can shake that, no matter how many times I've posted, or how old I am. Again, thank you for your concern, but I think I've got it under control.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Thank you for your concern. But I know what I believe in, why I believe it, and have a well rooted faith in God. Nothing can shake that, no matter how many times I've posted, or how old I am.

It so bothers me when someone decides in advance that they will not learn anything new, and that no matter what anyone can show them, they will not change their mind.

Ironically, some of these people accuse me of having a closed mind. But I could never make a statement such as you just did.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm sorry to say that evolution is only theory, and will never be proven, like gravity has.

Gravity too is "only a theory" and it has already been disproved at least once.

Is atomic Theory "only a theory" too?

"Unlike gravity evolution has very few actual facts. and just like creation, which has very few facts as well, evolution requires not only knowledge but faith to believe in it.

There is no faith required at all. Evolution has been proved (in the sense you're implying) and I can prove evolution to you right now, right here, no matter how much faith you have or lack in anything else.

 

[Tomk80]

Razzelflabben, I'm getting confused here as to what you consider a species and what you consider a new species. Maybe you can answer the following questions for me, to clear up things.

First off, a good definition of species for me would be: "A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."
Can you agree with this definition? If not, what should be altered?

Then, should the following animals be considered as the same species and why, why not?
Cats and dogs (well, we already know that one)?
Prezwalski horses and domestic horses?
Donkeys and domestic horses?
Zebra's and domestic horses?
Cats and lions?
Dogs and wolves?
Dogs and foxes?


Following this, we can consider speciation. I (and I think the rest of the evolutionists here) see speciation as a group of organism changing so much from it's mother species, that a new species comes into existence. This new species can or will either:
1. not reproduce with the former species
2. not produce fertile offspring

Is this a good description of speciation for you? If not, why not?

Next, I would consider the neonate salamander a new species, different from it's parent species of salamander because it cannot do 1. I do not know about 2. If you agree with my definition of speciation, what reason do you have for not excepting the neonate salamander as a new species.

Considering drosophila, the reason the 'new' drosophila is considered a new species, is because it will not do 1. That this change has been brought about through varying environmental conditions in the laboratory does not matter, the same can happen in nature. So, considering this, what argument do you have for not considering this an example of speciation?

I hope you'll be able to answer these questions, so as to clear up my confusion.

 

[The Bellman]

All I have heard from you is old school C. And since I asked you to define C so that our discussion can flow, you refuse. So I will put forth the definition you will have to follow for the remainder of this discussion. C is the theory as put forth in the original format found in Gen. The definition for kind will be the same as the definition for species. And the evidence of animals procreating after their "kind" will be allowed into the discussion as evidence.

There is no "old school" creationism. There is only creationism, which has been thoroughly defined elsewhere. It isn't the "theory" put forth in Genesis, it is a hypotheses drawn from Genesis.

Again, if "kind" means "species', then creationism has been thoroughly falsified, because we have observed, repeatedly, speciation. Animals DO evolve across species lines, which disproves the "version" of creationism you are talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

First off, a good definition of species for me would be: "A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."

This isn't how species are defined in science. A species is a breeding population, period. This definition does not say that interbreeding between two different species will not result in fertile offspring, but rather that interbreeding does not occur in nature. The definition of species is derived by the breeding patterns of organisms in the wild, not as a preset definition that is then forced upon breeding groups. Hope this helps.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have addressed those in the reply to that post. Meanwhile you have not answered this question:

"If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do?"

And I will add this question:

"If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it?"

In light of my recent replies, I should be asking you these questions instead of you asking me. If 2 out of 3 theories fail to explain observed data, while the 3rd does, are not the first two failing to do what a theory ought to do? Yes, but first on must be sure that the other 2 are failing to explain the observed data, not just assume that they are. Remember, the thread is not about what theory is right or wrong, but whether or not the TOE has overwhelming evidence or whether or not it is fact.

If a theory is failing to do what a theory ought to do---namely, explain observed data---why should scientists continue to support it? Again, that would be based on more than simply assumptions that the theory cannot explain the observations. The TOE does not predict the problems observed with reproduction beyond the species. They can offer theories as to why the phenomia occurs, but no predictions, because the TOE would predict the opposite to be true. So should we then throw out the entire TOE because it fails to predict the observation correctly, Pooh, that would be horrible scientific method. So why then should we allow science or E to do the same with the TOC? Do you have an answer for that question?

No, the point is that every iota of data in the fossil record is observed data which the theories are supposed to explain. Even though only a small portion of the fossil record has been examined, we have thousands upon thousands of fossils and everyone of them offers data by which we can determine the adequacy of the theories which try to explain them.

This has proved to be more than sufficient evidence to make the TOE the only viable scientific theory. The TOC does NOT explain this mountain of evidence now. Why should we expect it to do so when we have tripled or quintupled or multiplied that mountain of evidence a thousand times over.

The TOC can offer possible reasons for the observations, which is what E does as well. BTW, I have never said that the observed data was incorrect, please understand. What I have said is that it is not conclusive. There is a big difference here that you appear to be missing. incorrect-false, falsified, proven wrong inconclusive-not enough to offer proof, provides speculation and possibilities but not proof.

I don't need to argue or to make assumptions to show that TOE explains the evidence and TOC does not.

Well, then I think you need to study some more, because the TOC can explain the evidence. Even if you don't like the explaination, the fact remains that it can explain it. So that would leave it up to you to prove you statements.

But these are not unique predictions. The same predictions are made by TOE. So again, TOC is only correct when it coincides with or borrows from TOE. TOE does not need to borrow from TOC.

Excuse me, the TOC is much older than the TOE it is E that must borrow from C. But that is neither here nor there, it is like determining which came first the chicken or the egg, but is known, is that in all the mounds of scientific evidence found, the only thing that does not coincide with the TOC is the fossil record and that can be explained. Now there are scientific assumptions that can and have been made that do not coincide, but assumptions are not scientific observations, they are predictions based on observations. The observations themselves, all coincide with C.

That is because they have been caught doctoring evidence. No double standard when the fraud is proven. The mere possibility of fraud does not make evidence inconclusive. You have to show that there really was fraud. Otherwise, you are basically bearing false witness. Only, the fact of fraud renders the conclusions invalid.

Again we come back to this, what was said is that until or unless the fossils are studied and determined to not be fraud, we cannot claim them as proof and even then, given human nature and their desire to falsify information, we can only examine the evidence for ourselves and deside whether or not we want to believe it. Let us look at the earth for this example. I cannot fly around the world, simply too poor. I cannot tell from a photo if the world is spherical or not, I am not good enough at math to do an equation to determine the shape of the earth. So, I can allow people to study the facts and tell me if they have found them to be fraudulant or not, and if not, then I can study the data and deside based on the data presented if I want to believe the earth is flat or spherical. This is the same idea behind the fossil record in question. There was suggestion that it was fraudulant. Therefore, I cannot just blindly believe it because it matches my belief, I must first wait to see if it is fraudulant or not and then study the evidence. This is how one comes to truth. How again is it that you find truth?

Since you are drawing your original theory from the bible, I can see why you are mystified. The bible does not give a precise definition of kind either, and creationists assumed, as scientific classification began to come into vogue, that "kind"="species". It was only when it was shown beyond doubt that species do evolve that some creationists opted to break with that definition. That would not be obvious from the biblical text.

YOu have yet to present such evidence that C cannot explain. When you can do so, then you can make this assumption. Until then, this assumption is invalid.

Well, that is what I am trying to do: ascertain what you personally believe, rather than assuming you buy into the canned creationist dogma of ICR or AIG or Kent Hovind. Yet every time I ask you directly what you believe, you question why I ask (see above in this post). This puzzles me. If you want me not to label you, why are you so reticent about providing your personal beliefs when asked to do so?

I have always, at least on this thread, been open and honest about my beliefs. Why do you claim that I am avoiding the issue? is it because I don't fit into one of these groups? or because you don't know which twist to put on the data to prove me wrong?

 

[the_gloaming]

YOu have yet to present such evidence that C cannot explain. When you can do so, then you can make this assumption. Until then, this assumption is invalid.

We could try endogenous retroviruses and their ilk again, in another thread perhaps. Maybe they've been discussed in this thread. I'm not reading it all to find out though.

 

[razzelflabben]

You have asked many times that we not make assumptions about the TOC, and I am diligently trying not to.

May I ask the same of you when it comes to the TOE. The statement above is a false assumption about what the TOE would predict. In fact it is the opposite of what the TOE would predict.

TOE says that natural selection produces adaptation to the environment. If one environment favours a neonate form, and another favours a non-neonate form, TOE predicts we will see the form favored by that environment. It does not predict that either the neonate or the ordinary form is stuck in its current form and cannot change as the environment changes. In fact it predicts that both the ordinary and neonate form will change as the environment changes.

Again, I refer you to the pepper moth thread for another excellent example of back and forth evolution, as well as the recent work on the beaks of Galapagos finches.



Again, you are making assumptions about TOE which are not correct. So here is where you need to listen and learn more about TOE so that you can evaluate it accurately. TOE would not make either of the predictions you assume it would make. Here are some reasons why:

1. An adult neotenous form is still an adult; it did not fail to mature. What it has done is retain features that in its predecessor disappeared with maturity.

2. An adult neotenous form may or may not be interfertile with a non-neotenous form. If it is inter-fertile, then its offspring may or may not be neotenous, as they can receive genetic information from both a neotenous and non-neotenous parent.

3. Whether offspring are or are not neotenous may depend on environmental factors which influence the expression of genes. However, not all neotenous features will be subject to such environmental impact. We would need to study each one on a case-by-case basis. So you cannot generalize from the salamander case to a proposed human/chimp case.

4. If the neotenous form becomes reproductively isolated from its parent species, and its neotenous features are not impacted environmentally, there is no reason it would ever revert to a non-neotenous form.

5. Humans already live in the same habitats as chimps and have not resumed a non-neotenous form. Of course, they have also not resumed an arboreal life-style or a chimp-like diet either. So even in the same habitat, they are not really in the same environment, because they are not in the same ecological niche.

It totally amazes me that now your theory is making the same predictions as the TOC but you cannot accept the TOC as possible. How exactly does that work? I'm not following your reasoning here. Remember, the TOC predates the TOE which then would mean that the TOE is borrowing predictions from the TOC and then claiming them unique. Do you still want to make these assertions?

No you have not. Your charge has been that the evidence is not conclusive.

Not conclusive does not provide evidence, only speculation. Still leaves many unanswered questions...

But when asked to be specific about why it is not conclusive, you do not deal with the evidence.

What more do you want me to say, the many questions are still left unanswered. Those questions are the result of many things including but not limited to unsufficient data, human error, possible frauds, etc. etc. etc. I am sure I covered all this about 2 or 3 times now.

You cite lack of evidence. That is entirely different from looking at the evidence and saying that no conclusions can be made from it. We can have a relatively small amount of actual evidence as compared to the total potential amount of evidence, and we may still be able to draw sound conclusions from it. Furthermore, even a small amount of evidence may be enough to falsify an unsound theory. My position is that the evidence we have is sufficient to rule out TOC.

The evidence we have supports the TOC so how then is it sufficient to rule out the theory? The only question would be the fossil record and that can be explained by the theory. What determines if a theory is discarded?

You cite possible fraud, but that is not looking at the evidence, and you have produced nothing more than vague rumours of fraud. Are you saying science is not allowed to make a case unless and until it chases down and exposes every false allegation of fraud, no matter how nebulous? Is there not an American tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Now, I really don't understand your assertions here, first I did not say that it was fraud, secondly I mentioned in in direct relationship to a specific reference, and the possible fraud that was reported. Thirdly, I did not say that science did not make a case, only that the evidence was inconclusive if there was suspect of fraud. Fourthly, the claim is that evidence that is brought into question is not fact until or unless proven to not be fraud, if you want to compare it to our legal system, it would be like holding some one without bond and since we know that fraudulant cases have been presented, there is precident for caution.

You cite possible other explanations, but you do not provide any, or you provide vague notions which you do not link to the evidence in any way that shows how the concept explains the evidence.

HuH? I provide you with other possible explations, this is what you asked for. The discussion is not suppose to be about E vs. C, it is suppose to be about the theory of E being theory not fact, about science not having all the answers, and that those who think otherwise, cross the line between science and belief system. Now I wonder why it has taken more that 55 pages of posts to make this point. What part of this point do you not agree with?

You speak of "unsupported evidence like the neonate salamander", but the salamander is real. How is that "unsupported evidence"?

The neonate is not a new species, at least by the definition guidelines you provided, at least not so far as is readable into the definition.

You speak of observations which contradict the TOE, but on the one hand, you have not cited any such observations, and on the other hand you have not given the TOE the chance you are asking for the TOC---namely that we discuss and understand it, so that we do not make incorrect assumptions about what it says, as you have been doing.

So explain the theory then. When asked for evidence you give things that prove none of the contridictions of the theories, or inconclusive evidence that we are ask to view as fact. This truely is poor scientific methodology.

Did you miss the phrase "it's not just you"? I believe I made it clear that I was going on to speak of other creationists, not you.

Just indicates that I am included in the group, not excluded from it.

If I have inadvertently ignored any claim you have made for TOC, please direct me to it. I believe my responses have been very thorough.

I have been working on this post for about an hour and a half now (lots of interuptions) and I forget what this was in reference to, if I need to address it, I will try to get to it as I can.

 

[razzelflabben]

On the contrary. We DO assume it to be genuine until there is a reason to suspect fraud. Innocent until proven guilty, remember.



Because they are. Or at least they use faulty methodology and sub-standard reporting. These are not "possible" frauds. They are frauds.

There is no double standard being used here.



Evos are not afraid to face the fact that some evidence is inconclusive; but they do object to very well established evidence being called into question for no discernable reason (other than religious bias). e.g. dating of fossils.

I did not ever say that the dating of fossils was fraudulant, where are you getting this assertion? I said that error could account for some discrepency and then I presented 2 additional possible explainations. Wow, I am really biased because of religious reasons, I dont see any religious beliefs presented as explaination, only historical ones.

 

[razzelflabben]

Some mistakes!? In order to show that the dating is wrong you have to show that practically all of several hundred thousands dates (most of them cross-referenced to avoid error) are nevertheless incorrect, and not just by a little bit, but by several orders of magnitude.




Nope. It's totally irrelevant whether bones were buried in a natural accident or a planned funeral.




It is not about dinosaurs becoming extinct before humans become extinct. It is about dinosaurs becoming extinct 60 million years before the first homind appeared on earth. What is so hard to grasp about that?




One has been disproven and it's not TOE.



60 million years worth of difference?



We evaluate theories on what we know now, not on wishful thinking about what might be discovered in the future. We deal with the future by being prepared to change our theories when necessary---but only when necessary.



And what is there about the actual evidence (not wished-for evidence of faulty dates or future fossil discoveries) that allows for any other possibility than that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years before the first proto-human was born?

First, our method of dating could possibly be incorrect, that is allowing for human error,

Secondly, let us assume for one moment that the fossil evidence is conclusive, E still cannot predict why we see reproductive problems when crossing "species" lines. It still cannot predict why the theory sounds more like C all the time. Etc. In other words, the fossil evidence is not conclusive in determining whether or not the TOE is fact, or even predictable with the growing evidence. The fossil record is a very small part of the total picture and is inconclusive evidence to predict that the TOE is fact. Why is that so hard for E to accept? Why is it so hard for E to accept that there can be other explainations for the data? What are E afraid of? Why do E accept predictions from C and them claim then as evidence for E and disproof for C? I really don't understand.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because it's a non-sequitor. There is no "logic" in the statement to follow.

For one thing the earliest Crocodiles and Dinosaurs first appear in the the Triassic, but crocodiles are still here. By your logic, both should be gone since man is still here.

See how it does not follow?

I can see your point if we are talking about crocodiles and dinosaurs, but since there are no dinosaurs known today, and the discussion is about dinosaurs and humans, and thus the dinosaurs are classifies as extinct, and man is still here, and very much so not extinct, I would think the logical statement would be that dinosaurs became extinct before man. How is that illogical?

 

[razzelflabben]

human error generally creates odd points in graphs, not entire correlating data series via numerous independent trials in totally different global regions.

If my assumption is that 2+2=5, then my human error would result in consistant false results.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I cannot just blindly believe it because it matches my belief, I must first wait to see if it is fraudulant or not and then study the evidence. This is how one comes to truth. How again is it that you find truth?

YOu have yet to present such evidence that C cannot explain. When you can do so, then you can make this assumption. Until then, this assumption is invalid.

Well, there is the twin-nested heirarchy of taxonomy.

Remember that if you accept micro-evolution, but reject evolution at some (as-yet undetermined) higher level, believing instead that everything was independantly created, then there must be some point in our systematic classifications of life where taxomonomy falls apart, where things that appear to be related to everything are really unrelated to anything else. So according to whatever you accept about the variability of evolving species, answer the following as best you can:

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?​

Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?​

Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?​

Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?​

Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?​

Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?​

Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?​

Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?​

Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? ​

Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? ​

Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?​

Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?​

Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?​

Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?​

........and so on.​

Which of these are related? Which of these are created? ​

If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the overall concept of macroevolution, or if creationism is true of anything more than the first bacterial organisms, then the fatal flaw of evolutionary Theory must be found here, or it simply can't be anywhere else.​

Here are some references to help you. The Arizona Tree Of Life Project ​

Click the "containing group" link to go back through projected ancestry. This cladogram isn't really detailed, but it is easy to navigate, and since it is peer-reviewed, it will be the most accurate available on the web. ​

This cladogram below is not peer-reviewed, but it is much more detailed. ​

Click the <==o to go back. ​

For these next couple series, you may want to compare the TOLweb site with the Finnish cladogram as it is also more illustrative. However, bear in mind that not being peer-reviewed means that errors in it are not corrected unless you email the systematist directly to advise him of them. I have found some errors in other lineages, but these groups appear accurate.​

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
Are all panthers related to housecats, scimitar cats and all other felids?
Are all felids related to civets and other viverrids?
Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?
Are all Feloidea related to any or all other Carnivora?

Which of these groups evolved from common ancestors, and which ones were spoken into existence by God's magic incantation? If you can answer that, then we'll know how many pairs of cats Ubar-Tutu took onto the ark with him, right?

And a bonus question

Are all species of ducks related to each other?​

Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

And finally (referring to the TOLweb site)

Are modern terrestrial scorpions related to extinct aquatic scorpions?
Are all scorpions related to Cambrian Eurypterids?
Are Eurypterids related to horseshoe crabs?
Are horseshoe crabs related to trilobites?


Again, if the overall Theory of evolution is NOT true, and/or if creationism IS true, then at some point in each of these, your answer should be a simple "no", and wherever you answer "yes" is equally important.

And of course the same applies to the human version of this same inquiry.

Are Caucasians, (modern versions of Cro-magnon) related to all other extant human demes?
Are Homo sapiens related to any or all other species of Homo?
Are any Homo species related to any other Hominines?
Are any of the Hominines related to any other Hominids?
Are any of the Hominids related to any other Hominoids?
Are any Hominoids related to other Catarrhine primates?
Are any Catarrhines related to any Platyrrhines?

How does you alleged theory of creation help you explain the derived synapomorphies, (inherited similarities) evident in these apparent relationships?

 

[razzelflabben]

This is exactly why I do not come to this discussion group. Because you miss the whole point so that you can prove that the TOE is fact and fact based on what, on your assertions that the fossil record is all that is needed to determine whether or not the TOE is true. Come now, we can all be more fair than that. I have said many times that this evidence can suggest the TOE, but that it is not enough for the TOE to predict a minute amount of evidence to be declared sound and all other theories invalid. I would think that this is an easy thing for those who do not use E as a belief system, apparently I am wrong, either that or it is a belief system to more of you than want to admit it is.

While I'll admit this isn't the craziest ad hoc assertion I've read, it certainly borders on one of the "ad hociest." I don't see, especially after the hours of time and pages of evidence glaudys has posted, any efforts of mine really making a difference, but I want to try and give you some perspective on why your objection is so baseless.

Hominid Biogeography

All Australid and Hominid fossils are found in the Eastern Hemisphere. In all the years of searching the earth in Western Hemispere, where tons of dinosaur, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and fish fossils have been dug up over the years, we have never once found a australid or Hominid fossil. This is exactly, because of what geology told us about the Earth's surface, what evolution has predicted.

If we were to ever find a human fossil in the Western Hemisphere, it would immediately falsify evolution. It hasn't and is evidenced to the satisfaction of sciences requirements. If you won't be satisfied until every inch of ground in the Western Hemisphere is checked for human fossils, that's your problem, not sciences.

On the other hand, Creationism says that man was to go and subdue the whole Earth. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Apparently we weren't in dominion over the fowls and living things on the land if we weren't in the Western Hemisphere to have dominion over it. Thus this part of Creationism is falsified.

Humm, western hemispere fossils of man never found. What of the native american burial sights?

Animal Fossil Biogeography

We find dinosaurs on every continent. We find them all over the United States. We have unearthed literally tons of dinosaur fossils, but we have never once found them with humans anywhere on the Earth. We never find trilobites with dinosaurs. We never find large mammals with dinosaurs. This is exactly what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over.

The important part about this is your claim that dinosaurs and humans aren't found in the same strata for some unknown reason. But we find humans and large mammals in the same strata. This again is what evolution predicts. And it's what we find over and over and over. Why would we always find large mammals in the same strata with humans, but never find dinosaurs if they lived contemporaneously? The reason is that they didn't live contemporaneously.

And can have other explainations, it is the possibility that you are missing. There are other possibilities.

Archaeological Remains

When we excivate human artifacts and remains we find and we don't find ertain things. We find large mammal bones in firepits and trashpiles. We find mammal bones, antlers and teeth being used as decorations or tools. We find human remains with evidence of attack by mammals, where the bodies were taken to lairs (see the Taung child), or fell out of trees (big cat predation) and aren't buried.

On the other hand, we never find dinosaur bones in firepits or trash piles. We never find dinosaur bones, horns or teeth used as decorations or tools. We never find human remains with evidence of dinosaur attacks on them. Your point about burials falls flat here - are you trying to say that never in the history of humanity has no human died due to dinosaur attack and wasn't recovered or buried - or was eaten to nothing but bones - ever?

All this is exactly as evolution predicts, and the opposite of that predicted by Creationism. And again, I'm sorry if these now many many tons of physical evidence showing why evolution is a fact aren't enough for you because you want ever single ounce of dirt in the troposphere unearthed and checked by paleontologists, but as glaudys has pointed out to you, that's not how science works.

Don't be sorry, I have never said that this fossil evidence did not support the TOE, only that it did not offer conclusive evidence to support the TOE. It totally amazes me how many people who claim that E is not a belief system, get all excited, bent out of shape, and read into posts what is not there, to prove that the fossils we have uncovered are overwhelming proof for E. If this is the standard by which we determine truth, I will avoid scientific method in the future, for apparently, if cannot be relied upon to provide truth, only speculation.

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflabben, I'm getting confused here as to what you consider a species and what you consider a new species. Maybe you can answer the following questions for me, to clear up things.

First off, a good definition of species for me would be: "A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."
Can you agree with this definition? If not, what should be altered?

As I understand things, this is the old definiton of species, the one presented earlier was slightly different but I can work with either. It is the fuzzy areas that are open to interpretation by any group or individual.

Then, should the following animals be considered as the same species and why, why not?

are you asking me if I would consider them the same species or if the definition would consider them the same species?

Cats and dogs (well, we already know that one)?

Same family not same species

Prezwalski horses and domestic horses?

don't know what a prezwalski horse is

Donkeys and domestic horses?

By definition, doesn't the donkey and the horse bred together form a sterile mule? That would mean no by the definition presented.

Zebra's and domestic horses?

Haven't heard about breeding the two, in fact I think I recall a report that zebras and horses cannot interbreed. If that info is correct, then the answer would be no.

Cats and lions?

Agian, I have never heard of a cat and lion breeding, so by this definition, no not the same species.

Dogs and wolves?

Now if my memory serves,dogs and wolves can and have bred and produced breedable offspring, that would mean yes, same species.

Dogs and foxes?

Not sure on this one, never heard of them interbreeding, but it could be possible I would imagine.

Following this, we can consider speciation. I (and I think the rest of the evolutionists here) see speciation as a group of organism changing so much from it's mother species, that a new species comes into existence. This new species can or will either:
1. not reproduce with the former species
2. not produce fertile offspring

Is this a good description of speciation for you? If not, why not?

Your definition, I can work with it.

Next, I would consider the neonate salamander a new species, different from it's parent species of salamander because it cannot do 1. I do not know about 2. If you agree with my definition of speciation, what reason do you have for not excepting the neonate salamander as a new species.

As I have understood the neonate salamander, it is an immature form of the adult salamander. If other immature animals look different from their parents, but are not considered different species why would a neonate salamander. This goes back to the fuzzy areas of the definitions for species.

Considering drosophila, the reason the 'new' drosophila is considered a new species, is because it will not do 1. That this change has been brought about through varying environmental conditions in the laboratory does not matter, the same can happen in nature. So, considering this, what argument do you have for not considering this an example of speciation?

I don't recall saying that it is not an arguent for speciation, but rather that what can happen in nature is not always what does happen in nature. Therefore, it is not proof of evolution, not proof of speciation, but evidence that would suggest the possibility of speciation. You people are getting so hung up on proving E fact, that you fail to see all the wonderful possibiliities in our world. It is the possibilities that I want to explore. It is the explorations of these possibilities that lead one to truth.

I hope you'll be able to answer these questions, so as to clear up my confusion.

Did my answers help?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have never heard of a cat and lion breeding, so by this definition, no not the same species.

Technically, lions are cats, but if I take this to mean Felis sylvestris, the common housecat, then I would like to point out something most people don't realize about cats.

Taxonomy is a matter of descendant groups within ancestral groups. There are untold breeds of housecats within just one of some three dozen or so different feline species which constitute a single genera, Felis.

Lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars and other panthers aren't just different species from housecats, cougars and other felines; they are in a different genus, Panthera, meaning they're even more distantly-related than you may have guessed. The other known felid genera are the cheetahs, lynx and the extinct scimitar cats.

Occasionally, two closely-related species can be interbred, usually, (but not always) with infertile offspring. There have been one or two fertile mules for example. However, crossing two different genus is exponentially more difficult. They managed to cross a llama with a camel, (for example) but that took two years' research, and several attempts at artificial insemination.

The further two groups grow apart, the harder it is to breed them back together. But if they're still very closely-related, it might be possible (on some occasions) to produce viable offspring. This all indicates that there is no solid dividing line between "kinds". And even if there was, "species" can't be that division because we've already seen it crossed many times.