Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

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.

It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding. So does that leave us with both theories being invalid and we should claim alien cloning to be fact, or does it mean that we attribute both theories as possible and look to science to close the question? I vote, that both are considered possible and we look again to science for answers to questions we still have.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In fact, I think I might take a trip to the library tomorrow.

I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.

The life-changing aspect of this experience is that I learned the extent of what science is discovering, and what it could do for me. I learned how to ask questions. I learned how to consider both sides of important issues, and how to use critical thinking skills to find the answer. I learned--far too late--that I was no longer a child and did not simply need to echo the fundamentalist religion that I had been taught. I can not describe for you the immense benefits this new outlook on life has given me. It involves far more than reaching a correct understanding of the creation.

I tell the story at How Questioning Changed Me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflaben

Away back in your first post you asked



So let's recap on that basis.


How has science disproven creationism?

To some extent this depends on how you define creationism. Most of us here are familiar with the descriptions of creationism used by major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG and even the more wacko versions promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.

Some versions of creationism explicitly include a global flood based on Gen. 6-8.

A version that includes a global flood is easily disproved by geology as nothing in geology supports a global flood. As early as 1831, Christians who understood the implications of geology agreed that Noah's flood must have been a local, not a global event.

All Young-earth and some Old-earth versions of creationism call for the near simultaneous creation of all species (or "kinds"). This is also falsified by the geological record which clearly shows that no species has existed throughout the whole history of the earth. For a considerable period of time (about 2 billion years as measured scientifically) the only living forms occurring in the fossil record are simple bacteria and archea. For nearly half as long again, the only additional life forms are simple unicellular eukaryotes (aka protista). Then we start to get some multi-cellular algae and (about 700 million years ago) the strange Ediacaran animals, most of whom have no relationship to any modern species whatsoever. Only then do we get to the so-called Cambrian explosion, with many new forms of marine fauna. Most of these, such as trilobites, have long since become extinct. It is not until after the Cambrian period that we find the first hint of life on land---some possible plant spores. Terrestrial plant life is not confirmed until the Silurian, which also shows the first animal life on land (spiders, centipedes). Meanwhile the only major vertebrates in existence are sharks and fish. Vertebrates capable of living on land do not appear until the Devonian period, and amphibians appear long before reptiles. No dinosaurs, birds or mammals and no flowering plants (only mosses, ferns and some very un-modern gymnosperms) are found in these periods.

Rather than continue through the whole geologic column--this is more than enough to show that species appear billions of years apart in the fossil record, and many species become extinct before newer species appear.

This fully falsifies any version of creationism which calls for all species to be created at the same time and to be contemporaneous with each other.

We can leave to another time the question of human relationship to other animals as I believe that requires more background. Suffice it to say that as far as I am aware, all versions of creationism, including day-age Old-Earth Creationism, which comes closest to matching the geology and fossil record of science, maintain that human beings are a separately created kind with no phylogenic relation to apes or any other form of life. The evidence strongly indicates the contrary.

Now you have not proposed any of the above (global flood, all species created at once, humanity a separately created kind). You have proposed only two theses in the "original theory" of TOC:
1. God made all things.
2. All living things reproduce after their kind.

The basic problem with these propositions is that, as stated, they are not unique to creationism, so they do not define TOC as being in any way distinguishable from other theories. An evolutionist can support both of those statements. So does ID. Because these statements do not distinguish TOC from other theories, there is no basis on which to discuss TOC as a theory. It may as well not exist, if the only way in which it exists is in complete conformity with other theories.

However, there are two clarifications to be made that would distinguish TOC so that it can be discussed as a theory in its own right.

1. Define "kind". There is a sense in which the concept that all things reproduce after their kind is fully consistent with TOE. In fact, without this rule, we could not get the nested hierarchy which is a powerful piece of supporting evidence for TOE.

But there are other senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOE.

And there are senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOC.

An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOE would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic family." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for a dinosaur "kind" to evolve into a bird "kind" or a deer "kind" to evolve into a whale "kind". And TOE not only claims this could happen, but claims evidence that it did happen.

An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOC would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic species." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for ring species to exist or for an above-ground species of mosquito to become a different species of mosquito upon adapting to live in the London subway tunnels. But we know these things have happened, so either TOC is falsified or "kind" is not equivalent to "species".

2. Once, "kind" is defined, state unequivocally whether modern humans are a specially created kind with no relationship to any other "kind", or part of a "kind" which includes other species.

With these clarifications, TOC can now stand on its own as a theory instead of being just part of another theory. And it can be tested against the evidence to determine its validity.


How has science disproven ID?

Basically through lack of supporting evidence.

ID depends on producing evidence of "irreducible""/specified" complexities which cannot, in principle, be explained by evolution. If even a plausible way to get the complexity through evolution can be proposed (whether or not the complexity really evolved that way), then the complexity does not fit the criteria of ID.

For ID is not just saying that evolution has so far failed to explain complexity A; ID is saying that evolution is incapable of ever explaining complexity A. So any plausible explanation of how evolution could produce complexity A shows that ID is wrong to call it an irreducible/specified complexity.

To date, this is what has happened in every case proposed as an example of irreducible/specified complexity. A plausible means of producing the complexity has been described.

Is the evidence for evolution only a mass of suggestions?

The answer to that will depend a lot on what you understand the TOE to be. Many people do not understand the TOE. They believe it says things it does not say or does not say things it does say. They make assumptions about TOE which are not correct, and so claim the evidence is not convincing.

The answer to that will also depend a lot on understanding science in general. What counts as evidence? What is the relationship between theory and evidence? How is theory tested? How are we assured that the results of scientific method are accurate?

Now, what have we seen in your posts.

1. Although you try to include ID, it appears you are not very familiar with this idea. You do not base any of your arguments on ID theory or proposed ID evidence. This theory is not being examined in any way on this thread.

2. I am prepared to take your word that you do not believe in the TOC, but rather only lean in that direction. However, as long as you limit TOC to only the two principles you have stated, it is not possible to discuss TOC, since these two principles do not distinguish it from any other theory. All the theories are open to the possibility of creation by God (although this is not a scientific statement and not falsifiable by scientific method) and all theories agree that parent organisms produce organisms of the same kind/species/sub-species/etc. as themselves.

What is needed from you, if the discussion is to continue, is a description of how TOC differs from the other theories. I would note that you are eager to see what the various theories can offer each other, how they can enrich each other's insights. That is commendable. But if TOC does not differ in any way from the other theories, then it has nothing distinctive to offer.

3. Many of your posts indicate that you have very limited understanding of scientific method and many incorrect assumptions about TOE. I will make a separate post to deal with some of these misconceptions.

Could it be that in your desire to see others stop making assumptions about TOC and/or your own inclinations, you have overlooked the possibility that you are making assumptions about TOE and the outlook of those who consider it to be a fact as well as a theory?

Are you as open to having your assumptions about TOE corrected as you ask us to be about our assumptions in regard to TOC?

This is not a totally fair evaluation, but somewhat helpful. Just some things that I want to touch on. You people have been pushing the discussion to E vs. C not me. I have been pushing the discussion to what is possible. Secondly, you totally fail to evaluate the TOE as you have done the other theories. Including the areas where the theory fails. And yes, we know that there are areas where the TOE cannot answer all the questions. Thirdly, to put forth possibilities is scientific in nature. It is how we determine what is possible and what is not. So how does putting forth possibilities equal lack of scientific misconceptions.

By all means, correct the misconceptions, that is what communication is all about. I have been surprised already several times on this thread by how much the TOE has changed since I studied it in school, how much many of you differ in your understanding of the theory and how much the theory now resembles the TOC during it's own evolution as a theory.

 

[gluadys]

It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding.

This is a false assumption about TOE. It is an indication that your information about TOE is incorrect and leads you to make false predictions based on faulty information.

As Aron-Ra just explained, TOE predicts that successful inter-breeding will only occur between closely related species. As the distance between two species widens, successful inter-breeding becomes rarer and eventually non-existant.

This is what we observe in nature.

What information about TOE made you think the theory was out of synch with reality? What information about TOE made you think it required there be no hindrance to interbreeding among species?

Whatever it was, chuck it. It is incorrect information.

 

[mrversatile48]

I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions? Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.
2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible. Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?

What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system. I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas? None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.]
What definition of species are we going by in this discussion? Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.[/color][/left]

Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?

There's that which is truth idea again. Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either! Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?

Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories. Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?​

It's all interpretation, guys

& the best interpreter is God

Must go!​

 

[gluadys]

I know I'm a few pages behind, but WOW, please tell me how! I was not aware of this.


Oh... nevermind. I just realized there's 59 pages and not 10...

Welcome Matt. Don't let the 59 (now 62) pages throw you. The answer to your question is in them. Take your time and read them.

To save time you might go to my post on page 59. It's a short summary of two common creationist claims that have been fully disproved (global flood and simultaneous creation of all species.)

Elsewhere on this forum is a whole thread presenting the geological evidence that proves the flood was not global. More good reading.

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflabben, thank you for your answers. I still don't get your position, but if you don't mind I'll keep on asking questions untill I get it.

Now that is communication and what I have been asking people for.

Indeed, I saw the correction made later on. If you agree, I'd like to use the corrected definition:

Since I asked you whether you agreed with the definition and you wrote you can work with it, I don't see the difference. If there are differences, where are these and why?

I asked the question because many people tend to read into answers rather than work with the answers given as you are doing.

Because other animals don't stay in their immature forms and reproduce in these forms. That's what makes them different species, not just them being immature forms of the same species.

This can be unique to the species, or it can be evidence for E. The bottom line, it is one of the gray areas in the definition of species. I consider it the same species because of the fact that they grow up to be the same species as their parents. In a similar way to a catapillar becomeing a butterfly. A catapillar does not mature into a frog, that would be a new species, or if it remained a catapillar dispite the environment, then it would be new species perion, not possible new species, possible built in adaptability to it's environment. Either is possible, I lean toward same species for the above reasons.

So, if you were presented with the same example, but then present in nature, you'd except that speciation had happened in nature? I'm getting a little confused here. We know speciation can happen in the laboratory, agree or not? Therefore, it is proof speciation can happen. That was all this example was meant to show, IIRC. Thus, evolution can happen, true of false? Your objection would then be not that evolution cannot happen, it is observed in the laboratory, but that evolution might not have happened in nature. Is that your postion?

Agreed and stated many times. E is possible based on the observations we have made. Because of the unanswered questions and possible explainations of the other theories, the possibility of E does not equal the TOE is fact. That spcies can change, yes, we have observed that. That this change can, did, and does occur to create new viable species has not yet been proven.

For me, I have considered some of the options you pointed out. Maybe we'll get to that later on.

They are starting to, but I'll keep asking you questions to at least get your position clear.

Thanks for the communication, it is much better than trying to go around proving how wrong someone is especially when we have already agreed that they are right.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because this is where your logic train derailed.



Can't you even follow your own ad hoc rationalizing? You suggested that the reasons dinosaurs became extinct before humans is because humans are still here --- in relation to the fact that we don't find human and dinosaur bones in the same strata --- while suggesting that humans an dinosaurs "might" have lived contemporaneously. Yet, crocodiles, who still exist today --- and do live contemporaneously with humans today --- are found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

How do you explain that inconsistency other than ad hoc handwaving? Don't forget, this is about you trying to excuse the fact that we don't find dinosaur and human bones in the same strata. We are looking for facts about evolution aren't we?

Well apparently you totally missed my point. First, I have never said, in fact, I am running out of ways of saying that the observations suggest that the TOE is possible. What do you people not understand about that statement? The TOE is possible. However, there are still many questions that the TOE cannot answer about the information we currently have and that is what makes the TOE theory. The same is true for the original theory of C, we have observations that suggest that the TOC could be possible but that the TOC still has many questions that cannot be answered by the current observations, thus making the TOC theory.

The comments you are refering to were comments that put forth possible answers to the many questions. NOTE possible answers, not absolute answers. To this, I was accused of many things that simply were not true. I was asked about dinosaur fossils and I said that since we are still here, and dinosaurs are extinct, we can assume that dinosaurs became extinct before man. Now this is somhow irrational, illogical thinking now. Show me the illogic in determining that an animal that is currently extinct, became extinct before modern man? Please, I am anxious to know the illogic to this statement.

 

[gluadys]

I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.

The important thing to me is that people not be turned away from faith by false impressions of what one is required to believe. Whether it is an atheist who is tentatively considering belief, or a person raised to believe creationism is an important aspect of belief who is discovering how riddled with falsehood it is, and questioning her faith because of it, creationism is a serious and unnecessary stumbling block to embracing Christianity whole-heartedly.

I also find that creationism is usually tied to bibliolatry (worship of the bible as the sole source of revelation instead of worship of Christ as the Word of God and openness to the testimony of the Holy Spirit and of creation itself) and to an unconscious but real gnosticism which denies the goodness and permanence of the material world --- a direct contradiction of God's assessment of the material world as "very good".

So, while the question of our origin may not be of earth-shattering importance in and of itself, for me it has very important theological and evangelical considerations. For me, as for doubtingmerle, discovering the truth of our evolutionary origins was indeed a life-changing experience which brought me closer to God. Otherwise I would probably have long since left the church and joined the ranks of the skeptics.

The most important fact to me about life is Jesus and what He did for everyone. Although there are many questions in life, none of them or their answers could mean to me what Jesus did means to me.

I agree. This is the most important fact, and I certainly don't think not understanding or agreeing with evolution is going to put anyone's relationship with God in jeopardy. But I also don't think you can box this fact off from other facts.

For example: the way in which one understands scripture will necessarily be influenced by the way one understands our origins in and relationship to the rest of nature. A strictly literal, chronological, historical reading of Gen. 1-11 and a scientific understanding of evolution are not compatible, and that will make a significant difference in how one relates to scripture and to the deity which inspired it.

 

[razzelflabben]

You're wrong. And your dismissing the tons and tons of evidence that I cited in my post does not turn it into "a minute amount." Didn't you notice that I bolded the word never every time I used it? In all our tons of dinosaur fossil finds, we never find any evidence of interaction with humans or human fossils in the same starta. Never.

Again, I go back to the forensics analogy. If you place the same level of evidence as a jury member at a murder trial no one would ever get convicted. If you want to wait until ever single square inch of soil in the Western Hemisphere is dug up and found free of Hominid fossils, that's your issue, not sciences.



Hon, I'm gonna need you to keep up with the discussion if it's going to be productive. We have found human remains in strata dating back 10-12,000 years. We have never found dinosaur remains dating back to less than 65 million years ago. We have found Australid and Hominid (did you notice I kept using those words) remaind back to around 3 million years ago. We have never found dinosaur remains younger than 65 million years ago. We have found dinosaur remains in the Western Hemisphere. We have never found Australid or Hominid fossils in the Western Hemisphere.

BTW, we've never found a fossilized human remain in the Western Hemisphere. 10,000 years is insufficient time for fossilization to occur. We have found bones and artifacts.



How about instead of just alluding to "possibilities" you present some? Again, I think the burden is on those who claim O.J. didn't kill Nichole to tell us why we have never found anything to contradict current evolutionary thinking (other than ad hoc rationalizations).



I'm even sorrier because after nearly 60 pages of having it explained to you in excruciatingly time consuming detail - you apparently wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you wearing a "Hi I'm a fact" t-shirt and shook hands with you. You're not interested in what is true, you're interested in "TRVTH" which you seem to think you have a monopoly on. I can't help you see the trees until you've realized you're in a forrest, not a field of dreams.

And I cannot help those who cannot accept there are still unanswered questions see that the evidence is not equal to proof. So I guess we are at an impass and I will count myself inriched to have crossed paths with you and move on. Please don't stop seeking truth, someday, you may find it if you keep looking, I plan to.

 

[razzelflabben]

Let me answer with a story:

...........
​

And that questioning has led to answers, including that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science, and is the obvious answer as to how we got here.


Your life too could be changed if you would stop typing for one afternoon and take a trip to a library.

Herein was your first mistake dear one, you assumed that E was not possible. Of course it is possible. If you had begun your quest by assuming what was possible, you would not have had such a life changing experience.

But, thank you for the story, it was definately interesting. I do not know what makes you think that I have not spent time studying, but that is okay, many people think I am not very smart because I do not relate names and dates well, but I assure you, I do understand the data. I also understand that there are many unanswered questions and those are what allow for possibilities for other answers. Why is that so beyond understanding? Even from your story, I cannot fathom how you can claim to seek truth and yet be satified at finding truth when there are a multitude of unanswered questions surrounding the theory of Evolution. How does one do that except for faith? And faith is the root of a belief system and I have been told repeatedly that the TOE is not a belief system. How do me make that jump? Where are the missing links?

 

[gluadys]

Relevance to evolution/change/development etc?

It charts the process so clearly seen, throughout history, in the lives of individuals..communities..cities..continents..the world

It starts with refusing to acknowlege God as God - as Lord of life - refusing to thank & praise Him for His many blessings

For me and for many theistic evolutionists, the acceptance of evolution as God's chosen means of creation begins in trusting God and the testimony God has given to his creation. (Psalm 19:1-4a)

We do not believe creation gives false testimony (or even can give false testimony) about its own origin.

We believe evolution is true, because we believe God is true.

 

[gluadys]

"In every flower that opens..

In every grain of sand!"

Joe Public readers out there, your God-given eyes, ears, minds etc can see the clear proof of God's stupendous design - especially thru telescopes & microscopes too - sites online show 'em, yes?

Don't be intimidated by evo-loopies

God bless!

Ian

No disrespect to Bob Dylan (one of my favorite lyricists), but while he may have set the words to music, the poet in this case was William Blake.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is a false assumption about TOE. It is an indication that your information about TOE is incorrect and leads you to make false predictions based on faulty information.

As Aron-Ra just explained, TOE predicts that successful inter-breeding will only occur between closely related species. As the distance between two species widens, successful inter-breeding becomes rarer and eventually non-existant.

This is what we observe in nature.

What information about TOE made you think the theory was out of synch with reality? What information about TOE made you think it required there be no hindrance to interbreeding among species?

Whatever it was, chuck it. It is incorrect information.

Okay, if I have it wrong, then define E because as it has been taught to me, the TOE is about species changing and developing into new creatures. These creatures evolve into new creatures, and so forth and so on until be have a new species. This occurs over time and therefore we see a whole bunch of species decendant from a common ancestor.

Now I know I am not good at definitions, but that is the basics I was taught. If there are reproductive problems within the evolving species, how then can we be sure that the species evolve into new creatures to the degree that we have a variety of species from the same ancestor. It don't not mean it is impossible, but does provide a great deal of speculation.

 

[gluadys]

This is not a totally fair evaluation, but somewhat helpful.

I am glad you find it helpful. If you want to be specific about any unfairness, I will correct that.

Just some things that I want to touch on. You people have been pushing the discussion to E vs. C not me.

I have just noted that you have not discussed ID at all or used any of its concepts.

Secondly, you totally fail to evaluate the TOE as you have done the other theories. Including the areas where the theory fails.

I am not aware of any area in which TOE fails. That is why I did not discuss that. Would you like to enlighten me?

And yes, we know that there are areas where the TOE cannot answer all the questions.

No theory answers all questions. The point is, does it answer the questions it tries to answer. Are its answers the best possible given currently available evidence?

Are there questions of this type which TOE does not answer? or for which it is not the best available answer?

Thirdly, to put forth possibilities is scientific in nature. It is how we determine what is possible and what is not. So how does putting forth possibilities equal lack of scientific misconceptions.

Putting forth possibilities is only the beginning. One must also test those possibilities.

By all means, correct the misconceptions, that is what communication is all about. I have been surprised already several times on this thread by how much the TOE has changed since I studied it in school, how much many of you differ in your understanding of the theory and how much the theory now resembles the TOC during it's own evolution as a theory.

As I already explained, that is because the TOC has been drastically changed to conform to evidence it could no longer ignore. Evidence which supports TOE. TOC in the last 50 years has adopted a great deal of TOE theory into itself---theory which it used to repudiate.

 

[gluadys]

Well apparently you totally missed my point. First, I have never said, in fact, I am running out of ways of saying that the observations suggest that the TOE is possible. What do you people not understand about that statement? The TOE is possible.

I do think we all understand that this is your position.

However, there are still many questions that the TOE cannot answer about the information we currently have and that is what makes the TOE theory.

This is what we do not understand.

What questions does TOE not answer?
Since the evidence we do have (the answered questions) confirm that evolution does happen, is not evolution a fact as well as a theory?
Why should we deny that evolution really does happen while waiting for more evidence to give us additional insight into how it happens?

The same is true for the original theory of C, we have observations that suggest that the TOC could be possible

This we also do not understand.

What observations suggest TOC could be possible? (And remember these cannot be observations which would be true for both TOC and TOE, but true only for TOC.)

but that the TOC still has many questions that cannot be answered by the current observations, thus making the TOC theory.

You are also overlooking the point that (except where it fully agrees with TOE) TOC does not simply fail to answer questions. Its claims (global flood, simultaneous creation of species, etc.) are contradicted by the evidence.

This makes it a falsified theory.

Show me the illogic in determining that an animal that is currently extinct, became extinct before modern man? Please, I am anxious to know the illogic to this statement.

You are subtly leaving out a key word.

You are saying (correctly) that dinosaurs became extinct before modern man.

But what others are saying is that dinosaurs became extinct before modern man existed.

Are you willing to add the bolded word to your statement?

Furthermore, the evidence shows that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years before modern man existed.

Are you willing to agree with that complete statement?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions?

I already did. We're trying to establish several things here, most importantly, what exactly a Biblical "kind" is. It is the most critical thing we need to determine in order to settle this debate.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, if you only accept some definition of "micro" evolution. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and the categories we've put them in would be invalid.

Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.

You are mistaken. Our definitions of that aren't relevant here.

2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible.

Obviously the perceptive failure is yours. Creationism has been disproved. So it is no longer a possibility. There are millions of facts available for the origins of our species, our genus, our order, etc. But all of them point to evolutionary processes exclusively with no available space to squeeze any pre-human myths of Eden into.

Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?

To be quite blunt, evolution is the only available Theory of our origins. There has never been a Theory of creationism, and I doubt very much that there ever will be one. In science, a Theory is the study, and explanation of facts. For example atomic Theory is the study of the function and properties of atoms. Creation theory must therefore be the study of that which can't be studied, (because it is believed only on faith) and it would therefore be an explanation for the unexplainable, which currently can only described as magic.

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
--Stephen Hawking; A Brief History of Time

So, by proposing a theory of creationism, it is incumbent on you to explain the processes of creation, and to explain what facts you do have better, and more plausibly than any competing concept. Plus you are required to establish testible predictions by which we might potentially falsify this theory. If you can't do either one, then creation simply doesn't qualify as a theory, leaving evolution as the only viable one.

What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system.

Wrong again, as I will gladly demonstrate with another quote from Hawking's book:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas?

Exactly! That is why I am asking these questions! Here is the only place you're ever going to find the reality of this situation. By insisting on some micro vs macroevolutionary division, the creationist reduces the evolutionary tree of life to a series of small shrubs that do not share any common root. This series of queries is meant to help determine whether this model is accurate or not.

None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.

You have never encountered any question more critical than these. Everything else you argue for is off-topic. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is in any or all of these sets of questions.

What definition of species are we going by in this discussion?

It doesn't matter. The question is do you think (A) is biologically related to (B) through some acceptibly minimal evolutionary means? Or do you think (A) was specially-created by a god entirely unrelated to (B) and therefore an entirely different Biblical "kind" from it? You don't need any biological clade definitions to determine that.

Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.

I research everything I respond to. Don't you? Feel free to look each of these up if you must. Then answer the question, yes or no, as best you can. Then we can look at each of these more in-depth. I suspect only then will you begin to realize why scientists consider the evidence of evolution so "overwhelming" and the evidence of creation so utterly absent.

Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?

That's why I asked you to explain, which are created and which are related. You see, I wholly disagree that there is any evidence of creationism whatsoever. All science-based concepts readily attempt to explain even complex data in detail. But creationists all too often want to avoid all the most critical data altogether, dismissing it all as "irrelevent". But only by really attempting to delve into these will you ever be able to hone in on the truth.

There's that which is truth idea again.

I don't think that's quite an accurate assumption. I'm allowing that you probably accept some degree of evolution, which you probably refer to as microevolution. Whether you define that properly or not, my queries still allow that both concepts might be partially true at the same time. But of course, my suspicion at this point is that only one of them is really true at any level at all. Can you change my mind about that?

Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either!

This thread is about challenging evolution. You can't begin to do that if you refuse to deal with the single most powerful evidence of macroevolutionary common ancestry, the twin-nested heirarchy of systematic taxonomy. If you insist on limiting your argument only to species, you'll never present any challenge at all, and will never discover the truth either.

Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?

I'm asking you if you think Parentie monitors evolved from a common ancestor with any other variety of monitor lizards? Or were the perentie, and all other monitors magically created, and only look like they're related? I know what is possible in the "theory" of magic: miracles. Anything is possible when you don't have to explain it. But in the Theory of evolution, there are very specific rules, and there should be at least an attempt to seek the best explanation for everything. So that's what I'm asking you for. These really aren't such a tough questions. They're all pretty straight-forward really. So I don't see why you're so hesitent to propose an answer for them.

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

Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories.

There is only one theory, as there is only one that provides any answers of any verifiable, demonstrable, testible, measurable, or applicable nature.

Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?

Not at all. When I ask a series of yes or no questions, I generally expect a concordant series of yes or no answers. Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers? Yes or no? Give me your best guess, and some reasoning behind it, if you would please. Then I can use that to better understand your position, and help you better understand mine.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, if I have it wrong, then define E because as it has been taught to me, the TOE is about species changing and developing into new creatures.

Right so far.

These creatures evolve into new creatures, and so forth and so on until be have a new species. This occurs over time and therefore we see a whole bunch of species decendant from a common ancestor.

Correct.

If there are reproductive problems within the evolving species, how then can we be sure that the species evolve into new creatures to the degree that we have a variety of species from the same ancestor. It don't not mean it is impossible, but does provide a great deal of speculation.

ok, here we have the problem, and I am not too sure I understand your question.

First, we are defining a species as a population in which the individuals freely mate within the group, but do not normally (in nature) mate with those outside the group.

Now, we can separate that population into different geographical regions or different ecological niches. While separated, they would not be able to mate with the other groups for purely physical reasons. Would that make the sub-groups different species?

No, not in itself. We could check that out by bringing them back together again. If individuals from the different sub-groups freely mate with each other now that they are no longer separated, we conclude they are still the same species.

But what if, even when they have ample opportunity to mate with the other sub-groups, individuals show a distinct preference for mating only with other individuals from their own sub-group?

Something has happened. For one thing, they have developed a way to recognize individuals from their own sub-group, even when the groups have been brought back together. If we examine them carefully, we may be able to determine what that recognition factor is. This preference for mating within one's own sub-group can be an initial factor in speciation.

And what if, even when individuals from two different sub-groups do mate, their offspring are fewer and/or less viable that the offspring of those pairs where the mating is kept within one sub-group?

This suggests a more profound change that simple preference for one's own group. A careful examination of the genetic factors of the two groups may turn up differences that explain the relative lack of reproductive success. Since both sub-groups were originally the same---but are now genetically different---some degree of evolution has occurred. There has been a change in one or both sub-groups which is beginning to create a reprodcutive barrier between them.

If the two sub-groups continue to mate almost exclusively within their own group, further differences could arise. We could find next that when matings do occur between the groups, that all the offspring are sterile. Or that no offspring are born at all. We could find that new morphological or behavioral changes make it impossible for individuals from the two groups to mate at all. (e.g. they may adapt to their own ecological niche in such a way that they come into their breeding season at different times of the year.)

When we get to this point, that reproductive success and/or reproduction and/or mating itself is impossible, we have complete reproductive isolation and two (or more) species where there was formerly one.

Is that clear? Does it explain why increased difficulty in interbreeding is evidence that evolution is occurring?

(Refer back to the post on observed speciation. This is "allopatric speciation" and was produced in the experiment on Drosophila. We have also seen this occur in nature, with Drosophila again in Evolution Canyon in Israel, in the mosquito evolution in the London subway system, in ring species, etc.)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Herein was your first mistake dear one,
......Where are the missing links?

Razzelflabben obviously ignored everything Merle just said. When he said that he found thousands of transitional species described in shelves full of volumes of science journals in a University library, Razzelflabben somehow assumed these were all based on faith and dared to ask where they are! What more can you expect from someone who criticizes research as "your first mistake".

When you answer my questions, Razzelflabben, you'll discover a lot of your transitionals right there, with many more profound ones waiting in the wings, to be introduced in our next exchange, much more than you could ever need.

 

[gluadys]

I have identified some of razzelflaben's problems of communicaton in this thread as lack of understanding of scientific method and misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions about TOE.

Here I am attempting to show the errors and in some cases to correct them.

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

1. incorrect assumption about science/scientific method
"Evil" is a moral term. Evolution is about biology. Morality is not explained in terms of biology.

2. incorrect assumption about TOE
The TOE does not present evolution as a program to achieve perfection. (This is a pseudo-claim about evolution sometimes presented in creationist literature, but has no place in real science.) Evolution is a program through which species become better adapted to their environment. Since species live in many different environments and ecological niches, it is inappropriate to consider one more "perfect" than another.

science cannot be used to prove evolution for by the very nature of science as well as the theory, it cannot be proven.

1. incorrect assumption about science/scientific method
Because science is derived from and supported by objective evidence in nature, and because we have not fully explored or understood nature, nothing in science is technically "proved" as a mathematics or logical solution is. All theories are provisional in the sense that they reflect our current understanding of nature.

Nevertheless, it is also wrong to assume that we cannot be very certain that a theory is true. There are degrees of uncertainty from a) highly improbable, to b) not probable to c) could go either way, to d) likely to e) very likely to f) so highly probable we may as well treat it as fact. TOE falls in the last category. It is only "unproven" in the highly technical sense that there is always a very minute chance of evidence turning up to refute it. So for all practical purposes TOE has been proven. Nothing in the nature of science or of scientific theory prevents this.

the scientific "evidence" must be interpreted. This interpretation is done by man, man makes mistakes,

This probably falls in a general category of logical fallacy. The general proposition "Man makes mistakes" cannot be used to support the proposition "This interpretation is mistaken." While humans do make mistakes, they do not always make mistakes. So we cannot assume that any particular interpretation is a mistake. It must be shown in each case that there is a mistake.

Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale.

1. incorrect assumption about TOE.
TOE does not assert that any creature must change from what it is. Many creatures have not changed much for hundreds of millions of years---much longer that the whole life-span of hominid creatures.

Whether and how fast any creature will evolve depends on a complex interplay of environmental pressures, available genetic diversity and the impact of natural & sexual selection and of genetic drift.

2. incorrect assumption about evolution
evolution is not a "ladder" or "scale" on which species can be ranked as "higher" or "lower". This is basically the religious icon of the Great Chain of Being, which situates species as closer to (higher) or farther away from (lower) God. It is not applicable to the branching process of evolution.

Fraud or not, it [Paluxy tracks] does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation0

incorrect conclusion about evidence.

Actually, under some circumstances, the existence of human footprints with dinosaur footprints would not be a problem for TOE. The circumstances required would be that not only human traces be that old, but also traces of the plausible ancestors of humans be that old or older.

And this leads into why the last phrase "it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time" is far from being correct.

Lack of evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is only a drop in the bucket. If the TOC claim of simultaneous creation of species is to be taken seriously, we also need evidence of chimp-dino co-existence, of bear-dino co-existence, of eagle-dino co-existence. Further we need evidence of whale-trilobite co-existence, of crocodile-Acanthostega co-existence, of rose-giant club moss co-existence and many many more observations of the ancient existence of modern species alongside that of now extinct species.

Now it is true that we have explored only a small fraction of the earth for fossils. But we have explored fossil sites of various ages all over the world and found thousands upon thousands of fossils. Surely it is a fair assumption that we have explored a representative sample of all potential fossils. (Just as opinion polls don't rely on calling every individual, but on a representative sample of opinion.)

And in this representative sample we have nowhere found even one instance of the sort of overall co-existence of species simultaneous creation calls for. Not one.

So either simultaneous creation did not happen, or the sample we have is not representative. But what could make each and every one of the hundreds of fossil sites explored so different from the norm that not even one of them includes the barest hint of simultaneous creation?

The score ought to read:
creationism 0
evolution: thousands and thousands of fossils from hundreds of fossil sites.

In my book, that is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

Is there a name for this fallacy which presumes that a non-expert can perceive the strengths and weaknesses in a debate between experts?

Suppose two experienced jet engine mechanics have a debate about a new jet engine. On what basis can I, who know zilch about jet engines, decide whether or not an argument on either side is "strong"?

Or if two dentists are debating about a new dental treatment? Or two professors of English literature are debating a point about Shakespeare's treatment of Macbeth?

Unless I myself have some knowledge in the field, I have no frame of reference for recognizing strong or weak points.