Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

I mentioned a few of these. organisation of ERVs and ALUs only really make sense in the light of TOE.

This is so frustrating, I leave long enough to feed my kids and come back to a few dozen new posts, I think you people are really robots. So in the words of johnny five, imput.

 

[gluadys]

and we do not know for sure that breeding, thus evolving can continue from the evidence, only assumptions and speculations that it can and does happen. In other words, our speciation evidence is too limiting to know for sure.

Yes, we do know for sure, for as you have been informed many times, with examples, we have actually seen speciation occur. It only takes one example of speciation to confirm that evolution is a fact, and we have seen many more than one.

Okay, new evidence, where did all these organisms come from

From their ancestors. Remember we began with a population A. When a part of it separated out to a new area, we are not assuming that it was only one lone individual; it was a sub-set of population A consisting of many individuals. And it was the whole sub-set that evolved into population B, not just one or two individuals. (To understand this more fully, you need to understand how natural selection works.)

and how did thousands of organisms evolve into a viable breeding source of male and female (later down the line) because there would not have been a need for male and female species to evolve.

No, males and females are not different species. By the time you read this again you will have seen the post on hermaphrodite species. If you still have questions, ask.

Asexual is the way to go if you want to survive.

Actually its not. To survive in a dynamically changing environment you want to be prepared for changing times with lots of potential variation. Species that reproduce sexually are much better at that than species which use a-sexual reproduction. A good book on this is The Cooperative Gene by Mark Ridley. (I believe I recommended this to you once before.)

This is definately new teaching, but does not change the questions I have asked in this post.

It may be new to you, but it is not new to TOE. You can find it in the first edition of Origin of Species published in 1859.

 

[gluadys]

It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.

No, because you actually need only one new species capable of reproducing for evolution to continue and we have many more than that. So the evidence along this line is conclusive indeed.

 

[Tomk80]

People, this is getting quite confusing here. Couldn't we put up a list of issues and start seperate threads on those? I think this would make it more understandable for Razzelflabben also.

Second, Razzelflabben. At this point I don't think presenting other independent lines of evidence for evolution is feasable here (for example treating ERV's in detail), since you already have trouble keeping up at this point. Especially since some other important issues, like what is and is not speciation, are not resolved yet. I really think you should focus on one debating point for clarity.

 

[gluadys]

Got it, but this doesn't address the down the road issues.

So we address the down the road issues when we get to them. Remember that list I gave you of all the aspects of evolution? You won't get all the answers from the answer to one question.

So keep asking.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

You have a good point there Tomk80. I am having trouble keeeping up with this thread and I have more free time than Razzelflabben, since I do not have Kids to feed etc.

Mind you I should be working on a magazine article, but there you have it.

Ghost

 

[razzelflabben]

My apologies. You did say "conclusive". So, let me rephrase the question: What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?

I do not think there can be conclusive evidence which is a sentiment presented by some scientists that I was asked to read. At least not in this life time.

But you being emotional isn't what I proposed, was it? I proposed you could not find the data for evolution conclusive, because, if you did, it would cause you emotional distress.

Absoltuely not, No distress, enotional or otherwise. So rethinking about a few odds and ends but nothing more strenuous than that. In fact, I have recently had a lot more challening issues to deal with in my life and I have come through the emotiona distress of them just fine. I am not afraid of the hard questions and the even harder answers, in some ways I thrive on them.

But you admit that TOC is founded on Genesis 1 and other passages of the Bible. What happens to Genesis 1 and the Bible, in your opinion, if evolution is true and TOC is false?

You are asking me a hypothetical questions for there is no proof to back it up. If that were the case however, and the evidence was conclusive I would most likely (not sure because it is hypothetical) study to see if the passage could be on the lines of a story rather than an actual account. If that did not prove to be the case, then I would reconside the apparent contridictions, and do a lot more searching.

Let me ask you the same question, if science found a way to conclusively prove the Gen account of C how would it change your thinking? Would you be able to accept it without the emotional distress you suggest I would find?

Even the name -- Theory of Creation -- seems significant. It looks to me that if the Theory of Creation is wrong, then Creation didn't happen. Is that how it is for you? Would Creation by God still happen? If so, how? If TOC is wrong, how would God have created?

I think I covered this, if not, let me know, but please I am interested in your answers to the questions if the opposite were true.

Well, guess what? You share that passion with all those who showed TOC to be wrong and evolution to be correct! Remember, TOC was the accepted scientific theory between 1700 -1831. But scientists abandoned TOC. These scientists were all Christian and most were ministers. They must have had a reason to decide TOC was wrong. Remember, Darwin started out thinking TOC was correct. What does your research tell you that was?

I do not understand this question? What does your research tell you that was? What was? I am not interested in which theory is right or wrong, at least on this thread, only in knowing if there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE and so far, I haven't seen it. I have seen strong evidence, I have seen suggestions, I have seen assertions, but no overwhelming evidence.

And why do you have that belief system that we have a long way to go before we can know the truth about our origins? You haven't read Origin of the Species. I don't think you have read any textbook on evolutionary biology. So how do you know what we already know?

Believe what you will, I have no control over what you believe and do not believe, and no fear in not controling your thoughts. I believe we have a long way to go because there are many unanswered questions out there. And much more we can learn and know and experience about our world, things that we have not even scratched the surface of knowing still await exploration. That is why I don't think we can know in this life time all the origin of life answers.

Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Look at the sheer number of papers that have been done on the subject since 1965 in a medical database. Over 160,000. Don't you think those investigations would have told us something about our origins?

Shall I point you to all the information we do not yet have, much of which we don't even know we do not have yet. Why do we go into outerspace, the depths of the oceans, the depths of the earth if we have all the answers we seek? Why do we continue to explore if we already know the answers to the questions we ask? There is much much much more to learn and explore and research and observe before we can know the answers to the questions in this world, including the quesiton of the origins of life.

 

[gluadys]

Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.

Not entirely no. But it is restricted to closely related species. And most evolution does not happen through these inter-species matings, but through the ordinary within-species breeding.

Are you wanting to change the definition of kind to something larger than a species?

That is what happened to TOC in the 19th century. You would be following a well-trod creationist pathway by enlarging the definition of kind.

Of course, if you carry this enlargement of "kind" to the ultimate conclusion, you end up defining "kind" in the same way evolution does: as including all of life past and present.

If that is not acceptable to you, you have to find a place between "species" and "all of life" where you can say that the ancestors of two selected species were never able to breed with each other.

And that means you have to be able to answer one of Aron-ra's questions with a definite "NO" and be able to say why.

 

[lucaspa]

It is the not all that leave the speciation of living things inconclusive evidence for the TOE.

Razzel, Gluadys accidentally confused you. All new species can reproduce within the species. What causes extinction is not failure to reproduce but failure to deal with either environmental changes or competing species. For instance, the coati is extending its range from S. America to N. America. It occupies the same ecological niche as raccoons. Where the coati is, local raccoon populations disappear. The coatis grab the food and other resources. When the coatis have gone to all parts of N. America where there are raccoons, raccoons will have gone extinct.

 

[Tomk80]

As long as there is no answer to the suggestions done earlier, but by others and by me, to start a new one, I'm wondering about another position you have on species Razzelflabben.
Do you consider donkey's and horses to be of the same species?
Do you consider them to be seperate creations or species derived from a common ancestor?

And to both questions, could you also explain in a little bit of detail why? Because I'm getting totally confused at your understanding of the concepts kinds/species and speciation, and this might at least clear up a bit of my confusion.

 

[lucaspa]

Able to reproduce is not limited to species, even in the TOE.

Pretty much. The biological species concept is population of individuals who freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, since speciation takes a number of generations, there is no hard and fast line when one species changes to another. That is, at generation 1 two separated populations are the same species. But at generation 1,000 they can't interbreed. But that separation is a gradual process. You can't say "at generation 500 the 2 populations are still one species but at generation 501 they are 2 different species."

But notice that with TOC you shouldn't have this difficulty. TOC as in Genesis 1 says kinds can always breed within the kind. There should be a sharp dividing line between kinds. That you can't find one is another piece of evidence that TOC is not how God creates.

 

[lucaspa]

The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.

Where in the Bible -- your source for TOC -- is this mentioned.

You said "Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce." But what I am talking about is the exact REVERSE of this. We started with a situation where they did reproduce. Then we ended up with 2 populations that could not reproduce with each other. By what you said, we ended up at "the species were not able to reproduce". We made new kinds.

I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.

Well, then, the lab experiments are not at all what you say. One original population, then split into several populations (each with 500 individuals). Population A is captured from the wild and is kept in the original environmental conditions. Population B is placed at colder temperatures. Population C has different food than A and B. Now, after 2,500 generations, population A is the original species. It can still breed with the wild population. However, populations B and C can't breed with A or the wild. They can't breed with each other. So, where we had one kind: A, we now have three kinds: A, B, and C.

Did you follow all that?

 

[lucaspa]

From history, we know that not all burial was dug. Some were in caves. And BTW, how does this prove that the fossil record is conclusive?

It doesn't. All it does is remove an argument against it. Some people have claimed that some fhuman ossils are older than they are because they were buried and thus were found in sediments lower (older) than when they actually lived and died. Burial made the fossils look older.

If I wasn't thinking, I would blindly follow the teaching without ever offering questions or hypothesis.

But why aren't you reading in the subject? Both what creationists are saying what TOC is and what biologists say evolution is? It's apparent that you are doing some reading. You tell us that TOC comes from Genesis, but the idea that speciation is part of TOC comes from articles at ICR and AiG written since 1995 or so. It's a very recent addition/change to TOC. And not a change based on the Bible!

What basic common sense would you have me apply, that burial can only occur by digging a hole.

No, that burial does occur by digging a hole. And it is this hole that is going to have the fossil appear to be in sediments older than when the individual lived and died.

Razzel, remember the claims. ALWAYS remember the claims. Testing and arguments are done in relation to claims. If you don't remember the claims, you end up posting the irrelevancy of burial in caves where the body is just set on top of the existing rock.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, I am functioning on about 3 hours sleep, my eyes are getting blurry and I have some other issues on the forum I need to address before I get off for the night. I would appreciate things slowing a bit so I can keep up but this thread has a mind of it's own. Hope I don't miss something important.

Hey, you don't have to come to this board every day. And you don't have to answer every new post in one day. Just let us know when you are signing off for the day and that it may be a day or two before you get back. Basically, the thread will slow down if you do. Or if it keeps going it will be other people's conversations that you can ignore.

Do you know how to navigate using the "threaded mode". That way you only need to look at responses to your own post and can ignore side conversations.

How do new species occur? The mixing of genes?

Not usually no. I have met other creationists who think that cross-breeding is essential to evolution. But in the very first chapter of Origin of Species Darwin writes a segment on why this cannot be the case. Most new species occur through the prevention of breeding within the species, as we have shown you. Not through crossing different species.

If I breed two creatures that have similar but not identical genes, which set of genes does the offspring take? Remember, the answer cannot be both or you just answered your own question.

Actually the answer can be both. There is an exception to what I just said above, about cross-breeding between two different species not being the usual way to get new species. It is rare (for all I know, non-existent) in animals, but it is found fairly often in plants.

It is called "hybridization + polyploidy". Now, as you know, crossing two types of plants to get a hybrid is relatively common. Lots of seeds are hybrids. But these hybrids don't make new species. You can only use them in your garden for one year's planting. If you save the seed and try to reuse it, it will either not germinate at all, produce weak seedlings, or in any case give you a weird mixture of characters some of them not seen in the parent hybrid at all.

Why this happens is explained by Mendelian genetics.

So hybridization alone will not give you a new species.

But when you add "polyploidy" to hybridization, you can get a new species.

One reason hybridization alone will not give a new species is that the male parent's chromosomes and the female parent's chromosomes do not match up well and make reproduction difficult.

Polyploidy is a mutation that gives the new species a double set of the male parent's chromosomes, and a double set of the female parent's chromosomes. In short, the new species has a new chromosome number which is equal to the chromosome number of the two parents added together.

Now, because the new species has a double set of both the male and female parent's chromosomes, every chromosome has a familiar mate to pair up with, and cell division for reproduction occurs normally with none of the problems seen in hybrids without polyploidy.

Where do the hundreds come from? How do we get variations, if this is inconsistant with the TOC?

How do we get variations even with TOC? How does TOC explain variation?

A common ancestor, that was a single celled organism that was not a single celled organism at all but rather a population of single celled organisms that came from an unknown source to populate the earth.

Not from an unknown source. From abiogenesis: the creation of life from what is not living. You know, like in the book of Genesis.

Where does Genesis say God created only two snails or only one fig tree?

Of course, scientists are also working out how God caused abiogenesis from natural causes as lucaspa described. But those causes also suggest that the first living form emerged as a population, not as one or two individuals.

Single cells reproduce asexually, so there is no mating. But evolution still happens because there are still copying error in the DNA to make variation between single-celled organisms.

Right that explains all the reproductive processes we know today.

No, it explains why there were no mating problems as with the mule. Changing the question after you have been given the answer to the one you asked is hardly fair. You did not ask about "all the reproductive processes we know today."

Nope sorry, I was told on this thread that all the unanswered questions were answered.

All your unanswered questions have been answered, at least the ones you've asked, and when you ask more, I expect there will be answers for them too. The unanswered questions lucaspa was referring to are not the same questions.

So, while we don't know all the various ways that populations can become isolated, we do know that, when they are isolated facing new environments, new species will evolve.

But not that they did. That is why it is still a theory. Because we assume that it did.

What are you saying? That we can be sure, as lucaspa said, that new species will evolve, but that we cannot be sure that today's species did evolve?

Why not? There are a lot of things about todays species (those ERVs and ALUs among others, and ring species, and those stubbornly infertile mules) that cannot be explained in any other way.

Sorry, but TOE is based on the idea of common ancestors. Not a single organism. If life arose from non-life via protocells, as I think is likely, there were billions of organisms. If life arose by the RNA world, there were billions of RNA molecules. At least! Probably trillions or even higher.

As you think likely, I thought we had overwhelming evidence!!!!

Overwhelming evidence of evolution. Here lucaspa is talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

She agrees that speciation occurs, but still insists evolution is "only a possibility for which there is no overwhelming evidence."

That's because she is forgetting the title of Darwin's book. Origin of the SPECIES. Not "every living thing comes from a single cell", but the origin of species.

So, what has happened is Razzel has incorporated speciation into TOC. She isn't really discussing evolution anymore, because she is admitting it happened. She is arguing theism vs atheism. Deep down to her evolution = atheism. So evolution is always going to be a "possibility".

 

[gluadys]

Why do you all treat people you believe to be C like they we uneducated idiots? I know fully well what you are saying and have understood it for many many posts now.

Well you haven't said until now that you have understood us. You have just kept on asking the same questions that we thought we had answered clearly. If you do not want to look like an idiot, tell us what you have understood and rephrase the question so that we know what we haven't covered. Don't act like you are ignoring the answers you have been given.

What you are not understanding is that I am not talking about interbreeding, but rather the ability to breed. I should be talking down to you people but instead, I bear your insults, no matter how subtle and continure on as best I can. Please do try to apply some logic and reason to your own post from now on, (statement to whomever on this thread needs to wear the shoe).

So define your terms.

What, in your opinion, is inter-breeding?
What is breeding?

Isn't lucaspa describing two species which are successfully breeding? (not inter-breeding)?

Where is the problem you see that we are too stupid to see.

Help us out here Razzelflaben. We don't know what problem you are talking about. Using lucaspa's salmon example, show us what the problem is.

 

[lucaspa]

As I understand it, the theory used to say, that everything was descended from one organism,

This is what the theory originally said:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

now, we are saying that there were several organisms that each sperately started evolving. This is very similar to the Gen account of creation. God created a bunch of organisms. The difference is in how far back we go.

We are not similar to Genesis. We are still saying there was a common ancestor population or species, but we are saying that this common ancestor species had many, many, individuals.

 

[gluadys]

imput, imput

So now we are basing the whole theory on appearance? My in laws say that our eldest son is the spitting image of my father in laws brothers, son. I guess that would mean that they are closer relatives than my other children? NO, there is more to it than appearance.

Not just appearance. Similar appearance is a guide. But we also have to look at what the cause of the similar appearance is.

btw, how does TOC explain the fact that children have a similar appearance to their parents?

 

[gluadys]

The TOC allows for some "evolution" of species. Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce. In other words, if the animal cannot reproduce it is a new species but the kind is the parent of that species.

I know I know poor example but I'm tired give me a break. If a horse and a donkey produce a sterile offspring, the kind is horse and the kind is donkey. Mule is a hybred of the two kinds.

That's a weird idea even for TOC. Most versions of TOC would say the mule is possible because the horse and donkey are one kind, not two.

If horse is one kind and donkey is a different kind, does that mean they have no common ancestor? How could they produce any offspring at all then? (according to TOC?)

This is not evolution. It's not even the limited evolution some versions of TOC admit.

Evolution is not usually about two kinds making one new species. It is about one kind making two (or more) new species.

You have it all backwards about.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is when breeding stops all together and only the original populations are breedable.

That's not a problem. The original populations are the ones that are evolving.