Challenging Evolution

[razzelflabben]

sigh, so now you are changing the definition of overwhelming proof to "something for which there are no questions". so now absolutely nothing is valid anymore. we should drop quantum mechanics and general relativity because there is no overwhelming proof that they are correct. we should turn off our computers, because there is no overwhelming proof that we understand electrons and semicondictors. God and religion is right out, because there are definitely questions about that, and all those murderers and criminals should be let out of jail because clearly there are still questions about what they did...... need I go on?

Are we talking about overwhelming evidence, or reasonable doubt?

 

[razzelflabben]

can you define the word "overwhelming" for us?

My last post asked you a question first, how about you answer it first and maybe we can move on faster.

 

[razzelflabben]

C'mon now, I've never seen anyone post that all the questions have been answered. I have seen another poster describe your attitude as 'petulant', and I think that applies here. If you really feel that there is nothing to discuss, why are you posting so frequently? Maybe your passion for truth should lead you to seek the conclusions of actual, peer-reviewed scientists who work in the biological fields relevant to evolutionary theory. Why take our word for these things? See what the experts say.

-Ish

So now we are suppose to believe the TOE because peer review says so? How does one find truth? At least in your opinion?

 

[gluadys]

I
...and as of yet you have not provided evidence that is overwhelming for the TOE.

There is that assertion again, without an explanation again. What parts of the puzzle are still missing for you, Razzelflaben? If you don't tell us, we are just guessing, and guessing wrong about what you consider to be missing yet.

Please specify why the evidence is not overwhelming. What more do you need over and above observed speciation----which proves evolution is a fact?

1.And we both contain water as part of our makeup, does that mean that we are the same creature? 2. I am connected to birds in other ways as well, does that mean I will become extinct without the birds? These would be assumptions we could make based on the evidences presented. Sounds like a sound theory to me. How about you? Overwhelming evidence, we both have similar chemical makeups, we are connected on many levels. Yep, we must be the same creatures.

They are assumptions a person who doesn't know much about evolution might make in ignorance. I think you yourself know these are silly questions and you are just making them up as you go along. But I will treat them seriously.

1. It does not mean we are the same creature, but that we are the same kind of creature---a creature whose body is made up of a lot of water along with some other materials.

2. Do you mean that you personally would die, or that the human species would become extinct? Both could happen. It would not be the extinction of birds per se that might lead to your death or even the extinction of the human species. But what would the effect on the environment be?

For example, carnivorous birds eat many rodents and insectivorous birds eat insects. Both of these are often pests which spread disease or attack our food crops.

So the extinction of birds could mean that you and other humans are more exposed to disease and famine. So, yes, you could die of disease or hunger because birds became extinct. There is less likelihood that the whole human species would become extinct, but that possibility is not zero.

 

[gluadys]

And maybe no one lived here, maybe it was used for baptism only. And maybe it was used for some other ritual. And maybe it was not even used by chrisitans. See the problem is all the maybes, all the questions, that are not answered.

Those are not the questions that were raised. The question that was raised was whether John the Baptist was there.

The other questions are not pertinent to that one.


Which suggests something to me.


Maybe the problem you have with TOE is that your unanswered questions about evolution are really not pertinent to TOE. They are just questions added on as diversions. Could that be?

 

[JohnR7]

We don't lack overwhelming evidence since your admission that speciation is a fact. That's it. That's evolution! Game, set, and match!

Rule number one, admit to nothing. The main ploy of evolutionists is to ask questions that can only be answered by admitting to something. They are masters at coming up with those kind of questions.

Jesus did not always answer questions. He would usually ask a question of His own, and then answer His own question. Or if they refused to answer His question, then He would refuse to answer theirs.

 

[gluadys]

I am beginning to think that I am smarter than many of you here. I get this

Well you could have told us a lot sooner. Do you enjoy making people think you are dense?

And do you really get it? What point do you think we have been trying to make with this illustration of speciation?

but this has nothing to do with the point I was making

So, for those of us who still don't get it---what is that point?

(If it is the non-existant "new species which can't reproduce" point, you can skip it. We have got that one, and I hope you have too.)

 

[Ishmael Borg]

So now we are suppose to believe the TOE because peer review says so? How does one find truth? At least in your opinion?

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of published research papers, spanning a number of scientific disciplines, all pointing to evolution as the best explanation for today's species diversity. These papers were published by thousands of scientists who know more about their respective fields than you or I do. Nearly every biologist on the face of the planet subscribes to the theory. I figure they must be on to something.

It all comes down to deciding who's got the best shot at the truth. If you want to find out about science, look to scientists. If you want to learn about theology, seek out theologians.

I don't think this thread has much of a point anymore, so I think I'm out. I'll see you around in other threads maybe.

-Ish

 

[razzelflabben]

If everyone is saying much the same thing---and I agree they are---why not make just one post and address it to everyone?

because when I do, I am accused of not addressing a certain post.

And if you are tired---take a day off. You do not have to come everyday.

two problems, worked so long and so hard, I have forgotten how to take a day off. second, if I do, I will never ever catch up.

It is because it seems to take so long for you to understand anything we say. Now part of that is because you have not been telling us when you do understand things. And part of it is because you keep asking the same questions we have already answered---so it looks like you did not understand.

HUh? I say yea I get it but I am talking about... and that is somehow showing I don't get it? how?

No,you have never covered why you think the evidence is not overwhelming. You have just repeated and repeated your opinion.

Too many unanswered questions, too many assumptions, too little evidence to disprove other possibilities. That should about cover it.

Got that. But that doesn't answer the question that I asked. I asked how does TOC predict that population A will split into different groups and that after a time the groups (B and C) will no longer be able to interbreed with population A. I thought that TOC said this was never possible.

streamlineing the discussion, save the question for another time and place.

not answer the question.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

If I say yes, you will say that I don't act like I do and repeat it so why answer. I understand that that is the theory which is where my problem lies, but there are no questions left to be answered so we move on. I did make a resent post asking a related question to this, we will see if anyone answers it, it was not answered the first time it was asked.

[qupte]plain about people talking down to you. This is why. You keep bringing up the red herring of different species inter-breeding and producing a hybrid which cannot reproduce itself.[/quote] Huh? where was I talking about inter-breeding? no wonder you think I am putting up red herrings, you don't understand any questions I ask.

t is not an evolution scenario. The hybrid is not a new species.

You have been shown a different scenario. Many times. In that scenario we end up with parent population A, and daughter populations B and C. None of the three inter-breed well with each other, but they all breed easily within their own group.

This is an evolution scenario. Do you understand that this is an evolution scenario? Do you understand that the hybrid produced by inter-breeding is not an evolution scenario?

Yea, I think I am smart enough to understand this for the millionth time. Try listening to the question before answering the question.

[quoote]You see what you have just done? I said "you don't get a new species". And you start your answer by saying "if the new species cannot reproduce..."

The point, Razzleflaben is that there is no new species that cannot reproduce, so there is no species to speculate about with an "if the new species cannot reproduce" What new species that cannot reproduce? There is no new species that cannot reproduce.

Now if you have understood the scenario above, then you should understand that when you speak of hybrids produced by inter-breeding, you are not talking about an evolution scenario. Evolution doesn't stop, because what you are describing is not evolution. Using a correct evolution scenario shows that new species keep on reproducing.

Do you understand that now?

Can we stop talking about the problem of the mule now? Can we go on with the understanding that new species have no problem with continued reproduction? They keep on reproducing and they keep on evolving.[/quote]Sure, let us forget the hybrid, they do not support the TOE so let us ignore them completely. Sounds reasonable.

No, as usual, you have it backwards about. Even if your mythical non-breeding species could exist (and it does not), even if we had hundreds of new "non-breeding species" (how we would ever get that I don't know), all that is necessary for evolution to continue is one new species that reproduces normally.

And, in fact, all new species breed just fine. That is what makes them species.

Do you understand that now?

Since all new species do reproduce, the evidence is overwhelming, even on the basis of your false assumption. Because there is not even one new "species" which is not a viable breeder.

Is that clear now?

Yes, I do have questions.
What do you mean by "I have this one covered"?
Do you mean that you now understand that the common ancestor was a population, not an individual?

Yep, not a problem from way back when

Do you mean that your questions about the common ancestor have been cleared up? answered?

Are you asking me if I understand common ancestor or if I still have questions about common ancestory?

Do you mean you understand now why concern about having a suitable mate was misplaced?

Don't see anything that addresses the question I asked about suitable mates, only assumptions about what I don't know.

If any of these questions have not been cleared up, please explain what the ongoing problem is.
Depends on the type of question.

If the question is: do we know evolution is a fact---the answer is a resounding YES! There is no more question about the fact that evolution happens.

Is the definition here for evolution, (speciation)?

If the question is: do we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact---the answer again is YES! in spades!!!. Heaps and heaps of evidence which supports evolution and none which casts doubt on evolution.

What definition are we using here. For my assertion has always been the claim that there is overwhelming evidence to support the TOE, not evolution as defined by speciation.

If the question is more detailed, such as "how did the nucleus of the eukaryote cell evolve?" or "what is the exact lineage of Hydrangea arborescens? or "what genetic changes led to the development of feathers?"---sure, there are lots of unanswered questions.

But note the difference between this kind of question and those above. All of these questions take for granted that evolution is a fact. They are not questions which cast doubt on the theory of evolution. They are questions scientists seek answers to in order to fill in the details of our knowledge about evolution.

But, note that they are all related to the TOE which has always been the issue, are you just now coming to the understanding that there is a difference between speciation and the TOE or are you still asserting they are identical?

What explanations? You keep talking about these TOC explanations but you never tell us what they are. And "allowing room" for TOE explanations does not count. If TOC is a legitimate theory, it must come up with its own explanations.

We give you credit for knowing what you have told us you know. If you want more credit, tell us more of what you know. Show us that you really understand TOE instead of a strange straw man that has nothing to do with TOE.

If you believe different from what you were taught, you just have to say so. If you don't say where your beliefs differ from what you were taught, it is a natural assumption to think you believe it. Don't blame us for problems you create for yourself.

yea natural assumption that when I say the theory of evolution has changed from what I was taught, that I am holding to what I was taught. How do we make that assumption? This is why making assumptions do not equal overwhelming evidence.

See the examples above. The unanswered questions do not detract from the overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. They are a different kind of unanswered question.

You still haven't answered the question, do you understand that there is a difference between speciation (evolution) and the TOE?

 

[razzelflabben]

Hey, communication problems arise when different people are using the same words for different realities. Don't get peeved with me because I try to improve communication.

Do you agree with the definitions I set out?

breed = mating individuals of the same species
inter-breed= mating individuals of different species.

Is this how you understand these words? I just need a simple confirmation. Or if you define them differently, tell me what your definitions are.

For example, in this sentence: "I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me." what do you mean by "breed" and "interbreeding"?

yep, look at it a moment. species that cannot breed become extinct. Your definition, breed=mating individuals of the same species. Would a species that cannot breed become extinct?

Yeah, I can see your problem with how you don't know what I am talking about. If I can't breed with my own species, I become extinct. That is a really illogical statement. And I am accused of haveing problems with semantics!

 

[gluadys]

questions do not equal falsifications or has no one ever taught you that. Questions are just that, and if they are left unanswered, there is unsignificant proof to claim truth, because we still have unanswered questions.

Leaving out key words again. No, raising questions is not equal to falsification. Even not finding the answers is not falsification. Falsification occurs when a theory says "This must be so." and evidence answers "But it is not so."

But to get back to key words, you did not speak of raising questions, you spoke of calling into question the validity of TOE. That is quite different than asking questions.

And what proof do we have that environmental changes were subtle enough to allow for the change.

See the recent study on the Galapagos finches which shows clearly how subtle changes in the environment led to subtle changes in the characteristics of the species.

Migration of part of a species to a different habitat is another way of getting subtle changes in the environment. It is not so much that the environment changes, as that the species gradually moves into a different environment. But the consequences are the same. Ring species are an example of that.

Some species such as the dinos, did become extinct. or maybe they are extinct because they evolved into a different creature. Humm, what would the overwhelming evidence say about that. Which caused thier extinction?

As for what caused their extinction, it is widely believed that the meteorite which impacted the earth and caused the Chicxulub (sp?) crater led to severe environmental changes which hastened the extinction of the dinosaurs. Some people also point to the global effects of the volcanic activity in India around the same time.

And yes, at least some dinosaurs are extinct because they evolved into a different creature: birds. So in this case we can say that both processes brought about the extinction of dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs became extinct because of the changes in the environment likely caused by meterorite impact and/or major volcanic activity. And a few dinosuars are extinct because they evolved into birds.

but everything to do with what you assume I know.

Well, don't just complain about people making wrong assumptions. Correct the wrong assumptions by saying what is wrong with them.

When people assume (as often happens on these boards) that I am male, I don't fuss about it. I tell them I am female.

But that is why we should believe the assumptions of E as overwheling proof of the TOE right?

No, we should believe the evidence. The overwhelming evidence that all supports TOE with not a solitary shred of evidence pointing in a different direction.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's fine. The main thing is to learn.



Because, especially in the US, creationists are making it an issue. They are going to school boards to lobby for the removal of sections of the TOE they disagree with, and demanding equal time for creationism even though it has no scientific support. They are lobbying the state education boards for criteria on teaching TOE that take the guts out of the science. They are demanding "disclaimers" in text books that cast doubt on the validity of TOE.

So, it is indeed an hot issue as it affects our kids and whether or not they will get a good education.

For me, as a Christian, and I know other Christians on this board agree, it is also a serious question because creationism is a perversion of Christianity that brings discredit on Christians in general and on the Christian faith and even on God. It stands in the way of many people taking the claims of Christianity seriously. And it has led to many people abandoning Christianity when they learned how filled with lies creationism is.

That is the main reason I participate in these discussions. As a Christian, I am deeply concerned that creationism is one of the most serious problems we have to deal with in the church.

And I have made none of the assertions, so why attack me? If you want to talk about some of these issue, we can do so on another thread at a later time, but carrying forth such an agenda here is not productive to your position.

 

[razzelflabben]

Could you explain the problem a little more completely so that we can understand it? I expect the typo "from on populations" is clouding the message.

Okay, I am excited about being on the verge of catch up, so see if I can clarify, looks like I was asleep when I made the post.

Speciation is possible, probable, and is what one could call overwhelming evidence to support. However, to jump the speciation line, and say that the TOE has overwhelming evidence to support it, makes assumptions in the observations of speciations that we have not yet observed and therefor lack sufficient evidence to claim the TOE as overwhelming. Is that clearer?

 

[razzelflabben]

We know from observation whether a species is extinct or not. I still don't see the problem. As long as we have species that reproduce we have evolution.



Because when proto-cells are produced (see references in lucaspa's posts) they are produced in the millions. So cells derived from protocells would also number in the millions, billions, trillions even. So a sub-set of that population can also number in the millions or more.



Yes, that is how extinction happens. The species does not develop breeding problems. It develops problems keeping individual organisms alive long enough to breed. They die of predation or hunger or disease before they get a chance to reproduce.



Nope. Geology shows that conditions have sometimes been very harsh in the past as well. At one point so much of the earth was under snow and ice that it is called "snowball world". Many, many, many species went extinct at that time. IIRC, the estimate is that nearly 98% of species did not make it through that time to when the weather became more livable.

Another point of mass extinction was at the end of the Permian period. Something happened at the junction of the Permian period and the Triassic period that followed it that led to the extinction of the majority of species living then.




Actually some scientists (e.g. Niles Eldredge) believe the conditions which led to mass extinction may have speeded up evolution. You will note that although a great many species became extinct under harsh conditions, not all of them did. (Otherwise we wouldn't be here.) When the harsh conditions disappeared and the climate was gentler again, these few surviving species had a whole world to themselves without the predators or diseases or competitors they had faced in the past. The fossil record indicates that not long after a mass extinction, there is a period of very rapid evolution as the surviving species spread into new territories and ecological niches and adapt to them.

But being crated to adapt to ones environment could also address the issue of why there was not mass extinction.

 

[gluadys]

The evidence is overwhelming that speciation does occur on some level.

Great!!!! So, that means the evidence is overwhelming that evolution is a fact, not just a theory.

But, that is much different than the TOE which relies on assumptions about the speciations we have observed.

No, this is where you are getting derailed again. Speciation is the end-product of evolution. If you have speciation, you have evolution. If you have observed speciation, you have observed evolution. No assumptions. Observations and conclusions from the evidence.

You are claiming overwhelming evidence for speciation (evolution) not the TOE. Am I right?

No, we are claiming that since speciation is the end-product of evolution, observed speciation is overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, not just a possiblity. And since speciation is a prediction of TOE, the observation of speciation (and of many of the predicted mechanisms of speciation) is overwhelming evidence for TOE.

You cannot separate speciation from TOE.

Because from the beginning of my post and every post afterward, I was careful to differenciate between the theory of E as haveing no overwhelming proof and the overwhelming proof for speciation (evolution). Is that the problem that has taken over 100 pages to get too? That you did not read my posts? That you did not understand my claims?

Observed speciation together with the observation of many of the mechanisms which lead to speciation (mutations, variation, genetic drift, natural selection) constitutes overwhelming evidence for TOE since this is what TOE predicted. And one can add in other predictions of TOE that have also been observed to be fact: the way DNA evidence of various sorts all end up creating the same phylogenetic tree, and the way that tree matches trees drawn up on the basis of morphology or geography or fossil distribution.

 

[razzelflabben]

Those are not the questions that were raised. The question that was raised was whether John the Baptist was there.

The other questions are not pertinent to that one.


Which suggests something to me.


Maybe the problem you have with TOE is that your unanswered questions about evolution are really not pertinent to TOE. They are just questions added on as diversions. Could that be?

I think before you make tat last assumption, you should go back and reread the discussion about the cave, beginning to end, because my comment was appropriate to the discussion.

 

[razzelflabben]

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of published research papers, spanning a number of scientific disciplines, all pointing to evolution as the best explanation for today's species diversity. These papers were published by thousands of scientists who know more about their respective fields than you or I do. Nearly every biologist on the face of the planet subscribes to the theory. I figure they must be on to something.

It all comes down to deciding who's got the best shot at the truth. If you want to find out about science, look to scientists. If you want to learn about theology, seek out theologians.

I don't think this thread has much of a point anymore, so I think I'm out. I'll see you around in other threads maybe.

-Ish

Cool, but I still don't think we can find or know truth just by believing what we are taught, many have believed what they were taught and been decieved. Valuing the authorities is good, but blindly following, bad.

 

[gluadys]

Mot a big step but one that I would like to see proof of happening (no fossils please, that discussion is old and dead).

I am afraid you would have to rely on fossils for this one as present-day species inherit their mode of reproduction, so they are set as hermaphroditic or gendered. Any species which has not changed from hermaphrodite to gendered reproduction is not likely to do so now----though we can always hope that mother nature will reveal a case just so we can show you one.

btw, fossil evidence wouldn't be of much help either, as reproductive tissue is soft tissue and almost never fossilized.

However, I would not put it past the resources of a professional biologist (e.g. lucaspa) to come up with evidence I am not aware of. (Remember science looks for evidence, not proof.)

 

[gluadys]

Right, no questions unansered, no assumptions made, only proof offered. I get your position, but I still see questions that are unanswered and assuptions being made. Sorry, just that dense free thinking stuff just won't let go.

And those questions are? How do you expect to get answers to questions if you don't ask them?

And what assumptions are you talking about? If you can't say what they are, how do we know they are anything more than figments of your imagination?

 

[gluadys]

Let's cut out the middle man and go with that that assumption, that we have no good theory. Yeah, I think that will work out fine.

Sure, that would be fine for you, but as you said, that would be an assumption.

Now we need to verify the assumption by examining the evidence.


Oh, wait. That is what we have been doing.

Score so far: all known evidence points to TOE
no known evidence contradicts TOE

Evolution (speciation) has been observed.

Conclusion: overwhelming evidence for TOE.