Irreducible Complexity

[Jimlarmore]

In what way? Are you referring to my use of facts and evidence in discussing common descent? I sound a lot like an atheist when I talk about changing a tire, too (I don't cite miracles).


Of course I believe in God. But I fail to see what my belief in God has to do with the discussion we are having now concerning the reality of macroevolution. Can you please elaborate? Perhaps your rejection of macroevolution is religiously motivated?

After I started to reject agnosticism I looked around to see what would be the best form of a God to worship.
After a long search I chose the God of the Bible for several reasons but the primary one was the prophetic accuracies confirmed in history. It didn't take very long at all when I did this to run into a lot of disparities between what the Bible teaches and what science teaches. The Bible tells me that God created this world in six literal evenings and mornings i.e. the operative word in the hebrew is "yom". So I cannot reconcile what science teaches and what the Bible teaches on that. Science says life started out from non-living random mechanisms into a single cell. That one cell somehow evolved into all of the diveristy we see in the biota today. The Bible tells me that God created life by speaking it into existence or in the case of man forming him from the dust of the ground. So I must choose which I will believe. I cannot totally buy into science and fully accept all the Bible teaches. I have chosen to have faith in the Bible and God.

So it is this problem that prompts me to ask you this question. If you believe in God what do you do with His inspired book that clearly contradicts what you believe from your teachings in science?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

That was not the point of my post. In Darwin's Black Box, Behe sets out a fairly straightforward definition of irreducible complexity, which has been shown to be false. The mere existence of TTSS falsifies his premise that such a system would not be found vis a vis the flagellum. I have not read Behe's new book - has he reworked his definition of irreducible complexity to correct the flaws in his original definition?

Falsifying a premise based on a very strict straightfoward set of definitions does not mean the original premise is actually false or invalid. Like I said, when we put the idea to the real test in the biota we surely don't see a TTSS morphing into the vestigial forms of a flagellum. In biochemistry we have a lot of similar base molecules that are used to make enzymes or proteins. That is not necessarily an example of reducible complexity but of natural function. The molecular system still fails to function as it was designed to do if you take away a very few key parts of it. One good example is the chaperone protein. Look at this:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/D/DenaturingProtein.html

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

There's a few reasons why they are not transitional.

1. We see several similarities in morphology thru out the animal kingdom. For instance birds with wings that can fly and birds with wings that can't fly. Are the ones that can't fly transitional to the ones who can? I don't think so. Animals that have distinct phenotypical expressions are limited to passing this on to future generations.

2. There are now and as far as the evidence suggests distinct barriers to sexual reproduction beyond the genus level especially in animals.

3. Transitional morphologies do not represent new genetic information but phenotypical expressions of already existing alleles.

You're still not responding to the evidence I provided you, Jim. You asked for examples of transitional fossils. I provided Probainognathus, a transitional reptile-mammal with both a reptilian and mammalian type jaw system. I provided Triadobatrachus, a transitional labyrinthodont-frog with an intermediate number of vertebrae and skull morphology. I provided Onychonycteris, a primitive flying bat not yet capable of echolocation. These are the very types of animals predicted by evolutionary theory, found in the very stratigraphic sequences we would expect to find them in. These forms are NOT predicted by alternate theories.
Your response to these fossils has been nothing but a side-show, given that you haven't actually addressed the fossils themselves. I will respond to your above points, however, by saying that: 1. Living flightless birds are not transitioning TO flight, but transitioning FROM flight; 2. Yes, there are sexual barriers between genera, but no one here is arguing that evolution occurs via reproduction between sympatric genera (i.e., you still don't understand that "genus" is just a human categorical construct); 3. Indeed, this is often (though not always) the case. So what?

Yes I can. I can show from the available evidence active in nature today that there is no viable mechanism in place to create new genetic information that is not already in the genome, especially in animals. Certainly mutations don't create new genetic material. Neither does natural selection.

Mutations can and do replicate entire genomes and homeobox sequences. Look at Arabidopsis. Look at salamanders. Look at arthropod Hox evolution. If we can multiply an organism's genome and have those extra chromosomes available for functional exaptation, how is this not considered "new information"?

The bottom line here is sexual reproduction. Today, you don't see animals in nature going outside of their species or genus and mating with other animals, i.e. robins mating with finches or dogs mating with cats.

No one is arguing that this happens, though. You are creating a strawman version of evolution that NO ONE subscribes to. Please, address what the scientists are really saying, rather than what you want them to say.
It strikes me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanism. I highly recommend you read the works of the fathers of the Modern Synthesis. Check out Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species or G. G. Simson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution. These books are well out of date now, but provide the basic foundation of modern evolutionary thought.

I think because our discussion/debate has been adversarial you think I would want to do anything I could to invalidate you or put you down. You couldn't be further from the truth my friend. Believe it or not, I love you as my brother even though we have never met. I admire your apparent intelligence and knowledge base in biology. I would never point a finger at you and tell you that you were lost. God is the judge of all mankind not me.

I'm glad you feel that way. And I apologize if I've come across too forward. Rest assured that while I do not agree with your biology, I hold you in the highest regard as a fellow brother in Christ and will never let our differences come between that which brings us together.

 

[Mallon]

So it is this problem that prompts me to ask you this question. If you believe in God what do you do with His inspired book that clearly contradicts what you believe from your teachings in science?

The answer to your question is that I do not interpret the Bible with a scientific concordism in mind as you do. Just as God accomodated Himself to us in the form of Christ, I believe that He accomodated His message to us in the form of Hebrew cultural, linguistic, and scientific traditions. Peter Enns' refers to this as an incarnational view of the Bible. You can read more about this view here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
In short, I do not look to the Bible for science because the Bible was not written to tell us about science.

 

[Jimlarmore]

You're still not responding to the evidence I provided you, Jim. You asked for examples of transitional fossils. I provided Probainognathus, a transitional reptile-mammal with both a reptilian and mammalian type jaw system. I provided Triadobatrachus, a transitional labyrinthodont-frog with an intermediate number of vertebrae and skull morphology. I provided Onychonycteris, a primitive flying bat not yet capable of echolocation. These are the very types of animals predicted by evolutionary theory, found in the very stratigraphic sequences we would expect to find them in. These forms are NOT predicted by alternate theories.
Your response to these fossils has been nothing but a side-show, given that you haven't actually addressed the fossils themselves. I will respond to your above points, however, by saying that: 1. Living flightless birds are not transitioning TO flight, but transitioning FROM flight; 2. Yes, there are sexual barriers between genera, but no one here is arguing that evolution occurs via reproduction between sympatric genera (i.e., you still don't understand that "genus" is just a human categorical construct); 3. Indeed, this is often (though not always) the case. So what?

I have delt with your examples of supposed transitionals. You just don't want to accept the truth that refutes your position. The present evidence does not allow a mechanism for genetic transfer due to reproductive barriers.

Mutations can and do replicate entire genomes and homeobox sequences. Look at Arabidopsis. Look at salamanders. Look at arthropod Hox evolution. If we can multiply an organism's genome and have those extra chromosomes available for functional exaptation, how is this not considered "new information"?

Encoding alleles that mutate do not represent entire genomes. You have already mentioned the plasticity of the amphibians. This is not a good example of what is needed to produce new information in the genome of all the biota. Mutations scramble the code and generally mess up or is harmful if it is phenotpyically expressed. This is not a viable modality for evolution. It's all you guys have but it's not reasonable to expect an accident to produce something good .

A good example of mutations was made by telling of a book where the sentences were changed slightly by making substitutions of differing letters in the words. The more this goes on the more the books original story is lost. The more mutations to the DNA code that happen the less intelligible and useful it becomes. The information in the codons are no longer useful so genetic disease ensues.

No one is arguing that this happens, though. You are creating a strawman version of evolution that NO ONE subscribes to. Please, address what the scientists are really saying, rather than what you want them to say.

Maybe the reason they don't subscribe to it is because it would invalidate their theory. I'm not trying to change what they are saying to fit my desires. I'm looking at nature and saying "hey , based on what happens now your system won't work". Now if you can show me from the evidence that back then any animal could mate with any other animal and they could reproduce a viable offspring that could then pass on that genome to the gene pool then we have something to talk about, otherwise it is your side that has created a very large strawman position.

It strikes me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary mechanism. I highly recommend you read the works of the fathers of the Modern Synthesis. Check out Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species or G. G. Simson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution. These books are well out of date now, but provide the basic foundation of modern evolutionary thought.

This is a typical response to something that you really can't address. Trying to make me ignorant to the facts doesn't change the truth here. The bottom line for gene transfer for the most part in the biota involves sexual reproduction and macro-evolution fails to be valid if it is cut off at the genus level by reproductive barriers. It's just that plain and simple.

I'm glad you feel that way. And I apologize if I've come across too forward. Rest assured that while I do not agree with your biology, I hold you in the highest regard as a fellow brother in Christ and will never let our differences come between that which brings us together.

Praise God brother. It's hard to remain civil sometimes in a heated discussion/debate. I hope you know that no matter how vehemently we disagree that I still regard you personally as a brother in Christ.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

The answer to your question is that I do not interpret the Bible with a scientific concordism in mind as you do. Just as God accomodated Himself to us in the form of Christ, I believe that He accomodated His message to us in the form of Hebrew cultural, linguistic, and scientific traditions. Peter Enns' refers to this as an incarnational view of the Bible. You can read more about this view here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
In short, I do not look to the Bible for science because the Bible was not written to tell us about science.

Very true but science and the Bible forces us to take on a certain world view with their intendent philosophies. IOW, In my mind I seek for the real truth of it all. Did I evolve from a lesser form of primate over millions or billions of years or was I created in the image of my creator. As I said before the evidence must be interpreted with an open mind. When this is done without a biased slant you'd be surprize just how much of it co-incides with the truths in the Bible.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

I have delt with your examples of supposed transitionals. You just don't want to accept the truth that refutes your position. The present evidence does not allow a mechanism for genetic transfer due to reproductive barriers.

I guess we'll leave that to the audience to decide. I still don't know what "reproductive barriers" you're referring to, though. Perhaps you can elucidate? It all sounds so vague at this point. What mechanisms dictate 'species A may exhibit x-amount of variation, but no more'?

Encoding alleles that mutate do not represent entire genomes.

Point mutations do not invoke polyploidy themselves. Point mutations invoke abnormal cell division, which results in polyploidy.

You have already mentioned the plasticity of the amphibians. This is not a good example of what is needed to produce new information in the genome of all the biota. Mutations scramble the code and generally mess up or is harmful if it is phenotpyically expressed. This is not a viable modality for evolution. It's all you guys have but it's not reasonable to expect an accident to produce something good .

Nobody is arguing that mutations are beneficial the majority of the time. But when they are, they quickly become fixed in the population. Again, I don't think you have a good grasp of what the scientists are saying. Perhaps sfs might do a better of explaining genetics to you because it is not my field.

Maybe the reason they don't subscribe to it is because it would invalidate their theory.

Sounds like you're invoking a conspiracy now. That's a last line of defense. Why not just consider that maybe -- just maybe -- your understanding might be incomplete?

[qiuote]Now if you can show me from the evidence that back then any animal could mate with any other animal and they could reproduce a viable offspring that could then pass on that genome to the gene pool then we have something to talk about, otherwise it is your side that has created a very large strawman position.[/quote]
For umpteenth time, Jim, EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROCEED EXCLUSIVELY VIA HYBRIDISM. In fact, hybridism is very rare. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Evolution proceeds among differentially interbreeding of members of the same species. Eventually small, or even large, changes accumulate and populations become reproductively isolated. Note that I didn't say "dogs breed with cats".

This is a typical response to something that you really can't address. Trying to make me ignorant to the facts doesn't change the truth here.

I don't need to try to make you ignorant of the facts. You are ignorant of the facts. I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to say it.

The bottom line for gene transfer for the most part in the biota involves sexual reproduction and macro-evolution fails to be valid if it is cut off at the genus level by reproductive barriers. It's just that plain and simple.

It's NOT plain and simple because you still haven't been able to provide a biological definition of what a genus is or what "barriers" you're talking about. I can point you to different experiments involving intergenus hybridization within fish, wasps, and plants that completely contradict this idea you have that genera are natural constructs that with reproductive barriers.

Praise God brother. It's hard to remain civil sometimes in a heated discussion/debate. I hope you know that no matter how vehemently we disagree that I still regard you personally as a brother in Christ.

Ditto. One day we'll have a good laugh over this inside the Pearly Gates.

 

[Mallon]

Very true but science and the Bible forces us to take on a certain world view with their intendent philosophies.

I would love to hear more elaboration on this. What "certain world views" are you referring to?

As I said before the evidence must be interpreted with an open mind. When this is done without a biased slant you'd be surprize just how much of it co-incides with the truths in the Bible.

Are you saying that I am biased and have a closed mind, whereas you are without bias and have an open mind? I don't think just telling me I have a closed mind will make your case. You have to deal with the evidence.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I would love to hear more elaboration on this. What "certain world views" are you referring to?

Let me express it this way. Everyone brings a certain world view to the table for consideration. This world view is influenced strongly by the culture you were raised in . That culture will shape future philosophies as well because all of us whether we know it or not have been trained on a certain way to think. Finally, your education also shapes your philosophies on what is truth and what isn't.

From what I have gathered from our exchange your world view is very much the mainstream paradigm from science and is biased on that.

Are you saying that I am biased and have a closed mind, whereas you are without bias and have an open mind? I don't think just telling me I have a closed mind will make your case. You have to deal with the evidence.

Yes, I think you are biased . Do you have a closed mind? Not completely but from what I have witnessed so far not too far from it. Why do I say this? Primarily because you refuse to closely examine anything that sincerely or closely questions/refutes your position. Do I do the same thing? Yes I do, to an extent. The difference is I have already been where you are and have come out of that mind set. Because I have now accepted that there is an alternative way to interpret what we see I have an expanded view that is more open than most scientists. IOW, I am willing to carefully consider alternate explanations for what is being observed rather than swallowing hook , line and sinker the mainstream paradigm's false faith system/religion.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I guess we'll leave that to the audience to decide. I still don't know what "reproductive barriers" you're referring to, though. Perhaps you can elucidate? It all sounds so vague at this point. What mechanisms dictate 'species A may exhibit x-amount of variation, but no more'?

The primary issue here is allele distribution isn't it? If the allele's can't be distributed because of they naturally can't because of reproductive barriers then the issue over "macro-evolution" is closed.

Point mutations do not invoke polyploidy themselves. Point mutations invoke abnormal cell division, which results in polyploidy.

Can you give me some examples of this causing new information in the higher animal life forms? I know it happens in plants a lot but not too much in animals because the result usually does not produce a viable offspring that can reproduce.

Nobody is arguing that mutations are beneficial the majority of the time. But when they are, they quickly become fixed in the population. Again, I don't think you have a good grasp of what the scientists are saying. Perhaps sfs might do a better of explaining genetics to you because it is not my field.

Nor mine but I have a good grasp on what mutations represent as far as new information in a genome and it's not been shown to be a good one so far.

Sounds like you're invoking a conspiracy now. That's a last line of defense. Why not just consider that maybe -- just maybe -- your understanding might be incomplete?

Ok, let's do that. If I am wrong then please show me some evidence reproductive barriers were not a factor in the distant past? If you can't then I'd say what we see today is still a valid example of kinds following after kinds.

For umpteenth time, Jim, EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROCEED EXCLUSIVELY VIA HYBRIDISM. In fact, hybridism is very rare. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Evolution proceeds among differentially interbreeding of members of the same species. Eventually small, or even large, changes accumulate and populations become reproductively isolated. Note that I didn't say "dogs breed with cats".

What you are explaining now is micro-evolution. I agree 100% with micro-evolution because it's irrefuteable. I do not agree that macro-evolution can procede in the same way primarily because of the restrictions of the way the coded information changes.

I don't need to try to make you ignorant of the facts. You are ignorant of the facts. I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to say it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I still say not agreeing with a certain paradigm does not necessarily make one ignorant of the facts.

It's NOT plain and simple because you still haven't been able to provide a biological definition of what a genus is or what "barriers" you're talking about.

Yes I have you are just not listening. Genus' and species are specific taxa designations for animals that fit a certain morphological characteristic/s. We classify animals and plants using a dicotymous key that excludes possibilities based on that until we arrive at a perfect fit for the organism under consideration. Reproductive barriers are very strong within species and do not naturally go beyond genus.

I can point you to different experiments involving intergenus hybridization within fish, wasps, and plants that completely contradict this idea you have that genera are natural constructs that with reproductive barriers.

Experiments are generally not what happens in nature because they are manipulated by man. Show me observations of this in nature then you have something.

Ditto. One day we'll have a good laugh over this inside the Pearly Gates.

Wouldn't that be great?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

From what I have gathered from our exchange your world view is very much the mainstream paradigm from science and is biased on that.

You seem to be implying that I accept evolution only because that's what mainstream science says, rather than based on my ability to gauge the evidence for myself. I can't help but feel a little offended by that. Having spent four years of my life as a combined geology and biology undergraduate, and the last two in graduate school studying vertebrate palaeontology, I think I have developed both an ability to think critically and to appreciate the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution and common descent.
What do you do for a living, Jim?

Yes, I think you are biased . Do you have a closed mind? Not completely but from what I have witnessed so far not too far from it. Why do I say this? Primarily because you refuse to closely examine anything that sincerely or closely questions/refutes your position.

You have said nothing so far to refute my position, though. Every strawman you've created, every tired neocreationist argument you've touted, I have dealt with with reference to published, varifiable evidence. You have not. I asked you why, specifically, Probainognathus cannot be a transitional fossil; you failed to respond. I asked you what genetic barriers prevent mutations from accumulating in biolological lineages; you failed to respond. I asked you why chromosome duplication and exaptation cannot be viewed as "new" genetic information; you failed to respond. Please forgive me, but I can't help but feel that you're the one who refuses to examine the evidence in refutation to your position. By your own definition, I suppose that makes you closed-minded as well.

Do I do the same thing? Yes I do, to an extent. The difference is I have already been where you are and have come out of that mind set. Because I have now accepted that there is an alternative way to interpret what we see I have an expanded view that is more open than most scientists. IOW, I am willing to carefully consider alternate explanations for what is being observed rather than swallowing hook , line and sinker the mainstream paradigm's false faith system/religion.

Here's your trophy.

I guess time will tell if you're right, Jim. No doubt, if the neocreationist pseudoscience you espouse is a good and fruitful as you believe, we will see it being taught in schools and practiced in labs the world 'round in just a short while. But if, at the end of your life, scientists are still working within the paradigm of evolution, I hope you at least ponder that maybe -- just maybe -- you were wrong on this issue and that there isn't some evil scientific agenda to suppress antievolutionary ideas.

 

[Jimlarmore]

You seem to be implying that I accept evolution only because that's what mainstream science says, rather than based on my ability to gauge the evidence for myself. I can't help but feel a little offended by that. Having spent four years of my life as a combined geology and biology undergraduate, and the last two in graduate school studying vertebrate palaeontology, I think I have developed both an ability to think critically and to appreciate the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution and common descent.
What do you do for a living, Jim?

What we learn is always sequential and progressive. There is nothing about alternative considerations taught in paleontology/geology courses. Much of what is taught makes perfect sense if taken from a certain point of veiw. If the evidence is always interpreted based on that view there would no reason to ever question it's veracity. I apologize if you are offended but I can only say it like I see it.

You have said nothing so far to refute my position, though. Every strawman you've created, every tired neocreationist argument you've touted, I have dealt with with reference to published, varifiable evidence. You have not. I asked you why, specifically, Probainognathus cannot be a transitional fossil; you failed to respond.

Ok, you want me to just say it? Probainognathus can't be transitional because, based on the evidence involving reproductive barriers, it's similar morphologies cannot be transferred to anything but another probainognathus or like Dino in it's genus.

I asked you what genetic barriers prevent mutations from accumulating in biolological lineages; you failed to respond.

Ok, again, when mutations accumulate to a certain degree current evidence shows that the offspring is either elliminated from the gene pool or it dies of a genetic disease.

I asked you why chromosome duplication and exaptation cannot be viewed as "new" genetic information; you failed to respond.

Polyploidy has not observed in animals to be a viable source of new information in the genome.

Please forgive me, but I can't help but feel that you're the one who refuses to examine the evidence in refutation to your position. By your own definition, I suppose that makes you closed-minded as well.

Here's your trophy.

I guess time will tell if you're right, Jim. No doubt, if the neocreationist pseudoscience you espouse is a good and fruitful as you believe, we will see it being taught in schools and practiced in labs the world 'round in just a short while. But if, at the end of your life, scientists are still working within the paradigm of evolution, I hope you at least ponder that maybe -- just maybe -- you were wrong on this issue and that there isn't some evil scientific agenda to suppress antievolutionary ideas.

What I just said above I said before you either didn't read it or you refuse to accept what I said. Also, the fact that the majority of what is being taught in school is evolution does not mean it's 100% correct. The majority have been shown to be wrong consistently in times past.

God bLess
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Thanks, Jim. It's been a slice.

 

[atomweaver]

Polyploidy has not observed in animals to be a viable source of new information in the genome.

Sorry to hop in, but I've ben following yours and Mallon's posts with interest. Can we then take the above comment to imply that you would agree that polyploidy in non-animals (say, plants) is observed to be a viable source of new information in the genome?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sorry to hop in, but I've ben following yours and Mallon's posts with interest. Can we then take the above comment to imply that you would agree that polyploidy in non-animals (say, plants) is observed to be a viable source of new information in the genome?

I know it's found a lot more in plants. As far as useful new information for specific changes ? I'm not sure. I seem to remember an article I read about certain disease resistence of food plants like corn and wheat. Here's a little ditty on it:
http://polyploidy.biosci.utexas.edu/


God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[gluadys]

Probainognathus can't be transitional because, based on the evidence involving reproductive barriers, it's similar morphologies cannot be transferred to anything but another probainognathus or like Dino in it's genus.

This sentence suggests a misapprehension about what can be expected of the progeny of a transitional form.

What you say is true: the morphology of a probainognathus can only be transferred to another probainognathus or something similar enough to be in the same genus (therefore not a dino or anything similar to a dino since probainognathus was not a dino, nor closely related to dinos.)

That, however, does not prevent it from being a transitional form. We expect that new species will occur within the same genus as their immediate predecessor.

Ok, again, when mutations accumulate to a certain degree current evidence shows that the offspring is either elliminated from the gene pool or it dies of a genetic disease.

Ok, so an offspring in which mutations have accumulated to negative effect is eliminated from the gene pool. How does this affect the gene pool overall? Is the gene pool itself harmed or protected by the elimination of those offspring which are genetically burdened?

Remember, that as far as evolution is concerned, it is the overall health of the gene pool that is under consideration, not the effects of a genetic burden on some members of the species.

Also, the fact that the majority of what is being taught in school is evolution does not mean it's 100% correct.

True enough. That is why it is important to improve both the teaching of evolution and the teaching of science in general. I expect you came up with some of your personal misconceptions about evolution in grade school.

 

[RecentConvert]

Thanks, Jim. It's been a slice.

Please, don't give up, yet. Your arguments have been cogent and informative. I know it may be frustrating but, if you can get to the heart of the disagreement, I think progress can be made. Let me assure you that there are people, like myself, who are reading and who greatly appreciate your efforts!

 

[RecentConvert]

What we learn is always sequential and progressive. There is nothing about alternative considerations taught in paleontology/geology courses. Much of what is taught makes perfect sense if taken from a certain point of veiw. If the evidence is always interpreted based on that view there would no reason to ever question it's veracity. I apologize if you are offended but I can only say it like I see it.

That's merely because alternative theories that are better than the current paradigm haven't made it into science, yet. It's not enough that an alternative theory "sound good" or agree with one's theology. It must make more successfully testable predictions than the old theory. Then it will supplant the old theory and be taught in science classes...

Ok, you want me to just say it? Probainognathus can't be transitional because, based on the evidence involving reproductive barriers, it's similar morphologies cannot be transferred to anything but another probainognathus or like Dino in it's genus.



Ok, again, when mutations accumulate to a certain degree current evidence shows that the offspring is either elliminated from the gene pool or it dies of a genetic disease.

I think the question posed to you by Mallon is: how does reproductive barriers prevent, say, Probainognathus from being a transitional?

I think you both agree that probainognathus could likely only mate with other probainognathus. This doesn't prevent it from being a transitional. It seems as if you're ignoring a temporal aspect to the situation. You have a population with a certain morphology at a certain time. As time moves on, mutations accumulate in the population, changing it's morphology, so that at a future point in time, their morphology is different. This would be a transitional. As time continues further, their morphology will change even further and the last sample will be a transition between the first example and the current population. What's your objection to this idea? Is it that you think that any mutation will make an organism unable to mate and integrate its genetic change into the population?

What I just said above I said before you either didn't read it or you refuse to accept what I said. Also, the fact that the majority of what is being taught in school is evolution does not mean it's 100% correct. The majority have been shown to be wrong consistently in times past.

I just think you two are talking past each other 'cause you're not being specific enough. You're probably assuming an understanding between the two of you where there is none...

 

[shernren]

If the evidence is always interpreted based on that view there would no reason to ever question it's veracity. I apologize if you are offended but I can only say it like I see it. ... Probainognathus can't be transitional because, based on the evidence involving reproductive barriers, it's similar morphologies cannot be transferred to anything but another probainognathus or like Dino in it's genus.

(emphases added)

Just to be a grammar Nazi for a moment, all the above "it's"s should actually be "its", without apostrophe. In each case its is being used to denote possession by the noun (pronoun?) "it". In the same way that our stuff is ours, not our's, and your grammatical sensibility is yours, not your's, Probainognathus' morphologies and genus are its, not it's.

"It's" is a contraction of "it is"; for example, it's - that is, "it is" - sad that many people misunderstand even such a simple rule as how to distinguish between using "its" and "it's". If in doubt, simply replace the offending three-letter word with "it is": does the phrase "it is similar morphologies cannot be transferred ... " make sense? Clearly not; therefore, "its" should be used instead of "it's". While it is not a deal-breaking error, in that the true meaning of the sentence is often very easily discerned once the error is taken into account, its - sorry, it's still very irritating to see things like this happen.

There, the rant's over. ^^