My Daisy Chain Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I know it must be painful for you to admit but the sciences are doing just fine without your crackpot interventions.

If you want to clog this thread up with ridicule, I can't stop you; but the fact remains that evolution runs on 71% faith, while claiming their 29% is sufficient to walk by sight.

And again, that's with one billion separate pieces of physical biological evidence supplied for you, which I think is being liberal with the amount they really have on display.

If you want to ignore my challenge, that's your prerogative.

It's a challenge that can't possibly be met ... the bar is too high.

If you want to ignore my challenge by ad hominems, again that's your prerogative.

But don't expect me to play along.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That's not a valid comparison and I believe you know it.

It is a valid comparison, and I don't believe you know it, because you lack basic reasoning skills. That's OK, though. This exchange is not for your benefit.

I'm not talking about things that are alive, I'm talking about things that are dead.

So? How does that rescue your crappy argument, exactly? Give me an actual reason why it doesn't apply.

If you don't like the philosophical consequences of your own line of asinine non-reasoning, you should abandon it.

 

[HitchSlap]

We have enough daisies to know creationism is abjectly wrong, and should be considered psychological abuse for teaching it to children as fact.

 

[Deadbolt]

Are you blaming such a large lack of evidence on the weather?

I have no problem with that, as long as we're not expected to fill in the gaps and play connect-the-dots.

Let's do some math:

1. Let's assume that the first cyanobacterium occurred in 3,500,000,000 B.C.

2. Let's assume the first Homo sapiens showed up in 500,000 B.C.

3. Let's allot 1 inch of space for each piece of representative physical biological evidence for our daisy chain.

That is a line 55,232 miles long.

Assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing a separate year, that's 15,783 miles of evidence, scattered along a 55,232 mile-long chain, or 28.576%.

Remember: just one missing piece is all it takes to fail this challenge.

Evolutionists would be running on 71.424% faith, thanks to 'geology and meteorology.'

And that's with a billion pieces of physical biological evidence!

Yeah man, When paleontologists say fossils are rare, they ain't making it up.

As I said, you need very specific conditions for one to be formed, these conditions are not always present even in places where it is possible for them to occur, you need the fossil to survive geological processes long enough to be exposed by erosion then to top it all off you need a person to be in the right place at the right time to actually excavate the thing (And even then it can sit in a museum backroom for years before being described)

That is why no one should rationally expect to see a "daisy chain" even though for certain lineages we do have enough to more or less see a complete picture (e.g. whales, humans, manatees). Fossils should be seen as chance snapshots taken at long intervals. They are very much the exception, not the rule.

 

[Valiantis]

But don't expect me to play along.

The very last thing I expect is for you to use any kind of common sense in your dealings with reality because for you reality must obviously suck, why else would you destroy your rational just to believe in creationism?

Creationism is not only wrong it demeans and degrades the believer.

 

[RedRover]

Methinks they never knew each other.

The gap between them being too wide.

Just like the gap is to wide between what the evidence shows and what the evolutionists claim the evidence shows. They have 150 years and still have not shown where one species has evolved into another species. It is still an unproved theory. What was there in the beginning will continue to be there until the end. You can not add to or take away from the work that God has done.

 

[Lethe]

. What was there in the beginning will continue to be there until the end. You can not add to or take away from the work that God has done.

Yeap. Not one single species has ever gone extinct because of us. Never.


Seriously, why do you persist in believing things that are clearly, obviously false? And more importantly, why do you think that stating them here is going to do anything but make you look like a fool?

 

[Valiantis]

What was there in the beginning will continue to be there until the end. You can not add to or take away from the work that God has done.

The Dodo to name one, that bird was made extinct by men, the last widely accepted sighting of a Dodo was in 1662.

If I could list a million it still would not mean a thing to you would it? your brain has been commandeered by creationism.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Just like the gap is to wide between what the evidence shows and what the evolutionists claim the evidence shows. They have 150 years and still have not shown where one species has evolved into another species. It is still an unproved theory. What was there in the beginning will continue to be there until the end. You can not add to or take away from the work that God has done.

I have a feeling it's not speciation you want evidence for, because obviously, being interested in evolution you would have googled speciation and seen the many examples of it. No, I suspect that not really grasping how evolution progresses, you want one genus to turn into a different genus, or an organism of one phylum to change into one in another phylum. You want creatures to suddenly jump onto different branches of the evolutionary tree. That, I suspect, is what you'd consider evidence for evolution. Ironically.

 

[StormanNorman]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

No. Probably for every era, but not for every precise year.

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

I'm pretty sure that the dating methods are not accurate down to the year especially further back in time. So, the answer is no, at least, not with any certainty for that particular trip around the sun.

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

I think 3 billion years is the current best estimate as to how long ago life began on earth. I doubt there are 3 billion separate pieces of evidence let alone one for each year.

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

The theory of evolution is like a mosaic. When you stand back and look at the big picture, things are rather clear, i.e., the theory lines up remarkably well across many scientific disciplines. But, when you zoom in real close to look at the particulars, things get a little blurred, i.e., describing exactly what life was like on earth during a specific year is not really possible ... and probably never will be.

 

[Strathos]

Every time a new fossil is found, it creates two new missing links! Checkmate, evos!

 

[Split Rock]

Just like the gap is to wide between what the evidence shows and what the evolutionists claim the evidence shows. They have 150 years and still have not shown where one species has evolved into another species.

Wrong. Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the lab. Time for Lucaspa's Observed Speciation list:
Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

It is still an unproved theory.

We don't prove in science. Nevertheless, evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

What was there in the beginning will continue to be there until the end. You can not add to or take away from the work that God has done.

Surely you have heard of extinction???

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

Sorry but no one promised omniscience just science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry but no one promised omniscience just science.

'Bout time you showed up!

Where you been?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

Richard Dawkins uses the following analogy to perfectly describe creationist logic:

Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."

In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
​

 

[AV1611VET]

Richard Dawkins uses the following analogy to perfectly describe creationist logic:

That's cute, but it's also a sore spot with me.

The story is written as such that there are a series of events with no missing links.

In other words, it is analog, with a couple of missing parts.

This is far, far from cyanobacteria-to-man evolution -- far from it.

In addition, Mr. Dawkin's story, like the Duck/Winnie-the-Poo jigsaw puzzle, is over 90% complete; whereas my very liberal OP demonstrates only a 28.58% evidence-to-time ratio (see post #15).

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes Richard Dawkins is a very clever illusionist. He constantly tries to pull the wool over peoples eyes. Have you ever seen the blind watchmaker? it's quite funny. For example, he has a friend of his write a computer program which has to randomly form a predefined sentence. Of course, it would take longer than the Universe has existed to get a few letters in the right sequence. He and other evols know that DNA would never form the code it has by chance alone. Mathematics says that the odds are way beyond possible. So Dawkins plays his clever little trick and has a new program written for his pc. This time it randomly goes through the letters and if one matches somewhere in the sentence, it stores it to one side temporarily. It does this until all the letters are found and bingo, the sentence is made. This is hardly how chance works. He is cheating by assuming DNA knew the code for life somehow and all it had to do was randomly align proteins in different sequences, and temporarily storing the correct ones. There was no template written for chance protein alignment to follow. Now, what came first? the left handed amino acids, which require proteins to make them ? or, proteins which made the Amino Acids? One takes the other to exist, so which came first?
The other problem which seems to exist between evols and creationists is terminology and definition. I mean, specie has a number of definitions, 14 I last heard. If you ask an Evol to give an example of Darwin Evolution, they quote the famous finches or maybe lizards etc. However, Creationists are referring to KIND, not adaptations. They are referring to macro evolution, not micro. We have all seen different dogs produced, but they are all dogs. Finches with different beak lengths are still Finches. So what example of observable macro evolution is there? Can ONE, just ONE observed macro evolution case be stated? Of course, to be science, it has to be observed or it relies on faith. Evidence is down to interpretation and many crimes are still getting the wrong results even using DNA. Fossils are often proved wrong, by dentists or other medical experts, where a jaw is claimed to be an ancient human, but dentists etc prove otherwise. This causes mistrust, where the wool is constantly trying to be pulled over our eyes. TRUTH is what we want, HONESTY.

 

[Loudmouth]

The story is written as such that there are a series of events with no missing links.

Read it again. The series of events does have missing links. The defense attorney argues that the gaps between the video tapes somehow exonerates his client even though all of the evidence outside of the videos demonstrates that his client is guilty.

As Dawkins discusses in the rest of the article, fossils are just icing on the cake. If we didn't have a single fossil we would still have mountains of evidence demonstrating that evolution occurred. The same with the murder case.

In addition, Mr. Dawkin's story, like the Duck/Winnie-the-Poo jigsaw puzzle, is over 90% complete; whereas my very liberal OP demonstrates only a 28.58% evidence-to-time ratio (see post #15).

100% of the evidence fits the predictions made by the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes Richard Dawkins is a very clever illusionist. He constantly tries to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

Projection at it's finest.

He and other evols know that DNA would never form the code it has by chance alone.

Evolution works through selection which is the opposite of chance. Please learn about evolution before discussing it.

This time it randomly goes through the letters and if one matches somewhere in the sentence, it stores it to one side temporarily. It does this until all the letters are found and bingo, the sentence is made.

Yes, precisely how selection works.

The other problem which seems to exist between evols and creationists is terminology and definition. I mean, specie has a number of definitions, 14 I last heard.

Why is this a problem? The line between species is blurred because evolution is producing new species.

If you ask an Evol to give an example of Darwin Evolution, they quote the famous finches or maybe lizards etc. However, Creationists are referring to KIND, not adaptations. They are referring to macro evolution, not micro. We have all seen different dogs produced, but they are all dogs. Finches with different beak lengths are still Finches. So what example of observable macro evolution is there? Can ONE, just ONE observed macro evolution case be stated?

Can you list the criteria you use to determine if two species belong to the same kind?

Of course, to be science, it has to be observed or it relies on faith.

All of the evidence for evolution is observable. No faith needed.

Evidence is down to interpretation and many crimes are still getting the wrong results even using DNA.

Then show that the interpretation is wrong.

Fossils are often proved wrong, by dentists or other medical experts, where a jaw is claimed to be an ancient human, but dentists etc prove otherwise. This causes mistrust, where the wool is constantly trying to be pulled over our eyes. TRUTH is what we want, HONESTY.

Empty claims. Where is your evidence that the hundreds of hominid transitional fossils are fakes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read it again. The series of events does have missing links. The defense attorney argues that the gaps between the video tapes somehow exonerates his client even though all of the evidence outside of the videos demonstrates that his client is guilty.

Then his video fails my challenge, doesn't it?

As Dawkins discusses in the rest of the article, fossils are just icing on the cake. If we didn't have a single fossil we would still have mountains of evidence demonstrating that evolution occurred. The same with the murder case.

Fair enough.

I've allotted one inch of space for each piece of "mountains of evidence" you're claiming.

I'm guessing it still doesn't reduce the ratio of evidence-to-time to 1:1, which is the only thing that can satisfy this challenge.

100% of the evidence fits the predictions made by the theory of evolution.

But it doesn't fit my prediction: which is that my challenge cannot be met with physical biological evidence.

And that's what counts.