proving evolution as just a "theory"

[USincognito]

RJS, I think you're simply in over your head on this topic, but I'm going to keep on trying.

Well if evolutionists had some actual scientific evidence of common ancestry I wouldn't have much to say. So far all they have come up with is common design, which doesn't mean common ancestry unless you assume it does.

More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.

Well I have offered meaningful conversation in that I have pointed out that all the evidence points to common design. Which no evolutionists have been able to show otherwise. I have pointed out the assumptions contained with evolution showing how evolutionists use similarities to say it shows evolution when in fact it doesn't but it does show common design. If evolutionists actually had some real testable verifiable observed evolution of common ancestry I would sit up and take notice.

More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.

Actually they are precisely evidence of common design. The building blocks of life. All things being designed and use the the same genes that function in certain ways within the creature that was created and doesn't function in others because it was designed that way. It's not that hard.

And his exactly why I think you're in over your head. When given a specific set of examples of how "common design" is untenable you parrot your mantra again and then begin bloviating and talking in circles rather than actually addressing any, much less all of the examples I provided.

For instance the part in purple. You clearly didn't even understand my list because three of them:
- GULO pseudogene
- Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 pathway
- VTG pseudogenes
don't work at all. You haven't explained why the designer would put something that didn't work in the genomes of not just one species but dozens and hundreds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, actually, I have a restriction that prevents me from being likely to just luck out and have lots of variation in the first generation. I only have 50 eggs to start with, and they all come from the same breeder. Given that they were all very likely collected from the same tank, this greatly restricts the initial gene pool, even if I am lucky and all 50 eggs hatch. The majority of the variation in the final experimental and control groups will be by new mutations.

Which will simply confirm that like dogs from wolves, variation in subspecies is possible through interbreeding, not mutation. If it’s from mutation then there will be no need to selectively breed for traits.

The species label is somehwhat subjective to begin with, which is why I am not going to determine if the species barrier has been crossed independently. However, I am going to have a few members of the control and experimental population have their genes sequenced, to get a more objective look on the degree of difference between the two.

Like the difference between Husky and wolf? They are still the same species, just different subspecies, so your subjective determination that they are separate will still be subjective, and won’t change the fact they are merely subspecies, just as Husky and wolf are subspecies. Subspecies all together make a species. It is the largest gene pool, subspecies are the variants within that gene pool.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which will simply confirm that like dogs from wolves, variation in subspecies is possible through interbreeding, not mutation.

Unless you are wrong, but we shall see, won't we? So why not participate? All you have to do is pick 2 traits you want to see the experimental population have out of the list I gave in the first post of that thread.

If it’s from mutation then there will be no need to selectively breed for traits.

Mutation doesn't cater to natural selection; it's random nature demands natural selection (or artificial selection, in this case) to influence whether or not mutations are prone to spread through a population. Selectively breeding just goes way faster than natural selection does.

Like the difference between Husky and wolf? They are still the same species, just different subspecies, so your subjective determination that they are separate will still be subjective, and won’t change the fact they are merely subspecies, just as Husky and wolf are subspecies. Subspecies all together make a species. It is the largest gene pool, subspecies are the variants within that gene pool.

Huskies and wolves are not considered to be the same species, and there are quite a few structural differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves have much larger heads compared to their bodies than dogs do, narrower hips, and larger brains, to name a few differences. And yes, this applies to any comparison between a wolf and a dog you could make, including with huskies.

You got hung up on the outward physical appearance, and never bothered to even look up if there were differences between the two structurally, did you? Did you not know that the skeletons of a wolf and a dog (regardless of breed) are easy to distinguish from each other?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

NO. STOP. WRONG. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. You don't get to conclude that they're useless. They just don't function as a flagellum anymore once those proteins are removed. This objection is so old Darwin himself responded to it the 6th edition of Origin of Species by emphasizing the importance of change of function in evolution.

Here's a link for further reading; if you can find something that's not addressed in here, be my guest. Evolution of the bacterial flagellum


As I explained earlier, mobility isn't the issue here. Function is. As long as those proteins served some other function before being a part of a structure that provides mobility, there's no irreducible complexity to be found in the E. Coli bacteria. This is explained in my other response and in the link I've posted above. I really need you to understand this before we move on, otherwise we're going to be talking in circles.

What other function did they serve? You don’t know, your just wanting it to be so, even if when one changed, regardless of which one, mobility was lost.

We are talking in circles. You insisting they serve another function, yet when any are changed the function they serve is lost.

You want me to prove to you they serve another function. I can’t, because regardless of which one is changed, the mobility is lost. Apparently all are required for that function to work properly. Now if one was changed and mobility still ensued, you would have an argument that it serves another function. It’s your responsibility to support your claim that they could support another function.

You were shown proof that if one was changed or removed, didn’t matter which one, function was lost. It seems to me it’s your responsibility to show they still serve other functions. It’s your claim, not his. He upheld exactly what he claimed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unless you are wrong, but we shall see, won't we? So why not participate? All you have to do is pick 2 traits you want to see the experimental population have out of the list I gave in the first post of that thread.

I told you, pick any two you like. I already know if I breed for short haired dogs I’ll get shorter haired dogs over time.

Mutation doesn't cater to natural selection; it's random nature demands natural selection (or artificial selection, in this case) influence whether or not mutations are prone to spread through a population. Selectively breeding just goes way faster than natural selection does.

Selective breeding just sets in traits that already exist, else you couldn’t select for them, could you.

Huskies and wolves are not considered to be the same species, and there are quite a few structural differences between wolves and dogs. Wolves have much larger heads compared to their bodies than dogs do, narrower hips, and larger brains, to name a few differences. And yes, this applies to any comparison between a wolf and a dog you could make, including with huskies.

So? There’s quite a bit of structural difference between the poodle and Mastiff. Are you arguing against biologists that they are separate species?

You got hung up on the outward physical appearance, and never bothered to even look up if there were differences between the two structurally, did you? Did you not know that the skeletons of a wolf and a dog (regardless of breed) are easy to distinguish from each other?

It seems you are the one hung up on differences.

Until it comes to finches, which are all almost internally the same. Then it’s those outward physical appearances, right? Your own argument for rejecting finches as the same species does nothing but sabatoge your claim of wolves and dogs being separate species.

No consistency.

At least my argument remains consistent across them all.

 

[gaara4158]

What other function did they serve? You don’t know, your just wanting it to be so, even if when one changed, regardless of which one, mobility was lost.

So you didn't click on my link. Too bad, you'd have seen this:

See that? Complete function every step of the way.

We are talking in circles. You insisting they serve another function, yet when any are changed the function they serve is lost.

Not lost, changed. You have to prove all function is lost if you ever hope to prove irreducible complexity. I don't have to prove irreducible complexity wrong, you have to prove it right. That's how this works.

You were shown proof that if one was changed or removed, didn’t matter which one, function was lost. It seems to me it’s your responsibility to show they still serve other functions. It’s your claim, not his. He upheld exactly what he claimed.

Again, function wasn't lost. Mobility was. It's on you to prove all function is lost, not on me to demonstrate what functions it serves other than mobility. Still, it's an educational exercise, so I'm happy to copy-paste answers from scholarly papers that you'd otherwise refuse to read. See the above diagram.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I told you, pick any two you like. I already know if I breed for short haired dogs I’ll get shorter haired dogs over time.

I've already had some people cast votes, and as per the rule, the two traits that get the most votes win. I made that thread for creationists to participate, but not one has. I want you to vote. I want as many people as possible to vote. I would be happiest if you voted.

Selective breeding just sets in traits that already exist, else you couldn’t select for them, could you.

In the case that all of the Triops I get are the same color, for example, and I had to breed for more color, I would have to wait for a mutation in color to occur. If none occur, then so be it.

So? There’s quite a bit of structural difference between the poodle and Mastiff. Are you arguing against biologists that they are separate species?

It wouldn't be the first time I have argued that some dog breeds should be considered separate species. Recall I said as much for chihuahuas and great danes. There is no way a female chihuahua could possibly mate with a male great dane and take the litter to term.

It seems you are the one hung up on differences.

Until it comes to finches, which are all almost internally the same. Then it’s those outward physical appearances, right? Your own argument for rejecting finches as the same species does nothing but sabatoge your claim of wolves and dogs being separate species.

No consistency.

1. those finches aren't physiologically near identical, because their food sources aren't and demand distinctions in beaks and digestive systems.
2. they rarely interbreed due to differences in mating habits and songs, making the populations remain distinct from each other.

Also, what justification do you have for considering wolves and dogs to be the same species, when they barely interbreed and are structurally distinct?

 

[pitabread]

It doesn’t matter why.

Of course it matters why. Everything you've been suggesting should have an underlying genetic component to it. This is why I keep asking you to explain it, but your continual dodges is telling of the fact that you don't seem to understand the underlying genetics.

For starters, you seem to be highly fixated on physical traits. In fact, what we refer to as different dog breeds or human 'races' are really just an artificial labels we assign to arbitrary collections of physical characteristics. It's just for the sake of categorization to make things easier to identify. But when you look at the reality in populations of species, things are far less distinct. This is especially apparent with people, because when you start to examine the so-called races, you tend to see more of a continuum of physical characteristics rather than hard divisions.

It's similar with dog breeds, although those are more of an example of extreme artificial selection. People bred dogs for various reasons throughout history and at some point slapped an arbitrary label on a particular set of physical traits. This is where your Mastiffs and Huskies and other breeds came from.

With respect to the underyling genetics, all organisms carry unique genetic code which is termed its genotype. Expression of said genotype results in an organism's phenotype (its physical characteristics). The genotype consists of various individual genes. Varients of genes are termed alleles.

So really what is happening with something like selective breeding, is breeders are selecting for underyling alleles or combinations of alleles that yield specific physical traits. That's it. Admittedly, this can have an effect of reducing genetic variability, particularly where small populations and inbreeding are concerned.

Where mutations come in is they act a source of genetic variability. Say a parent organism has a particular gene; we'll call it "gene A". If during the production of its gametes (i.e. sperm or eggs) a mutation occurs during cell replication, that gene may be altered. We'll call the new varient "gene A1". Assuming successful reproduction with that particular sperm or egg, the offspring will now carry "gene A1" instead of the original "gene A".

Where variability during interbreeding comes in is during sexual reproduction whereby organisms inherit ~50% of their genes from each parent. So if one parent has two copies of gene A (i.e. "AA"), and the other has two copies of a variant (i.e. "A1A1"), the resultant offspring will have one of each (A and A1). Thus resultant offspring of two more genetically distinct parents will carry variant traits from each parent.

Of course, mutations still occur regardless of the parent offspring and can and do introduce new variant genes in the process. Some may have obvious effects, others may not.

There is nothing which will result in the absolute "fixation" of a particular genetic makeup in a population. Mutations are unavoidable and will invariably introduce new variations. Your claims of Huskies always producing Huskies need not explicitly be true. Only with specific selective pressure and artificial limitations will that be the case. If the population is allowed to diversify and/or if selective pressures were applied for traits to move away from the traditional Husky phenotype, new phenotypes could emerge. In effect, you could do the same thing with Huskies or other dog breeds that people originally did with wolves.

Your mutations can’t even cross the race barrier, explain to me why I should accept they can cross the species barrier?

What is "cross the race barrier" supposed to mean? If an organism inherits a mutation (i.e. a new allele), then any subsequent offspring of that organism will also have a chance of inheriting that same allele. Depending on the gene flow in that particular population, that allele may be weeded out or it may go on to become fixed in the population. The latter can happen from either positive selection pressure or from random genetic drift.

I understand you are looking for an excuse to ignore the truth, but sorry, it will remain true regardless. I understand you have no counter to this delima, and so seek to avoid accepting the truth.

The only making excuses up until now has been you. I've been trying to get to explain how things work and you continue to dodge, and for some reason are now excusing me of making excuses. I'm not even sure what "excuses" you are referring to, as all I have asked of you is to explain the mechanisms by which your claims of biology work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you didn't click on my link. Too bad, you'd have seen this:

See that? Complete function every step of the way.

An artist rendition of how he believes it happened, versus actual experiment that change of any kind stops function. Hmm, which to choose?

Not lost, changed. You have to prove all function is lost if you ever hope to prove irreducible complexity. I don't have to prove irreducible complexity wrong, you have to prove it right. That's how this works.

Let’s see, gene changed, all mobility lost. Proven. Problem?

Again, function wasn't lost. Mobility was. It's on you to prove all function is lost, not on me to demonstrate what functions it serves other than mobility. Still, it's an educational exercise, so I'm happy to copy-paste answers from scholarly papers that you'd otherwise refuse to read. See the above diagram.

Mobility is the function those genes provide. Sure it is. You claim they serve other functions than mobility. I say they don’t. Change one, mobility lost. Point proven. Now prove they provide some other function, not a artists dream of how it might have happened, that does not prove other functionality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've already had some people cast votes, and as per the rule, the two traits that get the most votes win. I made that thread for creationists to participate, but not one has. I want you to vote. I want as many people as possible to vote. I would be happiest if you voted.



In the case that all of the Triops I get are the same color, for example, and I had to breed for more color, I would have to wait for a mutation in color to occur. If none occur, then so be it.



It wouldn't be the first time I have argued that some dog breeds should be considered separate species. Recall I said as much for chihuahuas and great danes. There is no way a female chihuahua could possibly mate with a male great dane and take the litter to term.


1. those finches aren't physiologically near identical, because their food sources aren't and demand distinctions in beaks and digestive systems.
2. they rarely interbreed due to differences in mating habits and songs, making the populations remain distinct from each other.

Also, what justification do you have for considering wolves and dogs to be the same species, when they barely interbreed and are structurally distinct?

Beaks, was wondering when those outward physical differences that it was claimed I was hung up on would show up.

1.
Are you claiming that mutations to the ALX1 gene is sufficient to classify them as a separate species. It’s the reason biologists claim.

2.
They are interbreeding so much three are merging into one.

 

[gaara4158]

An artist rendition of how he believes it happened, versus actual experiment that change of any kind stops function. Hmm, which to choose?

So you still never clicked the link. Too bad, you’d have read this:

Biological evidence supporting the model is summarized in Table 6, in terms of extant analogs to the hypothesized intermediates and nonflagellar homologs of system components. Of the 30 major structural components listed in Table 1, 12 are axial proteins and probably share a common (unidentified) ancestor, a hypothetical type III pilin subunit. Of the remaining 18 components, four (FliI, MotA, MotB, and FliM) have well-accepted nonflagellar homologs based on significant sequence similarity. Suggestive evidence of homology exists for eight components, FliHJOPQR (with components of the ATP synthetase), the P-ring FlgI (with secretins), and the lipoprotein FlgH (with lipoprotein chaperones of secretins). On the basis of interactions with other components with identified nonflagellar homologs, homologies can be postulated, with little current supporting evidence, for two components, FlgA (with other secretin-associated proteins secreted by the type II secretion system), and FliG (with a fragment of a TolA homolog). Finally, five components (FliF, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and the ancestor of the axial proteins) have no identified potential homologs, although nonflagellar ancestral functions are not difficult to postulate. The type III virulence system contains homologs of most of these proteins (probably including an axial protein; Cordes et al., 2003), but as discussed previously its phylogenetic position is controversial.

Figure 7 and text for further details.

Let’s see, gene changed, all mobility lost. Proven. Problem?

Mobility is not the same as function. You need to get that through your head. Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.

Got it yet? Stop conflating the two.

Genes don’t provide function. They provide form. Genes do not dictate what function any form can provide. If it works it works, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. That’s all there is to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It wouldn't be the first time I have argued that some dog breeds should be considered separate species. Recall I said as much for chihuahuas and great danes. There is no way a female chihuahua could possibly mate with a male great dane and take the litter to term.

Yet are you denying a female Great Dane might be able to be impregnated my a male chihuahuas? They said the same thing about lions and tigers. And oh my, they produced fertile offspring anyways.

Just because two may not do so in nature, does not mean they can’t. The tendency for animals to mate within their subspecies is not just confined to man. This is why variation takes so long in the natural world.

1. those finches aren't physiologically near identical, because their food sources aren't and demand distinctions in beaks and digestive systems.

Are you inferring that mutations to the AXL1 gene is sufficient to call them separate species?

2. they rarely interbreed due to differences in mating habits and songs, making the populations remain distinct from each other.

So you keep saying, yet three are breeding so intensely they are merging into one. Why just a few years ago they claimed none of them were mating and they were reproductively isolated which was why they were separate species. Then someone actually went and looked, and lo and behold, mating like rabbits.....

Also, what justification do you have for considering wolves and dogs to be the same species, when they barely interbreed and are structurally distinct?

They are the same species, just separate subspecies. Maybe you should look up the scientific definition of subspecies..... you wouldn’t be so confused if you followed the scientific definition that without which, there is no science.....

 

[Audacious]

Last I checked Asian mated with Asian and produced only Asian. African mated with African and produced only African. Only when the Asian mates with the African does a new variation (Afro-Asian) enter the species.

The tragic story of how a white girl being born black tore a family apart | Daily Mail Online

Actually, you do get (very occasional) instances of two white/black/asian parents having a baby that isn't their race.

 

[pitabread]

The tragic story of how a white girl being born black tore a family apart | Daily Mail Online

Actually, you do get (very occasional) instances of two white/black/asian parents having a baby that isn't their race.

Conversely, you can also get interesting scenarios like these between "mixed race" parents.

They may not look like it, but these two women are twins:

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you still never clicked the link. Too bad, you’d have read this:

Biological evidence supporting the model is summarized in Table 6, in terms of extant analogs to the hypothesized intermediates and nonflagellar homologs of system components. Of the 30 major structural components listed in Table 1, 12 are axial proteins and probably share a common (unidentified) ancestor, a hypothetical type III pilin subunit. Of the remaining 18 components, four (FliI, MotA, MotB, and FliM) have well-accepted nonflagellar homologs based on significant sequence similarity. Suggestive evidence of homology exists for eight components, FliHJOPQR (with components of the ATP synthetase), the P-ring FlgI (with secretins), and the lipoprotein FlgH (with lipoprotein chaperones of secretins). On the basis of interactions with other components with identified nonflagellar homologs, homologies can be postulated, with little current supporting evidence, for two components, FlgA (with other secretin-associated proteins secreted by the type II secretion system), and FliG (with a fragment of a TolA homolog). Finally, five components (FliF, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and the ancestor of the axial proteins) have no identified potential homologs, although nonflagellar ancestral functions are not difficult to postulate. The type III virulence system contains homologs of most of these proteins (probably including an axial protein; Cordes et al., 2003), but as discussed previously its phylogenetic position is controversial.

Figure 7 and text for further details.

Mobility is not the same as function. You need to get that through your head. Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.
Mobility is not the only function in the world.

Got it yet? Stop conflating the two.

Genes don’t provide function. They provide form. Genes do not dictate what function any form can provide. If it works it works, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. That’s all there is to it.

Really? Then why aren’t you arguing with your fellow evolutionist who insists broken genes for legs indicate shared ancestors, if form has nothing to do with function? I’m sorry, but genes do dictate weather it is a leg or a flipper and do dictate it’s function.

Your confused. Genes do dictate how my arm is built and it’s function. Genes do dictate how my eye is built and it’s function. And if you change the function of any of those genes, you destroy the functionality.

You are confused, my genes dictate everything about me. If a gene produces protein A which is needed to develop my eyes, without it performing it’s function, my eye will not develop.

Genes are the blueprint that make everything in my body function. Prove your point. Destroy the gene leading to eyesight. The eye should still function in my offspring if you are correct.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Conversely, you can also get interesting scenarios like these between "mixed race" parents.

They may not look like it, but these two women are twins:

And somewhere in their family tree, exist both African and Caucasian parents. Of course the poor African family in the story probably didn’t know about the white man who invaded their country hundreds of years ago and raped his great, great, great grandmother, selling some into slavery. Passing down that recessive gene until one day it became dominant. I probably wouldn’t pass down that story either if I was a woman...

 

[Kylie]

Why would mother nature make vocal cords in humans and chimpanzees so different as to mimic creation?

Are they that different then?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Oh yes it is. That's precisely how evolution from a common ancestor works. Evolutionists always run from this. If all living things came from a common ancestor then all living things changed from something into something else. If birds, monkeys, spiders, worms all came from one thing that one thing was not any if those things in the beginning.

Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. Nobody is running from anything. You just don't have the most basic understanding of it.

 

[gaara4158]

Really? Then why aren’t you arguing with your fellow evolutionist who insists broken genes for legs indicate shared ancestors, if form has nothing to do with function? I’m sorry, but genes do dictate weather it is a leg or a flipper and do dictate it’s function.

Your confused. Genes do dictate how my arm is built and it’s function. Genes do dictate how my eye is built and it’s function. And if you change the function of any of those genes, you destroy the functionality.

You are confused, my genes dictate everything about me. If a gene produces protein A which is needed to develop my eyes, without it performing it’s function, my eye will not develop.

Genes are the blueprint that make everything in my body function. Prove your point. Destroy the gene leading to eyesight. The eye should still function in my offspring if you are correct.

You’re simply incorrect. Genes don’t dictate a structure’s function, they just dictate how structures are built. How a structure is built can affect its utility in the real world. When a mutation allows a structure to function in a new way, it’s considered a beneficial mutation. That’s how functions change. That’s natural selection, the driving force of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we can push back the orgin of some creatures by about 20 my, where is the limit? by pushing back 30my? 50my?

The "limit", in context of an evolutionary history, is a logical progression.

The altered timeline as a result of such finds, do not pose any problems for this logical progression.

Finding primates next to trilobites or similar, now THAT would be a problem.
And also extremely exciting.