proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

If all evidence points to this assertion, how can i falsify it which is what you originally asked.

I originally asked you to support the assertion, not falsify it (unless there was a typo in my post). You guys keep asserting the same thing over and over, but never offer any support for your contentions.

 

[gaara4158]

Neither is calling finches separate species based on the belief of reproductive isolation, findiing out they aint, and refusing to correct it.....

You don’t find refusal to fix mistakes to be a strength? Then why do you always refuse to fix your mistakes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When I talk about fuzzy barriers, I'm talking about relative levels of reproductive fertility. For example, things like ring species, hybridization, etc. Species barriers in nature are not completely rigid.

whos dodging now? Your own scientific definition of species and subspecies specifically states interbreeding. So I ask what hybridization? If they are interbreeding they are the same species. Whats fuzzy is your refusal to accept what the deffinitions say.

Actually, they don't agree. I've seen creationists invoke the "kind" definition at all sorts of different levels from domains all the way to subspecies. For example, I've seen creationists treat "kind" as analogous to "genus" in taxonomy. Which would imply several different "cat" kinds. Yet I've seen other creationists claim the entire Felidae family as a single kind.

You guys need to sort out your ideas first, then come back when you've got it figured out.

Like biologists all agreeing on species? When they got it figured out you come back. Thats why you have a species problem because no one can really agree. You all never think that argument to its conclussion when you apply it to creationists.

Put 10 people in a room and you will get 12 answers to any question. Its human nature.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I originally asked you to support the assertion, not falsify it (unless there was a typo in my post). You guys keep asserting the same thing over and over, but never offer any support for your contentions.

evry evidence does. Name one that doesn't and we will discuss your error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don’t find refusal to fix mistakes to be a strength? Then why do you always refuse to fix your mistakes?

Name one and ill fix it....

 

[pitabread]

whos dodging now? Your own scientific definition of species and subspecies specifically states interbreeding. So I ask what hybridization? If they are interbreeding they are the same species. Whats fuzzy is your refusal to accept what the deffinitions say.

There are multiple species concepts and not all are based on interbreeding (esp when it comes asexual species or fossil species). And by fuzzy barriers, I'm talking about the simple fact that you don't always see perfectly rigid lines with respect to reproductive isolation and the ability to interbreed in nature.

Again, ring species are a perfect example of "fuzzy" species barriers: Ring species - Wikipedia

Like biologists all agreeing on species? When they got it figured out you come back. Thats why you have a species problem because no one can really agree. You all never think that argument to its conclussion when you apply it to creationists.

Again, creationists are the ones asserting that "kind" is a strict biological reality in nature. Far more so than the species concepts used by biologists.

The fact that creationist definitions of "kind" are so wildly divergent speaks volumes of what an utterly useless concept it is.

 

[pitabread]

evry evidence does.

And yet you continue to evade any attempt to explain why.

Maybe you can take a stab at explaining how something like phylogenetic reconstruction of ERV sequences is evidence for common design.

 

[gaara4158]

Name one and ill fix it....

That’s been our whole discussion, hasn’t it? How about the most recent where you claimed scientists didn’t separate humans taxonomically the same way they separate all other animals? I showed you wrong there, conclusively. Will you admit that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are multiple species concepts and not all are based on interbreeding (esp when it comes asexual species or fossil species). And by fuzzy barriers, I'm talking about the simple fact that you don't always see perfectly rigid lines with respect to reproductive isolation and the ability to interbreed in nature.

Which has always been my point. You see Husky mating with Mastiff to create the new variation of Chinook, then ignore this when it comes to those fosils and propose it happens by mutation, even if mutation has never changed a Husky or Mastiff into anything else..... But you keep avoiding the point being made and trying to make it into something else.....

Again, ring species are a perfect example of "fuzzy" species barriers: Ring species - Wikipedia

Except read how subspecies come into being under your own theory, then lts talk of those ring species being separate species or not.

Again, creationists are the ones asserting that "kind" is a strict biological reality in nature. Far more so than the species concepts used by biologists.

The fact that creationist definitions of "kind" are so wildly divergent speaks volumes of what an utterly useless concept it is.

Because besides your "fuzzy" excuses, they are impassible barriers. Ill ask again, have you seen a Husky or Mastiff evolve into anything? But you have seen them create a Chinook by interbreeding, yes? Then why not apply the observational evidence to those new forms in the fossil record?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That’s been our whole discussion, hasn’t it? How about the most recent where you claimed scientists didn’t separate humans taxonomically the same way they separate all other animals? I showed you wrong there, conclusively. Will you admit that?

And I asked you how we differentiate between the same subspecies of Asian and African?
If I didnt use the words Asian or African, you wouldnt know which I meant. So what good is your classification of lumping them all as one subspecies?

You dont do that with bears, or deer, or any of them but humans and dogs

 

[pitabread]

Because besides your "fuzzy" excuses, they are impassible barriers. Ill ask again, have you seen a Husky or Mastiff evolve into anything? But you have seen them create a Chinook by interbreeding, yes? Then why not apply the observational evidence to those new forms in the fossil record?

We've already had this discussion. Go back about 50 posts or so and re-read some of my prior responses. I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[gaara4158]

And I asked you how we differentiate between the same subspecies of Asian and African?

And I answered, there is no formal taxonomic distinction. Maybe you should scroll back and take the time to realize your mistake. I’ll wait.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I answered, there is no formal taxonomic distinction. Maybe you should scroll back and take the time to realize your mistake. I’ll wait.

So if we would apply the same to bears then we could say they are one subspecies with informal racial designations? Ahh, but then youll argue no, they are separate subspecies and species, even if they interbreed. Its not the informal classification I disagree with, but as I stated their refusal to classify us as they do the rest of the animal kingdom, to which your posts only prove me correct, since all the other animals have formal subspecie or specie designations.... each distinct one its own classification..... but not humans, just as i claimed from the begining and you simply in your zeal to prove me wrong, proved me correct.

You didnt pay attention, every distinct animal is classified as a subspecies within a species, but for humans and dogs.... In the rare case where two are the same subspecies, each one is given a formal designation, but not humans or dogs.... Maybe you should scroll back and read what I actually said about the classification.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We've already had this discussion. Go back about 50 posts or so and re-read some of my prior responses. I'm tired of repeating myself.

I did, you just kept making excuses on ignoring that no new race, breed, subspecies, whatever you want to call them has come about from mutation, but only from interbreeding. Just as those ring species. Subspecies come about from changes in the environment, exactly the cause you claim makes ring species separate species. So I dont think they are separate species at all, just again, more mistakes in classification in order to support the false belief in speciation. Its like those finches. Mistakes in classification people refuse to correcxt because to do so would dissolve their claims of speciation.

But we were discussing your refusal to apply observational evidence of how ew forms actually appear to the fossil record.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just as long as only what you believe is enforced on others through the school system, correct?

Envy is an ugly thing, my friend.

 

[pitabread]

I did, you just kept making excuses on ignoring that no new race, breed, subspecies, whatever you want to call them has come about from mutation, but only from interbreeding.

There's no excuses on my part. Rather, it's been an attempt to steer the conversation to the underlying genetics to truly understand what is happening at that level. Because when you understand the underlying genetics, then a lot of how evolution works will probably make a lot more sense.

I think part of the gap in understanding is a conceptualization issue. Like many creationists, you seem to be viewing evolution as a "single step" phenomenon. That's why something like mixing a couple dog breeds results in a more visibly significant change, consequently you expect that's how new species are formed. A single generations of mutations though tend to produce far less obvious variation of the phenotype (with admittedly some exceptions), so it's harder to visualize an accumulation of mutations over time.

But to recap:

- Mutations provide raw genetic variation;
- Interbreeding two populations with distinct gene pools is mixes and matches that variation;
- Breeders apply artificial selection pressures to screen for specific traits (typically reducing variation in the process) and direct the resultant phenotype.

Basically the same process is at work whether you're talking about breeding a pair of Huskies or a Husky with some other dog. The only difference is the relative levels of genetic and/or phenotype difference between the parents.

If you've already accepted that we can go from original wolf populations to the umpteen dog breeds we have today, then you've implicitly accepted the process of evolution and that the same process could go from a population of Huskies to some other dog breeds in the future (depending on whatever selective pressures breeders apply).

You're basically an evolutionist already. You just haven't accepted it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's more complicated than that. When we look at evidence for common ancestry, we're really looking at patterns of observations of things that should hold true if common ancestry were true.

Or common design.

Take phylogenetic tree construction as an example. A phylogenetic tree is a hierarchy of ancestral relationships predicated on shared ancestry. The tree implies two things: 1) that branched groups of organisms once evolved from a common gene pool; a common genome if you will. And 2), that the divergence between populations is primarily a result of hereditary descent with modification (i.e. mutations).

No different than if I create each separately using the same basic genetic building blocks.

If I take a particular gene homologous to a bunch of species, I can construct a phylogenetic tree based on the individual genetic sequences for that gene. The results is a tree which shows a nested hierarchy of presumed ancestral descent of that particular gene. The nesting basically shows the ancestral relationships of the respective species groups.

Or the shared common genetic traces from using the same basic common genetic material.

Then if I take a second gene, I can do the same and generate another tree. If that second tree shows convergence with the first tree, then it reinforces those ancestral relationships.

Or reinforces they were created from the same basic building blocks.

Then I do that again with a third gene, or some other sequences of genetic code (i.e. ERV insertions) or morphological characteristics, or whatever. If I continue to converge on approximately the same tree, it reinforces the pattern that we would expect to observe if those species shared common ancestry.*

Or shared the same basic building blocks from the beginning, even if each was created separately.

Now, if an intelligent creator was engineering organisms separately, they would not be operating under the same constraints (i.e. common ancestral genomes and hereditary descent). They could mix 'n match different genes or other genetic sequences willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern. So doing phylogenetic tree reconstruction under those circumstances, I would expect trees to diverge wildly.

Why? Would you not use the same basic engineering to build all cars, or would you go Willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern? So you want me to believe that a being that created the universe with such order we can describe it mathematically, would do things Willy nilly as you put it when He came to life? I see no reason to accept such absurd claims, any more than you would believe an engineer would build bridges Willy nilly.

This is why when creationists claim that such observed patterns are really evidence for common design, all they are really saying is that the creator was operating under constraints we would expect if organisms shared common ancestry via hereditary descent. In effect, the creator made life to have the appearance of evolution.

If you make the universe to operate under certain constraints, would you then not create life to operate under those constraints? Engineers build a bridge with force, gravity, wind, etc in mind. Why would you expect God to create life that was not fit to live on earth, but Willy nilly?

We agree all humans share common ancestors, Adam and Eve. As all chimpanzees do. You simply confuse that both chimps and humans were made from the same basic genetic material as meaning shared ancestors.

(* In practice things are admittedly a little fuzzier. For example, constructing gene phylogenies technically shows ancestral evolution of the specific gene which may not be completely in line with species divergence. As well, there are also mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer which can violate ancestral hierarchies. And of course like any statistical approach, there are going to be implicit assumptions and error margins associated with the output. All that said, we never do observe anything with respect to these reconstructions which would blatantly point to independent design.)

Quite a few implicit assumptions. Starting with your belief a creator must create life suited to this earth Willy nilly. But being you believe life happened Willy nilly (random) and proceeds Willy nilly (random mutations) I can understand why you think a being of order would do that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Envy is an ugly thing, my friend.

Agreed, that’s why they faked the pilt down man evidence during the trial to get creation removed. Envious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Informally. The differences between them aren't great enough to merit a formal distinction.

Neither are those finches.

1) Interbreeding with whom? According to the myth, they were the last humans left on Earth.
2) So you do admit that Asians and Africans came from non-Asians and non-Africans. You just think those people were Noah's family. So you can't be out here claiming Asians only breed Asians because you yourself admit that Asians were bred by non-Asians.

Nope, never said that. Said they had Asian and African characteristics. But how quickly you forget the lessons dogs teach you. Over 100 breeds of dogs from two wolf stock from interbreeding. Just amazing how you all can never seem to remember that.

With a boat and some paperwork you can get an Asian to give birth to an American, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

Sorry, too inbred, just as I can’t get anything from a Husky but a Husky after all this time of inbreeding for select characteristics.

Well, I just haven't seen the empirical evidence suggesting this is the case. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

You haven’t? Are you sure? Are you not aware half the chromosomes come from the male and half from the female? Your idea of empericial evidence needs checked.

 

[pitabread]

Or common design.

Well, no. If we're looking for patterns related to common ancestry based on fundamental constraints related to heridary descent, there is no reason to believe that the same patterns would hold true for "common design".

Your continued claims that everything should look exactly the same under a design scenario just points to the fact that if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution.

Why? Would you not use the same basic engineering to build all cars, or would you go Willy nilly with no regard for any sort of pattern?

While there is arguably a degree of 'inheritance' with respect to human engineering, it's not explicitly required. A person could conceivably engineer a vehicle completely from scratch without regard for any pre-existing design.

Furthermore, they could also mix and match components without any regard for hierarchy or inheritance restriction. It's perfectly possible for an engineer to retrofit a modern entertainment or navigation system into a classic car from the 1930's.

This would be akin to something like finding a Devonian tetrapod complete with modern human hands and feet. A designer could easily do it. Evolution? That would be far more improbable.

If you make the universe to operate under certain constraints, would you then not create life to operate under those constraints? Engineers build a bridge with force, gravity, wind, etc in mind. Why would you expect God to create life that was not fit to live on earth, but Willy nilly?

What you're really suggesting is that if God created the Earth's species, evolution appears to have been their process.

After all, that's the process we observe in nature and the patterns we see with respect to modern species suggests an evolutionary history based on evolutionary constraints.

But being you believe life happened Willy nilly (random) and proceeds Willy nilly (random mutations) I can understand why you think a being of order would do that.

Evolution is not purely random. Biochemical processes are not random. And selection relative to environmental pressures is also not strictly random.