What are the Holes in Evolution?

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
Why pretend that textbooks have not gone well beyond the evidence in promoting Darwin's theory?
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/04/20/lstrongglemgtextbook_watch_l_emg_why_pre

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ond-the-evidence-in-promoting-darwins-theory/

What textbook authors do or don't do has nothing to do with the theory itself. I was asking for holes in the theory of evolution, not holes in the textbooks.

Phred · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
Sorry I neglected to give you the site info so you can read it for yourself.

That's nice. I can copy and paste too. But if what I copy and paste is trash then how would I know if I don't understand it in the first place?

You see, I suspect you don't understand this stuff very well at all. That's why everyone asks you to explain... but nevermind. There's no real point is there?

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
It has been claimed that you have seen speciation and a fossil record but show me the beef. Not some article that is biased to put down creationism but show me the actual evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Here is the fossil series that I mentioned for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw:

guzman · Sep 21, 2007

Loudmouth said:
There are several other threads with similar focus, but it is always nice to start fresh once in a while.

It has been argued that there are holes in the theory of evolution. I, and others, would like to hear what these holes are?

Is it a lack of evidence? This would seem to be a trivial matter since an absense of evidence is not evidence of absence. A true hole in any scientific theory is evidence that is contradictory to what a theory predicts. Is there any evidence like this?

big hole: mutations do not produce new, beneficial selectable morphological novelty.

big hole: natural selection has never been proven to create anything.

big hole: individuals can generate their own, new heritable traits.

big hole: horizontal gene transfer is able to transfer specific genes (and traits) laterally across a population without these traits going through the selection process.

big hole: no origin of life

big hole: no evidence of slow, gradual modifications in the fossil record.

big hole: no evidence that any animal has ever evolved into another kind of animal

big hole: no ape-to-human transitions

how many more do you want?

Inan3 · Sep 21, 2007

Phred said:
That's nice. I can copy and paste too. But if what I copy and paste is trash then how would I know if I don't understand it in the first place?

You see, I suspect you don't understand this stuff very well at all. That's why everyone asks you to explain... but nevermind. There's no real point is there?

*smiling* I know all of you can copy and paste but it seems to be okay for you. Doubel standard.

This site asks for holes and that's what I am giving you. HOLES!

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

guzman said:
big hole: mutations do not produce new, beneficial selectable morphological novelty.

False. The Vadoma tribe proves you wrong. This african tribe has a mutation that causes them to have two toes on each foot. Their movement on the ground is not hampered by this change, but they are capable of running up trees much better than you or I.

big hole: natural selection has never been proven to create anything.

Natural selection selects. It is mutation that creates new variation.

big hole: individuals can generate their own, new heritable traits.

Interactions between the environment and the individual does create epigentically inheritable traints. However, this does not explain the diverity seen bewteen species.

big hole: horizontal gene transfer is able to transfer specific genes (and traits) laterally across a population without these traits going through the selection process.

This isn't a problem for evolution. HGT is still random with respect to fitness, the only requirement needed for the production of new heritable variation through DNA according to the theory of evolution.

big hole: no origin of life

The theory of evolution concerns itself with how life changed, not how life started.

Also, as I said in the OP the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We didn't know about Pluto for quite sometime, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist in the 1700's.

big hole: no evidence of slow, gradual modifications in the fossil record.

False again. The hominid transitionals are perhaps the best example of a slow gradual evolutionary modification.

big hole: no evidence that any animal has ever evolved into another kind of animal

That's exactly what the theory predicts. You never evolve into something that your ancestors were not. Evolution is descent with modification, not a change into something completely different.

big hole: no ape-to-human transitions

I didn't know my eyes could roll that far.

how many more do you want?

One true hole would be good.

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
*smiling* I know all of you can copy and paste but it seems to be okay for you. Doubel standard.

This site asks for holes and that's what I am giving you. HOLES!

I will give you credit for one hole. The inability to root the eukaryote and prokaryote tree is troublesome. However, this doesn't falsify humans and chimps sharing common ancestry which seems to be a big sticking point in creationism.

dukeofhazzard · Sep 21, 2007

TheOutsider said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inan3

But do you admit that it HAS been used in less than 30 years contrary to what you stated earlier?

Yes, I see 2 textbooks that were made over 10 years ago that have it. I don't know why theywere still printing it. It was proven wrong a long time ago. But this isn't evidence that evolution is wrong. It just shows that some people's understanding of evolution is wrong.

This isn't a good argument against evolution. When my cousins and I were kids, their textbooks from their elementary school stated that slavery was abolished in 1965.

sfs · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
It's enough to keep me a skeptic.

Since the evidence you've posted has essentially nothing to do with whether evolution is accurate or not, I find that hard to believe.

Pete Harcoff · Sep 21, 2007

dukeofhazzard said:
This isn't a good argument against evolution. When my cousins and I were kids, their textbooks from their elementary school stated that slavery was abolished in 1965.

Yeah, really. I remember reading an article awhile back that listed a whole series of errors in textbooks of all disciplines. It's not like textbooks are somehow immune to error.

Inan3 · Sep 21, 2007

TheOutsider said:
Not exactly gaping holes, are they? They are just tiny spots where our understanding was wrong. You showed that comparative embryology is wrong (which most scientists agree with you), gave old data about the similarities between humans and other apes, and that we didn't find a full specimen of Archaeopteryx until recently. They in no way, shape, or form disprove the TOE. We have seen speciation, we have a fossil record to show that life has gone from simple to complex, we have seen the genetic similarities between humans and other apes. What more do you want, oh Doubting Thomas?

If biologists disagree why wouldn't a layman doubt for sure?

The following comes from a link that Loudmouth gave me in this thread.

"Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part3

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Pete Harcoff said:
Yeah, really. I remember reading an article awhile back that listed a whole series of errors in textbooks of all disciplines. It's not like textbooks are somehow immune to error.

It is interesting that creationists focus on textbooks so intensely. Perhaps this is a bit of projection on their parts. Since they are not allowed to argue with their textbook they figure scientists can not argue with theirs.

Inan3 · Sep 21, 2007

Pete Harcoff said:
Yeah, really. I remember reading an article awhile back that listed a whole series of errors in textbooks of all disciplines. It's not like textbooks are somehow immune to error.

Let's settle this little byline. I mentioned this because it was stated that certain untruths were not used in over 30 years and I was merely pointing out that they were.

Inan3 · Sep 21, 2007

sfs said:
Since the evidence you've posted has essentially nothing to do with whether evolution is accurate or not, I find that hard to believe.

Whatever!

Pete Harcoff · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
If biologists disagree why wouldn't a layman doubt for sure?

The problem is most laymen don't have enough background knowledge to actually understand what biologists disagree about. Such is the case when it comes to discussions of evolutionary biology.

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
If biologists disagree why wouldn't a layman doubt for sure?

Disagree with what? No scientist I am aware of will disagree that speciation has occurred if the following criteria are met:

1. At some time in the past, the two populations interbred.

2. At the current time, the two populations do not produce viable or fertile offspring or refuse to interbreed.

Speciation is about gene flow. If gene flow is interupted, and gene flow is not reestablished when given the chance, then speciation has occurred, by every definition.

It is, however, difficult to assign species groups to fossils because we can not determine who interbred with who and what the gene flow was like. Fossils do not come with birth certificates. What we are left with is categorizing fossils by their anatomical features which works well but can lead to false groups. For example, if domesticated dogs disappeared and their fossils were uncovered in the future those palaeontologists would probable put them into tens, if not hundreds, of different species groups.

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
Whatever!

Q: What does the Valley Girl Pirate say?

A: [pirate voice] WHATEVERRRRR.[/pirate voice]

Now try not to smile.

Loudmouth · Sep 21, 2007

Inan3 said:
Let's settle this little byline. I mentioned this because it was stated that certain untruths were not used in over 30 years and I was merely pointing out that they were.

They may have continued to be used in textbooks, but no scientist uses them nor is the theory of evolution based on them. Scientists do not treat textbooks like you treat the Bible.

LittleNipper · Sep 21, 2007

TheOutsider said:
Are you kidding me? Speciation has been shown to happen in the lab numerous times. I'll give fruit flies as just one example of a new species.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg...0.1086/338370&erFrom=2392568407353087184Guest
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Also, it's "species" not "specie".

The species of flies has always existed from the time of creation. After the Fall they became a nuisance under Satan's whim.

Inan3 · Sep 21, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Here is the fossil series that I mentioned for the evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw:

Nice picture but only a picture. All all the fossils for this picture available or was this just what was supposed to have occured?

Did any of the following from the second Link that you gave become a distinct new species? Also, noticing the dates aren't these a little old if you know what I mean?

"

ere is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples.

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.) Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348"

What are the Holes in Evolution?

Contributor

Junior Mint

Contributor

Senior Member

Veteran Saint

Contributor

Contributor

Regular Member

Senior Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Veteran Saint

Contributor

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran Saint

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency