Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[USincognito]

I was looking for a little more than ad hoc, but thanks for the response.

God created every animal the way he saw fit.. Since he created everything we see around us, creator of the universe, than I'm sure it's possible that he can make a animal like the parthenogenetic lizard u speak of.

In Genesis, it says God makes them male and female, but there are no male Whip Tailed Lizards.

I'll also post A4C's original post I was responding to:

Has the "Theory of evolution" got over the stumbling block of asexual to sexual reproduction. Surely when this obstacle was circumvented somehow only then could it justify the title "theory"

So my question is how do creationists get over the stumbling block of sexual to parthenogenetic reproduction (without ad hoc appeals)?

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

Well, Genisis says,

" So God created man in his own
image,
in the image of God he created
him;
male and female he created
them."

It then goes on to say that God created all the beasts of the earth and birds of the air
and all the fish in the sea, an we shall rule over them.

He doesn't necessarily say that all the animals will have a male and female, just us humans.

 

[Eternal Mindset]

How does creationism handle parthenogenetic species like the whip tailed lizard? Did the male fall over the side of the ark, so God made the famles not need them any more?

Why would he need to make one of each if he had already made one capable of doing both jobs?

 

[A4C]

So my question is how do creationists get over the stumbling block of sexual to parthenogenetic reproduction (without ad hoc appeals)?

What stumbling block are you suggesting we have?

 

[Tashena]

I don't see a stumbling block... I see a question that already has been answered many many times... ya'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[FieryBalrog]

I see a lot of creationists not knowing much about genetics and evolution and coming up with ad hoc attacks upon something they dont know much about. I also see ad hoc defenses. Of course God could have a great reason for making parthogenetic lizard- once you believe in God, you can indeed speculate as to the reasons. But why should I believe that God had a reason? Can you tell me the reason? If not, why should I believe you?

Also, what about hermaphroditic humans? Babies born with both sexual organs? I'm sure youre going to tell me arbitrarily that God has a great reason for that- even though you probably have no idea what that reason is and can only wildly speculate as to the reason.

 

[USincognito]

Well, Genisis says,

" So God created man in his own
image,
in the image of God he created
him;
male and female he created
them."

It then goes on to say that God created all the beasts of the earth and birds of the air
and all the fish in the sea, an we shall rule over them.

He doesn't necessarily say that all the animals will have a male and female, just us humans.

[bible]Genesis 6:19[/bible]

Uh Oh. Looks like a boy and a girl of every kind got on the Ark. So were there two Whip Tails, one butch, one fem? Or did Mr. Whip Tail fall over the side before reaching Ararat?

 

[MarkT]

Tom

Again, it did not suddenly take on a new appearance. Populations of bird-ancestors slowly developed these characteristics over a long period of time.

That's what you believe happened but there's no evidence it happened.

The mechanism is mutation + natural selection. Mutations alter the genetic sequence, natural selection makes sure that those that are beneficial are preserved while those that are not are weeded out of the population. These mutations slowly add up, slowly giving rise to a new species.

You posted a list of traits that were caused by mutations. Some of the examples of new traits you listed

"Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material."

But these things wouldn't add up to a new character.

If this is all you have, then you don't have anything so far that would, in my opinion, show character development occuring. ie. the evolution of new characteristics.

But speciation doesn't rely on mutations.

There's variation in a gene pool. And the species that develop from a particular pool are clearly seen to belong to it. Call it a family or a kind.

So there's no evidence that mutations slowly add up or that speciation is the result.

 

[Rodinia]

Tom

There's variation in a gene pool. And the species that develop from a particular pool are clearly seen to belong to it. Call it a family or a kind.

Science already has a name for this observation, common descent.

 

[MarkT]

Tom

I am not saying that. To be more specific, I say that over a long period of time the front paws (as well as many other characteristics) of the ancestors of birds began to modify into wings. This only required a modification of the basic reptilian bodyplan, which would have happened slowly over time. We have a number of examples of animals living before birds which have a body-plan intermediate between that of birds and dinosaurs.
The most famous of these is of course, archeopteryx. However, it is not the only one. Based on archeopteryx a number of other finds was predicted, and eventually found in China.

Well here you're just connecting the dots. You have no a priori knowledge of evolution leading to a common ancestor so there's no reason to do so.

There's no evidence front paws modified into wings.

Archeopteryx was probably one of a family of flying lizards that included the pterodactyl. It wasn't a true bird.

 

[MarkT]

Science already has a name for this observation, common descent.

No. Speciation isn't common descent. Speciation refers to the development of the species that belong to a particular family or kind of animal.

 

[Rodinia]

No. Speciation isn't common descent. Speciation refers to the development of the species that belong to a particular family or kind of animal.

If common descent isn’t the means by which new species have came into existence, then what is?

 

[Tomk80]

No. Speciation isn't common descent. Speciation refers to the development of the species that belong to a particular family or kind of animal.

Well, your running across a problem here, namely where does speciation stop? Which animals belong to the same kind? Dogs and wolfs? Dogs and foxes. Dogs and bears. I mean, we have found an animal which has both dog and bear characteristics in a time period before both dogs and bears existed. Do all carnivora have a common ancestor? Or all mammals? Are all lizards of the same kind? What about snakes? What about legless lizards? And if you consider dogs and foxes to be of the same kind, do you also consider chimps and humans as the same kind?
Where does speciation stop? I have never seen a creationist answer this riddle, maybe you are the first?

You see, we are saying the exact same thing as you. A eukaryote will always have eukaryotes as descendents. That eukarytes have diversified so much that they include the complete plant and animal kingdoms doesn't change that. All mammals have gotten other mammals as descendents. And so on and so forth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well here you're just connecting the dots. You have no a priori knowledge of evolution leading to a common ancestor so there's no reason to do so.

Actually, DNA evidence strongly points towards common ancestory for species that look quite different.

There's no evidence front paws modified into wings.

Archeopteryx was probably one of a family of flying lizards that included the pterodactyl. It wasn't a true bird.

Firstly, archaeopteryx and pterodactyls were very different. In pterodactyls, the wing was made by a flap of skin that ran between the end of the fingers and the thigh. In archaeopteryx, and modern birds, the flight surface is comprised of just the limb. "Flying lizard" will not get you off the hook.

Also, archaeopteryx has a mixture of reptillian (and more specifically dinosaurian) characteristics and avian characteristics. Archaeopteryx has bird features found in no living reptile past or present, and archie has reptile features found in no bird living past or present. This is exactly what you would expect if birds evolved from reptiles. If archaeopteryx is not a perfect example of a transitional, can you please tell us what a transitional fossil between birds and reptiles should look like?

And just for me, can you give me an example of what you would consider an evolutionary transition? (eg reptile to mammal)

 

[Rodinia]

Well here you're just connecting the dots. You have no a priori knowledge of evolution leading to a common ancestor so there's no reason to do so.

You are aware that we can use DNA similarities to determine ancestry? Forensic scientists use it to settle paternity suits. It is accepted as “proof” in the courts of the land. Biologists use it to trace the genealogy of organisms (this has actually been tested in controlled experiments; it works). This is pretty well established science.

There's no evidence front paws modified into wings.

The forelimb of a lizard, the wing of a bird, and your arm have the same functional types and general shapes of bones, as did our shared reptilian ancestor.

Archeopteryx was probably one of a family of flying lizards that included the pterodactyl. It wasn't a true bird.

Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations similar to modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations.

 

[Tomk80]

That's what you believe happened but there's no evidence it happened.

Well, we happen to know that populations evolve in stead of individuals. That was one of the things I've tried to make clear. We also see this happening. It's called allopatric speciation.
Furthermore, the finds of various intermediate species between dinosaurs (more specifically maniraptera) and birds which show, amongst others, the development of wings, feathers and beaks is another line of evidence. The fact that these are found in the right order (dinosaur, more bird-like, dinosaur/bird, even more birdlike, bird with teeth, modern bird) is also telling.

You posted a list of traits that were caused by mutations. Some of the examples of new traits you listed

"Like aids resistance, digestion of nylon, malaria resistance, plague resistance, diminished susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases? Sounds like new traits to me, and have all been shown in the scientific literature. Your above statement only shows your ignorance of the material."

But these things wouldn't add up to a new character.

If this is all you have, then you don't have anything so far that would, in my opinion, show character development occuring. ie. the evolution of new characteristics.

How about the development of feathers from scales? You do realize it takes only one mutation to transform the scales of chickens (on their paws) into feathers. And the these scales (or scutes as they are called) are very similar to the scutes that crocodiles have. Do I have absolute proof? No, science doesn't deal in that. Do I have a lot of evidence pointing in that direction to conclude that the explanation is convincing? Yes.

But speciation doesn't rely on mutations.

I really do not have any hard evidence one way or the other. I'd say it doesn't always, since populations can also become seperated and speciate because a part of the population 'chooses' another mating season (to name but one example). On the other hand, we have a number of speciation events which even you will accept (probably) which did require mutation. For example, the relationship between a donkey and a horse. Genetic variation alone cannot explain that they cannot produce fertile offspring (unless in very rare occasions). Mutation can.

There's variation in a gene pool. And the species that develop from a particular pool are clearly seen to belong to it. Call it a family or a kind.

Yes, but where does that begin and end? That's the question. You want a whole series of common ancestors. I'm satisfied with just one, and I'm wondering where you draw the line.

So there's no evidence that mutations slowly add up or that speciation is the result.

Then why are human ERV's more like those of chimps than those of Urang Utangs. And why does our disabled vitamin C gene more resemble that of chimps than that of other primates. Seems like adding up of mutations to me.

 

[Tomk80]

Well here you're just connecting the dots. You have no a priori knowledge of evolution leading to a common ancestor so there's no reason to do so.
There's no evidence front paws modified into wings.

No, our fossil finds connect the dots actually. Archeopteryx was the first fossil that was found on this, but other were predicted. We have a whole arrangement of fossils which show things like protofeathers and a shift in the positioning of the pelvis (from clearly reptilian to clearly birdlike and a lot in between). Now, the beauty of it is that if we lay them in chronological order, they actually form a transitional series which becomes more and more like modern birds as we progress toward our current time frame. Here you can find a fun site which shows you a lot of it.

Archeopteryx was probably one of a family of flying lizards that included the pterodactyl. It wasn't a true bird.

Really Mark. I can respect your position that you do not want to accept common ancestry. I can respect the questions you ask like the ones I tried to answer sufficiently in my previous post about mutations, as well as the commentary I've tried to answer here about 'connecting the dots'. What I cannot, and will not accept is outrageous assertions like the one you produce here. Please study the skeleton, as well as reconstructions, of archaeopteryx, pterodactyli and birds. And while your busy, take bats with that too. You don't have to look closely to see that archeopteryx is much further removed from pterodactyli than from birds.

 

[MarkT]

If common descent isn’t the means by which new species have came into existence, then what is?

Species come out of a pool, like a swimming pool, of a parent kind.

When some members of the parent population become separated by geography, geological barriers, they would produce offspring that would strongly resemble their parents more than the parent population. Over time, they would all begin to look alike, specific traits would become pronounced and we would call them a species of the parent kind.

That's the way I see it anyways.

So the question isn't where we would draw the line, since speciation occurs within a circle (I'm just using the pool concept as an example) but what limiting factors would prevent an unlimited number of viable species from coming out of a particular pool.

The way I see it, if a species represents less than 100% of the parent population genetically and a subsequent species that comes from it represents less than it's parent, then pretty soon you might not be left with a viable animal. It becomes genetically unviable or spent genetically, perhaps more susceptible to disease etc.

You might have something like the Dodo bird, that can't fly or move around very well and then it becomes extinct.

So I can see how dinosuars could have become extinct over time, given the number of species that came out of that pool.

Just my theory of course.

 

[MarkT]

Like T. Rex. An animal with such a big head and little arms probably wouldn't succeed for long.

 

[USincognito]

Like T. Rex. An animal with such a big head and little arms probably wouldn't succeed for long.

You mean like Cetates?

And I'm not sure what you mean about T. Rex lasting very long. They were on the Earth longer than humans have been.