Creation vs Evolution

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
well, you are certainly flippant today. I expected more than a hand-waving when I show scientific evidence.

actually, it is incredibly insulting to me to have evidence dismissed before you could have possibly read and understood it.


Two things about that:

1. The site is very hard to figure out due to poor design. I searched for quite awhile for evidence and didn't find any. To find the chart you provided in your follow-up I had to click on "Adaptive Radiation" and then skip over the unlinked "Molecular Evolution" and "Chemical Evolution" headings in favor of one marked "origin and relationships". This was not intuitive and I made no attempt to evade the data. I simply assumed by the unlinked headings that the site didn't contain informatoin on molecular and chemical evolution, a perfectly logical assumption on my part.
2. If your viewpoint is established by mountains of evidence, of which this is the best, then forgive me for being quite honestly elated. You have set the tone for flippancy in your own posts. Let's both bring it down and assume a respectful composure now that we've had some fun.

Now all you have to do is craft an argument that shows how the data from this site proves your case and I will respond.


mutation is only one of the mechanisims that allows new heritable nucloetide sequences (alleles) in the organisims DNA. Selective processes work on those alleles in the population.


So a change in frequency from zero to n??

Ok, then, I'll define spontaneous generation as the change in frequency of mice in my pocket. Then I will prove spontaneous generation by placing a mouse in my pocket.

Now by that definition do you believe that spontaneous generation was proven?

Would you agree that if I defined a "change in frequency" to be the "sudden transmogrification of lint to mice" that the definition I originally proposed was misleading?


I'm not able to correct my definition. it is totally correct.


Hardly. The "change in frequencies" is not the same as the "creation of new" alleles. One works through genetic combination of traits from parents. The other works by mutation. These two completely different concepts are rolled together as one package in an attempt to prove the second by proving the first.


actually, it was. you asked me to show that the genetic evidence could ONLY be explained using a scientific explanation. You asked for me to show that it could NOT have been explained by creation.


Then it's impossible to find evidence that proves evolution by your own logic. Proof, logically, can only come if the sum of the evidence supports only one position.


I am telling you, again, that EVERY peice of evidence supports creation.


Yes, because it can't be falsified. Just like evolution by the third definition I gave. Neither of them are scientific in that context.


>If you cannot establish how the evidence can only be
>understood through evolution, then I have no work to do. You
>haven't made your case yet.

wrong. I am supporting evolution, thus my evidence must show that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the current data. I've done that.


No you haven't. You've just posted a link and then sat back for me to figure out first how the data supports your position and second how to argue against it. The link was to a website that has a sketchy evolutionary tree on it buried 3 pages deep. I've read the site fully and I'm prepared for your argument. Give me something falsifiable.

Proof does not come by a blanket dismissal of contradictory evidence and then pointing to what is left over. By refusing to accept creation as a possibility you are just making an a priori assumption that your outlook is true.

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

JB:"The fossils are found in
various layers all across the world. When a fossil is found in an unexpected place it doesn't falsify evolution
because evolution doesn't necessarily demand that extinction occur at all. The coelecanth is a perfect example.
It is found in a layer that everyone "knows" to be about 100 million years old. It isn't found in any "newer" layers."
.
Similar fossils are found only in similar layers..
Ideally the layering would such that a radiometrically dateable layer lies under the fossil lays, and another lies over it, thereby unambiguously dating the fossil layer. (Fossil layers are typically sedimentary, which is difficult to date with radiometric methods)
But the principle remains. As nature doesn't repeat itself, fossils which can be related to each other date from the same time period, without the requirement that a continuous strata must exist between the two sites. i.e. The coasts of Africa and South America share geologic characteristics, and the fossils found on both coasts are the same, indicating there had been no seperation between the coasts at the time those fossils were animals/plants/rocks.
.
Coelecanth is interesting as a "surviving fossil" (there are others).. It was not "known" mainly because of where it lives! 1500 feet down is not a productive area for subsistence fisherman to explore for their daily food. 150 ten foot long lines catch more fish than 1 1500 foot line.
As the habitat of the fish is currently underwater, any potential fossils are out of reach, but when that area uplifts and becomes accessible, the link between the old and the new will be established. Or that area could submerge under the African plate and be lost forever.
We know they lived 100 million years ago, they are alive today, there won't be a gap.
.
JB:"If evolution in total is a "scientific" theory then it must be falsifiable. I've shown that it is not falsifiable. I've also
agreed that creation is not falsifiable. "
No, you made statements to that effect, but you haven't detailed where falsification fails for evolution.
.
JB:"The age of the earth is indeterminable, just as it is impossible to measure a piece of string if you can only see
one end of it. It's inconvenient for everyone involved, but the age of the earth is not something we can argue
without a great deal of conjecture or assumption. "
.
See above. The mere statement of age indeterminacy is false.
.
JB:" You are asking me to presume the purpose a creator had for dinosaurs, but such a question is outside of science. "
.
Which is what we've been saying from the git go!
There is no science in creationism!

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Which is what we've been saying from the git go!
There is no science in creationism!

There is no science in the "why" question. What we are dealing with is a "how" question, which is scientific. Creationists are just as interested in the "natural" sciences as evolutionists.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
2. If your viewpoint is established by mountains of evidence, of which this is the best, then forgive me for being quite honestly elated.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

by no means is it the only 'good' evidence. But let's stick with the silverswords, becasuse there are several online resources that you can read up on.

a lot of respect would be gained by citing your claim of:

"I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "

this is the 3rd time I have asked you to provide support for this claim.

Originally posted by jbourke
Now all you have to do is craft an argument that shows how the data from this site proves your case and I will respond.


I've done that.

evolution predicts that organisims that are closely related to each other will be very similiar in genetic structure as a function of the time they have been reproductively isolated. The data shows that the silverswords came from a single ancestor, and evolved into several dozen different species. Furthermore, these organisims show considerable macroevolutionary changes when compared to their ancestors. (tarweeds)

by looking at the genetic heritage of each species, we can show how each species underwent adaptive radation, and how they differ biochemically from the other species that were descended from the tarweed line.

Originally posted by jbourke
So a change in frequency from zero to n??

Ok, then, I'll define spontaneous generation as the change in frequency of mice in my pocket. Then I will prove spontaneous generation by placing a mouse in my pocket.

Now by that definition do you believe that spontaneous generation was proven?

Would you agree that if I defined a "change in frequency" to be the "sudden transmogrification of lint to mice" that the definition I originally proposed was misleading?


I'm sorry, I don't understand your analogy.

Originally posted by jbourke
Hardly. The "change in frequencies" is not the same as the "creation of new" alleles. One works through genetic combination of traits from parents. The other works by mutation. These two completely different concepts are rolled together as one package in an attempt to prove the second by proving the first.


I don't understand this reasoning either. Mutations can cause different alleles to become present in the population.

You have (on average) about 6 mutations that neither of your parents had, due to mistakes in gene shuffling during cell division and recombination of the egg and sperm.

one does not attempt to prove the other. Mutation is an observed fact. Selection is an observed fact.

both contribute to changing the frequency of alleles within a population. Mutation can create new alleles, and selection acts upon the population, selecting for or against certain alleles.

Originally posted by jbourke

Then it's impossible to find evidence that proves evolution by your own logic. Proof, logically, can only come if the sum of the evidence supports only one position.


once again, science does not prove things, but I think I understand what you mean.

in the context of science, evolution is the only theory to explain the data. If you have another scientific alternative, I'm all ears!


Originally posted by jbourke
No you haven't. You've just posted a link and then sat back for me to figure out first how the data supports your position and second how to argue against it. The link was to a website that has a sketchy evolutionary tree on it buried 3 pages deep. I've read the site fully and I'm prepared for your argument. Give me something falsifiable.


I posted a link showing the relationship to closely related organisims, AND their genetic mappings in relation to how they are descended from a common ancestor.

this genetic mapping is exactly what evolution would predict. If the genetic mapping showed that none of the silverswords were related at all to common ancestor, each other, or to daughter species, that would show that scientists do not understand how modification of descendants can lead to novel forms. (macroevolution)

Originally posted by jbourke
Proof does not come by a blanket dismissal of contradictory evidence and then pointing to what is left over. By refusing to accept creation as a possibility you are just making an a priori assumption that your outlook is true.
Jim

those are your words.

where have I dismissed 'solid' contradictory evidence? (fossil boots aside)

I accept biblical creation is possible
I accept panspermia is possible
I accept the 20-seconds-ago creation is possible
I accept we could be a lab simulation
I accept we could be in 'the matrix'
I accept that a giant pink unicorn gave birth to the universe is possible

I don't see any evidence for those arguments at this time. If new data comes up, I'll change my worldview. trust me.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


There is no science in the "why" question. What we are dealing with is a "how" question, which is scientific. Creationists are just as interested in the "natural" sciences as evolutionists.

Jim

some creationists are, some are not.

I'd love to find the source, but a recent poll found something like 87% of americans believe that the universe was created by god.

a further 40-something percent of those believed in a 10,000yr old earth.

obviously, those people are not that interested in what the scientists have to say about the world around them.

[lymon]

jbourke, thanks for not abandoning this thread!
OK, you are all ignoring me.
I believe that many, many different careful studies indicate an Earth of around 4.6 billion years of age.
If my faith is strong enough, (e.g., truly omnipotent God), and I believe in a literal Genesis, then I HAVE to believe that the universe was made to be "old" in the first place.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke


There is no science in the "why" question. What we are dealing with is a "how" question, which is scientific. Creationists are just as interested in the "natural" sciences as evolutionists.

Jim
.
???
The "how" part of creation is duecedly simple..
Begins with 5 words..
God said "let there be......
Usama Ben Laden, Attila the Hun, Heinrich Himmler, Mao Tse-tung, anthrax, syphilis,
heart disease, Alzheimer's, white supremacy, .hemophilia, T. Rex (but hide him in the mud)..
presbyopia,.Torquemeda...."
No mutations, benign or pernicious, no alleles, genes,. DNA.. Not required.
No science needed. Just faith.
The "why" part of creation is really difficult to comprehend OTOH, with all of the above (less T.rex, he's innocent) being visited on us for a transgression by two (2) people and a talking snake.
Seems overreactive.

[Gerald]

...

[Gliderguy]

Gee, I always thought it was called "The theory of evolution". Has it been changed somehow to "The fact of evolution"?

Everyones got a belief system.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Gliderguy
Gee, I always thought it was called "The theory of evolution". Has it been changed somehow to "The fact of evolution"?

Everyones got a belief system.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

evolution is both a theory AND a fact.

much like gravity is a fact, AND a theory.

hmmm... actually, there is no theory of gravity. Scientists don't have enough data to take the current models past the hypothesis stage.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by lymon
jbourke, thanks for not abandoning this thread!
OK, you are all ignoring me.
I believe that many, many different careful studies indicate an Earth of around 4.6 billion years of age.
If my faith is strong enough, (e.g., truly omnipotent God), and I believe in a literal Genesis, then I HAVE to believe that the universe was made to be "old" in the first place.
.
Lymon, what would be the point of generating a universe 10,000 years ago, yet making that universe appear to be 2 million times older than that when using the best instrumenation available? (And the better the instrumentation becomes, the precise the determination of the age has become.)
The earth, the solar system itself isn't even a "first generation" member of the universe, it contains materials that needed to be assembled by supernova activity from stars existing prior to the solar system assembling out of the debris of those supernovas.
Uranium 238 for example has a 1/2 life of 4,500,000,000 years, almost the same age as the solar system, so it pre-existed the solar system.
The Hubble telescope has reached further back into time than any else, and finds galaxies upon galaxies at the furthest reaches of time. Not little clumps of hydrogen, but fully formed galaxies.
Why bother to set this up this way?
A "young" in fact universe made to appear "old" accomplishes what? Other than confusing those who are looking for absolutes from "truths" set down by those who had not the foggiest idea of the extent (or age) of even their immediate surroundings, or how those surroundings came to be
and who came up with stories to explain the world and its ways to their equally uninformed followings but limited by their necessarily limited knowledge of the earth and universe.
Demanding acceptance of the 10,000 year age, ... and accomodating the giga-light-year extent of the observed universe requires a serious mental gymnastic. Easy for some, unacceptable to others.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Gliderguy
Gee, I always thought it was called "The theory of evolution". Has it been changed somehow to "The fact of evolution"?

Everyones got a belief system.
.
Evolution is a fact.
It's the mechanism by which it works that isn't pinned down, which is theory.
Belief, no matter how strong, cannot alter physical reality.

[lymon]

Sparky, its time for me to pull my mask off... you are the guy who makes sense to me in this.... but IF you HAD to believe in Creation as sold by the Southern Baptists, and you were any sort of "scientific mind", you could only believe in the goofy scenario that I've illustrated... the key is the all powerful entity (hard to embrace)... and your (marvelous) grasp of the undeniable, obvious (to me), age of the planet/solar system/ universe

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal

a lot of respect would be gained by citing your claim of:

"I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "


I provided several quotes a few pages ago.


evolution predicts that organisims that are closely related to each other will be very similiar in genetic structure as a function of the time they have been reproductively isolated.


I understand.


The data shows that the silverswords came from a single ancestor, and evolved into several dozen different species.


No, it shows that they could have come from the same ancestor. It does not show that they did. It is evidence that does not rule out evolution, and it is consistent with evolution, as you rightfully point out, but it is not sufficient to prove evolution.

This is a mind-game anyway, because you have already established a) that evolution is the only possible explanation that is worthy of consideration and b) that evolution can be freely modified to account for any evidence that is discovered. ALL evidence is consistent with evolution.

I'm going to continue the discussion because it's obviously an important point you are trying to make. Yet despite the following I've already made my most important point. A genetic correlation does not demonstrate ancestry unless an evolutionary cause for genetic similarity is presumed a priori.

But I digress. On to the response I have promised you...

From the website:


Chloroplast DNA nucleotide sequences provided the first molecular evidence bearing on the origin and relationships of the Hawaiian silversword alliance. These data support the conclusion that the Hawaiian silversword alliance is a monophyletic group derived from ancestors very similar to the extant Pacific coast tarweeds


And I agree that the data supports the conclusion. I have no argument with such simple logic. There is a genetic similarity between these plants. I also don't have a problem if the similarities are measured and a taxonomic order is created.

Does the molecular evidence imply ancestry? Not by itself, but in this case ancestry isn't even something I would debate. Not when so many "natural hybrids" are found.

From the site:


Biosystematic and cytogenetic analyses indicate that hybrids among the group of Dubautia species with 13 pairs of chromosomes are essentially fully fertile.
...
Dubautia scabra is sympatric and hybridizes with several 13-paired species, including D. ciliolata, D. linearis, D. menziesii (Fig. 1), D. platyphylla, D. reticulata, and D. waianapanapaensis.
...
A striking example of a natural hybrid between congeneric species with very different growth forms involves the mat-forming species, Dubautia scabra, and the tree, D. reticulata. As different as the parents are, the hybrids are comparatively fertile, being identical in chromosome configuration to the D. scabra/D. ciliolata example discussed above.


In fact, a graphic depiction of the hybridization possibilities of these plants can be found at the following link: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/crossing_habit1.jpg

Next to that graphic is the following text:


The results suggest that any two members of this alliance may be expected to have the potential to produce viable hybrid progeny.


So the site demonstrates quite convincingly that the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance has the following qualities:

1. They are extremely diverse in appearance, from short mat-forming types to 5 meter tall bushes.

2. All of these plants are similar genetically.

3. Attempts at natural and artificial hybridization so far have been successful, and there is sufficient evidence to believe that any further attempt will be successful.

Which clearly makes these plants the same species.


Furthermore, these organisims show considerable macroevolutionary changes when compared to their ancestors. (tarweeds)


First of all, I note that the exact ancestor of these plants is not determinable according to the website:

This ancestor may have been a creeping, mat-forming species similar to the North American tarweed, Raillardiopsis murii.

The key words being may have been. A proper example of macroevolution would pinpoint both ancestor and descendant.

Whereas the scientists researching these plants were careful in their statements, you are not. Their comment is that the ancestor may have been a species of plant similar to the North American tarweed. From that, you have deduced that the scientists have proven the tarweed to be the ancestor. Why would they not come out and say so if that were the case? The obvious answer is that they know what their data does and does not say. Their data suggests rather than defines the ancestry.

In fact, they do not even attempt to assert any specific ancestral species at all. I've attached a gif file illustrating this. The areas with question marks are where the ancestors should be.

The species in this study have all been placed as (get ready for the pun) "leaf" nodes.

Your contention was that this was a quality piece of evidence for macro evolution, the transformation of one species into another. Convincing evidence would at least identify both the parent and the daughter species.


I posted a link showing the relationship to closely related organisims, AND their genetic mappings in relation to how they are descended from a common ancestor.


It would take me a year of study to fully understand the genetic similarities and differences between these plants. And I know from the literature I've read that many organisms are demonstrably similar according to a simple comparison of nucleotides, yet are morphologically distinct and are not considered similar in any phylogenic way at all. The single chart you have provided is far too gross to be analyzed. It is just an expression of the amount of similarity, which does nothing to explain your case.

Consider that the Raillardiopsis muirii SN and Raillardiopsis muirii SL are farther apart in their Nucleotide Sequence Divergence values than either are from certain Dubautia. If ancestry is implied simply by an expression of overall similarity, these two Raillardiopsis Muirii are farther apart phylogenically than they are with plants that are separated from them by thousands of miles of ocean.

Now moving on down the page at http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/origin.htm

The rest of the page shows the results of hybridization attempts between silverswords and North American tarweeds. Now that is very interesting to me as it is actually a refutation of the premise that macro-evolution was needed to produce the diversity of silverswords. The case was better made when they appeared to be entirely separate species.


The molecular data encouraged an attempt to artificially hybridize Dubautia laevigata, and Carlquistia muirii. The cross was very successful, and soon several vigorous intergeneric, trans-Pacific hybrids were in cultivation.
...
Artificial hybridization of Dubautia with Kyhosia bolanderi also proved easy to accomplish.


and it was even possible to create a hybrid from the hybrid, which demonstrates that these plants can reproduce freely with each other


the first attempt resulted in three vigorous individuals of a spectacular trigeneric hybrid (top center) that combines the diploid genomes of two mainland genera with the tetraploid genome of the Hawaiian silversword alliance


I feel tempted to delete my initial response at the top of this (terribly long) post, but I think I'll just leave it. Despite anything else I've said the real issue at hand here is that genetic similarity, analyzed using a coarse statistical means, is not a valid way to show ancestry.

Yet, ironically, in this case the ancestry is there. But it isn't established by the statistical analysis. It is established by the successful hybridizations. That hybridization data is enough to convince me of a like ancestor. But establishing a like ancestor was not the claim that forced me to review the website. The claim was that this was the best evidence for macro evolution you could think of. I'm looking for something along the lines of invertebrate to vertebrate transitional forms, but I'm not holding my breath. :)


this genetic mapping is exactly what evolution would predict.


Now that is a perfectly true and logical statement. Also not a point of contention between us.

If the genetic mapping showed that none of the silverswords were related at all to common ancestor, each other, or to daughter species, that would show that scientists do not understand how modification of descendants can lead to novel forms. (macroevolution)


Absolutely true, and a potential method for falsification of one specific aspect of evolution, but not the entire "fact" of evolution as imagined by the faithful due to the pliability of the evolutionary model.

Jim

[jbourke]

Just FYI, everyone, I don't have much more time to devote to this. I'm probably going to post one or maybe two more comments and then I'm done for now.

Absent of a structured format where we can agree on some basic definitions and points of contention beforehand, I don't think the arguing is very informative or enjoyable for anyone involved.

I extended an offer to a formal debate with "notoatmeal" and he declined. I have another offer outstanding but the person I've offered is too busy to take up the challenge (I can relate! I'm too busy too! What was I thinking?) so we'll just take up the issue when our schedules give us both sufficient free time.

I have one good, strong point to make within the next couple of days, presuming enough free time to do some math...

Jim

[notoatmeal]

>JB:In fact, they do not even attempt to assert any specific ancestral species at all. I've attached a gif file illustrating this. The areas with question marks are where the ancestors should be.


the first ??? on the leftmost side are tarweeds.

the rest of the ??? are not ancestors. they show the relationship to daughter species. they are not saying there were intermediate species, they are directly descended from that line.

think of it exactly like a family tree. but of species.

the length of each line is only to allow the entire data to fit on the page.

[notoatmeal]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data shows that the silverswords came from a single ancestor, and evolved into several dozen different species.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JB:

No, it shows that they could have come from the same ancestor. It does not show that they did. It is evidence that does not rule out evolution, and it is consistent with evolution, as you rightfully point out, but it is not sufficient to prove evolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------





ok, we agree. you asked for a source of macroevolution, I've given it. simple steps in nucleotide sequences (alleles), have made huge novel new forms and subspecies.

my job is not to prove evolution. that can't be done.

all I wanted to show was 'macroevolution' is indeed possible.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
Absent of a structured format where we can agree on some basic definitions and points of contention beforehand, I don't think the arguing is very informative or enjoyable for anyone involved.


I actually prefer this mode of debate. even structured format will require a lot of back and forths... why not here and now?


Originally posted by jbourke

I extended an offer to a formal debate with "notoatmeal" and he declined. I have another offer outstanding but the person I've offered is too busy to take up the challenge (I can relate! I'm too busy too! What was I thinking?) so we'll just take up the issue when our schedules give us both sufficient free time.
Jim

that is why I prefer these forums. just post, and reply whenever you can. nobody expects more than that.

I can post from work, so I cheat. :)

[notoatmeal]

JB:The claim was that this was the best evidence for macro evolution you could think of. I'm looking for something along the lines of invertebrate to vertebrate transitional forms, but I'm not holding my breath.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


start breathing... that is TWICE I've corrected you on saying the silverswords are the 'best evidence'

taaa-daaa!

some transitional fossil lines:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

homonid transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

whale transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[ETrain]

ok, we agree. you asked for a source of macroevolution, I've given it. simple steps in nucleotide sequences (alleles), have made huge novel new forms and subspecies.


I'm sorry I haven't replied yet, tests are coming up next week so I've been overwhelmed. If I may, though...

Simple steps? Where are those documented? Perhaps I missed it in the reading, so please help me out. Could you point to the genetic workup that shows the nucleotide changes that have occured to allow those phenotypes? It sounds like you have evidence that takes the code, shows with some substitutions, inversions, translocations, and other usual genetic changes, and come out with some simple steps that form the novel new forms. I can't find that on the site, please point me in the right direction. I think this would be fantastic, and I would need to change my position.

That chart you point to does not show any simple (or really complicated for that matter) steps of nucleotide manipulation that allows for those phenotypes. In fact, all I find on that entire site is the similarities between the DNA, and the possibility that this could be due to changes in the code of an original species. As Jim has pointed out much better than I can, this does allow you to say, "There may have had nucelotide changes from an original species to allow for these phenotypes", but it does not allow you to say "simple steps in nucleotide sequences (alleles), have made huge novel new forms and subspecies". The first says there is a possibility. The second says you have worked out the steps and can lay them out on the table. You continue to insist on the second.

[ETrain]

Originally posted by notoatmeal

my job is not to prove evolution. that can't be done.

all I wanted to show was 'macroevolution' is indeed possible.

I'm sorry, I missed this at first notoatmeal. I was going to delete my post because you are saying exactly the same thing I am in the end, but I guess I should leave it in case anybody is quoting it or something.

What continues to trouble me is the repeated claim by some people here that evolution including macroevolution is fact. I haven't had time to read all those articles, but in the molecular genetics paragraph from the whales I read, "By placing whales close to, and even firmly within, the Artiodactyls, these molecular studies confirm the predictions made by evolutionary theory."
I cannot refute that. Nor can they show the needed genetic manipulations needed to go from a land dweller to a whale. They can take the predictions of evolutionary theory and say the evidence does not refute it. Is this not what so many are claiming creationalists are doing?

Anyway, since your intent is proving the possibility of evolutionary theory, and you agree that the evidence also allows for the possibility of a creationalist viewpoint, I for one will happily agree to disagree about which possibility seems more plausible.

Eric

[DennisG]

Whew!
This certainly is an informative thread.
My understanding of both creation and evolution is indeed very rudimentary.
I'm learning quite a bit by reading this thread though.
My understanding (until now) of the creationist view was that it took the bible literally.
Obviously, there are many more branches of creationist theory than I was aware of.
I had read a bit on "Intelligent Design" which I understood to state that God created the universe within the last 5-6,000 yrs. But that he designed it to appear to be billions of years old so as to keep us in awe of his mysterious ways.
Hooey - obviously.
Jim, you seem to have a completely plausible view of creation, and it intrigues me.
Could you describe for me your view of how creation occurred?
PM me with it if you want - I won't get into a big debate about whether or not it's plausible, as I'm not educated enough to engage in such a debate.
Just curious about your take on how it all happened.
So far, I can comprehend the naturalist view of how our universe began with the big bang, and all the processes that followed, including evolution.
I can not comprehend what may have come before the big bang.
Similarly, I can comprehend the idea that some sort of cosmic alchemist may have had a hand in it all... Making us in essence the (successful?) result of some experiment by a being far older than our known universe.
But I can not comprehend where that being may have come from. How was it created?
Jim, I'd like to know your notion of how creation occured, who/what is the creator, and who/what created the creator?
Again, feel free to PM me, because I'm only asking for what you imagine to be the case.
I won't debate the scientific validity of it.
(I've realized I don't have the info to debate scientific validity)
Anyway, thanks all for a very enlightening discussion... I love this stuff!

edit:
Aaargh! Once again, becoming engrossed in this thread has made me late for work!
I'll just tell my boss, "The devil made me do it!":D

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by lymon
Sparky, its time for me to pull my mask off... you are the guy who makes sense to me in this.... but IF you HAD to believe in Creation as sold by the Southern Baptists, and you were any sort of "scientific mind", you could only believe in the goofy scenario that I've illustrated... the key is the all powerful entity (hard to embrace)... and your (marvelous) grasp of the undeniable, obvious (to me), age of the planet/solar system/ universe
.
Lymon. I'm not sure why I feel the way I do about this subject.. I had the standard religious upbringing, but not a rigorous one. And early on I read all of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and fell in love with dinosaurs, as most kids do, so when the details of creation began to conflict with the details of science, it wasn't much of a problem pinpointing which ideas weren't coherent.

[Gary Warner]

God is laughing at us as he looks to earth and says:

"Ha! They found another one of those old bones that I buried!"

Creation Rules!

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by ETrain
I haven't had time to read all those articles, but in the molecular genetics paragraph from the whales I read, "By placing whales close to, and even firmly within, the Artiodactyls, these molecular studies confirm the predictions made by evolutionary theory."

I cannot refute that. Nor can they show the needed genetic manipulations needed to go from a land dweller to a whale. They can take the predictions of evolutionary theory and say the evidence does not refute it.


http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

(just in case you were interested in a bit more data)

if you are asking for a complete sampling of the genomes of the ancestor and daughter species, I'm afraid this current evidence will not be sufficient to convince you.



Originally posted by ETrain
Is this not what so many are claiming creationalists are doing?

Anyway, since your intent is proving the possibility of evolutionary theory, and you agree that the evidence also allows for the possibility of a creationalist viewpoint, I for one will happily agree to disagree about which possibility seems more plausible.
Eric

no, it is not what current creationists do. Because creation cannot provide a testable hypothesis, it is not science. No peice of data is a problem for creation. Look at the last post "god buried old bones to trick us".

how can someone refute that? It is impossible.

all science can do is provide evidence that shores up and strengthens the theory of evolution. That is, how the fact of evolution occurs.

much in the same way particle physicists are looking for evidence to strengthen a 'theory of gravity' to account for the fact of gravity.

no scientist is going to deny that it COULD be tiny invisible angels holding hands, and that causes gravity. It is not falsifiable.

there are mountains of evidence that support evolution. Because of this, and the fact that no experiment has shown evolution to have a fatal flaw, it is science.

[Gman2]

I think Mr. bourke did a better than fair job of showing that Evolution is not possible to prove false as it will bend any way that evidence shows. It will shapeshift until unrecognizable if necessary. Creation is likewise beyond evidence as a supreme being could have used purely natural processes and still be a wonderous thing. That stated, I dont see the conflict.

[Gerald]

...

[Gman2]

The only miraculous event in the bible as I see it is when God breathed the breath of life into man. Im sure that eve was a figurative rib thing. All that globe placing, light and dark business has scientific explainations. The making of the precursor to man is stated as created of the dust of the earth. This could mean carbon based life form or that he was a being that evolved from natural elements. All consistent with science. It states in one place that the animals are dust too. The far religious right view that God has a twitchy magic wand finger is ludicrous and stems from their view that an all powerful God would not just sit back. God clearly limits himself in our free will amongst other things. I see no conflicts that are not borne of dogma.

[lymon]

if we are made in the image of an entity longer lived than the universe, then I'd like a few more years, thanks

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by lymon
if we are made in the image of an entity longer lived than the universe, then I'd like a few more years, thanks
.
Although there are some heavenly bodies out there, mine ain't one of them!
A few more years at the current rate of deteioration would have a puddle of meat oozing around..:p

[jbourke]

Originally posted by DennisG
Obviously, there are many more branches of creationist theory than I was aware of.
I had read a bit on "Intelligent Design" which I understood to state that God created the universe within the last 5-6,000 yrs.

No, that isn't what intelligent design says. Intelligent Design is an argument that makes heavy use of a concept called "irreducible complexity".

The classic argument is a mousetrap. You have a spring, a catch, a base, etc. The mousetrap is a simple device that is made up of component parts which are all necessary to function. It would no longer be a mousetrap without the spring, for example, or if the parts were laying on the floor absent a base.

There are many, many examples of "mousetrap" type designs evident in our world. The eye is one that came up earlier in this discussion. On the subject of the eye, Charles Darwin had this to say:


'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'


The common rebuttal to this concept is to brush aside the argument by providing a minimalist design that accomplishes a similar function. An eye, it was offered earlier, may be useful if it only sees light and dark, so a primitive eye can be imagined.

Yet, even such a primitive eye is irreducibly complex. Evolution postulates that each component of the proverbial mousetrap must be produced through random processes that are maintained in the gene pool because they, by themselves, provide a reproductive advantage. In the mousetrap analogy, this is akin to suggesting that the spring must have been useful for some other purpose before being used as a component of the trap. In the case of the primitive eye, this is presuming that all the parts needed for simple vision were all used in some other way until they were made available, by chance, in the same place in the same organism.

Whether or not this argument is valuable depends on just how much plausability someone is ready to insist on. To my mind it defeats evolution completely, particularly when we start looking at the irreducible complexity at a genetic and molecular level. It becomes very, very difficult for evolutionists to construct plausible scenarios to explain what we see.

-continued-

[jbourke]

But that he designed it to appear to be billions of years old so as to keep us in awe of his mysterious ways.


The earth does not have a date stamped on it, and the argument that it does is disingenuous.

The beginnings of the argument start with naturalistic assumptions that the date of the earth should be computed as if there is no creator. To then use the computations to insist that the Creator has lied about the date is circular.

Step 1: Assume there is no creator
Step 2: Calculate an age based on that assumption
Step 3: Assert that if the Creator exists he must be lying to us.

Obviously, the Creator, if he exists and has created the world supernaturally, is not the one who insists that we presume the world was formed in a different manner. It is the basic assumption that is producing the date.

And this gets to the heart of the problem. It is a sort of catch-22 that all human thinkers are up against. The validity of our epistemic assumptions cannot be calibrated. In other words, naturalism is only a valid way of looking at things if there is no Creator and creationism is only a valid way of looking at things if there is. The failure of evolutionism is that it is no more scientific than any other ism in the world. No word involving an ism or ist ending in the English language can be also labelled "scientific". Science is an operational process, not a belief system.

Another example of muddied thinking in this debate is the often-presented idea that evolution is at the same time all of the following:

1. An observation based on evidence
2. A falsifiable theory
3. A scientific fact
4. The only possible origin from a naturalistic perspective.

That certain components of evolution are in each of these categories is not questioned. That each component of the evolutionary argument is simultaneously all these things is untrue. Evolutionists tend to have a hard time recognizing the different components of their beliefs so they make an honest mistake by assuming that there are none.

Let's take these separate concepts and see how they have been applied during our discussion. The first concept I listed is that evolution is "an observation based on evidence". The alleged evidence for this is the fossil record. But what many people forget in their rush to use this argument is that evolution was proposed prior to the acquisition of the vast majority of the fossils we have today. The principle of "natural selection" (e.g. Darwinian evolution) is absolutely not the result of an observation of the fossil record. That is a complete anachronism, like suggesting that Newton's scientific observations came from watching the space shuttle take off. Only relatively few fossils were available to scientists when Darwin proposed his theory. What was expected at that time was that many transitional fossils would be found in the following century.

Next the consideration is presented that a belief in evolution is scientific whereas a belief in creation is not. Evolutionists like to point out that creation is not falsifiable while evolution is, which allows evolution to be considered a scientific theory. But is this an apples-to-apples comparison?

I don't think so because evolution is actually three separate concepts rolled up into one:

1. intra-species evolution (micro-evolution).
2. inter-species evolution (macro-evolution).
3. The principle of common descent

For the rest of this post, I'm going to be calling these evolution-1, evolution-2, and evolution-3. This will resolve the confusing ambiguity that plagues us.

No creationist argues in any way against evolution-1, what is called "micro-evolution".

Creationists maintain that evolution-2 (macro-evolution) is the area where operational scientific processes (observation and experimentation) can be used and that study in this area (through research like the Human Genome Project) is the best way that either side can make their case. The results of scientific experiments in genetics are unambiguous and reproducible.

Creationists believe that evolution-3, common descent, cannot be debated scientifically. Because common descent, if it occured, is something that happened in the past, it is impossible to falsify. What we can do is evaluate the evidence from the fossil record and apply it against our competing scientific models to see what fits and what doesn't, making iterations of analysis and adjustment as new data comes in. Both sides are doing this all the time as well they should.

So when evolutionists insist that evolution is falsifiable, they are talking about evolution-2, not evolution-3. Yet when they talk about how evolution is "naturalism" they are talking about evolution-3, not evolution-2. And when they discuss that evolution is proven "fact", they are talking about evolution-1.

The shift in meanings creates a moving target. The ambiguity of English allows for this kind of confusion in all forms of debate and it is one of the key things an opponent should look for. I've been involved in these arguments more than most people and I'm very used to seeing it. Evolution is first proposed as one thing and then another. When a creationist attacks evolution as a belief system, the target changes to a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and demands for peer-review are made. When the creationist demands that the subject be discussed scientifically, evolution becomes an extension of naturalism and the contrary scientific evidence is brushed aside because of philosophical demands that evolution is the only valid theory.

[jbourke]

My arguments in this thread forced a one-to-one comparison of creationism and evolutionism. I yielded immediately that creationism, as a philosophical outlook, is not scientific (call that part creationism-3). I asked for the same consideration of evolution. But the proponents of evolution are confused into thinking that because some parts can be falsified, that the philosophical parts can as well. They refuse to accept that evolution is both science and philosophy, just as creation is.

Mixed in with all debate on the subject is the hue and cry from people who do not want to see evolution be criticized. Yes, when creationists and evolutionists meet, they pick at each other. That is a good thing. I'm delighted to see the advancements made in evolutionary theory over the last decade that I have been a creationist. Many of these advances are due to the poking and prodding of skeptics. Likewise, creationists have "evolved" their arguments as well. We are in the golden age of the study of our origins and we should be thankful for the opportunity to be corrected when we are wrong. None of us gain from cloisterism.

Sometimes the challenge is made for creationists to provide evidence. For evidence, the evolutionist has two sources at his disposal: the fossil record and genetics. Those who ask the creationist to produce evidence must realize that these same evidences are used by both sides. The fossil record speaks of creation as does the genetic data.

The evolutionists in this thread insist that evolution is easily observed by the fossil record. I provided quotes to show that this isn't the case. 100 years ago there was excitement and many predictions about what would be found as more research was performed. Does the data today match the predictions of 100 years ago? In a word, no, but of course the theory of evolution has adapted to accomodate for that. This is something it is certainly welcome to do, but what is puzzling is that so many people yield that it has adapted while insisting that a mountain of evidence supports the traditional view. This is clearly an illogical double-think position.

A quote from Steven Jay Gould is helpful here:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils


Note that this is something evident in any diagram showing the tree of life. Evolutionists find many animals that belong at "leaf" nodes of the tree, but not a great deal of animals at the intersections. Any cursory student of fossil data can see this readily.

A quote from evolutionist Niles Eldredge:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.


Now before someone points out the obvious, Steven Jay Gould lived and died one of the great thinkers of evolution. He did not suggest in any way that evolution wasn't true and he did not state that there were [b]no[/i] transitional forms. But the transitional forms that were found were not the kind of species-to-species forms needed to match Darwin's predictions. Gould called this a "trade secret" because this fact was well known by the evolutionary community, even while textbooks declaring the opposite were being produced all over the country.

After over 100 years of research it was no longer possible to presume that transitional forms had yet to be discovered. Gould, a Harvard University professor, and Eldredge, a Paleontologist, proposed a theory called "punctuated equilibrium" (aka "punc eek") to explain why the fossil record did not support the traditional Darwinian expectations.

The specifics of punc eek are not relevant here, except to say that the assertion is made that evolution occurs very rapidly at some times and does not occur at all at other times. This theory works well for the data because it makes the expectation that there would be few transitional forms and that it would be common to see many examples of the same species, even if those species were very old.

Darwinism predicts:
1. Fluidity of species- virtually every fossil would be unidentifiable as belonging to the same species as another fossil.
2. Tremendous numbers of transitional forms showing an obvious progression from parent to daughter species. The evolution of every component of an animal's anatomy would be easily traceable.

Puncutated Equilibirum predicts:
1. Fixidity of species- most fossils will be easily identifiable as a specific kind of animal
2. Few transitional forms - determining the exact phlylogeny of a specific animal will be difficult

Now if Gould had been off his rocker and Darwinism had been proven a long time ago by the fossil record, it would have been a simple matter to defeat the idea of punc eek. Instead of being disproven, punc eek has caught the evolutionist community by storm. Gould's theories are the common wisdom of evolutionary thinking and classical Darwinism is all but dead.

For evolutionists to assert that evolution is observable in the fossil record, and therefore a logical conclusion as opposed to a logical presumption, they must contend with the many quotes from the "new" breed of evolutionary thinkers, like Gould, who base their entire theories on the opposite observation. Creationists had argued these same observations for some time with no effect and most textbooks still claim that the fossil record provides tremendous support for the evolutionary viewpoint.

The gaps in the record known by Gould are hidden very deep in evolutionary textbooks if addressed at all. Furthermore, the extent of the gaps is even larger than Gould lets on even at this most intellectually honest points. Not only can we not show the vast majority of alleged species-to-species transitions, we cannot even show HUGE transitions, such as the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates. Gaps like these are mind-boggling and they reduce the evolutionary "tree of life" to a level of sparsity that is practically comical.

In fact, the only "transitional" forms evolutionists seem to be interested in promoting are vertebrates of "recent" descent. But vertebrates represent less than .01% of the fossil record. And in many cases the "transitions" turn out to be little more than one or two bones and a conceptual drawing of the rest of the skeletal form. It is complex invertebrates that make up most of the fossil record, and in this case the evidence for Creation is overwhelming. There are literally millions of species of complex invertebrates with no fossils that explain their sudden appearance or the transition to vertebrates.

Now to this challenge notoatmeal and evolutionists in general argue that a scientific theory must be allowed to change when new data comes in. They argue that there is no way Darwin could have accurately predicted what exploration in the fossil record would uncover.

Naturally, they are right. Evolution should change. The theory should be modified, just as creationist theories, when they are proven wrong, are modified. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Adopt punc eek and be intellectually honest about the state of the fossil record, or demand that the fossil record contains all the data ever hoped for and promote Darwinism. It is not right to claim both that Darwinism is outdated and still insist that evolution is proven by the fossil record.

[jbourke]

Just in case there is any doubt left as to the fossil record, I offer the following quotes. I have not researched these so please feel free to note any that may be spurious or out of context.


All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. "The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p. 8.)

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p.99)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.) ***note how comical this is considering the statements to the contrary in this thread***

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In
general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks... (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981)

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

"Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record ... There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95)

[jbourke]

Many lay people have been also led to believe that the fossils themselves are somehow datable. We have barely touched on this in our discussion and I don't want to introduce a whole new kind of argument since I'm basically not interested in going much further with responses. I will make some basic points to show that there is more to the subject than most people know, noting that there is an even greater amount of knowledge and argumentation available on this subject.

1. Most laypeople assume that "carbon" dating can be used to date fossils. This is a common misperception. Carbon dating can only be used to date organic matter, not fossils (which are actually rock). Isotopic dating from other kinds of elements, such as K-Ar dating (Potassium-Argon) is also useless against the fossils themselves. There is no way to directly date a fossil.
2. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which also cannot be directly dated.
3. The actual process of dating fossils involves an analysis of rocks that are near the sedimentary layer. This process is extremely subjective and relies on assumptions that the strata and datable rock were laid down in the order predicted by evolution.
4. Creationists have in the past made a habit of taking rocks of known age (say from a 100 year old lava flow) and submitting them to researchers for isotopic dating. These "new" rocks commonly date as many millions of years old.

[jbourke]

The next piece of data to chew on is that from genetics. notoatmeal defined evolution this way:

The change in frequency of alleles

This is a standard definition that can be found on many websites and textbooks. It is, all the same, woefully incomplete. It would be akin to me defining "creation" as the belief that "something can be made".

This definition is the definition of evolution-1, not evolution-2 or evolution-3. It implies that evolution from one species to another involves essentially the same genetic process as breeding. But this is completely false. Most students don't know this because most of them are given roughly the same outdated understanding of heredity that Darwin had. But what Darwin and his 1800s contemporaries did not know is that the variability of genetic material within a gene pool cannot be added to by natural selection without help from genetic mutation.

This issue cropped up with the Silversword data that notoatmeal had me look at. Even after analyzing the data and concluding that these plants are of the same species genetically (not the same "species" in the traditional usage, but there isn't a good term available to me for the kind of distinction I'm talking about), notoatmeal's response was that the variability of this species proves that the common ancestor could bring forth widely varied daughter plants.

How true, and yet I maintain that whatever variability is shown in tarweeds and silverswords today is exactly the same kind of variability that would have been found in the parent. All of the variation we see now was present in the original gene pool and then some. The fact that the gene pool was split and has been selected to produce different sub-species does not mean that new allele variations were produced.

Dog breeding shows this perfectly. I can breed dogs based only on the genetic variability that is avaialable to me in the original population. That's why it's so important to pick tall dogs if I want a new breed to be tall, or short dogs if I want a new breed to be short. But even if I start with a very large dog and want to breed a 10 foot tall example, I will find myself quickly frustrated by a very real, very scientific, and very reproducible limit that is so well known by the scientific community that it absolutely must be recognized as a defeat of the micro=macro evolution concept.

During our argument the following exchange came up:

I said:

I could start with poodles and end up with great danes.


and notoatmeal responded...

you show a common error in understanding how evolution works. The
poodle does NOT have the genetic information to become a great dane.


A valid correction based on what I wrote, but the underlying assumption in my mind was that I would be breeding poodles with other breeds that had the appropriate information. I may not be able to get an exact Great Dane, but if I pick the right matches I can get pretty close. Or I could mix Great Danes and poodles and then over future generations I could breed the poodle-like alleles out of the pool. My point still stands that I cannot breed poodles into giraffes.

If I were to round up all the dogs in the world and kill every one of them but the toy poodles, I could forever change dog-kind for future generations. The only alleles left in the dog population would be the ones found in poodles. It happens that poodles carry more information in their genes than just the "poodly" ones so we might be able to get a lot of variation back, but we would also lose some.

Now, another way to look at this is that I could take all the dogs of the world and put them together and let them breed with each other. Over time the population of dogs would become less and less distinct. Poodle-to-poodle breeding would still occur, but statistically interbreeding would become more likely. Over time the dog population would become medium size and of medium color and medium disposition. But even though none of the dogs would resemble a poodle the alleles that define "poodlery" would still be there and I could once again recreate the breed.

[jbourke]

Breeding and micro-evolution are sifting processes. They work because the alleles found in natural are powerful in their diversity. The Nazis thought they could breed super-humans by artificial selection, but they were wrong. Even if their experiments had continued they would never have been successful at creating the super-human race they were looking for.

The micro/macro evolution confusion comes up all the time, particularly in textbooks. An example is the commonly-cited Pepper Moth.

A brief web search for evolution evidences turned up this example of how the Pepper Moth is being used even today as an example of evolution, even though it has been known to be inadequate for many decades.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/rush/framed/92150www/coursework/mod2/m2-8.html


Before the industrial revolution in U.K., most moths were light and were camouflaged by light coloured lichens on the trees. Dark moths were not camouflaged by the lichens and were easy prey for birds. During the industrial revolution in the 1800s, air pollution killed the lichens exposing dark bark of the trees. Population of peppered moths became predominantly dark due to natural selection. Those moths with dark coloured wings survived and reproduced, passing on the 'dark colour' genes to their offspring. Very few light coloured moths survived to reproduce. Over many generations the peppered moth gene pool had changed to be predominantly dark coloured.


Most students can quote the Pepper Moth story and most presume it to be an excellent example of evolution. But what the textbooks fail to mention is that the population of Pepper Moths returned to its original state after the industrial revolution. Why? Because the alleles which produce a lighter color were not entirely selected out of the population. What they also forget to point out is that the Pepper Moth has always had, within its population group, dark and light colored individuals.

Furthermore, at every point in the process the Pepper Moths remained Pepper Moths! This is micro-evolution (evolution-1), not macro-evolution (evolution-2) in action.

Evolutionists love to point out that it is absurd for creationists to demand examples of macro-evolution because macro-evolution is something that (theoretically) takes place over a great deal of time. This is true, but it is still disingenuous to promote Pepper Moths as examples to prove evolution-2. Textbooks should deal with the situation honestly and evaluate the example of the Pepper Moth in the proper context.

For evolution-2 to occur, the mechanism proposed is called "mutation". The concept is simple at the surface level but incredibly complex in detail.

It's helpful to introduce a simple analogy.

Imagine that we have a deck of playing cards and a piece of paper. On our piece of paper is written a decoding sequence, such as the following:

2 of Spades = F
3 of Spades = Q
4 of Spades = L
5 of Spades = A
6 of Spades = N
...and so on until we come to the end of the deck. each card represents a specific letter of the alphabet.

Now suppose that you want to send a message to your friend and he has an identical piece of paper with the same decoding instructions. So you take your deck of cards and arrange them in the order required to spell out some message. When he receives the deck he can decode the message accurately.

This is somewhat similar to the genetic encoding that you have in your genes. The encoding method (the piece of paper in the analogy) for all life is essentially the same. What varies is the actual message being encoded. Each individual animal has its own specific message which is very similar to other members of the same species.

Now, going back to the cards, let's suppose that you have a very short message to send. Suppose you want to send the message: I am well. This only requires 10 cards (including the spaces and using some card to indicate that the message is over). Since the deck has 52 cards, 42 of them will be unused to carry the message.

This, again, is somewhat similar to our genes. The vast majority of our genetic code is unused, according to our research. Some argue that there may be some unknown use for this supposedly "useless" code, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

Going back to the cards once again, its time to encode your message. As you organize your cards you make a mistake. You accidentally use the wrong card for one of the letters, or maybe you get some letters out of order. This is akin to a mutation.

In some cases, a mutation isn't much of a problem. A sequence like "I am wall" will be confusing, but perhaps intelligible in the right context. A sequence like "Ifar wold" will be less so, since more mistakes have been made.

What would be very, very unlikely is that you may accidentally make a mistake that adds new information. All the mistakes you are likely to make will destroy the meaning of your message.

To extend our analogy further. Let's add some features to our analogy:

1. Let's use a deck of non-traditional size, say one million cards.
2. Let's say that the message makes use of 100,000 cards. 90% of the cards are unused.
3. Now suppose you want to distribute the message as widely as possible. So you add instructions to the end of the message telling every recipient to copy it and distribute it to 10 people.
4. When your friends receive the decks they decode the message and follow the instructions.
5 If the instructions are untelligible they throw the message in the trash
6. But if the message can be read they re-encode it (potentially adding errors) and send it on to 10 recipients.
7. Each of those recipients follows the same process, rejecting bad messages and passing on the ones that are readable.

Now, the question is: If we let this process operate for 10 million years, how likely is it that the original message would completely disappear and be replaced by two new messages, both perfectly readable and both superior to the original message?

The answer is, obviously, "not very likely", yet the above scenario is very much analogous to the way that mutation is supposed to work in the evolutionary process. There are a number of very big very important differences between my analogy and reality, of course, but the process is similar and the analogy is useful for a discussion. If someone wants to point out problems with it then they may do so, but please believe me when I say that the analogy isn't constructed to be unfair to evolutionists - it's simply a way of simplifying things for illustration.

One key aspect of the analogy is the sifting process in step #5. Bad messages are thrown away. This is akin to the natural selection process. A bad genetic mutation produces an animal that cannot (or at least isn't likely to) reproduce.

Some will argue that this sifting process will be sufficient to preserve only the "good" mutations. They will argue that the good mutations will stay in the messages as they are selected for in step #5. But the problem with this thinking is two-fold:

1. The chances of a bad mutation are high.
2. The chances of a good mutation are low.

In genetics, the chances of a good mutation are hard to calculate because no one has ever seen one. One number that is routinely thrown out is 1 in 10,000. For every single good mutation there are 10,000 bad ones. So even if we happen on a good mutation there is a good chance that it will be reversed by a bad mutation down the line.

[jbourke]

The ratio of good to bad mutations is a dilemma. Good mutations can't be common because if they are we would have seen one by now. And they can't be too uncommon because then the bad mutations would have turned every creature's genetic code to mush by now. Evolutionists want to fix the ratio at a value that seems plausible given the evidence but still holds out hope that good mutations are fairly common. Most likely, good mutations are far more rare than the most pessimistic estimates from science, which is biased to predict rates in favor of the popular preconceptions.

An argument concerning mutation rates is being pursued in creationist circles. One on-line example is at: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm .

Another issue to contend with in our scenario is that at the end of the transmissions all of the original messages were gone and replaced by two new messages. This means that the good mutations had to be spread throughout the population sufficiently to not just survive, but to overcome the old message. That takes time because at each stage of the transmission, the message was only copied 10 times. The message transmission is exponential, but the rate of transmission of good mutations is limited to 10 times for every generation.

Now this becomes important due to something called Haldane's Dilemma, which analyzes the cost of mutations and evaluates how fast they can be spread through a population. Haldane's Dilemma is a great argument for creationists because it is based on very simple math and it has never been properly refuted.

The summary of Haldane's dilemma is that evolution by mutation is not likely to account for all the variability we see in the animal kingdom.

To illustrate, let's begin with the following assumptions regarding the evolution of man from his alleged common ancestor with chimpanzees.

1. start with a population of 100,000 simians
2. allow for 10,000,000 years of evolution
3. assume a generation time of 20 years on average
4. Assume that at each generation such huge selection pressure is placed on the population that the entire population dies out except for the single most fit male and female couple.
5. Allow each generation to entirely replace the past generation (e.g. the single male/female pairing of each generation produces 100,000 offspring who all reach maturity within 20 years).

Now obviously, items 4 and 5 are generous beyond the point where anyone can argue with the results of the next calculation. If real numbers are used then people start nitpicking on the details, so it's necessary to formulate an example that is biased toward the evolutionary perspective.

The first calculation is easy. At 20 years per generation and 10,000,000 years, we have 500,000 generations. Even if we presume that every single generation has a beneficial mutation, we can conclude that only 500,000 nucleotides could be modified within 10,000,000 years, or roughly one hundredth of one percent of the human genome. This is several orders of magnitude less than the difference between humans and chimps.

Haldane's dilemma is a bit more complicated. First we have to know the cost of passing on a mutation. This is something that can be calculated statistically. The standard value given is 300 generations per substitution of a single nucleotide. By simple math, we can then conclude that 1,667 possible beneficial mutations could be made within 10,000,000 years.

Is this enough? NO WAY! Not according to traditional thinking about mutations at least, but evolutionists will certainly revise their theories to accomodate. One solution might be to re-structure evolutionary theory so that even greater time is allowed. This has been done before (exercise for reader: what does this say about the certainty of fossil dating?)

If we couple Haldane's Dilemma with the work of someone like Stephen Jay Gould, then the situation becomes even worse. Remember that Gould theorized punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolution occurs in spurts. According to Gould, the fossil record demonstrates that stasis is the norm and evolution is the exception. Any given species might be undergoing significant selection pressure only 10% of the time. So 1,667 is a generous overestimate by any stretch of the imagination.

Note that the same math can be used for any type of macro-evolutionary scenario with any type of animal. The results are pretty much the same. The amount of difference in genetic structure between two animals can seem small when expressed as a percentage but is actually quite large when specified as absolute values. Humans and Chimps may be similar genetically within a few percent, but that few percent is still a HUGE amount of data.

Web pages on Haldane's dilemma:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/haldane.htm
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/15-haldane.htm

Haldane's Dilemma is about 40 years old. It was developed by a respected evolutionist but pretty much forgotten about until recently when Walter Remine, a creationist, used it as an argument in his book, The Biotic Message. It has yet to be accomodated or sufficiently refuted. Once the genomes of humans and our "relatives" are mapped it will be impossible to theorize a synthesis and evolutionary theory will have to adapt. For now the issue is basically set aside and ignored.

Another quick argument I can make from genetics concerns the majority of genetic data that is unused. This is just something I was considering the other day. It is not an incredibly powerful argument right now, but it has potential as we unlock the secrets of the genomes.

Recall the "deck of cards" analogy and how we assumed that most of the cards were irrelevant because our message could be encoded in a small fraction of the total deck.

Also recall that during our debate in this forum, it was asserted that atrophy of eyesight was something that natural selection could account for. What people probably didn't realize is that I had a reason for asking. The encoding sequence for eyesight might be considered a single card in our analogy. This trait is very important and highly advantageous. For natural selection to cause atrophy in this area, we would have to have a mutation in this specific part of the genetic code for the animal, and we would have to presume that a mutation such as this could spread through the population very quickly. So a quick summary of the situation.

1. The mutation removes a highly desirable trait in a useful part of the encoding.
2. The mutation is able to spread quickly through the gene pool.

Now, consider for a moment that in our deck of cards analogy that a great deal of the cards were not used for encoding a message. Their values were irrelevant to the message because we didn't need all the space we were given. At each stage in our card analogy, there was an opportunity for error. This "unused" data in the deck of cards would be prone to the same errors as the data that contains the message. And mistakes made in this area would not be sifted out through a selection process, because there would be no way to evaluate the data to see if it contained an error.

Clearly, after many transmissions of our message hidden in the deck of cards, we should expect the "unused" parts to be complete gibberish. At each stage in the transmission errors would be added to the useless data that would never be corrected by any selection pressure.

So, based on that reasoning, the portions of our genes that hold "unused" data have the potential to be the single most compelling evidence against evolution in the coming years. No one knows for certain what we will find when the genomes are entirely mapped for all the simians that are "related" to us. What we do know right now is that much of the genetic data is the same. Does this sameness hold true for the meaningless data, the kind that could be overwritten and never be subject to selection pressure?

Obviously, if an extremely useful trait like eyesight can be removed through atrophy within a few generations, then all the unused genetic code between different species should be completely dissimilar from the others. What we should expect to find in those places is random noise. Using this concept to compare mitochondrial DNA, (evolutionary) scientists have determined that all human beings on the planet come from a common ancestor that lived roughly 100,000 years ago. This is using standard evolutionary assumptions about mutation rates which may be off considerably (see above) so the actual values may be some fraction of that. The same test has been performed on a few other animals yielding similar ages. Did all animal life on the planet come from common ancestors at the same time? The results of this kind of testing are exciting in their ability to defeat traditional thinking on this subject.

One side-effect of creationist thinking, by the way, is that our genetic code is getting more and more noisey with every generation. It will continue to deteriorate generation after generation in entropic fashion. Natural selection will keep some mutations from being passed on (births that result in early death, problems with the reproductive systems, or gross deformities) but the ones that do not get selected out will over time overwrite the good data that defines our species. Just like every other aspect of our universe, our genetic data is not designed to last forever!

[jbourke]

Well, I'm done with my little treatise on the subject and yet I've barely scratched the surface. There is a great deal more to cover and I hope I have a chance to do so at a later time in a more formal setting. Everyone involved profits when we take time to share ideas and point out each other's mistakes. I'm very grateful for the contributions from people who disagree with me, particularly those who disagree strongly enough to compose detailed replies and who anxiously await the next refutation. We are kindred spirits! Whatever our changing opinions on origins are, may our inquisitive natures never leave us.

To finish up, I'll include a short reading list and a set of links that I've enjoyed reviewing over the last few days.

Books:
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
A book on intelligent design by a Professor of Biochemistry

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton

Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson
A great book for the layman. Easily understood.

The Origin of the Species Revisited by W. R. Bird
Technical and dry but some good data.

The Biotic Message by Walter Remine
Remine uses Haldane's Dilemma and other arguments from population genetics to make his case.


Technical arguments:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Antibiotic%20Resistance.html

Random links that I enjoyed:
http://www.trueorigin.org//ca_gb_01.asp
http://www.rae.org/topbone.html

Note that if I provided a link above then I am not necessarily implying blanket endorsement of the site.

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

JB:"Before the industrial revolution in U.K., most moths were light and were camouflaged by light coloured
lichens on the trees. Dark moths were not camouflaged by the lichens and were easy prey for birds.
During the industrial revolution in the 1800s, air pollution killed the lichens exposing dark bark of the
trees. Population of peppered moths became predominantly dark due to natural selection. Those
moths with dark coloured wings survived and reproduced, passing on the 'dark colour' genes to their
offspring. Very few light coloured moths survived to reproduce. Over many generations the peppered
moth gene pool had changed to be predominantly dark coloured.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Most students can quote the Pepper Moth story and most presume it to be an excellent example of evolution. But
what the textbooks fail to mention is that the population of Pepper Moths returned to its original state after the
industrial revolution. Why? Because the alleles which produce a lighter color were not entirely selected out of the
population. "
...
Um, not exactly!
The reason the light colored moths -returned- was the pollution of the initial industurial revolution went away permitting the resurgence of the lichens, making the dark colored the "best target" in the environment just as the light colors had been in the dirtier situation.


JB:"What they also forget to point out is that the Pepper Moth has always had, within its population
group, dark and light colored individuals."
.
Any group will retain an ability such as this unless all the individuals with the one or other feature are removed.
No one claims that only dark colored moths could survive that period. "..predominantly dark colored".
.
Certainly this is an example of natural selection operating at a time scale we can comprehend.

[notoatmeal]

JB:
Some will argue that this sifting process will be sufficient to preserve only the "good" mutations. They will argue that the good mutations will stay in the messages as they are selected for in step #5. But the problem with this thinking is two-fold:

1. The chances of a bad mutation are high.
2. The chances of a good mutation are low.

In genetics, the chances of a good mutation are hard to calculate because no one has ever seen one. One number that is routinely thrown out is 1 in 10,000. For every single good mutation there are 10,000 bad ones. So even if we happen on a good mutation there is a good chance that it will be reversed by a bad mutation down the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is totally wrong.

mutations, by and large are neutral. That is, changing the triplet codon has NO CHANGE in the protein that is made by that codon during protein systhesis.

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. The average rate of point mutations is about 20-30 in a billion per individual. Almost all point mutations in multi-cellular organisms are strictly neutral. In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.) One third of the changes to codons (sections of DNA that code for proteins) are silent; that is, the DNA changes, but the the amino acid coded for remains the same. Thus 93-98% of all point mutations in humans are strictly neutral.

Of the remaining 2-7% almost all of them are also neutral. A typical protein is a sequence of about 1,000 amino acids which folds up around a reaction site consisting of about 50 amino acids. Changes in the reaction site have a strong effect on the properties of the protein; changes elsewhere often do not unless they affect the folding pattern. As a result, less than 1% of the point mutations are subject to selection


current mutation types:

1. Point mutations

(The most common type of copying error is the point mutation. In this form of mutation the nucleotide at a site is replaced by a different nucleotide. When people talk about mutation rates they are usually talking about rates of point mutations.)

2. Additions and deletions
3. Chromosomal duplication
4. Retroviruses
5. Plasmids
6. Bacterial DNA exchange
7. Higher level transfer
8. Symbiotic transfer
9. Transposons

[notoatmeal]

JB:

In genetics, the chances of a good mutation are hard to calculate because no one has ever seen one
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CCR5 mutation giving immunity to HIV.

that's "one".

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke

There are many, many examples of "mousetrap" type designs evident in our world. The eye is one that came up earlier in this discussion. On the subject of the eye, Charles Darwin had this to say:

'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'



"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."


try taking the full context of the quote, please.

[notoatmeal]

So, based on that reasoning, the portions of our genes that hold "unused" data have the potential to be the single most compelling evidence against evolution in the coming years. No one knows for certain what we will find when the genomes are entirely mapped for all the simians that are "related" to us. What we do know right now is that much of the genetic data is the same. Does this sameness hold true for the meaningless data, the kind that could be overwritten and never be subject to selection pressure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you mean to tell me you don't know?

simian DNA is ~99% the same as our DNA. and that includes the 'junk DNA'

"genetic data" includes junk DNA. If you mean coding DNA only, then the two species are not quite so closely related.

simians have 48 chromosomes, while we have only 46 There appears to have been a fusion between two of the simian cromosomes, and they look spectacularly like the cromosome we have.

If you look at the banding patterns of the chromosomes in a karyotype, you can see that they are nearly identical.

there are also a number of inversions, in addition to that fusion. The important thing is that the chromosomes are remarkably similar.

[notoatmeal]

JB:
Dog breeding shows this perfectly. I can breed dogs based only on the genetic variability that is avaialable to me in the original population. That's why it's so important to pick tall dogs if I want a new breed to be tall, or short dogs if I want a new breed to be short. But even if I start with a very large dog and want to breed a 10 foot tall example, I will find myself quickly frustrated by a very real, very scientific, and very reproducible limit that is so well known by the scientific community that it absolutely must be recognized as a defeat of the micro=macro evolution concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and what is this limit?

why do you think mutation in following generations would not allow for new and novel alleles to be seletcted for/against?

[notoatmeal]

JB:
My point still stands that I cannot breed poodles into giraffes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


well, providing you are just looking for really long necked poodles, I don't see why not. If you want the hooves, and ruminant stomach, you are going to have a wait a long time for my breeding program to finish. :(

Giraffes, even though their necks are extremly long, have the exact same number of bones in their necks as other vertebrates.

they just have enlongnated bones.

so why not? I can breed poodles for a few thousand years in my "poodle breeding ground', and select only long-necked ones.

[notoatmeal]

JB:
Evolution postulates that each component of the proverbial mousetrap must be produced through random processes that are maintained in the gene pool because they, by themselves, provide a reproductive advantage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


if the component is neutral, then there is no DISadvantage, and the allele may stay in the population.

it is not either GOOD or BAD. you can have NEITHER as well.

[notoatmeal]

Although I don't agree with a lot of things you are saying, I do appreciate the time you are putting into this discussion.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

The reason the light colored moths -returned- was the pollution of the initial industurial revolution went away permitting the resurgence of the lichens, making the dark colored the "best target" in the environment just as the light colors had been in the dirtier situation.


JB:"What they also forget to point out is that the Pepper Moth has always had, within its population
group, dark and light colored individuals."
.
Any group will retain an ability such as this unless all the individuals with the one or other feature are removed.
No one claims that only dark colored moths could survive that period. "..predominantly dark colored".
.
Certainly this is an example of natural selection operating at a time scale we can comprehend.


not only that, but it is conceivable that a single mutation could have produced white moths. so even if the allele gets removed from the population, from time to time a white individual shows up anyway.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
Although I don't agree with a lot of things you are saying, I do appreciate the time you are putting into this discussion.

Same here. Thanks for the rebuttals. We'll get back into it some other time, I'm sure.

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

The pepper moth story is an example of punctuated equilibrium that ultimately fails to dominate the alteration to the species. (A test of the falsifiability of the theory.)
The requisite change to the environment which generates the change to the organism, industrial pollution, would be similar to a long-existing exhaust from a volcano ,( taking man's input out of the situation) affecting the environment downwind of it for a long period of time, in turn affecting how the species in the fallout area would react to the new circumstance. Die (sudden disappearance), move (sudden disappearance -and- appear somewhere else) or adapt (change).
When England cleaned up its atmosphere.. the famous deadly London fogs being the commonly known effect of excessive pollution, the affect on the organisms which were diminished by pollution directly.. the lichens, was removed, so those which survived were able to reoccupy the areas the pollution had closed to them. This in turn then reexposed the dark colored moths to more predation, while the light colors were once again able to blend with the new (old) environment and thrive to once again become "dominant".
The moth story as posted is also an all-too-common example of faulty reasoning typical of creationist thought. The refutation of the argument is contained -in- the argrument.
"industrial revolution", i.e. pollution, creates the situation for selecting out the light colors.
When the "industrial revolution" ends... (pollution is controlled), that implicit reason isn't even mentioned, it's ignored, and the previous status quo of light over dark returns... without -any- reason offered!
A decent compendium of creationist "science" in the words of the leaders of ICR itself is contained in "the Skeptical Inquirer", Fall 1983. Duane Gish, vp of ICR (at the time) explains the 2nd law of thermodynamics.. backwards.
Whitcomb and Morris explain the sorting found in the fossil beds, with startling consequences for the mobility of grass..
W. Brown, director of the ICR Midwest Center, explains the superheated steam cause for the Flood, and the consequent near instantaneous repositioning of the broken continent of Pangaea into the spread-out land masses we have today..
Morris explains with a "perfectly reasonable" rate of human expansion that the Great Pyramid was built by the 16 people living at the time..
Again, the refutations of the arguments presented are included in the arguments.
This same trend 20 years later still in evidence at the ICR site.

[Mitch G]

I've been following this thread since it started. All I keep reading from the Creation side is what is wrong with Evolution. But, in my opinion, getting rid of Evolution does not necessarily leave one with Creation. Well, it might leave us with a very fundamental version of Creationism, but I don't think that's what Jim or other well-studied Creationists are asserting.

Now, I asked this question about midway through the thread - near where Triceratops entered the scene. But, it has not been answered - from what I can tell. So, I'm going to ask again.

What is the Creationist view of how we came to find ourselves in the world we have around us today? Was everything created by some omnipotent entity at the same time and then through various forces, some species became extinct while others remain extant? Or, were various species created at different times in the past? And, what is the timeline for all this stuff? Is the premise that there will be no more species creation in the future? That's the sort of thing I want to understand a bit more.

BTW, I never studied the Pepper Moth scenario as an example of Evolution. It was always presented as an example of Natural Selection. It was explained that both light and dark moths exist and continue to exist in the population. It just showed how changes in the environment can cause selection of one version over another.

Thanks,


Mitch

[Viper Pilot]

Mitch,

You are absolutely correct. The Pepper Moth IS an example of natural selection, not evolution.
Evolution results in a new species, not an alteration of a population.

But, it is a great example of natural selection, which is the "driving force" behind evoltion.

VP

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot
Mitch,

You are absolutely correct. The Pepper Moth IS an example of natural selection, not evolution.
Evolution results in a new species, not an alteration of a population.

But, it is a great example of natural selection, which is the "driving force" behind evoltion.

VP
.
The "alteration of a population" has to begin somewhere. For the moth, color differences began a different path of survival without making a permanent change to the group. Were the color all by itself capable of selecting out other characteristics once the superiority of the different color in that environment influenced the species, some sort of modified moth might have resulted.
As it was, color all by itself wasn't that strong a driver of speciation, for the period of time involved and the basically short-term change in that environment.
It does show that something we can't see in the fossil record, color, can begin the change of species.

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

.
The "alteration of a population" has to begin somewhere. . . . . .

If that alteration results in a species that cannot produce viable offspring, a new species has evolved. As I understand it, the production of VIABLE offspring defines a species.

A donkey and a horse CAN produce offspring, but they are infertile.

VP

[Sparky Paul]

Here's a photo of those moths..
From the Scientific American Library publication, Sexual Selection
It's mentioned the moth is common all over Britain in both light and dark forms, with the dark form emerging as more common in the polluted areas, yet the ratio becoming more normal as pollution diminishes.
"So the rate of evolution depends on the severity of selection pressure and the degree of genetic diversity available. Darwin said as much, but his supporters, then as now, failed to emphasize the point." p82

[Sparky Paul]

As for the mules, the same source says horses, donkeys and zebras can interbreed, horses "willing;y with zebras".. (I presume there's an Euuuuuuuuu! factor with the others. Horses is snobs! :) ).
The resultant offspring being sterile though, there's no evolutionary payoff to be made for the horse, donkey or zebra.
What would occur is a seperate set of "species" in the fossil record, of extreme rarity, each containing characteristics of the generating pair, but few examples of any hybrid relative to the frequency of the fossiles of the normal intra-species breeds.

[lymon]

they'll never be another ewe

[kapos45]

Only one Sparky that we know of ;)

[EdSoars]

If schools can teach creationism, then they ought to be able to teach anything at all, with no regard to evidence. All the physical evidence available fits harmoniously with the evolutionary process. And evolution isn't a theory as some folks claim: it's an observable process. Can you imagine a court system that is based on religious principles? Anyone could make an accusation and demand a judgement and punishment, without supporting evidence. Not a good system to run a society on. I'll go with evidence-based cosmologies, every time.

All this is beside the point of believing in a Supreme Being. At our present levels of observation and understanding, there's still a lot of room for faith: most of us have had experiences that are well beyond scientific explanation.

And even if we could assemble a good scientific explanation for the feelings we have out under the sky, or walking through autumn leaves, or laughing with friends over a good meal, we still have music and poetry, and who would want to do away with the wonder of all that?

ed

[gtstubbs]

Another transitional nail in the coffin of creationism


January 20, 2005
Ancient Hominid Found in Ethiopia Is Yielding Teeth Like the Apes'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Paleontologists working in Ethiopia have discovered bones and teeth up to 4.5 million years old from at least nine members of a little-known hominid species that was a primitive ancestor of humans.

The specimens are from Ardipithecus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape characteristics. The fossils are mostly teeth and jaw fragments, with some hand and foot bones, according to nine researchers from universities in the United States and Spain.

Their findings appear today in the journal Nature.

These are not the first such specimens but they are the latest in a growing collection of early human fragments that help explain the evolutionary history of humans.

The discoveries were made over a four-year span beginning in 1999 in digs at As Duma, a site in the Afar region that has yielded many important fossils. Among the tooth specimens, the canines are small and blunt, similar to those of other human ancestors. But most of the teeth, including molars, are like those of great apes. The size and wear of the teeth suggest that A. ramidus ate a plant-based diet, the researchers reported.

Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggest that it was even smaller than Australopithecus afarensis, the 3.6-million-year-old species widely known through the nearly complete "Lucy" fossil, which is about four feet tall.

Evidence from other A. ramidus specimens shows its skull rested directly atop its spinal column, rather than in front like apes. This suggests it could walk upright, or at least on two feet.

The first A. ramidus fossils were reported in 1994. With the nine additional specimens, labs now have fragments from as many as 60 individuals. The specimens were dated with geological and radiocarbon tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/science/20bones.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

[LcJ]

Even the early rock'n'rollers figured this all out


A Hundred Pounds of Clay
Gene McDaniels

(Written by Bob Elgin, Luther Dixon, and Kay Roger)

He took a hundred pounds of clay
And they He said "Hey, listen"
"I'm gonna fix this-a world today"
"Because I know what's missin' "
Then He rolled his big sleeves up
And a brand-new world began
He created a woman and-a lots of lovin' for a man
Whoa-oh-oh, yes he did

With just a hundred pounds of clay
He made my life worth livin'
And I will thank Him every day
For every kiss you're givin'
And I'll thank Him every night
For the arms that are holdin' me tight
And He did it all with just a hundred pounds of clay
Yes he did, whoa-oh, yes He did

Now can'tcha just see Him a-walkin' 'round and 'round
Pickin' the clay uppa off the ground?
Doin' just what He should do
To make a livin' dream like you

He rolled His big sleeves up
And a brand-new world began
He created a woman and-a lots of lovin' for a man
Whoa-oh-oh, yes he did
With just a hundred pounds of clay

FADE
People, let me tall ya what He did
With just a hundred pounds of clay

[lrsudog]

Well, I'm certainly going to take the scientific opinion of a Rocker over that of a biologist. College is for stupid heads.

[LcJ]

Actually, college is to prepare seekers.............

Why man pretends to be so smart because he attempts to define that which surrounds him is amazing,

It is part of our being to try and define and understand our surroundings, but that does not make us smart,

Being smart is a gift, just as is breath,

When we can make something of nothing (other than trouble) we will then be able to better understand many processes.

LcJ

[lrsudog]

Actually, college is to prepare seekers.............

Why man pretends to be so smart because he attempts to define that which surrounds him is amazing,

It is part of our being to try and define and understand our surroundings, but that does not make us smart,

Being smart is a gift, just as is breath,

When we can make something of nothing (other than trouble) we will then be able to better understand many processes.

LcJ

The processes on which the theory of Evolution are well understood and have been proven correct by the Scientific method. It is only a "Theory" because it impossible to travel back in time to actually eliminate competing theories.


I also understand the theory of Creation, and if pressed, I could even leave room for it in my philosophy of existence, even though not one part of it is verifiable by application of the Scientific method.

I rather think it is metaphorical, like so much in the Bible. It is only with the rise in Fundementalism and the subsequent demand to take every passage of the Bible as literal is there a problem with Creationism.

As laid out in the Bible, it just does not stand up to the application of the Scientific method. It is either allegory, false, or there was actual magic involved.

[flyingmonkey350]

ok i admit that i didnt read the whole thread. but here is my question...If god did create the world then who created him. iv heard people say he was always there. so the next question is why did he sit around on his butt for and infinite amount of time and only decided to create somthin how ever many years the bible says the earth was created ago. if this dosent make sence im sorry im tired.

[gtstubbs]

ok i admit that i didnt read the whole thread. but here is my question...If god did create the world then who created him. iv heard people say he was always there. so the next question is why did he sit around on his butt for and infinite amount of time and only decided to create somthin how ever many years the bible says the earth was created ago. if this dosent make sence im sorry im tired.

Same reason we fly little planes, he needed a hobby to get him out from under Mrs God's feet.

[putt_13]

Hello,
My biggest arguement about creationism is that if Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth at the "start", and they had kids, who in turn had kids with there sisters/brothers, etc, then, the human race would have died off itself, because the severe level of retardation due to incest. That to me is just one BIG reason why creationism doesnt work out. -Patrick

[lrsudog]

Hello,
My biggest arguement about creationism is that if Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth at the "start", and they had kids, who in turn had kids with there sisters/brothers, etc, then, the human race would have died off itself, because the severe level of retardation due to incest. That to me is just one BIG reason why creationism doesnt work out. -Patrick


The creation story in the Bible works perfectly well, as a metaphor. It is only when someone tries to turn it into a Science and teach it that way (Creationism) that is becomes absurd.

[gtstubbs]

Hello,
My biggest arguement about creationism is that if Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth at the "start", and they had kids, who in turn had kids with there sisters/brothers, etc, then, the human race would have died off itself, because the severe level of retardation due to incest. That to me is just one BIG reason why creationism doesnt work out. -Patrick

There is a where do the begetees come from problem as well.

If you want to take the bible literally as some do you then have to fudge it because there dosen't seem to be any mention (http://unbound.biola.edu/) of Cain and Able having any sisters to begat with.

Cain also slew Able before he begat and then Cain goes Noding off to Nod, on the east of Eden and suddenly starts begetting with a wife who comes out of the blue.

Have to say it is not a very consistent story, but then I'm sure I've missed something since I'm not much into fairy stories.

[flyingmonkey350]

assumiing we evolved. wouldnt our current evoulution stop or slow down since the advandcement in medical more people are living adnt here is no longger as much of a survival of a fitest. im just wondering if this is true?

[me11owman]

I suppose that would be true .....to a point. But you forget that probably the vast majority of people on the earth don't have access to that medical treatment......many of them here in our own country. So presummably those populations would still be evolving. But even that said.......I suppose that having the medical care would cause a shift towards more intellegence? To use and expand the medical knowledge......perhaps at the expense of having a body at all? or one that we would recognize anyway.......


Just a few cents worth.....

Jim

[flyingmonkey350]

yea i was just thinking of that as i posted. i guess you can say that we have evolved to the extent that we can adapt without eveloving. we need to fly... instead of eveloving to have wings we create a plane. we need defense we creatre weapons so i supppose not evolving wont be any problem at all.

[lrsudog]

We are still evolving to fit our environment. For every guy like the actor Tony Randall who has a kid at 75 years old, they are adding one additional set of "Old guy" breeder genes to the gene pool.

What we're really doing is breeding into the population the acceptance of the deseases and such that we can (At least partially) cure.

[HoverBovver]

I used to believe in the Theory of Evolution...but after reading new theories concerning gravity & the universe I now think too many scientific "theories" today are accepted as fact despite being completely unproven.

The following musings have been extracted from stuff on the web I've read...and it screws me up big-time!!!!

In the case of the Theory of Evolution Darwin observed changes in the groups of animals he was observing. He extrapolated this gradual change and theorised that over vast amounts of time, the eventual descendants of an animal may become a different species of animal than the originals that they had descended from. At that time, the only other explanation for the origin of species was the Bible and the story of creation and Noah and the Ark. Science was trying to completely separate itself from religion, and an alternative explanation was badly needed.

Supporting evidence seemed to be all around. Animals could be grouped together, such as mammals, reptiles, and birds. Similar looking species had similar looking bone structures. But no evidence can be found that proves that evolution is the reason for all the diverse life forms on Earth. A belief always seems true to those who believe it.

With the advent of better microscopes and the discovery of chromosomes, Darwin should have been thrown to the scrap heap with Ptolemy. Every different animal or plant species has a different number of chromosomes. Chromosomes are one of the most complicated things in the Universe. Each chromosome contains thousands of genes. Each gene contains millions of bits of data, which is the software that governs the construction and functioning of the organism.

Humans have 46 chromosomes. Dogs have 78 chromosomes. Carrots have 22 chromosomes. All Chromosomes come in pairs, one from the mother and one from the father. Species that have different numbers of chromosomes cannot cross breed.

There is no gradual way to go from one even number to the next even number. If all mammals came from a common ancestor, and different mammals have different numbers of chromosome pairs, then at some point, an individual mammal would have to reproduce an offspring that has a different number of chromosomes, and be of a different species. An identical mutation causing a new chromosome to appear, would have to be repeated identically in another individual of the opposite gender, who is nearby, in order for the new species to reproduce. In any event, there can be no gradual change from one species to another. The change would have to be sudden, in one generation.

This could very well be exactly what happens. Or not, but whatever it is, it is not evolution.

Consider experiments....

Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee.

There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred-even if the universe were completely filled with proteins.

The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (i.e., the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time.

The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.

(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

(e) If it is not, return to step (b).

To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.

The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter

Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat-dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding.

Discuss.

[lrsudog]

Humans have 46 chromosomes. Dogs have 78 chromosomes. Carrots have 22 chromosomes. All Chromosomes come in pairs, one from the mother and one from the father. Species that have different numbers of chromosomes cannot cross breed.

There is no gradual way to go from one even number to the next even number. If all mammals came from a common ancestor, and different mammals have different numbers of chromosome pairs, then at some point, an individual mammal would have to reproduce an offspring that has a different number of chromosomes, and be of a different species. An identical mutation causing a new chromosome to appear, would have to be repeated identically in another individual of the opposite gender, who is nearby, in order for the new species to reproduce. In any event, there can be no gradual change from one species to another. The change would have to be sudden, in one generation.

Not true;

"differences in chromosome number do not serve as reproductive barriers between all species. For example, lets look at some of the equine species ( horses and donkeys). Domesticated horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes and Donkeys have 31. Yet, they can produce offspring, mules, which have 31.5 pairs of chromosomes. One of the horse chromosomes goes unpaired. Wild mountain zebras have 16 pairs of chromosomes, while the last species of wild horse (Przewalski's Horse) has 33 pairs. However, all of these equine species can produce hybrid offspring. In all of these crosses but one, the offspring are sterile. It has long been argued that this sterility is due to the difference in chromosome number, but hybrids of the wild (33 pairs) and domesticated horse (32 pairs) are fertile, and have 32.5 pairs of chromosomes."


http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html

I'm not going to be the guy that prove's the theory of Evolution, but it is still the most viable scientific theory floating around.

[Tim Jonas]

man....this is a blast from my past. I started this as Mootsie, back when Jesus was a Corporal.

[lrsudog]

Man, Tim who?

We miss you. In a manly way, of course.

[Tim Jonas]

30 inches of snow.......how's that SoCal gig?

[lrsudog]

SOS, different day. 75 degrees, and spending the day rototilling the back yard so I can finally put sod in. Poking my head in every fifteen minutes to check the scores and annoy the riffraff. Go Pats.

[gtstubbs]

This creature looks like one of the best arguments against God based creation you could ever come across.

God must have been on a bender the night before he did this one (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/science/08mole.html)

[EdSoars]

Actually, it isn't very strong evidence against God-based creation, but it sure doesn't argue for an anthropomorphic deity! That puppy is HOMELY by any hominid standard...which might mean that humans never ate them. The animals we think of as beautiful are the ones we've liked to hunt during the last 250,000 years...at least up until we domesticated them and MADE them ugly in the name of efficiency. That's why atching beef cows just ain't real entertaining, but watching elk is. IMHO.

Maybe God isn't Dog spelled backwards, as I've long believed; maybe she's a little subterranean digger. Sort of a real earth-mother goddess. So much for making God in our image.

Ed

thoughts like this come all the time,
with neither reason, end, or rhyme.

(Pogo Possum)

[vintage1]

Well obviously Godcreated AIDS and its been around since the dawn of time.

It can't be a viable mutation can it?

Ther are some interesting ideas about the role that viruses play in mutations as well.

Not to mention prions.

[Sparky Paul]

If there were no evolution, there would be consistency in the fossil record.
Only the first "created" forms for all time.
As it is, there's a good "bone trail" of development from the simplest creatures with a spinal cord to the immense diversity there is now.

[gtstubbs]

Another brick in the wall or is it a nail in the coffin

Butterfly effect: New species hatches in lab

James Randerson, science correspondent
Thursday June 15, 2006
The Guardian

The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months.

Scientists think they have recreated the process that produced a stunning South American butterfly called Heliconius heurippa virtually overnight. And they suggest that similar rapid species creation could help to explain puzzling groups of closely related species such as Darwin's finches and cichlid fish. The finding is yet another challenge to the charge from creationists that evolutionary biologists are unable to explain large scale evolutionary shifts that result in new species.

Biological dogma is that speciation, the process by which a new species forms, happens when two populations of the same species become separated for millennia by a new mountain range or a change in a river's course, for example. In their separate environments, the two diverge genetically and cannot mate when reunite. "The orthodoxy up to now is that it mostly has a destructive role," said George Turner, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Hull, "That's how species sometimes come to an end when they collapse into each other and all their unique adaptations are all mashed up together."

But Chris Jiggins at the University of Edinburgh and his colleagues were able to recreate butterflies with the same characteristics as H. heurippa after just three generations of breeding in the lab between two related parent species - H. melpomene and H. cydno.

"It was quite surprising how easy it was," said Dr Jiggins. "That really implies that the process of speciation could also have happened naturally very quickly." He said the process may explain the remarkable diversity among Heliconius butterflies. The research is reported in the journal Nature.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1797894,00.html

[Viper Pilot]

Very intriguing report.