Questions for Evolutionists

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, May 23, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.

    Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?

    (HINT: there isn’t any:

    http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm
    )

    How could that be objectively tested and falsified?

    What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?

    Why are those alternatives un-scientific?

    If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)

    How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

    How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

    How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

    Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?

    *I asked these three questions of Ken Miller on a USA Today “chat” pertaining to the PBS series Evolution. This was his response:

    Problem is I didn’t ask for the best tests. I asked for objective tests. Homology in biology is easily evidence for a Common Creator. IOW the only way that the “tests” came out in the affirmative was because that is what the testee wanted (because any alternative was excluded a priori) and has nothing to do with objectivity.

    Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.

    [ May 23, 2002, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE

    Thanks for an interesting challenge, John Paul!


    Well, life is here, so it must have gotten here SOMEHOW! No kidding, the presence of life on earth is evidence. In view of the established fact that the great diversity of life comes from evolution, a natural process, it isn't such a big leap to believe that the creator of all could also have arranged to use natural law for the origin of life as well. Put it this way: If God wanted to, could God have arranged for life to arrive through the operation of natural law?
    ( )yes ( )no Of course the answer is yes.

     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    VORKOSIGAN

    John Paul writes:

    Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and
    should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be
    objectively tested.


    The theory of evolution consists of two prongs. One is the
    observation
    that organisms have changed through time. This
    is "objectively tested" by the discovery of change over time
    through the fossil record, in genetic evidence, and of course in
    modern observations of change in organisms. This is an
    observation, but it does constitute an objective test, in the same
    way that Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is "objectively tested"
    by amassing historical testimony, archaeological evidence, and
    simple reasoning (for example, if Caesar did not cross the Rubicon
    with an army, how did he install himself in Rome?).

    The second prong is the specific mechanism of evolution, selection
    processes operating on genetic change. Objective evidence for this
    exists in many different ways. Numerous mechanisms for genetic
    change are known, and many are used in the field of biotechnology.
    The successful use of evolutionary processes to evolve organisms
    and useful traits in the lab is well-known in the field of
    biotechnology. Farmers use evolutionary processes to produce
    plants and animals useful to them. Of course, observation of
    evolution in action today continues, in scores of examples of
    species evolving into other species that have been recorded over
    several decades of lab and fieldwork, as well as in field
    demonstrations of individual evolutionary mechanisms.

    Evolution (the word in this usage dates to 1826) is not a
    philosophy but a scientific theory -- a model of how some aspect
    of reality works. As a grand theory it supplies explanations,
    unites disparate data into a coherent whole, suggests arenas for
    further exploration, and provides applications for solving real-
    world problems. As a theory it also objectively testable, and is
    every day, in many scientific and corporate laboratories around
    the world.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant by "objectively
    tested." Can you propose an "objective test" of evolution? Also,
    can you clarify what it is you want tested, the assertion that
    organisms have changed over time, or the mechanisms by which
    change proceeds?
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    John Paul:
    That organisms change over time is not the debate. That evolutionists think the fossil record is their ally is part of the debate. 99% of the fossil record doesn’t support the theory of evolution (ToE). When asked for fossil evidence that supports their position evolutionists will show us plankton evolving into plankton and clams evolving into clams. Some evolutionists will trot out the alleged evolution of the mammalian ear they think they see in the fossil record. However seeing that we have no idea that the alleged changes were due to random changes culled by natural selection, the objective test premise is lost.

    VORKOSIGAN:
    The second prong is the specific mechanism of evolution, selection
    processes operating on genetic change. Objective evidence for this
    exists in many different ways. Numerous mechanisms for genetic
    change are known, and many are used in the field of biotechnology.
    The successful use of evolutionary processes to evolve organisms
    and useful traits in the lab is well-known in the field of
    biotechnology. Farmers use evolutionary processes to produce
    plants and animals useful to them. Of course, observation of
    evolution in action today continues, in scores of examples of
    species evolving into other species that have been recorded over
    several decades of lab and fieldwork, as well as in field
    demonstrations of individual evolutionary mechanisms.


    John Paul:
    As I have stated above, that organisms change over time is not the debate. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl von Linne 1707-1778) knew the level of species was not fixed and therefore the Created Kind (Linne was a Creationist) was a higher level than species. IOW just because we observe speciation doesn’t mean new kingdoms, phyla, classes or orders can arise by the same mechanism.

    VORKOSIGAN:
    Evolution (the word in this usage dates to 1826) is not a
    philosophy but a scientific theory -- a model of how some aspect
    of reality works. As a grand theory it supplies explanations,
    unites disparate data into a coherent whole, suggests arenas for
    further exploration, and provides applications for solving real-
    world problems. As a theory it also objectively testable, and is
    every day, in many scientific and corporate laboratories around
    the world.


    John Paul:
    If, as you say, the ToE is objectively testable, why don’t you just answer my questions? It should be easy enough to do.

    VORKOSIGAN:
    Perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant by "objectively
    tested." Can you propose an "objective test" of evolution? Also,
    can you clarify what it is you want tested, the assertion that
    organisms have changed over time, or the mechanisms by which
    change proceeds?


    John Paul:
    When something is objectively tested there is little doubt with its conclusion. Heavier than air flight, once thought impossible by the very respected Lord Kelvin (a Creationist), was proven incorrect by science and engineering. Engineering is a very good venue to objectively test science, as it is applied science. Now that heavier than air flight has been objectively tested, there isn’t any evidence that it can’t occur.

    Once again, that organisms change over time is not the debate. What I would like to see objectively tested is the alleged great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. I have listed a few of those in my thread opening post. And yes the mechanism is also in question but that is for another thread.

    An example of an objective test in biological evolution would be to turn to genetic engineering. If humans evolved from primates then chromosomal fusion was a part of that (primates have 48 chromosomes, humans (without Down’s Syndrome) have 46) process, we should be able to utilize genetic engineering to effect that change. If for nothing else just to see if it gives us a viable organism. With genetic engineering we don’t have to wait for Mother Nature acting with father time culled by natural selection, we can cut right to the chase.
     
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    EARL DETRA

    John Paul: That organisms change over time is not the debate.

    Does this mean that you accept the change of living communities over time?

    That evolutionists think the fossil record is their ally is part of the debate. 99% of the fossil record doesn’t support the theory of evolution (ToE).

    Please explain. It would seem to me that with all of these fossils occurring in the correct position in the geological record, they are, in effect, evidence that evolution occurred. If they occurred erratically in the record, and basically at the same time, that would be evidence for creationism.

    When asked for fossil evidence that supports their position evolutionists will show us plankton evolving into plankton and clams evolving into clams.

    Hmm, I don't remember these. Seems to me that any such examples were to explain speciation, not evolution.

    Some evolutionists will trot out the alleged evolution of the mammalian ear they think they see in the fossil record.

    Okay, so explain the data from your viewpoint. I think you are also being disingenuous in that you have been given many examples including therapsids, whales, birds, and probably others. Why do you not bring these up and then offer an explanation?

    John Paul: As I have stated above, that organisms change over time is not the debate. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl von Linne 1707-1778) knew the level of species was not fixed and therefore the Created Kind (Linne was a Creationist) was a higher level than species. IOW just because we observe speciation doesn’t mean new kingdoms, phyla, classes or orders can arise by the same mechanism.

    No, it does not. However, when the fossil record shows the kingdom, phyla and orders changing with time, we have a clue to a process.

    John Paul: If, as you say, the ToE is objectively testable, why don’t you just answer my questions? It should be easy enough to do.

    The theory of evolution has been tested with every fossil discovery of the last hundred years. So far there has been no credible deviation from the expected process. Now, in modern times, the theory is tested every day as a premise in thousands of experiments and observations. If it did not work, we would know it.

    John Paul: When something is objectively tested there is little doubt with its conclusion. Heavier than air flight, once thought impossible by the very respected Lord Kelvin (a Creationist), was proven incorrect by science and engineering. Engineering is a very good venue to objectively test science, as it is applied science. Now that heavier than air flight has been objectively tested, there isn’t any evidence that it can’t occur.

    Yes, when the technology became available to test heavier-than-air flight it could be objectively tested and some previously held concepts could be shown wrong. The point here should be that when it became possible to scientifically observe the fossil record, previously held concepts were shown to be wrong. The only evidence against evolution consists of incredulity. In other words, there isn't any evidence that it can't occur.

    Once again, that organisms change over time is not the debate.

    You say this repeatedly. Could you please explain what you mean. Does it mean that you subscribe to evolution and only have a problem with mechanisms?

    What I would like to see objectively tested is the alleged great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. I have listed a few of those in my thread opening post. And yes the mechanism is also in question but that is for another thread.

    The great transformations are right there in the fossil record. They can be tested over and over. And this has been done. No one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more.
     
  6. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    VORKOSIGAN

    John Paul: An example of an objective test in biological
    evolution would be to turn to genetic engineering. If humans
    evolved from primates then chromosomal fusion was a part of that
    (primates have 48 chromosomes, humans (without Down!&s Syndrome)
    have 46) process, we should be able to utilize genetic engineering
    to effect that change. If for nothing else just to see if it gives
    us a viable organism. With genetic engineering we don!&t have to
    wait for Mother Nature acting with father time culled by natural
    selection, we can cut right to the chase.


    I am glad you mentioned this, even though there are some
    confusions in this post. First, it is not "primates" but the other
    great apes that have 24 chromosomes, while humans have 23. This is
    a well-known speciation event, evidenced by the simple fact that
    humans have chimp telomeres. There is a detailed explanation at
    www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html , but basically the human and ape chromosomes match each
    other extremely closely. As the site says:

    Recall that if the human and the chimp were designed from scratch,
    we would not expect to find the remnants of the chimp telomere
    precisely where it would be expected to be. But there they are.

    The Creationist might well complain that a cross like that would
    not be fertile, but in fact there are many examples of animals
    that differ by a fused chromosome but produce fertile offspring
    when crossed.

    Such chromosomal changes, as you postulate above, are in fact
    already known to science. The kind of change you demand to see
    actually happened this century with a common weed called
    goatsbeard, which formed new species due to a speciation event
    that occurred a few decades ago.

    John Paul: 99% of the fossil record doesn't support the theory
    of evolution (ToE). When asked for fossil evidence that supports
    their position evolutionists will show us plankton evolving into
    plankton and clams evolving into clams. Some evolutionists will
    trot out the alleged evolution of the mammalian ear they think
    they see in the fossil record. However seeing that we have no idea
    that the alleged changes were due to random changes culled by
    natural selection, the objective test premise is lost.


    Actually, the reptile-mammal transition, extremely well-documented
    in the fossil record, is only one of many such transitions. If
    you'd sit back and think about it, you can follow mammals through
    their own evolution into carnivores and herbivores, into bears and
    dogs, and into humans. The transitions are there, as are the long
    term changes.

    These are confirmed two ways. First, the relationships were worked
    out by morphology. That is, biologists studied the shapes of
    things. Using those shapes, they then deduced how organisms were
    related to each other. Then, along came DNA and confirmed this
    data. Thus, descent relationships -- large-scale evolutionary
    change -- are confirmed by two independent sets of data.

    As I have stated above, that organisms change over time is not
    the debate. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl
    von Linne 1707-1778) knew the level of species was not fixed and
    therefore the Created Kind (Linne was a Creationist) was a higher
    level than species. IOW just because we observe speciation doesn!&
    t mean new kingdoms, phyla, classes or orders can arise by the
    same mechanism.


    John Paul, speciation is evolution. If new kingdoms did not
    arise by speciation, why do you share half your genes with a yeast
    bacterium?

    I am glad, again, that you have cited Linneaus. The fact that
    species were not fixed was an enormous problem for Linneaus. At
    first he argued against any change at all, but as his system faced
    the problem of closely associated animals within different
    classifications, he began to wonder if indeed new species had
    emerged by some action of the environment. In the end he came to
    accept that new species could be produced, but then he faced the
    problem Creationists still face: how to tell the new ones from the
    original. In his Disquito de Sexu Plantarum of 1756, he finally
    decided that God had created only one of each species, and the
    rest had formed by hybridization (modern biologists reject this
    idea for animals, but accept hybridization as one speciation
    mechanism for plants). The key is that Linneaus' scheme had
    evolved from mere cataloguing to expressing real descent
    relationships.

    But I digress...

    As we have seen, Linneaus' notion of the Created Kind, which you
    appear to assume is similar to yours, was in fact different. It
    was a single species. Can you give us a definition of
    a "Created Kind" that can pass the objective tests you call for?

    John Paul If, as you say, the ToE is objectively testable, why
    don!&t you just answer my questions? It should be easy enough to
    do.


    Because K. Miller already did. The answer lies in the DNA sequence
    homologies between the structures and organisms you refer to. We
    know that prokaryotes gave rise to eukaryotes because we
    can "follow the DNA." The DNA links between various organisms show
    common ancestry. That constitutes an objective test of evolution.
    If animals were not related by common descent, they should not
    even share common reproductive chemistry, let alone DNA. Remember,
    in your view, humans and yeast are unrelated separate creations.
    If that is true, why do they share DNA?

    You asked why I didn't answer your questions. There is a reason
    why I asked you what test you would accept for your questions:

    Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate
    from non-life via purely natural processes?


    There is tons of it, which is why scientists are convinced that
    life arose from non-living systems. However, it seems clear that
    you do not accept that evidence. So that is why I asked you to
    propose a test you might find acceptable. I didn't want to waste
    everyone's time piling up the evidence for the self-organization
    capabilities of matter, the DNA relationships, the observation
    that every chemical molecule in the body is in fact non-living (so
    life arises from non-life all the time) and so on. Obviously you
    reject the last 50 years of genetic and chemical work in this
    area. No problem. So, since you reject the evidence we have, what
    evidence would you accept?
     
  7. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE

    John Paul - now I'm confused about what you object to in TOE. You made this statement:

    That organisms change over time is not the debate


    So now I'm left wondering just what your notions are about evolution. After all, how can we debate or refine our disagreements without knowing what they are? ;)

    So how about filling me in with a few answers about your opinions on these topics:

    a) Common descent. Are all current DNA using living forms descended from a single ancester?

    b) Natural law. Did the present diversity of life come about exclusively through the operation of natural law, or were miraculous interventions necessary?

    c) Age of universe. Less than 12 thousand years? or 10 billion years or more?
     
  8. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    I’m sure John Paul will have some responses, but here are some from me.

    Earl Detra stated about fossils, It would seem to me that with all of these fossils occurring in the correct position in the geological record, they are, in effect, evidence that evolution occurred. If they occurred erratically in the record, and basically at the same time, that would be evidence for creationism.


    I think you are wrong on both counts, Earl. “The correct position” is not always what happens – and evolution finds itself rearranging its theories with some discoveries – for instance archaeopteryx was considered a transition to birds until birds were found in what are considered to be earlier strata. Then there had to be a restructuring of the interpretation. This is happening on a steady basis.

    Secondly, the idea of them occurring erratically in the strata would only give evidence to the idea that one flood did everything in terms of burial and fossilization and that, actually, does not touch on the supposition that live itself was created by an external intelligence. Nor does it touch the interpretation that there were a series of disasters which buried predominant species in certain places at different times.

    I think Earl is also presenting a straw man by demanding an alternative explanation. This is not a cop-out, but simply the logical fact that something can be wrong and shown to be wrong without the right thing being available to substitute. It reminds me of the story of Edison trying hundreds of times to get a light bulb to work before he got it right. The wrong was clearly evident without the right being there yet to replace it.

    In addition, to say that However, when the fossil record shows the kingdom, phyla and orders changing with time, we have a clue to a process is to assume evolution happened in the first place, and that is not necessarily so.

    However, the most stunning of Detra’s statements was this: The theory of evolution has been tested with every fossil discovery of the last hundred years. So far there has been no credible deviation from the expected process. Now, in modern times, the theory is tested every day as a premise in thousands of experiments and observations. If it did not work, we would know it.

    First of all, fossils show stasis, not change. Change is interpreted as fossil types change.

    Because of Gould’s recent death, quite a bit of his material is being circulated. Here is some of what he is known to have said:

    "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

    "Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182

    "Paleontologists have documented virtually no cases of slow and steady transformation, foot by foot up the strata of a hillslope—not for horses, not for humans." —*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution: Explosion Not Ascent," New York Times, January 22, 1978.


    As far as those daily thousands of experiments, over 2 ½ MILLION generations of E.coli, for example, worked with in the last hundred years have yielded nothing but one slight change in an internal pathway and some slightly larger E.coli. In 2 ½ million generations, they remain E.coli, no matter what is done to them. The same with yeast, mice, guppies, lizards, finches, and the rest. There is no known way for a de novo protein to be manufactured by a cell.

    I could go on, but in short, there is NO experimental evidence for ANY evolutionary process beyond variation available to the cell or organism already within the DNA. And you can vary, for instance, a hand to produce larger or smaller or more or less fingers, but you are never going to make a wing out of it.

    Yes, organisms may change over time, but they do not change out of basic kind or type; they simply vary. And as natural selection progresses, their ability to vary diminishes, for every time there is a selection process, a portion of the population is eliminated, thus destroying part of the population’s genomic potential.

    Finally, Earl says “no one is trying to prove evolution any more.” Yes they are, Earl. Constantly. That is the focus of a number of articles in Cell, Nature, Science, etc. They are still looking for the method for something they presume must have happened.

    To Vorkosigan: the chimp/human thing is showing up to be bizarre if you are not already wedded to the concept of our relationship.

    So now the theories are being drastically rearranged because the genetics don’t fit. Don’t hold your breath about the chimp/human thing – what it shows in the long run is how big a difference is caused by that small percentage of difference. That is, of course, assuming that everything about heredity lies in the genome – which is not true, either!

    As far as the ‘matching telomeres’ are concerned, since teleomeres at the end of chromosomes have been discovered to also be protein ‘storage tanks’ it should perhaps be noted that the insertion of these sequences into some primate and human chromosomes means first of all that we don’t know what function they are serving there, not that we are related. If they are serving a necessary function, then creation explains it just as well as evolution. There is nothing but interpretation from the evolutionary perspective that states that humans have “remnants of the chimp telomere.”

    And, no, the reptile to mammal ‘transition’ is NOT “extremely well-documented.” I refer you to Ashby Camp’s article here:
    http://www.trueorigin.org/therapsd.asp
    entitled “Reappraising the Crown Jewel”

    Here is the introductory paragraph:
    Then, does DNA confirm morphologically-deduced relationships? No, not at all, as you can see from the above. If you need more evidence, I can supply it.

    And although speciation may be defined as evolution for the convenience of evolutionists, the fact of the matter is that speciation has nothing whatsoever to do with a change in body type, which evolution of “bacteria to bear” demands.

    The concept of ‘created kind’ is very evident from the fossil record. The stasis evident there is precisely the reason Gould and Eldridge formulated the concept of punctuated equilibrium.

    And if you want to cite someone, please don’t use Ken Miller. I have heard him speak and I have read enough of his material to know that he is not wedded to the truth. Either that or he includes imagination in the same category as truth!

    And there is NO evidence that life arose from non-living material. The only results available are sludge in test tubes! In fact, if you have a bacteria in a perfect solution for its maintenance and reproduction and then disrupt it, you have ALL the materials necessary for life in the correct proportions and solution and yet you still cannot get it to live again!

    Life is a series of processes. These processes do not arise spontaneously in chemical solutions. Of any type.
     
  9. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    EARL DETRA

    Your evidence does not support your point. Just because earlier bird species have been found does not indicate that Archeopteryx was out of position. In fact, it could still be a transitional along with the earlier species. If I find an older transitional that does not invalidate a younger one. The point of Archy is that transitional organisms do exist.

    But then each disaster should have its own heterogeneous hash of fossils including some from the 'past' and some from the 'present,' or even from the 'future.' This is not the case. For instance, where are the seaports and fishing villages that were overrun by the first flood? Seems to me that they couldn't have been totally dismantled and carried to a location where they would never be found by archeologists 4000 years later. And what is the nature of the second and third cataclysms? Were they floods, also? Why are they not considered so in the bible with descriptions similar to the Noachian flood?

    Actually, I don't DEMAND an alternative explanation. It is just that it sure would help the credibility of creationists to do so. After all, this IS what Darwin did and you really could learn from him. Heck, Wegenre was rejected simply because he had no mechanism. Furthermore, you have not shown that some evidence cannot be accomodated by the ToE or by mainstream science. Yes, Edison knew that his first attempts did not work, but then we cannot say that about evolution, can we? It does work. And you will notice that he eventually provided and alternative that DID work and constituted a valid invention.

    Not at all. It is making an observation and then trying to explain that observation. Remember, evolution was not the accepted paradigm when it first was formulated. It was not assumed a priori. Eventually, the evidence won out.

    Are you saying that the fossil communities in the geological record do not change? That would be an interesting thing for you to provide evidence for. I would love to see it.

    Does this mean that you are dropping the argument that the ToE is unfalsifiable? Since you subscribe to Gould as an expert in this statement, then you must also accept his titel: "Evolution as Fact and Theory," N'est pas?

    In the sense that Darwin did not have all of the tools and evidence that we have now, yes he was limited in the capability to describe evolutionary processes. We have lived with that millstone, but it are now free of it. Evolution has moved on.

    Yes, this is what I have alway been taught as a characteristic of evolution.

    I didn't know that we were trying to cause evolution of any organisms. I don't think we (especially creationists) have any idea what forces trigger evolution to occur. We do know, however, that it has happened.

    But you still have to explain the fossil record.

    This does not describe the fossil record.

    I would really like to see an abstract that says, 'Our objective in this study was to prove evolution.' The point is that we know evolution occurs. We may not know all of the mechanisms involved but there are some that could work. Nevertheless, most studies are not set up to prove evolution or even search for mechanisms. I think that you believe scientists to be trying to 'prove evolution' out of some sense of a threat to your belief system. This is based partly on your experience on these boards. In the real world of science, most researchers are not really concerned.
     
  10. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    VORKOSIGAN

    As far as those daily thousands of experiments, over 2
    MILLION generations of E.coli, for example, worked with in the
    last hundred years have yielded nothing but one slight change in
    an internal pathway and some slightly larger E.coli. In 2
    million generations, they remain E.coli, no matter what is done to
    them. The same with yeast, mice, guppies, lizards, finches, and
    the rest. There is no known way for a de novo protein to be
    manufactured by a cell.


    In fact, evolution in E. coli is already well documented.
    As
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul00/prof31073000a.asp
    makes clear, the nasty bacterial strain of E.
    coli
    that has caused the recent outbreaks appeared in only the
    last century.

    As scientists who study the evolution of bacteria are only
    starting to understand, E. coli
    http://www.sciencenews.org/20010804/bob12.asp
    changes at a
    furious pace with new strains emerging all the time through
    the constant exchange of genetic material.

    I could go on, but in short, there is NO experimental evidence
    for ANY evolutionary process beyond variation available to the
    cell or organism already within the DNA. And you can vary, for
    instance, a hand to produce larger or smaller or more or less
    fingers, but you are never going to make a wing out of it.


    You are quite right -- there is no EXPERIMENTAL evidence. The
    evidence for long-term evolution is OBSERVATIONAL in nature, not
    experimental. In the fossil record, for example. Further, the
    evidence for evolution is in that DNA. Why does a chicken
    carry genes for teeth?

    You appear to be claiming that long-term evolutionary processes do
    not exist. If that is the case, then how do new species appear?
    Taking a look at canines, for example, if they are one kind, how
    is it that they have become so many different species, with
    chromosome numbers from 36-78, in such a short time?

    So now the theories are being drastically rearranged because
    the genetics don't fit. Don't hold your breath about the
    chimp/human thing


    That isn't what the article says at all. It clearly states that
    all animals share close genetic affinities. Why? If they are not
    related by common descent, why do they share any common genes at
    all?

    what it shows in the long run is how big a difference is
    caused by that small percentage of difference.


    Of course. Everyone knows this. It is in fact another confirmation
    of evolution, showing how much morphological variation one can get
    from small differences in genes. It shows how closely related life
    on earth is.

    ....these sequences into some primate and human chromosomes
    means first of all that we don't know what function they are
    serving there, not that we are related. If they are serving a
    necessary function, then creation explains it just as well as
    evolution. There is nothing but interpretation from the
    evolutionary perspective that states that humans have "remnants
    of the chimp telomere."[/b]

    It is not just a matter of perspective. The issue isn't function,
    but origin. If humans and chimps are independently
    created "kinds" -- a term I am still awaiting a definition of --
    then why do chimp and human chromosomes differ in precisely the
    way we would expect if they were related? The function is not
    relevant to the discussion; the shape and content of the
    chromosomes is. As the reference stated:

    • This pattern is precisely as predicted by a telomere to
      telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor) 2p and 2q
      chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location.

    If human and chimps are separate designs why do the chromosomes of
    a human look exactly like those of chimp that have been
    fused at the telomeres of the 2p and 2q chromosomes?

    Later, you write:
    Then, does DNA confirm morphologically-deduced relationships?
    No, not at all, as you can see from the above. If you need more
    evidence, I can supply it.


    I am uncertain what you mean. The article you referenced said
    nothing about DNA; indeed it could not, since ancient fossils
    cannot be used for DNA analysis. It was simply an article that
    attempted, with selective quoting, to show that the mammal-reptile
    transition is not as well-documented as scientists say. However,
    if you look carefully through the article, you will find it has a
    rather strange bibliography. Let's look at this quote:

    If you glance down at the bibliography, the scientist who wrote
    this was writing in 1944. None of the scientific articles
    cited in this piece was written after 1988, although the piece was
    assembled in 1998. Indeed, Camp cites an article from 1940.

    There is one quote from Gould in 1991, which is a clearly out-of-
    context cite from Eight Little Piggies. Coincidentally this
    book contains Gould's simple explanation of how mammalian
    development recapitulates the whole evolution of the ear in a
    nutshell:

    Life is a series of processes. These processes do not arise
    spontaneously in chemical solutions. Of any type.


    Self-organization appears to occur throughout the natural world,
    operating at many different levels.

    The concept of "created kind" is very evident from the fossil
    record.


    Fantastic! Then you should have no trouble giving me a definition
    and pointing out examples.

    Once again, I thank you for your courteous reply.
     
  11. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    Earl, you and other evolutionists are going to have to make up your minds about something: the argument is that fossils lower down in the strata represent ancestors of animals whose fossils are found higher up and of animals today. This is one of the main points said to support evolution. However, when it is brought up that there are fossils of supposed descendents which appear lower in the strata than their supposed ancestors, you then claim that this does not make any difference!

    Which is it? That the position of the fossils in the strata indicate ancestor/descendent relationships or not?

    What I am seeing is that “evolution happened, no matter what the evidence says” mentality. That is not scientific!

    In the meantime, I think the general consensus now is that Archy was a true bird and not a transitional at all.

    You said, regarding the multi-catastrophe theory, But then each disaster should have its own heterogeneous hash of fossils including some from the 'past' and some from the 'present,' or even from the 'future.' This is not the case.

    Yes, actually that is what is found to some extent. I am assuming though, that since you seem to bring up a series of points already covered by the material from Barry that I quoted a few days ago that you have not read it. It is predominant species which are found in each fossil section. All animals don’t live together now and they didn’t then. I would not expect men to be living in highly humid and warm and geologically active river valleys the way the dinosaurs did, for instance. Just as, today, I would not expect, should the entire world be fossilized at this moment for some reason, to find alligators and camels in the same area. Not unless they were in a zoo! In the meantime, when a fossil is found ‘out of order’ for an evolutionist, the response is typical of yours above – well it really doesn’t matter because we know evolution happened anyway!

    Next you asked where the seaports are that were buried by the Flood. I would respond, “buried by the Flood”. But a whole lot deeper than suspected. I would also submit that the explosion of scalding waters carrying massive amounts of debris along with it would have produced the sort of destruction that very well might not leave any human structure recognizable afterwards. A town destroyed by a volcanic explosion, in the same vein, might not be expected to be recognizable as a town several thousand years and a lot of digging later.

    You next question referred to the fact that the Flood of Noah is mentioned prominently in the Bible while other, following, earth catastrophes aren’t. My personal opinion here is that the Flood was a judgment on the entire earth by God and was also important as a symbol for a spiritual truth about Christ later. Other catastrophes were more like results of the Flood catastrophe as the earth’s crust adjusted and also survived several episodes of violent impacts. There ARE references to these things in the Bible, but you are right – none of them are given the prominence Noah’s flood is given. Since the Bible is meant to be a book regarding man’s relationship with God, natural catastrophes would not be the focus of the material.

    As far as Wegener and Edison and such are concerned, I am more than sufficiently aware that no matter what evidence is presented, evolutionists will not budge from their position. To do so would be too humbling an experience for most human beings, I think! Because it would admit not only that they were wrong, but that there actually is a God to whom they are accountable. And at the core of it, that is where the real issue lies. Man’s explanations are preferred over God’s Word. Because you don’t want a God to exist, so you cannot allow anything but naturalistic, materialistic explanations for everything. The heart of the whole thing is spiritual rebellion, not science. That is why you MUST claim that creation science is not really science. No matter what research is done or what conclusions presented, it is not science, because it admits to something other than naturalistic, materialistic causes.

    Nor does it matter whether or not evolution was assumed a priori when it was first presented. That is an oxymoronic statement anyway! How can anything being presented for the first time also be accepted on an a priori basis? The point is that NOW it is assumed on ana priori basis where all mainstream science is concerned. Nor is it that way because of evidence. You have no evidence. You have interpretations of supposed mechanisms that have not and, some claim, cannot, be repeated. Therefore one interpretation is actually as good as another where that criteria is concerned.

    And I think it is clear from what I have said before that I am not claiming fossil communities don’t change in the record! I am sorry that was not understood by you. What I am saying is that what we see in the fossil record exhibits biological stasis with abrupt changes of total type. Transitionals are presumed. They cannot be more than that since evolution has no extant, observational evidence past simple variation – which does not lead to change in basic type. This is what I am saying. We see variation, yes. We see abrupt changes, yes. We see NO evidence that the first leads to the second.

    As far as Gould’s quotes go, I thought they were interesting denials, albeit early on, of some of the major tenants of evolution – from a confirmed evolutionist! But I’m not holding anyone to any of those, because I know (and this is not said in any negative sense at all, because I think it is a good thing) that evolutionists argue as much among themselves as creationists do about various items. And I know I certainly do not want to be held to some of the material put out by other creationists!

    You stated: I didn't know that we were trying to cause evolution of any organisms. I don't think we (especially creationists) have any idea what forces trigger evolution to occur. We do know, however, that it has happened.

    Aside from your slam at creationists, a number of whom happen to be geneticists and molecular biologists, your statement is extremely telling: you do not know how evolution happened but you know it happened. You cannot repeat in any way what is found in the fossil record even on the smallest scale with bacteria (which, if they were not trying to get some indication of evolution out of them, why on earth throw every mutagent in the book at them, which is what has been done?), but you are sure your interpretation of the fossil record is correct. Why? Because evolution happened. It is a matter of faith, in other words, not of evidence.

    To Vorkosigan (where does that name come from???)

    I have never argued variation – as in new strains of E.coli. What I am arguing is thatE.coli remains E.coli no matter what is done to it (short of genetic engineering, which, I presume, would fall under the heading of intelligent design!) or how it mutates either in nature or in the lab. There is all kinds of variation going on, especially with prokaryotes. But you will notice in the literature, where it is checked, that the vast majority of mutations occur at ‘hot spots’ in the genes. These spots tend to mutate rapidly, but they also back-mutate just as rapidly. In other words, what is done is as easily undone and seems to be the way unicellular organisms of this type were designed in order to vary enough to survive in different habitats.

    But E.coli has remained E.coli, no matter.

    You asked why a chicken carries genes for teeth. A number of birds do. The question evolution must be asked is not why these genes are not expressed, but how on earth did they get there in the first place. Assuming evolution is not an answer. Show the mechanism by which new meaningful and understood-by-the-cell information can be inserted into the genome of a species thus ending up creating an entirely new sort of organism.

    Secondly, speciation is NOT the sort of evolution you need to show. As your material about dogs so more-than-adequately demonstrates, even large changes in the genetics does not mean a change in species! All dogs are still happy to breed with one another without counting chromosomes. They are all still dogs, and recognized as such, despite the vast variations. Speciation, in the meantime, is a man-made term to describe related, but usually geographically separated, populations that – in most definitions – refuse to interbreed. This has NEVER been shown, even in tiny little bacteria, let alone mammals, to show any tendency at all to create a new sort of organism/animal.

    By the way, “dogs” or Canis familiaris, are one species. However there are a number of different species of canines. So I am not sure whether you were making a mistake referring to many species of dogs, which there technically are not, or of canines, of which there are a few.

    On with your next point, common descent is not the only possible conclusion to similar genetics – a single Designer with a good design is a very good explanation as well. And the fact is, as you can see from the dogs, that common or dissimilar genetics is not always a reliable indicator of basic (non-immediate family) relationships.

    You mentioned, regarding the telomeres, that it was not a matter of function, but of origin. Think about it. You are presuming origin without regard to function? To me that seems a bit bizarre!

    Continuing, self-organization does not occur unless it is programmed into the material doing the ‘self-organizing.’ Whether we are talking about crystals or embryos, the argument is the same: they do what they were designed to do.

    You asked for an example of a created kind? Certainly. Canines.
     
  12. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    IOW = In other words
    ToE = theory of evolution
    BTW = by the way
    OS = operating system
    dp = diploid

    Vorkosigan:
    I am glad you mentioned this, even though there are some
    confusions in this post. First, it is not "primates" but the other
    great apes that have 24 chromosomes, while humans have 23.


    John Paul:
    I stand corrected. Thanks and my apology for the confusion. The lesser apes have a range of 22-26 (44-52dp) within the 11 recognized species. It is our alleged closest ancestor via Darwinian common descent that has 24 (48 dp.).

    Vorkosigan:
    This is a well-known speciation event, evidenced by the simple fact that
    humans have chimp telomeres.


    John Paul:
    In reality it is just an inferred speciation event. It is only inferred by those biased towards that worldview- that humans and chimps at one time shared a common ancestor.

    Vorkosigan:
    There is a detailed explanation at www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html , but basically the human and ape chromosomes match each other extremely closely.


    John Paul:
    Nothing surprising about similar physiology having similar DNA. Evidence of a Common Creator.

    About the website. Is Robert Williams a published biologist or geneticist? How about Don Lindsay? I have had discussions with both and they both are guilty, as Behe puts it, of gross anatomy. They are in good company as Dawkins also uses the gross anatomy technique. The alleged evolution of the eye is an excellent example of this approach. We are assured the eye has evolved many times without even knowing if it can.

    (for anyone interested in a nice eye story see the following link. Notice the complete lack of experimental or any evidence except the fact that eyes exist, as do “eye-spots”.
    http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html )

    Vorkosigan:
    As the site says:


    John Paul:
    I understand the reasoning. What I am saying is we should be able to duplicate some of these alleged evolutionary changes via genetic engineering.

    Anyone else here work(ed) in the data communications or encryption fields? In data communications there are protocols that must be adhered to in order for communications to exist on any specific link. To know where the data is going to, information is placed in what is called the header with the destination’s address in it. Also in the header is the type of protocol you are using and the source of transmission’s address (although there are ways around that). In encryption even though two different companies may use the same encryption algorithm, unless for some reason the encryption keys are the same one company couldn’t decipher the other’s messages if they intercepted them (as in industrial espionage). Perhaps these telomeres are just headers containing information we have yet to know or perhaps the are part of the encryption key packet required to encode parts of the genome. The point being at our level of understanding, as borne out by the above statement clipped for the site, we have too many unknowns left to be coming to conclusions of this magnitude.

    Vorkosigan:
    Recall that if the human and the chimp were designed from scratch,
    we would not expect to find the remnants of the chimp telomere
    precisely where it would be expected to be. But there they are.


    John Paul:
    No one said they were each designed from scratch. And not in every case do the ends justify the means. IOW is this an actual prediction or just another accommodation?

    Microsoft builds its OS and application programs so they work together. They are being sued because other application program writers don’t work so well with the Microsoft OS. Its not that the program is bad it’s the communication that takes place between the OS and the app file are not optimal because that’s the way Billy wants it so you buy his stuff.

    Also their OS evolution is such that each new OS wasn’t completely written from scratch. Each year car designers don’t forget what they have done & seen in the past.

    This argument you are using is in reality an argument that counts on our ignorance. Why? Because we have not yet deciphered any genome. Sequenced yes, deciphered no.

    There’s more to evidence than evidence:

    http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html


    What is the message in step 4?

    Vorkosigan:
    The Creationist might well complain that a cross like that would
    not be fertile, but in fact there are many examples of animals
    that differ by a fused chromosome but produce fertile offspring
    when crossed.

    Such chromosomal changes, as you postulate above, are in fact
    already known to science. The kind of change you demand to see
    actually happened this century with a common weed called
    goatsbeard, which formed new species due to a speciation event
    that occurred a few decades ago.


    John Paul:
    Plants and primates do not exactly reproduce in the same way. The horse scenario discussed is interesting but even with the chromosomal difference the wild horse and the domesticated horse are by all accounts, horses. Horses and zebras have mated before. All that means is there is a strong possibility that they are from the same Created Kind.
    Chimps and humans are not only different species but also different genera. (Horses & zebras are both from the genus Equus)

    Can genetic engineering pull off this type of test (chromosomal fusion) or not? What do you think?

    Vorkosigan:
    Actually, the reptile-mammal transition, extremely well-documented
    in the fossil record, is only one of many such transitions. If
    you'd sit back and think about it, you can follow mammals through
    their own evolution into carnivores and herbivores, into bears and
    dogs, and into humans. The transitions are there, as are the long
    term changes.


    John Paul:
    There is no way of knowing that the alleged “changes” are just us “looking” for changes because of our bias, if those alleged changes were due to random variation culled by natural selection, or if the changes were the result of phenotypic plasticity. Looking for evolution in the fossil record can be summed up as: “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it”. All of the alleged “great transformations” exist only in the minds of evolutionists.

    A biological theory should explain the biological evidence. If you want a theory to explain the fossil record, if you think it needs explaining, propose a theory of fossils.

    And as Helen has pointed out, the reptile-mammal transition allegation isn’t as well documented as you would have us believe.

    Vorkosigan:
    These are confirmed two ways. First, the relationships were worked
    out by morphology. That is, biologists studied the shapes of
    things. Using those shapes, they then deduced how organisms were
    related to each other. Then, along came DNA and confirmed this
    data. Thus, descent relationships -- large-scale evolutionary
    change -- are confirmed by two independent sets of data.


    John Paul:
    I agree there is a relationship. However from my worldview I infer the evidence leads to a relationship due to a Common Creator.

    Vorkosigan:
    John Paul, speciation is evolution.


    John Paul:
    Right and I am not debating evolution or speciation (which really could be another thread for discussion). I am debating whether we are justified by extrapolating that into the grand sweep that is the theory of evolution. Rapid speciation is the Creationists’ ally. Especially those who adhere to a genetic bottleneck less than 10,000 years ago (i.e. the Flood). It is what we would expect. Organisms with the built-in ability to change and change rapid enough as to survive rapid climatic changes. You think the environment is going to be kind and wait for a beneficial random mutation to appear, survive, procreate and take over a population? Kind of hard when there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time.

    Creationists realize there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. We realize the difference between a population of organisms adapting to survive, a population of organisms that already had in its parent population groups of organisms with a trait that allowed it to survive an event that otherwise would have wiped it out completely, and a land mammal allegedly evolving into a fully aquatic mammal. It is the evolutionists that have difficulty making that distinction.

    When I read Darwin’s Origins of Species.. and its updated version in Jones’ Darwin’s Ghost, once I removed the wild extrapolations I saw the Creation model. Sure pigeons, dogs, cats, viruses, bacteria etc. can change. Sure a dominant species can dominate an ecosystem until it collapses, only to witness a fierce survival battle start all over again. But does that mean that humans evolved from ape-like organisms? Or that insects evolved from some marine (shrimp-like?) organism? Or from a worm-like organism?

    I am assured that it doesn’t matter that we debate from what some population of organisms has evolved because we are they sure we could trace their ancestry back to that unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to imperfectly self-replicate in such a way as to give rise to the diversity of life we observe today.

    Vorkosigan:
    If new kingdoms did not arise by speciation, why do you share half your genes with a yeast
    bacterium?


    John Paul:
    I guess I will ask the Creator when we meet. Most likely when we crack the code much will be revealed. Until then you have presented nothing I haven’t heard before. The theory of evolution has counted on our ignorance of the cell from its inception. When Darwin’s book was published, scientists thought the cell was a blob of protoplasm. Now we know better but we still don’t know everything. IOW to say that DNA similarities are exclusive evidence for common descent counts on our ignorance of the information content of any specific genome.

    Vorkosigan:
    I am glad, again, that you have cited Linneaus. The fact that
    species were not fixed was an enormous problem for Linneaus. At
    first he argued against any change at all, but as his system faced
    the problem of closely associated animals within different
    classifications, he began to wonder if indeed new species had
    emerged by some action of the environment. In the end he came to
    accept that new species could be produced, but then he faced the
    problem Creationists still face: how to tell the new ones from the
    original. In his Disquito de Sexu Plantarum of 1756, he finally
    decided that God had created only one of each species, and the
    rest had formed by hybridization (modern biologists reject this
    idea for animals, but accept hybridization as one speciation
    mechanism for plants). The key is that Linneaus' scheme had
    evolved from mere cataloguing to expressing real descent
    relationships.


    John Paul:
    Linne did what any good scientist would do. He let the evidence lead him to begin a classification system and then allowed new evidence to change his position. That is what science does. Baraminology is still a relatively new research field. But the scientific search for the Created Kind has begun.

    Vorkosigan:
    But I digress...

    As we have seen, Linneaus' notion of the Created Kind, which you
    appear to assume is similar to yours, was in fact different. It
    was a single species. Can you give us a definition of
    a "Created Kind" that can pass the objective tests you call for?


    John Paul:
    First I will have to do more research, I am not taking your word for it. And even if Linne’s views differ from today’s Creationists, so what? We have more information available with which to make our determination. As I stated above baraminolgy is still in its infancy. But in order to be anything more than a theoretical musing that belongs in a philosophy classroom (as does the ToE), before it is accepted as science fact it better be able to be objectively tested.

    Vorkosigan:
    Because K. Miller already did.


    John Paul:
    All Miller did was a faux pas. He didn’t answer anything. Fred Astaire would have been proud of his move though.

    Vorkosigan:
    The answer lies in the DNA sequence homologies between the structures and organisms you refer to.


    John Paul:
    And as I have already stated, homology is easily evidence for a Common Creator.

    Vorkosigan:
    We know that prokaryotes gave rise to eukaryotes because we
    can "follow the DNA."


    John Paul:
    That is not very objective. Just because there are some similarities between mitochondria, chloroplasts and procaryotes, doesn’t mean one evolved from the other. What gave rise to the nucleus seen in all eucaryotic cells?

    Vorkosigan:
    The DNA links between various organisms show common ancestry.


    John Paul:
    It also shows the act of a Common Creator.

    Vorkosigan:
    That constitutes an objective test of evolution.


    John Paul:
    That is far from what I would call objective. According to that logic it is an objective test for Creation.

    Vorkosigan:
    If animals were not related by common descent, they should not
    even share common reproductive chemistry, let alone DNA.


    John Paul:
    That’s nonsense. Animals require the consumption of proteins and amino acids in order to live. If life were all different I would think it would be a very short-lived scenario.

    Vorkosigan:
    Remember, in your view, humans and yeast are unrelated separate creations.


    John Paul:
    That is NOT my view. Of course all life is related, via the Common Creator.

    Vorkosigan:
    If that is true, why do they share DNA?


    John Paul:
    It’s not true. Why would a Common Creator re-design every piece of the puzzle? That doesn’t make sense from a design standpoint.

    I find your statements very incredulous. We don’t know what it takes to create life and you are saying that living organisms shouldn’t have anything in common if they were created by the same creator. It’s this line of thinking that tells me evolutionists can’t think out of the box. Or worse yet deliberately misrepresenting the Creationist position.

    Vorkosigan:
    You asked why I didn't answer your questions. There is a reason
    why I asked you what test you would accept for your questions:


    Vorkosigan:
    There is tons of it, which is why scientists are convinced that
    life arose from non-living systems.


    John Paul:
    If you would have read the link I provided for this you would see there isn’t any evidence for it. As a matter of fact there is a $1.35 million prize to the person or team that can show evidence that it can and get it published (see the link below).

    Vorkosigan:
    However, it seems clear that you do not accept that evidence.


    John Paul:
    How can I accept what doesn’t exist?

    Vorkosigan:
    So that is why I asked you to propose a test you might find acceptable. I didn't want to waste everyone's time piling up the evidence for the self-organization
    capabilities of matter, the DNA relationships, the observation
    that every chemical molecule in the body is in fact non-living (so
    life arises from non-life all the time) and so on. Obviously you
    reject the last 50 years of genetic and chemical work in this
    area. No problem. So, since you reject the evidence we have, what
    evidence would you accept?


    John Paul:
    Life arising from non-life is not the debate either. Obviously it had to have at some point in time. That life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes is the debate. Please keep the issues straight, as there is enough confusion already.

    Have someone collect the $1.35 million prize and I will except their findings.

    Origin of life prize:

    http://www.us.net/life/


    DNA relationships are not exclusive evidence for common descent. If the evidence were subjectable to objective testing odds are we wouldn’t be having this debate.
     
  13. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE GALATIAN

    This explanation would still not address the question why a
    "storage
    tank" (which are normally found only on the ends of chromosomes)
    turns up
    precisely in the place where one would expect a telomere, if one
    human
    chromosome were two fused chimp chromosomes.

    IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human
    chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad
    Sci U S
    A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5

    To me, it seems far too unlikely that this is attributable to
    chance,
    especially in light of the fact that it is not an intact telomere.

    It's a relict telomere, and the odds of it just happening in the
    precise
    place where a fusion would have caused it, seem too large to
    seriously
    consider. Fusion is not a rare phenomenon; this page gives some
    other
    examples, and provides some information on the human fusion
    example.

    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
     
  14. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    SCOTT PAGE

    Helen wrote:
    That is, of course, assuming that everything about heredity lies in the genome – which is not true, either!

    I would ask for some clarification and expansion on this please, with proper support.

    Helen wrote:
    You asked for an example of a created kind? Certainly. Canines.

    Does this include foxes? Bears? Hyenas?
     
  15. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    Galatian, I agree with you that the telomeres in the middle of the chromosome are not there by chance. But you think it is because of evolution. I think it is because they have a purpose we don’t know about which God built into the design of them and us.

    Just like it is turning out that “junk DNA” isn’t junk at all, the fact that we don’t know the purpose of these telomere insertions (if you will permit me to call them that without thinking I presume evolution!) is simply our ignorance, not a matter of relics left by the supposed evolutionary process.

    A much wiser move when we see things like this is to say, “Hey, look at this…this is interesting…!” instead of jumping to conclusions about how what you see supports your viewpoint. Ignorance is not shameful until we claim it to be something else; then it becomes just plain silly.

    Scott, you must know, since you teach biology, that not all heredity is found in the genetic material. For instance, the shape and ‘caps’ at the ends of E.coli are not genetically determined. They appear to be a matter of cell copying cell – or “it takes a cell to make a cell…” The most recent thing I have read which spends some time discussing this is Harold’s The Way of the Cell. But I know that this is one of the areas of current discussion and interest, so I’m quite sure you are already aware of it.
     
  16. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    EARL DETRA


    Earl, you and other evolutionists are going to have to make up your minds about something: the argument is that fossils lower down in the strata represent ancestors of animals whose fossils are found higher up and of animals today.

    Well, this is a pretty general statement. I wouldn’t say that starfish are our ancestors.

    This is one of the main points said to support evolution.

    Actually, not. It is a conclusion based on evolutionary theory.

    However, when it is brought up that there are fossils of supposed descendents which appear lower in the strata than their supposed ancestors, you then claim that this does not make any difference!

    This is not what your statement was about. You simply stated that there were some birdlike creatures found earlier in the fossil record. You seem to have some kind of misconception of what is descended from what. I am not necessarily descended from my cousin (bad regional joke excised) we are simply on different branches of the family tree.

    Which is it? That the position of the fossils in the strata indicate ancestor/descendent relationships or not?

    The position in the strata indicates a time relationship. Some organisms are descended from an older fossil, or one like it. So no, the relative position does not necessarily indicate that an organism is an ancestor. There are other factors involved anyway. Though I commend you for addressing the timing issue. Most creationists do not do this.

    What I am seeing is that “evolution happened, no matter what the evidence says” mentality. That is not scientific!

    What I am saying is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and I am willing to use it as a tool for practical applications and as a premise for future research. If that premise is wrong, or my use of it as a tool is inappropriate, then I will know very soon because it won't work.

    In the meantime, I think the general consensus now is that Archy was a true bird and not a transitional at all.

    Which features lead you and others to that conclusion, the tail or the teeth?

    You said, "regarding the multi-catastrophe theory, But then each disaster should have its own heterogeneous hash of fossils including some from the ‘past’ and some from the ‘present,’ or even from the ‘future.’ This is not the case."

    Yes, actually that is what is found to some extent. I am assuming though, that since you seem to bring up a series of points already covered by the material from Barry that I quoted a few days ago that you have not read it.


    I have read it through once, but really wanted more of just an outline of timing of events, so that is all that I was looking for at the time. Interesting ideas, but too much information for right now.

    It is predominant species which are found in each fossil section.

    So the fact that dinosaur fossils are not found in the Cambrian is because they were not predominant at that time. I have not heard this one before. But not even a single, tiny, primitive one in the Cambrian??

    All animals don’t live together now and they didn’t then. I would not expect men to be living in highly humid and warm and geologically active river valleys the way the dinosaurs did, for instance.

    So, no humans live in the East African Rift area?

    Just as, today, I would not expect, should the entire world be fossilized at this moment for some reason, to find alligators and camels in the same area.

    No. But how about the pollen or foraminifera, or other index fossil that we find in those and equivalent beds? Do you really think that paleontologist are that careless?

    Not unless they were in a zoo! In the meantime, when a fossil is found ‘out of order’ for an evolutionist, the response is typical of yours above – well it really doesn’t matter because we know evolution happened anyway!

    So there are no mixing agents (like rivers) in the geological record that might have flowed through several different ecological zones? You don't think that one dinosaur predator would be adaptable enough to take advantage of a watering hole in the on the Serengeti for instance?

    Next you asked where the seaports are that were buried by the Flood. I would respond, “buried by the Flood”. But a whole lot deeper than suspected.

    But Helen, we have erosion that has exposed deeply into the Precambrian. How deep do we have to go?

    I would also submit that the explosion of scalding waters carrying massive amounts of debris along with it would have produced the sort of destruction that very well might not leave any human structure recognizable afterwards. A town destroyed by a volcanic explosion, in the same vein, might not be expected to be recognizable as a town several thousand years and a lot of digging later.

    Ever hear of Pompeii? Herculaneum? Haven’t you seen some of the famous pictures of church steeples reaching up through lava flows? Do you ever wonder what kind of remains might be left from the eruption of Krakatau, for instance? Not everything was utterly destroyed.

    As far as Wegener and Edison and such are concerned, I am more than sufficiently aware that no matter what evidence is presented, evolutionists will not budge from their position.

    Actually, it is relatively easy. All you need is evidence. Wegener's ideas were readily accepted when the technology to view the sea floor became available.

    To do so would be too humbling an experience for most human beings, I think! Because it would admit not only that they were wrong, but that there actually is a God to whom they are accountable.

    That has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of evolutionists who hold themselves accountable to God. What we want to see is evidence for creationism

    And at the core of it, that is where the real issue lies. Man’s explanations are preferred over God’s Word. Because you don’t want a God to exist, so you cannot allow anything but naturalistic, materialistic explanations for everything. The heart of the whole thing is spiritual rebellion, not science. That is why you MUST claim that creation science is not really science. No matter what research is done or what conclusions presented, it is not science, because it admits to something other than naturalistic, materialistic causes.

    I think you read an awful lot into a scientific theory.

    Nor does it matter whether or not evolution was assumed a priori when it was first presented. That is an oxymoronic statement anyway! How can anything being presented for the first time also be accepted on an a priori basis?

    That was my point. You seem to think that evolution is accepted on an a priori basis, when in fact it was not always the case. It had to overcome a certain amount of resistance. Now that you have to do the same thing you seem upset.

    The point is that NOW it is assumed on an a priori basis where all mainstream science is concerned. Nor is it that way because of evidence. You have no evidence. You have interpretations of supposed mechanisms that have not and, some claim, cannot, be repeated. Therefore one interpretation is actually as good as another where that criteria is concerned.

    Once again the point is that evolution overcame an a priori, accepted theory. It did so by providing evidence. And neither did the early evolutionists decide how much evidence was necessary. They just kept on providing it. You should take heed to this.

    And I think it is clear from what I have said before that I am not claiming fossil communities don’t change in the record! I am sorry that was not understood by you. What I am saying is that what we see in the fossil record exhibits biological stasis with abrupt changes of total type.

    Sounds like punctuated equilibrium, doesn’t it.

    Transitionals are presumed. They cannot be more than that since evolution has no extant, observational evidence past simple variation – which does not lead to change in basic type. This is what I am saying. We see variation, yes. We see abrupt changes, yes. We see NO evidence that the first leads to the second.

    Do you mean, other than the fact that there are transitional organisms by most peoples’ definition. This may not be satisfactory to you, but absolute proof is not necessary for science to move ahead.

    You stated: I didn’t know that we were trying to cause evolution of any organisms. I don’t think we (especially creationists) have any idea what forces trigger evolution to occur. We do know, however, that it has happened.

    Aside from your slam at creationists, …


    Not a slam at all. It seems pretty logical that someone who does not believe in evolution would not take the time to become particularly conversant in mechanisms or spend time trying to devise them.

    … a number of whom happen to be geneticists and molecular biologists, your statement is extremely telling: you do not know how evolution happened but you know it happened.

    Partly true. There is evidence that it has happened and we have some mechanisms that satisfy the observed data. Are they complete? No. Most of us have no real problem with that.

    You cannot repeat in any way what is found in the fossil record even on the smallest scale with bacteria (which, if they were not trying to get some indication of evolution out of them, why on earth throw every mutagent in the book at them, which is what has been done?), …

    Umm, medical research? I seriously doubt that anyone expected to get something other than fruit flies by irradiating fruit flies.

    … but you are sure your interpretation of the fossil record is correct. Why? Because evolution happened. It is a matter of faith, in other words, not of evidence.

    No. It is true because there is no other viable explanation of the fossil record (the evidence). Evolution is an explanation of the data. Nothing else comes close. Someday in the future, when there is another explanation, I will have no problem addressing it. That is where your analogy with faith fails.
     
  17. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    SCOTT PAGE

    What you are speaking of is not heredity at all. Physical constraints are not hereditary. If we were to physically alter the shape of an E.coli bacterium, would its progeny have a similar shape? I doubt it. But what happens if we alter its DNA content?
    I have not read Harold's book, but I perused some reviews of it, and found the quotes presented to be instructive:

    "...[F]orm is not directly or rigidly determined by the genotype: the genes define a range within which the phenotype falls, but forms arise epigenetically as the result of developmental processes." (p. 209)

    "Organisms are historical creatures, the products of evolution; we should not expect to deduce all their properties from universal laws." (p. 218)

    "What we lack is an understanding of the principles that ultimately make living organisms living, and in their absence we cannot hope to integrate the phenomenon of life into the familiar framework of physical law. I am not here to advocate a veiled vitalism, nor to sneak in a creator by the back door. But...until we have forged rational links between the several domains of science, our understanding of life will remain incomplete and even superficial." (p. 218)

    "...[W]hile a machine implies a machine maker, an organism is a self-organizing entity." (p. 220)

    "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)

    As is often the case, it appears that that one's preconceived notions flavor their interpretations.
    As a former high school science teacher, I’m quite sure you are already aware of this.

    And no mention of Canines?
     
  18. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    Earl Detra:
    Does this mean that you accept the change of living communities over time?


    John Paul:
    Yes I accept that living organisms can and do change over time. What I don’t accept is extrapolating observed change to the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

    One of the basic concepts of the Creation model of biological evolution is that all of life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kinds. Instead of a “tree of life” we have an orchard.

    Earl Detra:
    Please explain. It would seem to me that with all of these fossils occurring in the correct position in the geological record, they are, in effect, evidence that evolution occurred. If they occurred erratically in the record, and basically at the same time, that would be evidence for creationism.


    John Paul:
    And I find it disturbing that you think a biological theory is required to explain an interpretation of the fossil record.

    The following can be read in its entirety at http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/ by scrolling down to the bottom half of the page and selecting Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record:

    ]

    Earl Detra:
    Hmm, I don't remember these. Seems to me that any such examples were to explain speciation, not evolution.


    John Paul:
    That would be correct.

    Earl Detra:
    Okay, so explain the data from your viewpoint. I think you are also being disingenuous in that you have been given many examples including therapsids, whales, birds, and probably others. Why do you not bring these up and then offer an explanation?


    John Paul:
    I don’t believe the theory of evolution is indicative of reality so I don’t see any examples of the alleged great transformations in the fossil record. And as such I don’t find a need to explain anything. IOW it makes more sense to me to have a biological theory explain what we see in biology and genetics and then finding an explanation for the fossil record than it does to come up with a biological theory based on the fossil record and trying to fit it into what we observe in biology and genetics.

    Earl Detra:
    No, it does not. However, when the fossil record shows the kingdom, phyla and orders changing with time, we have a clue to a process.


    John Paul:
    The fossil record only shows that if you believe it. IOW your statement confirms the “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it” scenario for evolutionists.

    Earl Detra:
    The theory of evolution has been tested with every fossil discovery of the last hundred years.


    John Paul:
    That is why I specified objective tests. One’s interpretation of the fossil record doesn’t qualify as objective.

    Earl Detra:
    So far there has been no credible deviation from the expected process. Now, in modern times, the theory is tested every day as a premise in thousands of experiments and observations. If it did not work, we would know it.


    John Paul:
    There is a huge difference between what we can observe and objectively test and extrapolating that to the grand sweep of the ToE. The funny thing is in all the experiments we have done with bacteria involving millions (if not billions) of generations not once have we observed the bacteria accumulating mutations as to evolve into something other than bacteria. Once a virus always a virus, as far as observation and experimentation goes. I don’t see how that helps you.

    There aren’t any fossils of progenotes. There aren’t any fossils of single-celled organisms evolving into multi-cellular organisms. There aren’t any fossils of the alleged evolution of eucaryotes from procaryotes. And there isn’t anything in the fossil record that would indicate that life arose from non-life via purely natural processes.

    Earl Detra:
    Yes, when the technology became available to test heavier-than-air flight it could be objectively tested and some previously held concepts could be shown wrong. The point here should be that when it became possible to scientifically observe the fossil record, previously held concepts were shown to be wrong. The only evidence against evolution consists of incredulity. In other words, there isn't any evidence that it can't occur.


    John Paul:
    Actually there isn’t any genetic or biological evidence that demonstrates any of the alleged great transformations can occur. Relying on one’s interpretation of the fossil record for evidence for a biological theory is a stretch and is hardly objective.
    Today, thanks to technology, we have genetic engineering. This should be able to aid us in objectively testing the alleged grand sweep of the ToE.

    Earl Detra:
    You say this repeatedly. Could you please explain what you mean. Does it mean that you subscribe to evolution and only have a problem with mechanisms?


    John Paul:
    I don’t understand. Aren’t you supposed to know what it is you are debating against before joining the fray?

    The reason Creationists don’t like using the word evolution is because it becomes confused with the theory of evolution. Creationists understand that the change in allele frequency occurs over time, we just don’t find that the alleged evidence for the grand sweep of the ToE is compelling. So instead of using the word evolution most often than not you will hear us speak of variations (within the Created Kind).

    As for the debate the main points of disagreement are the starting point of the evolutionary process, the extent that process can take a population, the apparent direction of the process and yes the mechanism itself. I am preparing a “new topic” where we can discuss this subject as it seems to be a source of confusion.

    Earl Detra:
    The great transformations are right there in the fossil record. They can be tested over and over. And this has been done. No one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more.


    John Paul:
    The key word is objective, Earl. As in objective tests. In order to “see” the alleged great transformations in the fossil record you have to already be well biased towards the ToE. The ToE will never be “proved” even if science was about proof as it can’t even be objectively tested.
     
  19. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOHN PAUL

    (My apologies to Paul- just a little late in getting back to you)

    Paul of Eugene:
    Thanks for an interesting challenge, John Paul!


    John Paul:
    The reason for the challenge is because if those questions were answered I most likely would still be an evolutionist.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Well, life is here, so it must have gotten here SOMEHOW! No kidding, the presence of life on earth is evidence. In view of the established fact that the great diversity of life comes from evolution, a natural process, it isn't such a big leap to believe that the creator of all could also have arranged to use natural law for the origin of life as well. Put it this way: If God wanted to, could God have arranged for life to arrive through the operation of natural law?
    ( )yes ( )no Of course the answer is yes.


    John Paul:
    Yes, life is here. If God had anything to do with it then it didn’t arrive from non-life via purely natural processes. My guess as to why some 90% of evolutionists are of the theistic variety. The odd part about that is theistic evolution is closer to ID than it’s constituents would have you believe.

    Paul of Eugene:
    The premise of this question is wrong.


    John Paul:
    I take it this means you aren’t going to answer the question. BTW, the premise is not wrong.

    Paul of Eugene:
    It is certain that life could have arisen by purely natural processes. Even the most adamant creationist admits it is perfectly possible for life to spontaneously form from a collection of the necessary atoms; they merely say it is so improbable that it might as well be considered to be impossible. But this argument is flawed, because in all of the vast universe, and in all the possible universes that might be out there, we only know about one instance of life originating. Therefore it is perfectly possible that life started only once as as stupendously improbable event, and here we are.


    John Paul:
    Hate to burst your bubble but it is in no way “certain” that life could have arisen via purely natural processes. We have taken all the chemicals found in life, mixed them together and nothing. Life is much more than chemical reactions and it certainly isn’t any evidence that shows life can arise from non-life without help. Even with our intervention we can’t prod life from non-life. From what we know life itself is irreducibly complex. That much science has told us. If someday science is corrected I will cross that bridge at that time.

    Paul of Eugene:
    That said, it is my faith that God values life more than that! I believe His universe has many instances of life all over the place. It is my faith that the formation of life under natural law is actually a rather probable event. The advance of science will shed light on this notion.


    John Paul:
    Please define a “rather probable event”?
    Right now there isn’t any evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Seeing that premise has held up against all tests, no matter how rigged for success they have been, what are the alternatives? However, if you are saying that God rigged it so that life could form from non-life (guess what, Creationists do too) under natural laws given some specific condition (which appears to be a one-time event), and set that condition up on several life-supportable systems (which God most likely would have rigged into existence), that would be a simplistic version of ID. We should be able to replicate those conditions and hoping that natural laws haven’t changed, bring forth life from non-life. Accomplishing that may shed some light on any possibility of that occurring via purely natural processes. Or remove all doubt that it could.

    Paul of Eugene:
    I suppose one theory ends where the other begins because of the way the words are defined. As an observer of science it seems clear to me that one main reason for the separation of the origin of life theories from the evolution of life after origin theories is that the latter are a whole lot easier to formulate and test. But hang in there. It is the glory of science to progress.


    John Paul:
    The point being is if evolution doesn’t apply to non-living matter what is the mechanism that would bring life from non-life? What does natural selection work on? A better chemical? A better chemical for what? The reason someone was smart enough to create the illusion the two are separate is because there isn’t any evidence to support the premise that life could arise from non-life via purely natural processes- just like the article I linked to states. Evolutionists are having a hard enough time trying to maintain the illusion that purely natural processes can account for the diversity of life from some genetically unknowable origin.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Let me tell you a story about what happened when we went to the beach.


    John Paul:
    I take it this means you aren’t going to answer this question either.

    Paul of Eugene:
    The tide had smoothed out all the sand. But on the sand there were footprints. Ahah, I said, it looks as if someone has been here since the tide came and went. But my companion was a radical skeptic, and asked "How can we objectively test the hypothesis that someone has been here since the tide came and went?"

    If by that my companion meant it is reasonable to doubt the presence of the earlier visitor just because, after uttering such a phrase, I could think of no further evidence, shall I throw out the notion there was an earlier visitor? By no means! Because the evidence already accumulated is sufficient.


    John Paul:
    Let’s get one thing straight. The evidence for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution is very weak. It can’t be objectively tested and can’t be verified. All told the grand sweep of the theory doesn’t add anything to the advance of science. Darwin could have stopped before extrapolating what couldn’t be observed or tested for and we would be no worse off than we are today.

    Paul of Eugene:
    DNA sequencing showing degrees of chemical similarity are objective, not subjective.


    John Paul:
    Then they obviously point to a Common Creator. Thank you.

    Paul of Eugene:
    The fact that the implied kinship confirms the independently derived "tree of life" is an objective finding, not subjective.


    John Paul:
    The “implied kinship” confirms The Creator used similar parts for similar functions and that all life has to have some similarity in order to survive. It (the similarity) also could have something to do with some underlying protocol inherent in the genome in all DNA based life.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Evolution stands or falls with the prediction of "one true tree".


    John Paul:
    But I have heard evolutionists say (even Darwin) that life could have started as more than one population of organisms. Surely that would make it more than “one true tree”. As a matter of fact we only know the branches of the tree, the rest is pure speculation based on biased extrapolation.

    Paul of Eugene:
    The fact that such a "tree of life" can be constructed at all is evidence in favor of evolution.


    John Paul:
    Or it shows how far some people will go to protect their dogma. Houses of cards can be constructed too. Doesn’t mean I want to live in one.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Consider feathers and hair. Why is their no bat with feathers and no bird with hair? A common creator making every species from scratch would have no a priori reason to make all bats with hair and never use feathers.


    John Paul:
    That’s just ridiculous. Who are you to suppose what a Creator would do? It also assumes that at one time there wasn’t any bats with feathers. Not everything that has lived and died gets fossilized.

    And please do tell where bats got their echolocation system and birds got their migratory sense.

    Paul of Eugene:
    We're talking about "homology being evidence for a common creator" here, aren't we? Instead, the patterns conform to what we would expect from common descent with opportunistic modification.


    John Paul:
    Creationists confirm “descent with modification”. We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it’s own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth.

    Paul of Eugene:
    The "tree of life" stands out of the data for all to see. Of course, some close their eyes and refuse to see it.


    John Paul:
    The “tree of life” means very little if it can’t be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there. Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. Life is better explained by the “orchard of life” as proposed by Creationists.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Have you heard about the recent discovery of intermediate fossils showing the development of whales in Pakistan and India?


    John Paul:
    You mean the alleged development of whales from land mammals?

    Paul of Eugene:
    Their characteristics were postulated in advance and then the fossils that matched the postulates were found. That, my friend, is prediction and objective verification of the prediction.


    John Paul:
    If that is all it takes to get you to believe the theory of evolution is indicative of reality I feel sad for objectivity. If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? “What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?” uhhhhh, ”remnants of legs!” Which is what they think they recently found.

    There was also a report on a skull finding but I believe that turned out to be nothing.

    Paul of Eugene:
    Now its your turn. I have some questions for you!


    John Paul:
    Let’s see if I can dance around them with your grace…

    Paul of Eugene:
    1) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that is NOT NOW being tried?


    John Paul:
    By evolution I will assume you mean the theory of evolution because it is possible to agree that evolution occurs without agreeing to the biased extrapolations of the theory of evolution.
    Chromosomal fusion. Our alleged closest ancestor via common descent have 48 chromosomes humans have 46. Somewhere along the line a little chromosomal fusion took place. I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that. Also I find it interesting that in the billions of generations of experimental bacteria not once has a eucaryote arose. A virus has always remained a virus.

    Paul of Eugene:
    2) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that IS now being tried?


    John Paul:
    Truthfully once we discovered the double-helix the theory of evolution should have been modified. We opened the black-box but refused to see what it was telling us. Then when we hit upon alternate gene splicing, Crick’s “Central Dogma” should have been thrown out. The fact that both are still around tells me there is more than evidence at work here.

    Paul of Eugene:
    3) If you can think of any answers for question number 2, how do you think the evidence will come out?


    John Paul:
    It doesn’t matter. All evidence will be made to fit the theory of evolution. The ToE doesn’t make predictions it makes accommodations.
     
  20. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: Caution is being asked concerning the tone of these posts by all parties involved. Implied insults will be considered the same as direct insults (i.e. "no brainer") and henceforth be edited out.]

    SCOTT PAGE

    The following was presented:
    As written, it appears that this means creationists believe that there were only 3-5 original Kinds (Kingdoms). That cannot be correct.
    I do wonder though, How have creationists 'confirmed' descent with modification?

    How would one, I wonder, "objectively test" the concept of Creation ex nihilo? The 'Kind' concept?
    There is nothing but theoretical musings (well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor) in ANY science.
    I thought it had just been written that creationists 'confirm' descent with modification? Or is it that they only confirm SOME descent with modification? What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

    Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature. Of course, 'predicting' something that occurred in the past is an iffy business. Take the situation in the world today. Who would have predicted that the United States has a history only just over 2 hundred years? That it started out as a few British colonies?
    But, lets discuss no-brainers. If we have an end point - say, the Chihuahua. And we supposedly have the starting point - the original 'dog-kind'. It should be a no-brainer to predict all of the intermediate forms from the original dog-kind to the extant Chihuahua. I mean, they should have basically the same morphology! So, tell us all what creationism tells us about the descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - of the modern Chihuahua.
    This appears to be a red herring, or perhaps a non-sequitur. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event. Better yet, with our genetic engineering and the well-funded creationist groups, it should be a no-brainer to demonstrate descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - from an original Kind.

    [ June 07, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...