Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing "29 evidences..."
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 74 (1926)
01-11-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by John Paul
01-11-2002 2:25 PM


Larry:
The 29 lines of evidence can all be observed, tested, and repeated.
John Paul:
If that is your idea of an observation, test and repeated test, then I wish you were one of my college professors. The observations made by Theobald are not exclusive lines of evidence for today's ToE. And yes the Creation model has been written about. There is a book out called The Creation Hypothesis. And just because you don't like what the websites I linked to have to say about the Creation model, means very little to me. In reading Darwins 'Origins..' and Jones' 'Darwin's Ghost' it is incomprehensible how they drew their conclusion. Talk about false extrapolation from the evidence.
A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism. Or how about a reptile evolving into a mammal? Shouldn't we be able to do this via genetic engineering on a reptilian embryo?
Anyone can derive a test post hoc. That doesn't make it a valid test.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 2:25 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 01-11-2002 5:37 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 63 by lbhandli, posted 01-11-2002 7:18 PM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 74 (1934)
01-11-2002 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Paul
01-11-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism. Or how about a reptile evolving into a mammal?
Evidence for reptile to mammal evolution? Sure, here you go.
The fossil evidence of gradual modification of the reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones is quite good, for just one line of evidence.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
The fossil evidence is just one major line of converging evidence. Another is genetic- phylogenetic trees derived from genetics methods match the trees derived from fossil evidence. The patterns of inheritance inferred from the fossils is seen in the genes. Evolution explains this. Creationism - which denies genetic relation between, for example, mammals and reptiles - has no explanation for this whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 2:33 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 8:01 AM nator has not replied
 Message 68 by Wounded King, posted 05-29-2003 11:08 AM nator has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 74 (1938)
01-11-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Paul
01-11-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
If that is your idea of an observation, test and repeated test, then I wish you were one of my college professors. The observations made by Theobald are not exclusive lines of evidence for today's ToE.

Then provide an operationalized hypothesis. So far you have tried to claim that the 'creation model' is consistent with both the 29 lines of evidence and Darwins book from 150 years ago. It appears it accounts for everything, yet you can't even provide a couple hypotheses that explain how the evidence is consistent with both, nor identify key pieces of evidence that would falsify either one. Please do so.
quote:

And yes the Creation model has been written about. There is a book out called The Creation Hypothesis. And just because you don't like what the websites I linked to have to say about the Creation model, means very little to me.

The challenge to you is to provide an operationalized hypothesis concerning this. Instead of complaining that I don't like what you are posting, why don't you meet the standards of science?
quote:

A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism.

Actually this would be difficult to accomplish with the existence of other organisms. The thing is we do have a record in genetics that we can explore and you continue to ignore.
quote:

Anyone can derive a test post hoc. That doesn't make it a valid test.

So explain why the examples aren't valid tests. You do realize they weren't post hoc at first? They seem post hoc because the tests were successful. Your complaint is very strange. Essentially you claim the evidence fits so the argument is invalid. This seems contrary to what one should be arguing.
Specifically the Doolittle evidence was predicted 10 years before he found it based on previous evidence. So your argument regarding the tests being post hoc is a bit hollow.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 2:33 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 74 (2042)
01-14-2002 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
01-11-2002 5:37 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism. Or how about a reptile evolving into a mammal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Evidence for reptile to mammal evolution? Sure, here you go.
John Paul:
I didn't ask you for alleged evidence to support reptile to mammal evolution, I asked how could you test such a thing? If your answer is to look in the fossil record, that isn't a valid test because it assumes the ToE is indicative of reality and is therefore circular.
schraf:
The fossil evidence of gradual modification of the reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones is quite good, for just one line of evidence.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
John Paul:
OK please present the genetic evidnce that would substantiate the claim that these alleged changes actually occurered via random mutations culled by natural selection. If you can't do so then all you have is guy lines with no tower to support.
schraf:
The fossil evidence is just one major line of converging evidence. Another is genetic- phylogenetic trees derived from genetics methods match the trees derived from fossil evidence. The patterns of inheritance inferred from the fossils is seen in the genes. Evolution explains this.
John Paul:
But what about the fossils we don't have genetic evidence for?
schraf:
Creationism - which denies genetic relation between, for example, mammals and reptiles - has no explanation for this whatsoever.
John Paul:
That is wrong. A Common Creator explains genetic similarities just fine. No where have I ever read that Creationists think genetic similarities are a problem for their model of biological evolution.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 01-11-2002 5:37 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 01-14-2002 8:26 AM John Paul has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 65 of 74 (2044)
01-14-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by John Paul
01-14-2002 8:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by :

John Paul:
I didn't ask you for alleged evidence to support reptile to mammal evolution, I asked how could you test such a thing? If your answer is to look in the fossil record, that isn't a valid test because it assumes the ToE is indicative of reality and is therefore circular.
schraf:
The fossil evidence of gradual modification of the reptilian jaw bones to mammalian ear bones is quite good, for just one line of evidence.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

The evidence of both reptile to mammal, & mammalian ear bones is evidence of evolution.
It DOES NOT presuppose evolution, it is not a circular argument.
Fossils are lain down in the geologic column by the principle of superposition. Younger on older. The fossils present snapshots of change in older to younger fossils. Anyone who had never heard of evolution would be able to deduce that progressive physical change occurred over time. Evolution.
How on earth is this circular?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by John Paul, posted 01-14-2002 8:01 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 74 (1591)
01-05-2002 8:03 PM


OK Larry, here we go.
From 29 evidences for macroevolution
From 29 evidences (actually, linked to in the opening paragraph):
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
John Paul:
Binomial nomenclature is a man-made classification system and as such is influenced by man’s biases. It was a system set up by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778). It was binomial because at first it was just Genus & species. Of course today that system has been expanded to the following (basic) hierarchy of taxa: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species. Today we have several different Kingdoms-the Eukaryotic (super) Kingdom which includes the Kingdoms-Chromista; Fungi; Metazoa; Plantae; Protista (see Taxa); Then we have Viruses which are a Kingdom to themselves; Kingdom Bacteria and finally Kingdom Archaea.
This is modern man’s attempt to do what God had Adam do way back when.
The point of the above is that Creationists since the time of Linnaeus knew of speciation, that is the originally Created Kind was above the species level. And, according to some Creationists (see John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study) say the Created Kind could be at least as high as today’s Family level for some organisms (turtles come to mind). In Woodmorappe’s book he places the organisms aboard the Ark at the Genus level thereby solidifying the fact that Creationists accept speciation.
What that does is blur the lines of debate because if we use the above definition of macroevolution, Creationists accept any evolutionary change at or above the level of species., because Genus is above species. To even further the problem is to debate the classification system itself, especially how is a species determined? But that can be for another thread. Right now I consider the definition of macroevolution to be enough of an issue.
From 29 evidences:
As stated earlier, for the purposes of this article macroevolution and universal common descent are treated as virtual synonyms. Common descent is the hypothesis that all living organisms are the lineal descendants of one original living species. All the diversity of life, both past and present, was originated by normal reproductive processes observable today. Thus, all extant species are related in a strict genealogical sense.
John Paul:
OK Larry, which is it? One original living species or few/ many? (ala Darwin and Doolittle)
From 29 evidences
Prediction 1: The fundamental unity of life
Confirmation:
All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers - but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.
John Paul:
Why, exactly, can’t this also be confirmation of a Common Creator? Do you guys think life is just (a) chemical reaction(s)? So far I see confirmation of the premise same evidence, different conclusions.
Prediction 2: A nested hierarchy of species
Confirmation:
Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc.
John Paul:
Closely related how? Common Creator or common descent? Obviously if the Created Kind was as high as today’s Family then some organisms would be related via common descent. But that does not mean all organisms are. Duh.
Prediction 3: convergence of independent phylogenies
If there is one true historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.
John Paul:
And SLP accuses Creationists of post hoc gibberish! LOL! Exactly where does the Virus Kingdom fit in?
Confirmation:
Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous — they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.
John Paul:
Common Creator.
Prediction 4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
John Paul:
This can be summed up as I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it, syndrome. As Dennet stated on the PDS series Evolution, There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. That would make this more post hoc gibberish. Also there is no way of knowing if the alleged transitional morphology was due to phenotypical plasticity or heritable genotypical change due to copying errors. You can imagine all you want but without substantiating molecular evidence all you have is a guy line with no tower to support. In other words you are assuming something did evolve without knowing if it can. In that sense alleged transitionals only exist as such in the minds of evolutionists.
Prediction 5: Chronological order of intermediates
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the correct general chronological order based on the standard tree.
John Paul:
I haven’t seen the journal entry yet but it appears some alleged ‘orders’ are not as they evolutionists would have us believe.
Recently we published a paper refuting the supposed reptile-to-mammal transitional series: Woodmorappe, J., Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities, TJ 15(1):44—52, 2001 [will be hyperlinked once postedEd.]. The same sort of reasoning and logic as was used in this article would apply to the fish-to-tetrapod series. is proposed reptile-to-mammal series, features do not progress consistently. Some organisms towards the mammal end of the series are devoid of certain mammal-like features present in organisms closer to the reptile end of the series. The majority of the hundred-odd traits examined did not progress consistently.
------------------
John Paul
{Did some repairs to damaged message - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2002]

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 74 (1596)
01-05-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guest
01-14-2002 8:01 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
From 29 evidences (actually, linked to in the opening paragraph):
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
John Paul:
Binomial nomenclature is a man-made classification system and as such is influenced by man’s biases. It was a system set up by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778). It was binomial because at first it was just Genus & < I>species[/I]. Of course today that system has been expanded to the following (basic) hierarchy of taxa: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species. Today we have several different Kingdoms-the Eukaryotic (super) Kingdom which includes the Kingdoms-Chromista; Fungi; Metazoa; Plantae; Protista (see Taxa); Then we have Viruses which are a Kingdom to themselves; Kingdom Bacteria and finally Kingdom Archaea.
This is modern man’s attempt to do what God had Adam do way back when.
The point of the above is that Creationists since the time of Linnaeus knew of speciation, that is the originally Created Kind was above the species level. And, according to some Creationists (see John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study) say the Created Kind could be at least as high as today’s Family level for some organisms (turtles come to mind). In Woodmorappe’s book he places the organisms aboard the Ark at the Genus level thereby solidifying the fact that Creationists accept speciation.
What that does is blur the lines of debate because if we use the above definition of macroevolution, Creationists accept any evolutionary change at or above the level of species., because Genus is above [/I]species[/I]. To even further the problem is to debate the classification system itself, especially how is a species determined? But that can be for another thread. Right now I consider the definition of macroevolution to be enough of an issue. [/QUOTE]
If you are claiming there is a barrier demonstrate a barrier. Largely the above is nothing more than hand wringing--is there somthing I'm supposed to respond to? It appears you have decided to post a lot of stuff with no meaning so I'm going to break these up.
Where is the barrier? If you don't like taxonomy explain the barrier in terms of genetic distance.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Guest, posted 01-14-2002 8:01 AM Guest has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 68 of 74 (41699)
05-29-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
01-11-2002 5:37 PM


JP
You say
"A real test would be to show that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism. Or how about a reptile evolving into a mammal?"
Putting aside the more ludicrous aspects of these as requirements for evidence, would the experimental evidence of fruit flies undergoing mutation leading to the development of a second pair of wings instead of halteres, four winged insects being the ancestral form (obviously in terms of evolutionary theory), be sufficient. I know this isnt as dramatic as the proofs you suggest but it is in the same vein surely? Or all the many homeotic mutations of sepals and petals in plants which produce morphologies resembling other species.
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 01-11-2002 5:37 PM nator has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 69 of 74 (41701)
05-29-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by lbhandli
01-05-2002 8:50 PM


This is a damaged thread - Closing topic
I had previously tried to do some repair, and (I think) only did further damage.
I had left the topic alone, as being dead - but now it's been revived.
No offense intended to Wounded King, but I'm closing this damaged topic.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 01-05-2002 8:50 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Admin, posted 08-25-2003 12:32 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 70 of 74 (52156)
08-25-2003 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Adminnemooseus
05-29-2003 11:21 AM


This thread became broken when we were still at the old webhost, but went unnoticed at the time, probably because it wasn't active. It only became noticed when Wounded King attempted to post to it. I have restored it from backup and appended the new posts, though I might have to play with it a bit more to make it fully functional. Anyway, if discussion here begins anew then I'll move the thread to the appropriate forum.
[Added by edit: thread seems to be working fine. --Admin]
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-29-2003 11:21 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 71 of 74 (166516)
12-09-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by John Paul
01-07-2002 6:05 AM


John Paul:
-----
. in all of the experiments we have ever conducted appear to support that there is a barrier. ie bacteria always remain bacteria, even after millions (if not billions) of generations. The same can be said for viruses and every other organism.
-----
Common misconception in that after a new species evolves the old one WILL disappear, or that all of the original population becomes the new organism. Bacteria will continue to exist as bacteria for as long as they are a valid system for survival. Other things evolved from bacteria and moved on to exploit the systems around them in new and interesting ways but that does not invalidate the simple bacteria as a valid solution to survival.
So yes bacteria will always be bacteria up until the time that form becomes invalid for survival then it will die out. But this doesn’t invalidate ToE as there is nothing stopping a different organism evolving from the previous but yet leaving the original unchanged.
As for viruses we know that these can quickly mutate into new strains but these mutations don’t destroy, erase or invalidate the previous version.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 01-07-2002 6:05 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 12-09-2004 12:50 PM ohnhai has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 74 (166547)
12-09-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ohnhai
12-09-2004 11:17 AM


ohnhai,
This thread is quite old, so don't expect a response from John Paul.
quote:
So yes bacteria will always be bacteria up until the time that form becomes invalid for survival then it will die out.
Just a quick comment. Bacteria, on their own, never developed into multicellular life. Eukaryotes are more likely the result of commensalism between different types of single celled organisms which make their emmergence difficult to describe in evolutioanry terms. They are almost like a second round of abiogenesis, the sudden production of new kingdom of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ohnhai, posted 12-09-2004 11:17 AM ohnhai has not replied

h8ntherain
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 74 (220680)
06-29-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by joz
01-08-2002 8:55 AM


mutation
John Paul:
Yup sure. Can you test that hypothesis? I mean can you take a Sea Cucumber and actually observe that gene getting duplicated and then getting mutated to the 'new' gene that is its alleged descedant?
Hatntherain: From what I have read, the creation theory just changes the word mutation to miracle. There is no way to prove or disprove devine intervention when it is used the same as a mutation.
Why can't both theories live in concert? God created the structure of life, and it follows evolutionary patterns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by joz, posted 01-08-2002 8:55 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-30-2005 10:19 AM h8ntherain has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 74 of 74 (220938)
06-30-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by h8ntherain
06-29-2005 12:35 PM


Old "Great Debate" topic - Closing
The "Great Debate" forum has more recently been redefined as a place for one-on-one debates. Also, John Paul is long gone (I think he may be suspended from ).
Closing this topic. I have also just closed all the other old "Great Debate" topics.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by h8ntherain, posted 06-29-2005 12:35 PM h8ntherain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024