quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
As requested by Percy, this is a reposting from another thread.
Well, let's take this point by point.
Point #1
Jet: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Mark: Yes there are. Tell me, what would you expect a reptile mammal transitional to look like?
***Mark chooses to respond in a somewhat typical Evo fashion. Rather than give examples of transitionals and intermediates, followed by the references to the scientific tests performed that led to the scientific explanation of how these were determined to be so, followed by the scientific attempts at falsification of this data, etc., Mark simply says "yes there are" and then moves into a non'supportive question.***Jet
LOL, well? Since you want scientific quality evidence, I only thought it reasonable that we embark on a scientific mode of enquiry. Is the
prediction that mammals evolved from reptiles born out? You tell me what those fossils will look like, Jet, then we’ll have a look.
As regards not providing any transitional evidence, I only didn’t do it because you would just say no it isn’t. But, hey ho, here we go.
(Species-Age-Character-Source)
Fusilinid-
Lepidolina multiseptata Permian Proculus diameter (Ozawa 1975)
Foraminifera-
Afrobolivina afra Cretaceous Megalospheric proculous (Reyment 1982b)
Bivalve-
Nuculites planites Ordovician Prescence of anterior fold (Bretsky & Bretsky 1976)
Bivalve-Various species Miocene Shell shape (Muller,Geary,Magyar, 1999)
Mammal-
Micrototus pyrenaicus Pleistocene Dental charcters (Brunet-Lecomte,Thouy,Chaline 1994)
Mammal-
Felis idiosorensis Pleistocene Postcarnassial element (Kurten 1963)
Plenty more where they come from.
Also, some higher taxa transitions
Skulls & stapes of early tetrapods (
Acanthostega, (
Pholiderpeton, (
Greererpeton) (Clack 1992)/
Evolution of limb joints in early tetrapods (Fox & Bowman 1966)
Reptile to mammal transitions. (Kemp 1982) (Sidor & Hopson 1998) (Romer 1966)
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #2
***Actually, Marks reply is well taken so my only response is in regard to what actually qualifies as evolution, IMHO. Micro is not debatable, but, as I have stated before, I do not classify it as evolution. I will expound on my reasons for this belief upon request. As for Macro, it is, as yet, unobserved and, IMHO, an unobservable event and therefore macro-evolution is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. Obviously, this is my personal opinion and I eagerly await the scientific data that can show me otherwise. Unless you are able to provide true science, with true scientific results, including all data from A to Z, you won't be able to convince me that it is scientific. ***Jet
Firstly, whether you regard microevolution as evolution as evolution, or not, is irrelevant. The scientific community makes no distinction. Macro AND microevolution is evolution. It would be more accurate to say you don’t have a problem with microevolution, just macroevolution. Small point.
Regarding macroevolution being unobserved & therefore unscientific is a bit disingenuous. You cannot observe electrons, protons, neutrons, or gravity, for that matter, are they unscientific? No, Ionic & covalent bonding is unobservable, yet we
can observe evidence to infer these things exist/occur. As regards testing, The ToE is based on a collection of evidences. Take transitional/intermediate fossils for example. They are tested when various character traits are seen to progress over time, in various like fossils/traits fall between taxa. Obviously a falsification of whether a transitional/intermediate is exactly that, would be that the progressive transition didn’t occur/traits DON’T fall between taxa. A powerful falsification of the ToE would have been that no molecular phylogenies match, compared to a prediction that they should be congruent. In both cases the evidence & ToE is being tested
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #3
***Evos must disregard abiogenesis. They prefer, rather, to promote a theory that picks up somewhere after the beginning of life, rather than start at the very beginning. How convienent. Without the theory of abiogenesis, the TOE is nonexistant. But that doesn't seem to bother the Evos.
Evolution is based on heritable mutation. So evolution has to wait one full generation before starting. Abiogenesis - one generation-evolution. How can evolution start before that one generation interval?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
At least with the creationists, you begin at the begnning, from before there was life on earth, to the moment that life came into existance. Evos are unable to give an explanation for life "evolving" from non-life, and so they must abandon the beginning in order to justify their acceptance of the TOE. Personally, I do not care to pick up a book and start my reading of it somewhere in the middle, ignoring the beginning chapters as if they were irrelevant to the entire story. Why Evos prefer to take this approach is beyond me, unless it is because they must do so in order for the TOE to be accepted.***Jet
See above. Evolution says NOTHING about creation/abiogenesis. It is disingenuous to conflate them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Points #4,5,6
Mark: How does this represent positive evidence that the ToE is false.
***Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.***Jet
Well, how does it?
There are more knowledgeable people than me fossil hominids, I’ll leave whether your fossils are interpreted correctly or not to them.
But the point remains, you have fossils that don’t support evolution, they don’t contradict it either! If I gave you some fish bones & chicken bones, presumably you’ leap into the air claiming evolution never happened!
What are those fossils POSITIVE evidence of?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Mark: If there is no fossil evidence of hominid to human evolution, then this is positive evidence of what? No evidence disproves nothing.
***So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE? Beautiful! And Evos say Christians must have great faith to believe in creation and a Creator!***Jet
What ARE you waffling about? YOU said that discoveries had been made that disprove the ToE. We aren’t discussing my evidences for evolution, but YOUR evidences against it. Unfortunately you find yourself in the position where you have to provide positive evidence, not me. Can you?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Mark: Positive evidence please.
***It is positive evidence that the TOE is not a scientific theory. It is positive evidence that those who champion the dogma of the TOE are willing to totally disregard true science in order to further their unbelieveably unscientific theory.***Jet
Moving the goalposts
again? Positive evidence that diasproves the ToE, you said it existed. Show it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #7
***Ah yes, the old NS argument. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of the definition of NS. How is it natural, aside from occurring in nature? What determining factors are necessary for the selection to occur, and what makes it natural apart from the existing nature of the creature/entity involved in the process. What power, or entity, controls the process of selection? Is it Nature? Environment? Chaos? Uniformity? Random Chance? Supposed Infinite Possibility? What? Explain how this is science. Reference the data from falsification attempts. Reference duplication data. Reference the scientists who performed these tests and where they were performed. Give the scientific definition of "Natural Selection" as well as the tests performed to validate this as true science. Define the properties incorporated within this theory that qualify it as a truly scientific theory and possibility.***Jet
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
I fail to see how your answer explains Evidence #7. Social & practical inconsistencies?
Definition of natural selection - Any consistent difference in fitness (i.e. survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities. (Evolutionary Biology. D.J Futuyma 3rd Ed pp349).
Experimental verification.
NS on mutations in beta-galactosidase gene of
Escherichia Coli (Dean et al 1986)
Changes in frequencies of chromosome inversions in
Drosophila pseudoobscura (after Dobzhansky 1970 1948)
Elimination of mutant allele
white in
Drosophila melanogaster (Wallace 1968)
Camouflage in
Poecilia reticulata in & out of predatorial
Crenicichla populated waters.( Endler 1980)
To name but four.
Now, let’s not get off topic, please explain how natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #8
***Obviously, it is not. I disagree with your opinion on this matter and you disagree with my opinion, and I can respect that. Agree to disagree. For further clarification, please refer to point #7.***Jet
I DO disagree, especially after you have been shown to be wrong experimentally.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point # 9
***And so we have the somewhat typical strategy of the Evos. See the evidence that the TOE is false and unscientific, reject the evidence, repeat the question that has already been answered, claiming that it has not been answered. Repeat the process as needed.***Jet
Bullshit. The flood doesn’t explain the fossil record at all. I even gave you some examples of WHY it didn’t.
Tell you what, you present where fossils SHOULD be in the GC, & WHY, then you might have a point.
May I remind you, YOU are presenting disproofs of the ToE, not me. You need to provide the evidence that the gc & fossil deposition is actually not what mainstream science expects.
Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology. In fact they present more of a problem to the flood scenario. See last post.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2002]
™ Version 4.2
