Discussing "29 evidences..."

OK Larry, here we go.
From 29 evidences for macroevolutionFrom 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.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 evidencesPrediction 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 ancestorsJohn 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

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. 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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
If you are claiming there is a barrier demonstrate a barrier.John Paul:
If you are claiming there is no barrier please demonstrate there isn't.Larry:
Largely the above is nothing more than hand wringing--is there somthing I'm supposed to respond to?John Paul:
Funny, that's how I feel about the ToE.Larry:
It appears you have decided to post a lot of stuff with no meaning so I'm going to break these up.John Paul:
Well just look at what I was responding to.Larry:
Where is the barrier?John Paul:
Looks like you are counting on our ignorance in order to assert that no barrier exists. Too bad 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.Larry:
If you don't like taxonomy explain the barrier in terms of genetic distance.John Paul:
First there is protein structure and animo acid sequences. Or do you think that you can alter these at will and still maintain minimal functionality?------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Either one takes us back 3 billion years.John Paul:
Yeah right, sure they do.Larry:
Why don’t we concentrate on getting there first?John Paul:
Getting where? At the one source? The few? or the many? It does make a big difference.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
I don't know. Why don't you provide a scientific theory that accounts for this evidence if you think you can identify one that is consistent with each line as well?It could well be consistent with another theory, but first you need to provide a theory that is consistent with such such unity as well as the other lines of evidence. Please do provide such a theory.John Paul:
Arguing from ignorance is not a good position Larry. You are supposed to know what you are debating against before the debate begins.As I have stated several times, the basic differences in the two models (Creation & today's ToE) are : The starting point of evolution, the extent that evolution can occur and the apparent direction. The Creation model basically follows Darwin's book but doesn't reach the same conclusions.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Except the nested hierarchy reaches all the way to the domain and the consistency remains. Duh. Now, if you are trying to claim that there is a violation of the this principlenot a reclassificationbut a violation, please demonstrate it at any level.There are some very specific cases described in the post, I’m unclear on how that specificity is inadequate. Now, again, perhaps it is consistent with a Common Creator, however, you then need to identify a scientific theory that accounts for this piece of evidence and the others.John Paul:
You missed the point. The evidence Theobald discusses is not exclusive to the ToE and is every bit as consistent with the Creation model of biological evolution.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
And SLP accuses Creationists of post hoc gibberish! LOL! Exactly where does the Virus Kingdom fit in?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
There is no such thing as a virus kingdom. Viruses have their own classification system for obvious reasons.John Paul:
Actually whether or not viruses have their own Kingdom is debatable.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confirmation:
Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous — they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.
John Paul:
Common Creator.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
And where is the theory for that?John Paul:
On most Creation websites. It would be in your best intwerest to learn what it is you are debating against.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Actually the molecular evidence has previously been pointed out to you and is also present later in the series of evidence.John Paul:
Maybe that is evidence that the extremely gullable will accept. However I see that evidence as circular because it assume the ToE is indicative of reality.Larry:
Would you care to actually address the morphological evidence with something more than it could be wrong? If it is wrong you should be able to cite an example or show some weakness in the evidence presented. What evidence violates this?John Paul:
It's not that it is 'wrong'. It is just that it is not exclusive evidence for the ToE. That same evidence can be used to infer a Common Creator.------------------
John Paul

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 posted Ed.]. 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. [/quote]Larry:
Who claims there should be consistent progress? Where did you get this as a necessity? Indeed, one would expect there to be periods of rapid change and periods of stasis in morphology. The falsification of this point is not that the progress is uneven or even that there are reversals, but that there are no violations. So identify a violation.John Paul:
Gee Larry, when organism 2 in an alleged series has features that are not present in organisms 4-7, but then show up again at orgamism 8, to me that is a problem. Maybe not to you but it is to me. Also as I mentioned you have no way of showing (empirically) that the alleged changes seen in the fossil record came about via mutaions culled by NS.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul: If you are claiming there is no barrier please demonstrate there isn't.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
We’ve already been through this.John Paul:
And your answer is unsatisfactory. It is more of the 'just-so' garden variety story.Larry:
In addition to the work on hemoglobin there is no theoretical reason to assume there is a barrier. Given the evidence doesn’t posit the need for a barrier, you need positive evidence to claim there is one. Again, you have gone in a circle. You either identify where this barrier is and the evidence for the barrier or you have no argument.John Paul:
Why is you don't have to substantiate your claim that there is no barrier? Either you demonstrate the alleged barrier doesn't exist or you have no argument.Larry:
While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations.John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
First there is protein structure and animo acid sequences. Or do you think that you can alter these at will and still maintain minimal functionality?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Non-sequitur. And we do observe changes in the genetic code quite frequently. I’ll refer you back to Doolittle’s work on hemoglobin and the duplicating of the gene. Now, you completely avoided answering the question of how far evolution can proceed. If there is a barrier how far is the genetic distance that it can reach?John Paul:
And the changes we observe never give rise to novel features and never give rise to anything but a variation of the original. In order for the ToE to be indicative of reality both have to be fulfilled. Too bad they can only be fulfilled in your imagination.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
ROTFL--actually I'm sure I've read more creationist literature than you have.John Paul:
I doubt that.Larry:
Now you either need to provide a scientific theory of creationism with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified already or stop asserting that such a thing exists.John Paul:
Wait. First you say you have read more Creation lit. than I have and then you say you have never read about the Creation model of biological evolution? LOL! AiG has such, ICR also, true origins, David Plaisted and on & on... LOL!------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry:
I don't know. Why don't you provide a scientific theory that accounts for this evidence if you think you can identify one that is consistent with each line as well?
It could well be consistent with another theory, but first you need to provide a theory that is consistent with such such unity as well as the other lines of evidence. Please do provide such a theory.
John Paul:
Arguing from ignorance is not a good position Larry. You are supposed to know what you are debating against before the debate begins. As I have stated several times, the basic differences in the two models (Creation & today's ToE) are : The starting point of evolution, the extent that evolution can occur and the apparent direction. The Creation model basically follows Darwin's book but doesn't reach the same conclusions.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
You have said such things many times, but you have yet to support it with a theory of creation. I know that you and other creationists assert it exists, but you can’t provide one that isn’t falsified. I’m not arguing out of ignorance, but out of knowledge that you don’t have a theory, but an assertion. Either you can provide a scientific theory of creation that accounts for the evidence with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn’t been previously falsified, or you don’t have an argument. Either provide such a theory or stop making the false claim that another theory accounts for the same observations.John Paul:
Theory of CreationTenets of CreationismNATURAL SELECTIONA CREATIONIST'S IDEATheory of CreationismAnd those are just from a cursory search...------------------
John Paul

John Paul:
Why is you don't have to substantiate your claim that there is no barrier? Either you demonstrate the alleged barrier doesn't exist or you have no argument.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have. See the evidence of either Port Jackson shark:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.htmlOr Doolittle:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.htmlBoth of these show strong evidence of common descent that without a barrier at least back to the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. Now, if you are going to claim the barrier is before then you are revising your position after making previous claims.John Paul:
Yup, sure. They are great evidences for coomon descent only if you exclude Common Creator.Larry:
Neither empirically nor theoretically is there any barrier. If you going to claim one you need to come up with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications of such a barrier. I would suggest the above reference work is going to be hard to not count as a falsification of any hypotheses you devise, however. What predictions are there of such a barrier? How do we test for it? Given the current evidence it is an astounding claim that you need to support.John Paul:
There isn't any empirical evidence to support the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. If you can't provide the evidence then stop making the claim. All you are doing is hoping that our ignorance of genetics will carry the day for evolutionists.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry:
While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations.
John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Address the observations. They have repeatedly been provided.John Paul:
What observations? The ones that assume the ToE is indicative of reality and are therefore circular? Or are they just post hoc explanations for one's beliefs?Larry:
What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation.John Paul:
I made no such claim.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
None of your cites list even one testable hypotheses, any confirming evidence and no potential falsifications.John Paul:
The true origins site does. Did you even read it?Larry:
The sites you linked to are doing nothing more than what you have done--made assertions.John Paul:
You seem to have no problems with making assertions. That is what the ToE is. What genetic or biological evidence is there to substantiate the great transformations required by the ToE?------------------
John Paul

stp:
Occupation: electronics engineer
Location: Massachusetts
Yo' John Paul, er... I mean Cool Hand Luke, er... I mean... forget it! I am so confused! I thought that CHL was the electronics eng.? When did you move up north?John Paul:
Hey STP! Que pasa? 'Cool Hand Luke' and I are both engineers, both with electronic backgrounds. We worked at the same company in Miami back in the '80s, played golf together and were (and still are) pretty good friends.I moved to Massachusetts for two reasons- 1) I was born here and 2) the electronics industry is big. I have lived in Massachusetts since 1985. He moved here because the pay was much better and his wife is from New Hampshire (Lincoln- I think) and missed the season changes (that's what she says). However it looks like they are moving- looks like the Atlanta area, but it all depends on what happens at INTEL in the upcoming months. My company is cutting the work force by 21% so I may be moving too. If I get laid off (doubtful, but ya never know)maybe I will try my luck at being a sky-marshall... Great to hear from ya though. Congrats on becoming an OCW forum moderator!------------------
John Paul

Larry:
May I again, refer you to the genetic evidence of the Port Jackson Shark and the Sea Cucumber? Good, I will. Now, in both cases one is able to track the changes in specific code from an ancient species to current species.John Paul:
I guess that is what you think you have done.Larry:
In the case of the Sea Cucumber we even are able to track down a specific gene that was duplicated long ago.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?The problem here is not only does that gene have to duplicated and then mutated to a new function (something that has never been directly observed, tested, repeated & verified) also other changes have to come about. Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?Larry:
In both cases molecular clocks are consistent with common descent and offer solid evidence.John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.------------------
John Paul