Discussing "29 evidences..."

I've read a lot more than the cited folks-and you know what there isn't a scientific theory of creation--just assertions that it exists. Instead of asserting that it exists provide it.Cheers,
Larry

None of your cites list even one testable hypotheses, any confirming evidence and no potential falsifications. Please provide. Or admit you can't do it. You can cite all the websites you want, but without a theory, you don't have an argument. The sites you linked to are doing nothing more than what you have done--made assertions.You have specifically said that a the evidence Theobald gives is consistent with a creation "model". Fine, operationalize that model to fit those specific lines of evidence.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yup, sure. They are great evidences for coomon descent only if you exclude Common Creator.

---

So take the two cases and show me a hypothesis that is testable, has confirming evidence and potential falsifications and is consistent with a common creator.

quote:

---

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.

---

The evidence has been provided. Please address it. Simply not reading the evidence or the synopsis I have given you and asserting that it doesn’t exist isn’t an argument. Indeed it is denial.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.

---

Full bibliographic citations. Now, before doing so you should consider an observation is required in the context of a hypothesisnot just something done in a laboratory. The scientific method doesn’t require direct observation of a phenomenon underway, but of objectively observable evidence of phenomenon. You have been given such evidence, be kind and address it.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, the ones that are cited that you refuse to read. They also make specific hypotheses regarding the pattern and nature of genetic codes that are met. Please address this evidence in detail. Either you can demonstrate a falsification of it, or you can provide a scientific theory that accounts for them as does evolution. I’m not sure what you are waiting for.

quote:

---

Larry:
What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation.
John Paul:
I made no such claim.

---

It is clearly what you are implying. Single generations are not likely to show radical differences. If you are claiming there should be you are simply wrong. If you aren’t then you need to be precise in claiming what you would accept. Please be more precise then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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?

---

What is a testable hypotheses with confirming evidence and potential falsifications from Tim? Tim can't answer the question, so I doubt you can. Of course, given Tim's exceptional inability to discuss anything he claims this isn't a surprise.I read it when Wallace first posted it. And it isn't a theory, it is a laundry list of assertions.

quote:

---

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?

---

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. In the case of the Sea Cucumber we even are able to track down a specific gene that was duplicated long ago. In both cases molecular clocks are consistent with common descent and offer solid evidence. If there is another theory that provides an explanation--please provide that theory.Oh, and if you noticed Behe accepts Doolittle's evidence as evidence of common descent, just not natural selection. Though the discussion of that is contained on Miller's site.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

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?

---

Actually, if you had read what was cited to you, you would know that back in the early 1980s Doolittle predicted the finding of a fibrogen like gene duplicated in invertebrates and to test the hypothesis he searched many species of invertebrates to find it and confirm the distance as well as the existence and was successful. IOW, it has already been tested.

quote:

---

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)

---

Ahhhh...moving the goal posts--from the complaint that there is no genetic evidence to no direct evidence. There is plenty of evidence of gene duplication producing exactly that. See:
all from:
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found
NCBI - Not found

quote:

---

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?

---

I didn't claim anything of the sort.

quote:

---

John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.

---

All evidence to the contrary.Of course, you have cited a link that finds such things as evidence of common descent so it is extremely unclear that you are able to understand even your own citations.CHeers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.

---

One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?

quote:

---

John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?

---

For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says.

---

Ummmit is also Doolittle’s field and Doolittle is much better respected. So your argument from authority is invalid. How do you know if he is kicking butt if you can’t understand the argument. AGAIN, I will ask you how you can reconcile your contention that evolution is impossible because of evidence that BEHE states is evidence of common descent? If you had read what you cited, you would know that Behe agrees that Doolittle has evidence of common descent, but argues a special mechanism is needed in there. DO YOU GRASP THAT WHAT YOU ARE CITING IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING?

quote:

---

You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.
BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:

​

---

And if you are going to continue to refuse to pay attention this is going to be a long discussion of circles. Behe is replying to an earlier article by Doolittle and to Miller’s book. Miller provides a much more detailed analysis of xenon shuffling in the link that the publisher removed for brevity. IOW, it isn’t what Behe is responding to in your link. If you read what you linked you would know this.Cheers and Happy Reading,
Larry

Not reading all of the posts isn't as bad as not reading what you cite. Behe, in the citations you offered argues that Doolittle's work is evidence of common descent. By presenting this you have explicitly accepted common descent or demonstrated you are unable to support your position with any integrity.Cheers,
Larry

At this point, you have presented a citation that accepts common descent and Doolittle as evidence of common descent and so now the only disagreement you can have is whether or not systems can be selected for by natural selection. That or you must refute what you have already cited and explain how you disagree with it.

The 29 lines of evidence can all be observed, tested, and repeated. You have yet to offer any competing theory that explains the evidence nor any falsifications of those lines of evidence.Larry

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

[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]