Discussing "29 evidences..."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
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?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Um bud I dont think he said the shark evolved from the sea cucumber, or even that they had a common ancestor.... Go back and re-read it, I think you will find that he didnt say they were related at all....John Paul:
Oops- thanks joz (bud) and my apologies Larry for misrepresenting what you posted. It was unintentional...OK then, how is a sea cucumber evolving into a sea cucumber or a port jackson shark evolving into a port jackson shark evidence for the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality?Thanks again joz- that reminds me to not post before my morning cup of Earl Grey... ------------------
John Paul

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?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
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.John Paul:
If that is your idea of a test I wish you were my college professor.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)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
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.John Paul:
You brought up gene duplication. Without direct evidence there is no way of knowing if what is observed is the result of a Common Creator (or Intellegent Designer) or common descent from some as yet unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to self-replicate (which, for another thread, is looking like IC also).I will read your links, but I did notice an Edward Max as one of the authors. Did you realize that he is in an ongoing debate with Lee Spetner about this very thing and isn't winning that debate. Go figure...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?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
I didn't claim anything of the sort.John Paul:
True and if you followed the posts you would see that was pointed out, I apologized and I posted this: "OK then, how is a sea cucumber evolving into a sea cucumber or a port jackson shark evolving into a port jackson shark evidence for the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality?" (see post 44, the one before your last post)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
All evidence to the contrary.John Paul:
Really? Please present it (start another thread)Larry:
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.John Paul:
I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.------------------
John Paul

jimlad:
JP, you're quoting Behe? I take it you've abandoned YEC now, and that you agree with him on the common descent of all organisms?John Paul:
Great, just what we need, another person who doesn't read posts. What's the matter? Too boring at the OCW DB?------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how many times I have to 'splain this to you- I cite Behe because, as he says, there is no substantiating evidence that some systems (and I add life itself) is the product of purely natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
No conclusion can be made, and no assertion is supported, from a *lack* of evidence, and several people have tried to explain this to you already.John Paul:
That doesn't seem to stop evolutionists from making their conclusions now does it? In order to come to a conclusion you should have substantiating evidence and as Behe points out, the ToE lacks this.schraf:
You need to provide POSITIVE, CONFIRMING EVIDENCE to make a conclusion, and Behe doesn't do this, and neither do you.John Paul:
OK we're waiting. Please provide positive, confirming evidence that the ToE is indicative of reality.schraf:
All Behe has done is point to gaps in our knowledge and said, "See? we don't understand the specifics this, and that means that it couldn't have come about by natural means. It is impossible to come about by natural means."John Paul:
You used quotes. Is that an actual Behe quote? Or are you putting words in his mouth? All Behe is saying is there is no evidence to support the claim what appears to be IC came about via purely natural means.schraf:
All it takes to refute the argument is science showing that such systems could have come about by natural means. It is *possible*, therefore it is no longer *IMpossible*.John Paul:
We're waiting.------------------
John Paul

schraf:
Why don't you tell me, my dear, dear John Paul, what you would accept as confirming evidence for common descent and the ToE?John Paul:
Something that can be observed, tested, repeated and verified. The things we can do to confirm gravity and the atomic theory.schraf:
You ask for evidence.It is supplied to you, often complete with full bibliographic citations to the actual experiments.John Paul:
Oh really? What experiment verified endosymbioses? What experiment shows us that a mammal can evolve from a reptile? What experiment shows us that a single-celled organism can evolve into something other than a single-celled organism? (forming colonies is not the answer as these are just aggregatea of the original and reproduce only the same single-celled organism that formed the colony)schraf:
Lack of evidence for the ToE doesn NOT constitute positive evoidence for any other theory or notion, including Creation "science".John Paul:
But the amount of evidence lacking to substantiate today's ToE relegates it to a 'belief' system- ie a religion.------------------
John Paul

schraf:
You attempt to use a lot of science, (Biology, Geology) to support your claims, but then you turn right around and say that Biology is religion anyway and not science at all!John Paul:
I said no such thing. Bioloy isn't a religion. I said the ToE (as it stands today) is a belief system, ie a religion. I know evolutionists like to think the ToE is the foundation of modern biology, but that is just dogmatic ranting.schraf:
You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't try to use science that you do like to validate your religious views, and then say that the science you don't like isn't science at all, but religion.John Paul:
Again, you are confused. Saying the ToE is 'scientific' is an oxymoron. I have nothing against science. Why do evolutionists like to misrepresent Creationists?------------------
John Paul

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

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.htmJohn 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

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 & 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 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{Did some repairs to damaged message - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-25-2002]