Empirical Evidence for Evolution

John Paul:
As I have stated, evolution isn't the debate. To think it is shows some people do not understand the Creationists' PoV.Larry:
I'm unconcerned with points of view. I am concerned with science and the claims creationists make.John Paul:
I was under the impression that these boards were to discuss people's PoV. The evidence is the same, the difference is one's inference from that evidence...John Paul:
Why isn't up to you to show that evolution, on the scale you believe, is allowed?Larry:
I did. You responded by citing a source that claimed some unknown mechanism created identical retrovirus insertions in identical places of the genome of chimps and humans. There is no empirical support for such a claim so I'm wondering if you will respond more substantivelyJohn Paul:
And there is empirical evidence to support the premise that all of life's diversity 'evolved' from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate? LOL! The retro-virus similarity is only evidence for the ToE if you assume the ToE is indicative of reality. BTW, the source I cited said the research was forthcoming- I'll wait for more info...Larry:
In addition I provided the link to 29 lines of evidence to common descent and you provided some sort of claim that pseudogenes are the result of the same process happening simultaneously in different genomes with no explanation of why the same pseudogenes appear. Again I'm waiting for some sort of empirical support for this. And while I understand 29 lines of evidence are quite a bit, I am very unclear on why you claim I haven't presented evidence?John Paul:
Your wait is over:A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
29 Evidences for Macroevolutionjohnpaul:Some empirical evidence would be nice.Larry:
You have it already. Additionally I have cited Doolittle's work on molecular evolution such as his work on hemoglobin. This work traces the history of hemoglobin even so far as to connect vertebrates with invertebrates based on the genetic history of ancestors.John Paul:
Actually some evidence that didn't require the scientists to assume the ToE was indicative of reality before reaching the conclusion, would be nice. I guess we have differing views on what is and isn't empirical.What you want us to believe is that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.Extrapolating From Small Changes------------------
John Paul

Percy:
The point of this brief tale is that, yes, indeed, small changes accumulate over time into large changes. Erosive forces eventually reduce all mountains to range. The Alleghenies were once a taller mountain range than the Rockies, but they're much older and hence now much smaller.John Paul:
But can you apply geological observations to biology? Too bad geology isn't biology.Percy:
What I find puzzling is why any rational person would question that small changes eventually accumulate into great transformations. If you save a few dollars a week you can eventually retire. If you start walking you will eventually reach the opposite coast (or if you're starting in the middle, pick a direction). Michael Jordan began his NBA career with 0 points, but by accumulating points 1, 2, 3 and sometimes 4 at a time, he eventually amassed his current total of nearly 30,000. This isn't rocket science.John Paul:
In the article I linked to it discusses a person lifting weights. This example rings very true for me- why can't I bench press more than 350 pounds? I have been lifting for years and until now increased the weight I lifted very regularly. But alas I have reached a plateau. Too bad I am not like the Bruce Willis character in "Unbreakable". Just because I can walk across the USA doesn't mean I can walk from Boston to Melbourne Australia.No Percy your examples can be rebutted with a myriad of others.Thanks for the rebuttal to Ashby Camp's article- I haven't seen it until now...------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-05-2001]

John Paul wrote:
But can you apply geological observations to biology? Too bad geology isn't biology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
Who said it was? You challenged the view that small changes could accumulate into large ones, and all I did was provide real world examples of just such a thing taking place. I was no more saying that geology is like biology than I was saying basketball (one of my other examples) is like biology.John Paul:
So you want to play games? Or are you saying you didn't understand the context which I was speaking? The link should have made it perfectly clear.Percy:
The problem for you is that if there's some barrier that limits the scope of evolutionary change, you haven't found it yet, have no evidence for it, and have no idea what it might be.John Paul:
Excuse me, but evolutionists are the ones making the claim that small changes can add up. That means it is up to them to show it can happen. It is not up to me to show it can't happen. Don't feel bad if you can't provide the evidence to suport your PoV, no evolutionist has yet to do so.------------------
John Paul

Larry: I did. You responded by citing a source that claimed some unknown mechanism created identical retrovirus insertions in identical places of the genome of chimps and humans. There is no empirical support for such a claim so I'm wondering if you will respond more substantivelyJohn Paul: And there is empirical evidence to support the premise that all of life's diversity 'evolved' from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate?Larry:
Non-responsive to the original question. Let me repeat:You responded by citing a source that claimed some unknown mechanism created identical retrovirus insertions in identical places of the genome of chimps and humans. There is no empirical support for such a claim so I'm wondering if you will respond more substantivelyJohn Paul:
Here, read the article again. This time pay more attention to what is written in red:PseudogenesYou will notice Brown discusses what he calls the Common Mechanism, which is pretty much as I stated.Larry:
Secondly, not exactly. Some of Doolittle?s work indicates that original life forms were more varied. See Scientific American February 2000. And just happened to is not a real critique of the theory. Please stop making arguments based on misstating the scientific theories.John Paul:
Original life forms? So the premise is no longer that life started at one population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have to ability to self replicate? Sp there were several populations that started life's diversity?As for just happened to have the ability to self-replicate I point you to this:Peering into Darwin's Black Box:The cell divsion processes required for bacterial lifeJohn Paul: Actually some evidence that didn't require the scientists to assume the ToE was indicative of reality before reaching the conclusion, would be nice. I guess we have differing views on what is and isn't empirical.Larry:
Which evidence specifically? This is a vague reference with no support.John Paul:
Something that is observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable. All which do not exist when saying (for example) reptiles evolved into mammals.John Paul:What you want us to believe is that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.Cite:Extrapolating From Small ChangesLarry:
And this is a strawman view of evolution. Evolution isn?t simply time + change, it is:John Paul:
My guess is you don't understand the debate."The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12John Paul:
Yup small changes + eons of time = great transformations pretty much sums it up.from the link I provided:
First, it is well-known that small genetic changes over small periods of time can lead to large morphological changes. Unfortunately, most of the observed examples of such change are clearly deleterious.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
This is false. Most mutations (which is what the author appears to be discussing, but is very unclear on) are neutral:John Paul:
Larry, Mike Gene was talking about "...observed examples of such change". Do neutral mutations produce any change at all? If they did then "neutral" would be the wrong word to describe them.from the link I provided:
Yet a significant number of biologists throughout the years have proposed such "macromutations" to explain various evolutionary transitions. In fact, many developmental biologists propose just such changes to explain various evolutionary transitions.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry
Full bibliographic citations to this claim from the recent literature.John Paul:
For what? All he did was point out the obvious...------------------
John Paul

John Paul wrote:
Excuse me, but evolutionists are the ones making the claim that small changes can add up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
Small changes adding up are the norm. If there are limits the burden is upon you to explain what they are. This is precisely what you did with the analogy of walking when you pointed out one couldn't walk to Melbourne. Now you have to do the same for evolution.John Paul:
Then we are at an impass. I say the burden is on you to show the is no limit to small changes adding up and you respond by saying it is up to me to show there is a limit. That just seems wrong. Evolutionists are the ones making the claim there isn't a limit. What is your evidence to substantiate that claim? Until that evidence is produced I have nothing to refute.Percy:
It is already the position of YEC Creationists that speciation can happen.John Paul:
Is that like DOA on arrival? (YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist, so a YEC Creationist, well you get it...)Percy:
The problem for you is identifying what prevents speciation beyond the boundaries of a kind, first defining kind, of course.John Paul:
'Kinds' have been defined on several Creationist websites. The research is ongoing. And I still say and will ALWAYS maintain that it is up to you to find evidence to substantiate your claims. If you have any evidence that shows small changes + eons of time = great transformations I would love to see it. I have a feeling all you have is a biased opinion.------------------
John Paul

bub this. I gave examples that show plain & clear that not all small changes can add up. How many more do you need?ID friendly evolutionExtrapolating From Small Changes------------------
John Paul

Larry:
Your cites don't show anything of the sort.John Paul:
Yes they do. Between them and the examples I gave there is plenty of reasonable doubt that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.Larry:
This has been pointed out to you in some detail.John Paul:
Is that what you call it?Larry:
Now instead of citing without argument please address the issues brought up previously instead of simply offering up urls.John Paul:
Larry, first I have to check out what you say Doolittle states about life starting as several populations instead of one. Several populations is what Creationists claim.One more thing, I hope you realize the difference between inferring from the evidence and actually observing something. That appears to be a confusing point for evolutionists. They think because they infer something that it is observed.------------------
John Paul

joz:
Well bud Perci seems to have supplied a mechanism for small changes in a biological system adding up where is your limiting factor?John Paul:
LOL! No such thing was posted. All evolutionists have is wild speculation- no experimental evidence to substantiate the claim that mutations accumulate in such a way to account for the great transformations- none- zip- zero- nada.What limits body builders from lifting more & more weight? What limits runners from breaking the sound barrier? Why in all the millions (if not billions) of observed bacterial generations have we not observed bacteria evolving into anything but bacteria? Why does a virus ALWAYS remain a virus?Evidence and not bold assertion is what I am talking about. What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by NS can lead to the great transformations required by the ToE?Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Storyand (again):Extrapolating From Small ChangesIf small changes accumulated in EVERY instance you guys might have a point. However there are enough examples to show this isn't always the case. That alone puts the onus on you to show it IS the case here.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
The larger problem is you misrepresent the evidence for common descent of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. You simply cite the 99% common genetic code. This isn't really the best evidence of common ancestry. The best evidence is the shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions. The common nature of such genetic material without any function shared within a nested hierarchy of species is quite compelling.John Paul:
Common mechanism can also explain shared retro-viral insetrtions and pseudogenes. Also saying "The common nature of such genetic material without any function...", is really not true. Research is showing that what was once thought 'functionless' does indeed have a function.Pseudogenes, are they non-functionalEven JA Shapiro states the so called 'junk DNA' may be part of the overall system architecture of an organism. See- Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999 May 18;870:23-35
Genome system architecture and natural genetic engineering in evolution.The problem with Theobald's article is that he claims speciation is part of macro-evolution. Any learned Creationist since the time of Linneaus knows speciation occurs and that is not what is being debated. So of course he can present evidence for macro-evolution if speciation is considered part of that premise. That does not equal evidence for the great transformations such as the alleged whale evolution.What you can't do is show that random mutations culled by natural selection led to these speciation events which in turn led to the great transformations the ToE requires. When talking about transitional fossils all you have are conceptual precursors but no physical precursors.Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.Larry:
Since there is no scientific theory of creation, it is impossible to tell whether such evidence fits.John Paul:
Then perhaps you should learn what it is you are debating against. The Creation model of biological evolution differs with the reigning paradigm in the following ways:1. The starting point of evolution.us- Created Kinds (unknown but the research is ongoing)you- some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.2. The extent of evolution that can take place.us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.you- no limit to the evolution as long as it confers an advantage in a said environment.3. The apparent direction evolution takes.us- an apparent downward grade from a once very good Creation.you- an apparent upward grade, from simpler organism to more complex organisms.------------------
John Paul

Yes joz, limits as we observe in nature. Those would be the limits of a body builder; the limits of a runner; the limits of birds in flight; the limits of man above sea level by 26,000 ft.Also as Fred has pointed out- the cost that mutations bring with them. Then we have the 3D protein structure. How many different shapes can one protein take before it no longer binds to other proteins?joz:
what are the limits on NS and RM?John Paul:
OK joz- Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.I know Larry is unimpressed with the fact that after millions (if not billions) of generations of bacteria not even one 'evolved' into something other than bacteria. The same for a virus. Yet we are supposed to believe (according to the ToE) that great transformations (whale evolution for example) can occur in less than 1 million generations.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul

joz:
The limits you state are not relevantJohn Paul:
Just saying so doesn't count. Each example was of a living organism. Also please explain why the cost argument and protein structure argument are not relevant.joz:
so if you are aware of any that are please state them, I suspect you dont because you cant....John Paul:
I stated them and you only response was a non-response.joz:
If you cant show there are limits why insist they exist?John Paul:
Then if there are no limits why do ALL our experiments show differently?joz:
So do you have any relevant examples or is it another case of "I think this so it is necessarily true"?John Paul:
I gave relevant examples. I am waiting for any evolutionist to provide evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality.And I see you conveniently avoided this:John Paul:
OK joz- Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.So far all you have is argument from personal incredulty- not quite science now is it?------------------
John Paul

edge:
Wow, I only intended to lurk here but this is just too rich. Fred thinks that because a theory explains "everything" it's a bad theory.John Paul:
Hi edge. I get the same thing from evolutionists all the time. Professor Weird and Thomas are 2 that come to mind. They say "a theory that explains everything. explains nothing." Not that I agree with that but it is just to show you it isn't just Fred saying that.------------------
John Paul