Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 6 of 530 (526187)
09-26-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
09-26-2009 1:24 AM


Peg writes:
I dedicate this to Melindoor to whom I made the suggestion to seriously consider some of these doubts.
I am honored, Peg. And per your suggestion, I will continue to look into these arguments you offer. Here are my initial thoughts:
No. 1 Doubt the fossil record
quote:
Steven M Stanley, The new Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 p92:
He said there is a general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another. He said: The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].
Steven M Stanley is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. In other words, he is an evolutionist who believes that species are in stasis most of the time, but during periods of intense selective pressures quickly evolve new traits (I say quickly on a geological timescale). He does not believe the fossil record is inconsistent with evolution, only that it is inconsistent with a uniformly gradual one.
Niles Eldredge holds a similar position. He is critiquing the idea that evolution occurs in a smooth, uniform fashion over millions of years.
quote:
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments:
A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.
This is a confusing reason to doubt evolution, Peg. You offered it in my thread "Skepticism vs Faith", and I still can't see why it is anything but a strawman. Of course animals and plants reproduce according to their species!! Otherwise they wouldn't be species! Evolution doesn't say that a dog will give birth to a cat, or any other creature but a dog. Yet creationists will often argue that the fact that a dog doesn't suddenly produce a new species is evidence against evolution.
I'm also confused about this alleged lack of transitional fossils. Why don't the following qualify as transitional?
Archaeopteryx
Homo Ergaster
Eohippus
It seems that, to a creationist, everytime scientists discover a new "transitional" fossil it doesn't fill a gap, but it creates two new ones.
quote:
evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote: A growing number of biologists...argues that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principlesparticularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary changeis misleadingly incomplete.
Curiously, this quote is from "Darwinism Defended" by Michael Ruse. Michael Ruse is a Theistic evolutionist, who, like me, believes that Christian faith and evolution do not conflict. Anyhow, I've tried to look up the above quote in a google search in order to see the context and all I got was the following excerpt from a review:
quote:
Darwinism, the representative of objective modern science, is under ideologically motivated attack. Professor Ruse is alarmed: "'Darwinism,' as I shall refer to Darwin-inspired evolutionary thought, is threatened from almost every quarter." Well, not from every quarter, just the right and left flanks, it seems. First, the fundamentalists, supported by Ronald Regan, make a know-nothing assault from the right. No sooner have real evolutionists wheeled to face this attack than they are fallen upon by subversive elements from the left, "biologists with Marxist sympathies" and their "fellow travelers" among philosophers who argue "that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principlesparticularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary changeis misleadingly incomplete."
I already know that evolution is under attack by people of conflicting beliefs. It seems rather strange to say that a growing number of biologists oppose evolution when polls show that the real number is disappearingly small.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
I'd be curious to hear if anyone has the context of Ruse's quote? If not I'd be happy to get his book and find out, he's an interesting read.
quote:
And even Darwin himself doubted the fossil record for in the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.
Darwin wrote those words over a century ago. It is a fact that many new "transitional" fossils have been uncovered since then, and our knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
No. 2 Evolution by Mutation
Peg writes:
what is the evidence for mutations in evolution?
There is plenty of evidence of mutations But I think your question is, what is the evidence that mutations can lead to speciation? To that I'd like to give my favourite example: The Ensatina salamander.
Populations of this salamander interbreed around the Californian central valley, and if you saw their population from above, it would look kind of horse-shoe shaped. A semi circular arrangement of populations where the ends don't meet. Now the salamanders can interbreed all along the stretch as long as they are interbred with nearby populations of salamander, but the populations at the ends are no longer able to interbreed with one another. In this scenario we have a beautiful spectrum of what one might call hybrids or transition population all around the valley, but the opposite ends of the population have become truly separate species.
I know my description may have been a bit tricky to follow, and I haven't figured out how to include pictures in my posts, but I'll direct you to the wikipedia article on ring species to find out more.
Ring species - Wikipedia
Doubt No.3 Evolution by Natural selection
You're right. Natural selection by itself cannot produce new traits. But allied with mutation, I don't see why not. In the case of the galapagos finches we should not expect any one beak-size to win out in the near future. It seems to me they would always reach an equilibrium. When a drought causes big-beaked finches to dominate we still reach an equilibrium where the number of small beaks are so small that they benefit from the lack of competition. Of course the small beaks are not going to disappear. When conditions improve for the small beaks, the equilibrium shifts. How does this disprove evolution?! All it is is an example of an occassion where no new traits have arisen. What are we supposed to be expecting? Finches with antlers? Finches who evolve electro-sensitivity? I don't follow the argument unless it shows how evolution would predict something that we are not seeing in the finch population.
-Meldinoor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peg writes:
Now i havnt even gone into the 'origin' of life debate which, according to science, is highly unlikely. I'll be happy to add this later...the chance of life spontaneously generating is unbelievably improbably...so much so we could say it is impossible.
If you're talking about evolution, then avoid abiogenesis. Discuss it in a different thread. Abiogenesis and evolution are only related in the mind of someone who equates both with atheism. Incidentally, since no one knows how life originated, how the heck can we determine the probability of it happening? How do you determine the probability of something which you do not know?
Peg writes:
I hope this is good for a start and hopefully will get you thinking that there is enough doubt in the ToE, to not completly write off the idea of a creator.
I never wrote off the idea of a creator. Nor does evolution necessitate the absence of one.
Edited by Meldinoor, : Added some stuff
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 09-26-2009 1:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by greyseal, posted 09-26-2009 3:39 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 10 of 530 (526196)
09-26-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by greyseal
09-26-2009 3:39 AM


Re: that was an awesomely complete rebuttal
greyseal,
Thanks for the compliment. Although I still feel new to debate, and lack the education to be as eloquent as I'd like, I'm starting to feel more a part of this forum.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by greyseal, posted 09-26-2009 3:39 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(2)
Message 47 of 530 (526642)
09-28-2009 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage.
Several others have responded to this point already, but I'd like to elaborate on the problem.
In retrospect, evolution looks like a process going from simple organisms, to the more complex. It is actually often portrayed in this manner, but it is not the right way to look at evolution. When we look at nature we see organisms living in niches. Some climb trees, some burrow, some fly, and some cluster around hydrothermal vents. These animals fit almost perfectly into their niches. Birds have just the right shapes to fit their livestyles, and so do fish, insects and salmonella.
Does that mean that these organisms are finished evolving? Was there ever a time when half-birds were half-formed for their lifestyle? No! An animal (or any organism) never evolves toward a future ideal. Tiktaalik (a fish whom many consider closely related to the earliest tetrapods) was not evolving fleshier fins so that its descendants could evolve legs and crawl up on land. It was not half-fitted to living a land-based life, rather its fins (or feet) were optimized for the niche in which it lived. Possibly for pushing its head out of the water to catch prey.
A modern example, the Mudskipper. Now I don't know much about Mudskippers, but I know some basic details. Mudskippers are a small group of fish, peculiar in the regard that they can and do spend a lot of time out of water. They can breathe air (through their moist skin), crawl, jump and burrow. This fits nicely with the Mudskipper lifestyle. It lives (from Wikipedia) "in mangrove ecosystems and mudflats" and can't count on always staying submerged. Especially when withdrawing tides leave it trapped in diminishing pools. So the mudskippers have made a lifestyle out of hopping from pool to pool and burrowing in times of drought.
Now are Mudskippers a "developing phase"? Are they incomplete tetrapods struggling to gain a foothold on land, but not quite there yet? No! Of course not! We live contemporaneously with them, and realize that it'd be absurd to say that they're incomplete. Mudskippers are great at being Mudskippers, the fact that they are not as good at being land animals doesn't mean they are incomplete.
Now you can take any fossil. It will be a complete lifeform, fully developed, and fully fit for its niche. Archaeopteryx, despite having a long bony tail, teeth, and many other dinosaur traits, was not being bullied by its fellow lifeforms for being ugly and not fitting in. It was fully adapted to its lifestyle, that may have involved climbing trees as well as flying.
Now in retrospect, we can say that Archaeopteryx may have been a representative of early bird life, or it may have merely been an outgroup. We can't say for certain. Evidence indicates that primitive feathers appeared much earlier, but obviously, like skin impressions, feather impressions are rare finds. Sinosauropteryx represents one of the earliest indications of feathers, on an animal that predates the first birds by millions of years.
Sinosauropteryx - Wikipedia
I hope this suffices to show you that evolution never predicts an undeveloped species or a development "phase".
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 51 of 530 (526651)
09-28-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Peg writes:
regarding the Archaeopteryx, the fossil has perfectly formed feathers and wings that are capable of flight. Also the wing and leg bones are thin and hollow which is what is found in birds today. It does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.
First of all, how do you know the wings were capable of flight??? Have you cloned your own Archaeopteryx la Peg's Jurassic Park? (If you have, I'd love to see it by the way) Archaeopteryx had a different skeletal structure from modern birds. It did not have a bony breastbone for instance, which is where flight muscles attach in modern birds. Nobody knows whether Archaeopteryx was a skilled flier, or a glider, and if anyone claims certainty on this issue, given the limited evidence that we have, you should take their claim with a bucket of salt.
Given that Archaeopteryx shares so many traits with dinosaurs (it is a dinosaur depending on who you ask) and lacks many of the traits of (modern) birds, I don't see why it doesn't qualify as a transitional fossil.
Peg writes:
Granted that this was written in the 50's, but surely with thousands of scientists collecting fossils from all around the globe, they would have found many transitional fossils.
We have. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are just two examples. But you've got to remember something. A transitional species is only transitional because it has gone extinct, and doesn't fit neatly into any of the animal groups we have defined today. This can be problematic. Take birds for instance, since we've already been talking about them anyway. Birdkind is a "class". A class is a structure that is very high up in the hierarchy of life. The next structure up is the Superclass that also includes crocodiles. So we can see that Birdkind is a very inclusive group.
Now, when we come across an extinct animal, like Archaeopteryx, we really want to fit it into a familiar group. Bird or Dinosaur. (Although, if birds are included among the dinosaurs, the problem disappears) Had Archaeopteryx survived and evolved until this day, we may have had to define it its own group, neither bird, nor therapod.
And here's the problem. Since creationists will not accept that birds and dinosaurs are related, or that birds ARE dinosaurs, they have to fit it into one of the two definitions. As soon as they declare it a bird, it is no longer transitional. It's already a bird. If they declare it a dinosaur, it is no longer transitional, it's still just a dinosaur. So their own view on taxonomy prohibits them from defining it as "part of a group of animals closely related to both birds and non-avian theropods", effectively making it impossible to define a transitional species.
Peg writes:
The salamanders are still salamanders, perhaps a different type of salamander
Yes. But they are a different species. They can no longer breed with certain other members of their "kind". This is called speciation, and it is what drives evolution. Once two species have separated, there's nothing stopping them from further separation. At least not as far as I know.
Peg writes:
That wiki article doesnt say anything about mutation.
By what other means could the salamander populations change than by mutation?
Peg writes:
I used 'Darwins finch's' as an example because they were said to be a compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] but the fact that the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth each time the climate changes seem to be more better explained as the maintenance of adaptation.
Show me how Darwin's finches have been used as an example of speciation. As far as I know, they never have. They have been used as an example of adaptation through natural selection.
Peg writes:
We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other.
Peg. I take it, from reading many of your posts, that you are not a young-earth creationist. I imagine you believe that star's and planets formed through natural processes. Processes set in motion by God. Would you then say that stars and planets are not a part of God's creation? Did God create the sun and the moon? Unless he did so in the twinkling of an instant, you have to agree that God creating us, and us being produced by natural processes, are not mutually exclusive.
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : Corrected grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 52 of 530 (526652)
09-28-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
09-28-2009 8:37 PM


Peg writes:
But what has more then 50 years of research and experimentation with mutatins produced?
I don't know. What have 500 million years of fossils shown us? What have phylogenetic trees shown us?
I'm sorry, but I don't see why comparing 50 years of study to 100 000 000 years of natural selection speaks in your favour. Since you've agreed that new species can develop at observable rates (at least in the case of the Ensatina salamanders), and that life has been around for millions of years, why can't speciations that we observe carry on to produce even more diversity in that time.
Peg writes:
By the 1980’s, most scientists had abandoned mutation breeding in Western countries
Breeding isn't anything that started recently. We have been breeding animals for thousands of years, selecting for desired traits, and yet our domestic animals are not dying in droves, and are certainly not inferior to the wild varieties. (Except for in their ability to survive in the wild).
Peg writes:
if the finches really did develop into a new species, as the theory suggests, then why should they return to what they were?
it means the species never changed...it was the same species only with different traits. therefore it is a problem for evolution by natural selection.
*Blink* Wait... Didn't we just go over this?
Meldinoor writes:
How does this disprove evolution?! All it is is an example of an occassion where no new traits have arisen. What are we supposed to be expecting? Finches with antlers? Finches who evolve electro-sensitivity? I don't follow the argument unless it shows how evolution would predict something that we are not seeing in the finch population.
The theory does not suggest that the finches must speciate!!! It would be very strange indeed if populations speciated everytime the weather changed. Natural selection works within a species as well.
The only way you could use the poor finches to argue against evolution would be if you built a time machine, went back 10 million years, and bred a modern finch with an ancient finch. If you could do that, you'd have a case.
Peg writes:
i certainly do believe it is a literal account. God created each species directly, thats my literal understanding. He didnt leave it all to chance, he didnt start the ball rolling then let it all go its own wild way. No, "According to their Kinds, he created them"
You seem to have a strong faith in this belief.
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 8:37 PM Peg has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 55 of 530 (526676)
09-29-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peg
09-28-2009 8:18 PM


Inconsistent Worldview?
Peg writes:
the salamanders interbred to much that the genes become narrowed down so much that these ones could no longer breed with the other ones
Aside from the fact that this doesn't make sense. How do you reconcile an old-earth belief with this belief that animals narrow down their genes? If an animal's DNA degenerated within an observable time period, how come there are still functional animals left today, after millions of years?
Sounds like your mixing YEC ideas with OEC ideas, making a pretty confusing soup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 8:18 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 8:03 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 77 of 530 (526746)
09-29-2009 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Peg
09-29-2009 8:03 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
Peg writes:
i think its called genetics
No, it's not called Genetics. Genetics is a field. I'm looking for the name of the phenomena you describe where animal DNA degenerates or "narrows" down over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 8:03 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:05 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024