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.I'm unconcerned with points of view. I am concerned with science and the claims creationists make.John Paul:
Why isn't up to you to show that evolution, on the scale you believe, is allowed?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 substantivelyIn 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?johnpaul:Some empirical evidence would be nice.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.5 R. F. Doolittle and D. F. Feng, "Reconstructing the History of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation from a Consideration of the Amino Acid Sequences of Clotting Proteins," Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 52 (1987): 869-74.and3 R. F. Doolittle, "The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation: A Case of Yin and Yang," Thrombosis Haemostasis 70 (1993): 24-28.Now, your previous response was to cite a web site that claimed unknown mechanisms caused stuff to happen. I would like to see some actual research on what that mechanism is and where have we observed such a process producing that unlikely of a result.Cheers,
Larry

First, You need to post new materials in new messages. I almost didn?t see your editing of your earlier posting. Second, you didn?t respond in any detail. Simply citing a link and saying here is a response is not really a response. It is an assertion and you need to address specific issues. To further this process, let?s start with the first of the 29 lines of evidence and progress from there.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...And this is again misrepresenting science as a post-modern exercise. Science is about testing hypotheses not just having a bunch of ideas to discuss. Either a hypothesis fits the evidence or it does not. An inference is a part of the scientific method, not just a point of view.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?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 substantivelySecondly, 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: LOL! The retro-virus similarity is only evidence for the ToE if you assume the ToE is indicative of reality.The retro-virus insertions are evidence of common descent because they are expected to occur by the theory of evolution and that expectation is met. Common descent explains the common occurrence of such insertions explicitly. It is expected by the theory. Now, what other theory explains such common insertions in the same part of the genome? You cited some article that said there was another mechanism that would produce what should be randomized events otherwise, but it never identifies a mechanism. Either there is a mechanism that explains this besides common descent or there is not.John paul: BTW, the source I cited said the research was forthcoming- I'll wait for more info...How could the author make a claim without doing the research first? LOL?now that is funny. What else is funny is that you are holding out for an unknown explanation when there is an explanation that fits the evidence already. Now, you can?t identify anything inconsistent with common descent, but you don?t accept it and it passes many tests. You aren?t being scientific, you are simply avoiding the evidence and the logical conclusions. And making an appeal to personal incredulity by laughing when you have no substantive argument.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:Let me reiterate the forum rules:
* Bare links with no supporting discussion should not be used.Now, let?s look at the rebuttal on both retroviruses and pseudogenes since you seem to have changed the challenge above:
In the discussion of pseudogenes there is no actual rebuttal. It is the same strange argument made by your first citation. Camp claims

quote:

---

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson?s comments from the preceding section).

---

Science is about evidence. Either you can discuss the evidence and not the ?mind of God? or you can?t. So far, Camp cannot discuss the evidence honestly and here claims there is a competing hypothesis. If there is it is untestable and therefore this isn?t a scientific argument. I?m not arguing theology with you. I?m arguing science.Camp:

quote:

---

Moreover, pseudogenes are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald?s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms. To repeat the quote from Dr. Max, ?Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of ?shared errors? that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides ?shared errors.??

---

And at this point, whether Camp understands it or not, he has just conceded common descent amongst mammals. You have failed to grasp that such evidence was cited to you in my last message. Again:5 R. F. Doolittle and D. F. Feng, "Reconstructing the History of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation from a Consideration of the Amino Acid Sequences of Clotting Proteins," Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 52 (1987): 869-74.and3 R. F. Doolittle, "The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation: A Case of Yin and Yang," Thrombosis Haemostasis 70 (1993): 24-28.Would you care to address these papers or not?There is more to discuss in regards to pseudogenes, but I?m going to wait for you to do a little more than respond with a linkOn to retroviruses:
Oh, wait, same non-argument:

quote:

---

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson?s comments in the discussion of Prediction 19).

---

Identify the function. Or admit this is not science.

quote:

---

In any event, not all ERVs are nonfunctional. Some are transcriptionally active, and studies have revealed ERV protein expression in humans. (Sverdlov, 1.) We simply do not know all that ERVs (or other transposons) may be doing in an organism or what roles they may have played in the past. Sverdlov writes:

---

Specific retroviruses are cited by Theobald. Camp refuses to address the specific one and instead evokes a ?hypothesis? of Goddidit. That isn?t a hypothesis and it isn?t science. Again, this is a scientific discussion, not a conservative Prostestant apologetic discussion.Now, please address these points from a scientific point of view.Additionally, Theobald has started a critique of Camp?s critique here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.htmlI?m happy to discuss that, but I?m not going into detail until you show some willingness to do more than cite and run.johnpaul: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.Which evidence specifically? This is a vague reference with no support.John Paul:What you want us to believe is that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.Cite:Extrapolating From Small ChangesAnd this is a strawman view of evolution. Evolution isn?t simply time + change, it is:

quote:

---

"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.12

---

from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.htmlThe section identifying extrapolation as being risky fails to take into account the evidence for common descent that you refuse to address in any detail. Extrapolation isn?t that risky with supporting evidence.False statements are made:

quote:

---

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.

---

This is false. Most mutations (which is what the author appears to be discussing, but is very unclear on) are neutral:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

quote:

---

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.

---

Full bibliographic citations to this claim from the recent literature.

​

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

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:Cite: PseudogenesJohn paul: You will notice Brown discusses what he calls the Common Mechanism, which is pretty much as I stated.You will notice that there is no evidence of such a mechanism. Provide it. Or admit it is simply a goddidit argument. This is a scientific discussion, not a because I said so discussion. Provide evidence of this supposed mechanism and not an assertion that it must exist.The evidence is consistent with evolution and common descent. You must demonstrate how it is consistent with another mechanism. First, you must establish the existence of such a mechanism.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 Paulriginal 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?Yes, that is Doolittle?s contention.John paul: As for just happened to have the ability to self-replicate I point you to this:Cite: Peering into Darwin's Black Box:The cell divsion processes required for bacterial lifeNot relevant to the first forms of life. No one proposes that fairly complex bacteria cells are the first to exist. So you have a strawman argument as well as a cite with no discussion.BTW, would you please address what is cited to you?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.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.
Actually it does. As has been previously pointed out to you Doolittle is able to track down specific prediction concerning vertebrates and invertebrates. He tracked the clotting mechanism using genetics and predicted that an invertebrate would have a similarly produced genetic trait. He found it in the sea cucumber. Either you can address this evidence or you cannot. What else would produce such a pattern that fits the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution? To answer this question you may not hand wave and simply say we don?t know how Goddidit, you must identify a scientific theory of creation that results in the same phenomenon being explained. Please do so or admit you cannot account for such an observation.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.

quote:

---

"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.12

---

John Paul:Yup small changes + eons of time = great transformations pretty much sums it up.As I said, you don?t understand the debate and your cite specifically misrepresents what evolution is. The definition Futuyma is much more complex than small changes and time going into specific mechanisms of both mutation and selection. Your refusal to address these mechanisms and your citation?s inability to grasp what scientists claims is a joke. Now, either address a non-strawman view of evolution, or don?t expect to not be challenged when you cite garbage.John paul: 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.It is the correct term to describe them. They are neutral in relation to fitness. It is the term used in science though a few synonymous variants are used as well. Neutral mutations may be expressed or not expressed. Their term neutral is in relation to fitness as is beneficial or detrimental. It is consistent with the context of your posting so I have no idea what your objection is. A mutation is observed in the genome or as expressed. The statement is false. And you have been provided citations to this. Either you can address those citations or you cannot.John paul: 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...He made a claim that scientists actually believe macromutations exist. I want a cite to the recent literature or your citation?s author is lying. He is lying, but I?m giving you a chance. Full bibliographic citations to someone in the scientific literature proposing the existence of macromutations. Either such a citation can be provided or the author is lying. Which is it?Cheers,
Larry

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 12-06-2001]

Your cites don't show anything of the sort. This has been pointed out to you in some detail. Now instead of citing without argument please address the issues brought up previously instead of simply offering up urls.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

What examples? Full bibliographic citations to said examples please.

quote:

---

Larry:This has been pointed out to you in some detail.

​

John Paul:Is that what you call it?

---

Yes, and you still haven't responded. Please provide the appropriate citations where you were challenged for them. Or a substantive response of how a scientific theory of creation predicts such things as pseudogenes or retroviral insertions with an argument besides "We don't know so it could be...." or "An unknown mechanism didit". I've asked repeatedly. Now either provide the appropriate material or admit you cannot.

quote:

---

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.

---

Really, which creationists? For that matter what is the scientific theory of creation that is testable, has confirming evidence and is potentially falsifiable? Exactly what are you arguing in a scientific context? If you are going to continue to assert that your "theory" is better than the entire scientific communities consensus it would be helpful if you provided a detailed theory now.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, they think that an inference that fits the evidence is a valid hypothesis and when that inference is repeatedly found to be consistent with the evidence that inference becomes a theory. It is called science. Now, your entire post was devoid of content. Would you care to try again?Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

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.

---

Actually I have provide a bunch of evidence and you have refused to address it. Let's add:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.htmlNow, Kimura finds that the hemoglobin substitution rate very much in line with evolutionary predictions. This fits the scientific theory of evolution. Since there is no scientific theory of creation, it is impossible to tell whether such evidence fits.How would you explain the evidence? Please be specific and simply don't post a link as you do.Physics and the limit of our bodies.

quote:

---

What limits runners from breaking the sound barrier?

---

Friction.Both examples have clear limits that we observe. The limit you are trying to assert has not been observed. Please provide evidence or stop making the assertion.

quote:

---

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?

---

Now you are making a strawman argument. No one claims that one generation or even many generations is going to create a new kingdom. You are trying to test evolution by using a standard which isn't proposed by evolution.

quote:

---

Evidence and not bold assertion is what I am talking about.

---

And I keep wondering when you will address the evidence. Please do so.

quote:

---

What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by NS can lead to the great transformations required by the ToE?

---

Doolittle
Kimura
Theobald's page which you haven't addressed except to post a link that didn't actually address the evidence.In regards to Plaisted please pick out the important elements of the "argument" he makes and write on them. I will point your attention again to the debating guidelines that bare links are discouraged.You examples are silly because in each case we know of limits. There is no evidence of limitations on genetic change. Either provide evidence or admit you are unable to do so.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Death.

---

Except that mutations occur in every generation and so they are passed on if beneficial on a probabistic basis and on probabalistic sense for neutral evolution as well.

quote:

---

That is the problem with your model. You assume evolution is moving upward,

---

Wrong. Evolution doesn't have a direction except towards better fitness.

quote:

---

and refuse to consider the alternative side of the coin.

---

For there to be an alternative side of the coin there must be an alternative theory. Provide one with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsificaitons.

quote:

---

I suspect it is because the wealth of evidence points to this other side of the coin.

---

What evidence? Please be specific and provide supporting citations to the scientific literature.The rest of your post was an analogy not even tied to evolution. Why don't you address the actual claims of evolution and the evidence cited.Thanks,
Larry Handlin

And this is different from what I said how?

quote:

---

Regardless, you miss the point. Percy’s scenario, like so many others evolutionists propose, does not allow for error catastrophe and eventual extinction.

---

Evolution is quite capable of explaining extinction from many causes. You have made an assertion that it is impossible, this is not relevant to whether common descent is possible.

quote:

---

No, you are wrong. We are debating whether or not large-scale evolution has occurred. In order for large-scale evolution to be true, the net movement must be upward.

---

Define large scale, I suppose. Given you are using terminology in a manner not used in science perhaps you could explain how you have decided to use the term.
Evolution must be capable of explaining what we observe. Upwards doesn't have any meaning except in creationist land where there is no reason to use standard terminology. Evolution tends towards fitness. That may be more or less complex or it may not be. If you disagree cite a specific scientific source that agrees with you.

quote:

---

Sure, there can be sideways movement here, downward movement there, but overall the movement must be upward to get new genetic information that turns a scale into a feather, a protocell into an eye, an arm into a wing, etc.

---

New genetic information is called a mutation. We observe them all of the time. Perhaps you need to be precise in what you are talking about.

quote:

---

The alternative side of the coin I am referring to is deterioration, or de-evolution.

---

So provide the theory of deevolution.

quote:

---

Regarding creation, there is a wealth of evidence, the evidence is powerful and overwhelming.

---

Such as? Asserting it doesn't make it so. Provide a scientific theory.

quote:

---

Its you free choice to continue beleiving in a fairytale. I’ve already given one compelling example - it is impossible to have a code without a sender.

---

Except the sender is the organism itself and the environment receives the code and determines with feedback if the code is adequate. You have demonstrated that you can assert there is no sender, but not eliminated the sender being the organism's genetic code.

quote:

---

It is impossible to have a code outside the presence of intelligence.

---

Assertion. Support it.

quote:

---

It is impossible to produce a code via randomness and blind selection.

---

Evolution isn't random. You really need to read some science. Evolution has two random components to it, that does not make it a random process. Please try and understand what you are talking about.

quote:

---

There are no known violations to these laws of nature in all of recorded history.

---

I hate to break it to you but you haven't identified a law of nature in the above. You have identified assertions that you repeat.
In regards to your article, the problem is that you have chosen one particular article that attempts to solve a problem that is largely limited by calculational impasse. The sheer amount of calculations required to solve the problem probably preclude it from being adequately solved.IOW, you entire argument is one of god of the gaps.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.Cheers,
Larry

If large amounts of genetic material were transferred by lgt, the theory would be falsified--indeed, it would take an entirely new theory, one that may be called evolution, but one that would bear little resemblance to the current theory. Remine, as usual, doesn't seem to understand this, nor do you. It is much like saying that evolution is the same as what Darwin proposed. There is little resemblance between what Darwin proposed and evolution now. The combining of selection mechanisms with genetics radically altered how evolution was viewed.Larry