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

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

The critique is by Ashley Camp and appears at http://www.trueorigin.org.Douglas Theobald has already drafted a response, and it can be found at Theobald Response.

---

John Paul wrote:
What you want us to believe is that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.

---

In the movie The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain a small village becomes upset that the British geological survey has discovered that their local mountain, in which they apparently take great pride, is not actually a mountain but a hill, because it falls a few feet short of the required height of a mountain. Through trickery and skullduggery they delay the filing of the surveyor's report, then mobilizing the entire town and using shovels and wheelbarrows and whatever they can find add 20 feet to their hill and turn it into a mountain.The movie was based upon a true story, and while the movie was being made it was discovered that settling and erosion had again reduced their mountain to a hill, and so the final scenes of the movie show the modern town once more restoring their mountain.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.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.--Percy

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.

---

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 wrote:
Just because I can walk across the USA doesn't mean I can walk from Boston to Malbourne Australia.

---

And Michael Jordan will retire someday. Some things have limits, some don't. 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.That being said, there are some obvious natural limits to evolution. For example, we can be pretty certain that life as we know it can't evolve to exist at temperatures above, say, 500^oC because organic compounds break down at temperatures well below that.--Percy

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

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: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

Hi John Paul,I'm having trouble following your posts because I can't tell if you're quoting yourself from a previous post or actually responding. If you stop putting "John Paul:" above your responses it would really help. Or you could use any of a variety of quoting mechanisms. There's a "reply quote" link that will quote the message you're replying to automatically. You'll have to do some editing to break it up into sections, but once you see how it's done it's easy.

---

John Paul wrote:
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.

---

The context was perfectly clear, but you seem to be operating under some weird misimpression:

---

John Paul wrote:
Excuse me, but evolutionists are the ones making the claim that small changes can add up.

---

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.It is already the position of YEC Creationists that speciation can happen. The problem for you is identifying what prevents speciation beyond the boundaries of a kind, first defining kind, of course.--Percy

In that article (the bit in red) there is a passage that reads..."A rocket designer designs a rocket. It works. Now he is asked to design a larger rocket. What he does is to use what he has already learned from his previous experience to save on effort and time. His larger rocket is going to look much like the smaller one."While most rockets (for example solid fuel boosters) may look very similar from the outside an investigation of their cross sections provides interesting differences. A rocket designed for a long, slow, continuous burn will simply be filled with fuel which burns down along the length of the rocket giving a constant amount of thrust per second. On the other hand a rocket designed for a slowly increasing amount of thrust would be manufactured with a cylindrical section removed from its Central axis, this means that the fuel is burnt along the whole axis and the rate of fuel use increases with time as the interior cylinder widens. The point is that this is a very poor analogy as he seems to be arguing that rockets look alike (despite obvious differences in their design) so it is no surprise that different species of animals so obviously different despite the fact that they have vastly similar DNA (due to an IDer taking short cuts presumably). something doesn't quite sound right there does it...

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

Ok bub try this one graph the following:x against t
x=0.1t+1000note dx/dt=0.1 so over the first interval t will go from 0 to 1 while x will increase from 1000 to 1000.1 (1/100 of a percent) a small change now observe what has happened at time t=10000x=(0.1)(10000)+1000
x=2000in small steps of hundredths of a percent of the original value x has doubled in magnitude.Now stop saying that it cant happen and show the evidence that convinces you that this is not a viable mechanism.......

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]

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

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