Discussing "29 evidences..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

From 29 evidences (actually, linked to in the opening paragraph):
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

​

John Paul:
Binomial nomenclature is a man-made classification system and as such is influenced by man’s biases. It was a system set up by a Creationist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778). It was binomial because at first it was just Genus & < I>species[/I]. Of course today that system has been expanded to the following (basic) hierarchy of taxa: Kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species. Today we have several different Kingdoms-the Eukaryotic (super) Kingdom which includes the Kingdoms-Chromista; Fungi; Metazoa; Plantae; Protista (see Taxa); Then we have Viruses which are a Kingdom to themselves; Kingdom Bacteria and finally Kingdom Archaea.

​

This is modern man’s attempt to do what God had Adam do way back when. The point of the above is that Creationists since the time of Linnaeus knew of speciation, that is the originally Created Kind was above the species level. And, according to some Creationists (see John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study) say the Created Kind could be at least as high as today’s Family level for some organisms (turtles come to mind). In Woodmorappe’s book he places the organisms aboard the Ark at the Genus level thereby solidifying the fact that Creationists accept speciation.

​

What that does is blur the lines of debate because if we use the above definition of macroevolution, Creationists accept any evolutionary change at or above the level of species., because Genus is above [/I]species[/I]. To even further the problem is to debate the classification system itself, especially how is a species determined? But that can be for another thread. Right now I consider the definition of macroevolution to be enough of an issue.

---

If you are claiming there is a barrier demonstrate a barrier. Largely the above is nothing more than hand wringing--is there somthing I'm supposed to respond to? It appears you have decided to post a lot of stuff with no meaning so I'm going to break these up.Where is the barrier? If you don't like taxonomy explain the barrier in terms of genetic distance.

quote:

---

From 29 evidences:
As stated earlier, for the purposes of this article macroevolution and universal common descent are treated as virtual synonyms. Common descent is the hypothesis that all living organisms are the lineal descendants of one original living species. All the diversity of life, both past and present, was originated by normal reproductive processes observable today. Thus, all extant species are related in a strict genealogical sense.

​

John Paul:
OK Larry, which is it? One original living species or few/ many? (ala Darwin and Doolittle)

---

Either one takes us back 3 billion years. Why don’t we concentrate on getting there first?

quote:

---

John Paul:
Why, exactly, can’t this also be confirmation of a Common Creator? Do you guys think life is just (a) chemical reaction(s)? So far I see confirmation of the premise same evidence, different conclusions.

---

I don't know. Why don't you provide a scientific theory that accounts for this evidence if you think you can identify one that is consistent with each line as well?It could well be consistent with another theory, but first you need to provide a theory that is consistent with such such unity as well as the other lines of evidence. Please do provide such a theory.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul:
Closely related how? Common Creator or common descent? Obviously if the Created Kind was as high as today’s Family then some organisms would be related via common descent. But that does not mean all organisms are. Duh.

---

Except the nested hierarchy reaches all the way to the domain and the consistency remains. Duh. Now, if you are trying to claim that there is a violation of the this principlenot a reclassificationbut a violation, please demonstrate it at any level.There are some very specific cases described in the post, I’m unclear on how that specificity is inadequate. Now, again, perhaps it is consistent with a Common Creator, however, you then need to identify a scientific theory that accounts for this piece of evidence and the others.

quote:

---

John Paul:
And SLP accuses Creationists of post hoc gibberish! LOL! Exactly where does the Virus Kingdom fit in?

---

There is no such thing as a virus kingdom. Viruses have their own classification system for obvious reasons.

quote:

---

Confirmation:
Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous — they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.

​

John Paul:
Common Creator.

---

And where is the theory for that?

quote:

---

Prediction 4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors

​

John Paul:
This can be summed up as I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it, syndrome. As Dennet stated on the PDS series Evolution, There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. That would make this more post hoc gibberish. Also there is no way of knowing if the alleged transitional morphology was due to phenotypical plasticity or heritable genotypical change due to copying errors. You can imagine all you want but without substantiating molecular evidence all you have is a guy line with no tower to support. In other words you are assuming something did evolve without knowing if it can. In that sense alleged transitionals only exist as such in the minds of evolutionists.

---

Actually the molecular evidence has previously been pointed out to you and is also present later in the series of evidence. Would you care to actually address the morphological evidence with something more than it could be wrong? If it is wrong you should be able to cite an example or show some weakness in the evidence presented. What evidence violates this?

John Paul:
I haven’t seen the journal entry yet but it appears some alleged ‘orders’ are not as they evolutionists would have us believe.Recently we published a paper refuting the supposed reptile-to-mammal transitional series: Woodmorappe, J., Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities, TJ 15(1):44—52, 2001 [will be hyperlinked once posted Ed.]. The same sort of reasoning and logic as was used in this article would apply to the fish-to-tetrapod series. is proposed reptile-to-mammal series, features do not progress consistently. Some organisms towards the mammal end of the series are devoid of certain mammal-like features present in organisms closer to the reptile end of the series. The majority of the hundred-odd traits examined did not progress consistently. [/quote]Who claims there should be consistent progress? Where did you get this as a necessity? Indeed, one would expect there to be periods of rapid change and periods of stasis in morphology. The falsification of this point is not that the progress is uneven or even that there are reversals, but that there are no violations. So identify a violation.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

John Paul: If you are claiming there is no barrier please demonstrate there isn't.

---

We’ve already been through this. In addition to the work on hemoglobin there is no theoretical reason to assume there is a barrier. Given the evidence doesn’t posit the need for a barrier, you need positive evidence to claim there is one. Again, you have gone in a circle. You either identify where this barrier is and the evidence for the barrier or you have no argument.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Looks like you are counting on our ignorance in order to assert that no barrier exists. Too bad in all of the experiments we have ever conducted appear to support that there is a barrier. ie bacteria always remain bacteria, even after millions (if not billions) of generations. The same can be said for viruses and every other organism.

---

Wrong. Again, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the evidence is there is no barrier. There is strong evidence of common descent from a series of evidences. Now, there is no theoretical reason there should be a barrier. To posit one, you need to provide a theoretical reason why, make predictions about what such a barrier would produce as far as observations, also identify potential falsifications and then go out and observe relevant observations. Where is the barrier and how do we identify it?While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations.

quote:

---

John Paul:
First there is protein structure and animo acid sequences. Or do you think that you can alter these at will and still maintain minimal functionality?

---

Non-sequitur. And we do observe changes in the genetic code quite frequently. I’ll refer you back to Doolittle’s work on hemoglobin and the duplicating of the gene. Now, you completely avoided answering the question of how far evolution can proceed. If there is a barrier how far is the genetic distance that it can reach?Cheers,
Larry

Back to 3 billion years ago. You see, your objection is irrelevant to the 29 lines because it only discusses the evidence back to the original population(s). Fine, however, that is a different discussion. Regardless of whether or not there were several fist populations or one, the evidence gets us back that far. So your complaint doesn't deal with the evidence between the two positions, but over what occurred after that point. Whether or not there was one or more is irrelevant to whether common descent occurs from them.This is a side issue that you are attempting to exploit because you unable to directly address the evidence.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Larry:
I don't know. Why don't you provide a scientific theory that accounts for this evidence if you think you can identify one that is consistent with each line as well?
It could well be consistent with another theory, but first you need to provide a theory that is consistent with such such unity as well as the other lines of evidence. Please do provide such a theory.

​

John Paul:
Arguing from ignorance is not a good position Larry. You are supposed to know what you are debating against before the debate begins. As I have stated several times, the basic differences in the two models (Creation & today's ToE) are : The starting point of evolution, the extent that evolution can occur and the apparent direction. The Creation model basically follows Darwin's book but doesn't reach the same conclusions.

---

You have said such things many times, but you have yet to support it with a theory of creation. I know that you and other creationists assert it exists, but you can’t provide one that isn’t falsified. I’m not arguing out of ignorance, but out of knowledge that you don’t have a theory, but an assertion. Either you can provide a scientific theory of creation that accounts for the evidence with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn’t been previously falsified, or you don’t have an argument. Either provide such a theory or stop making the false claim that another theory accounts for the same observations.

quote:

---

John Paul:
You missed the point. The evidence Theobald discusses is not exclusive to the ToE and is every bit as consistent with the Creation model of biological evolution.

---

I'm not missing anything except a scientific theory of creation. You assert this, but you don't support the assertion. Now, please specify the "Creation" model with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified.If they evidence isn't exclusive you are implying the existence of a competing theory. Provide the competing theory.Cheers,
Larry

ROTFL--actually I'm sure I've read more creationist literature than you have. Now you either need to provide a scientific theory of creationism with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications that hasn't been falsified already or stop asserting that such a thing exists.Cheers,
Larry

First, if you are going to complain that only the gullible would accept the evidence explain why.Second, if you are going to assert that the evidence isn't specific to evolution, you need to provide a scientific theory with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence, and potential falsifications that hasn't already been falsified. Simply asserting that the evidence is compatible with creationism doesn't explain how it specifically fits into a consistent theory. Please provide said theory.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Larry:
Who claims there should be consistent progress? Where did you get this as a necessity? Indeed, one would expect there to be periods of rapid change and periods of stasis in morphology. The falsification of this point is not that the progress is uneven or even that there are reversals, but that there are no violations. So identify a violation.

​

John Paul:
Gee Larry, when organism 2 in an alleged series has features that are not present in organisms 4-7, but then show up again at orgamism 8, to me that is a problem. Maybe not to you but it is to me. Also as I mentioned you have no way of showing (empirically) that the alleged changes seen in the fossil record came about via mutaions culled by NS.

​

---

Please be specific with a linneage and demonstrate a violation.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

​

Larry:
In addition to the work on hemoglobin there is no theoretical reason to assume there is a barrier. Given the evidence doesn’t posit the need for a barrier, you need positive evidence to claim there is one. Again, you have gone in a circle. You either identify where this barrier is and the evidence for the barrier or you have no argument.
John Paul:
Why is you don't have to substantiate your claim that there is no barrier? Either you demonstrate the alleged barrier doesn't exist or you have no argument.

---

I have. See the evidence of either Port Jackson shark:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.htmlOr Doolittle:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.htmlBoth of these show strong evidence of common descent that without a barrier at least back to the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. Now, if you are going to claim the barrier is before then you are revising your position after making previous claims.Neither empirically nor theoretically is there any barrier. If you going to claim one you need to come up with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications of such a barrier. I would suggest the above reference work is going to be hard to not count as a falsification of any hypotheses you devise, however. What predictions are there of such a barrier? How do we test for it? Given the current evidence it is an astounding claim that you need to support.

quote:

---

Larry:
While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations.
John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.

---

Address the observations. They have repeatedly been provided.

quote:

---

Larry:
Non-sequitur. And we do observe changes in the genetic code quite frequently. I’ll refer you back to Doolittle’s work on hemoglobin and the duplicating of the gene. Now, you completely avoided answering the question of how far evolution can proceed. If there is a barrier how far is the genetic distance that it can reach?
John Paul:
And the changes we observe never give rise to novel features and never give rise to anything but a variation of the original. In order for the ToE to be indicative of reality both have to be fulfilled. Too bad they can only be fulfilled in your imagination.

---

And here you are arguing a strawman. What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation. No one claims this so you are being nothing short of dishonest. Either deal with the theory as it is formulated or don’t bother. As a reminder you didn’t address the example given.Cheers,
Larry