Two Categories Of Evolution Proof.

[deadlock 3]

You got me there. I can't show you  goat producing spider web proteins in its milk by random mutation but the proof that it can be done artificially means it is "plausible" that it "can" be done naturally.

 

No it´s not.This assertion is so absurd that I wont waste my time trying to explain why.

 

Can you show me that a new original creature can be created that isn't a modification of an existing one? Even if you started with a single atom you would have to take or create that atom from something else.

 

What do you mean ? Abiogenesis is impossible ? I agree with you.

 

Oh wait i just remembered about a girl that had a liver transplant and her blood type and immune system switched to that of the donors after stem cells from the liver migrated to the bone marrow. That is bloody amazing man. No pun intended.

17314[/snapback]

What does it has to do with random mutation ?

[rbarclay 0]

This is something I've been pondering for a while.  I beg you to find a hole.

All proof fits into these two categories

 

Supposed and imposed "relationship.":

Codes of organisms and fossils of animals we have no idea about and yet have the circular logic enough to say that the reason they are so alike is they evolved.

 

"How do you know they evolved one to another?"

"They look so alike!"

"How do we know that alikeness makes them related?"

"Because creatures evolve."

"How do we know this?"

"Because they tested by how alike creatures look."

 

Things that could be totally real even if creatures always stay relatively the same:

Flies make flies.

Birds can be naturally selected out.

I'm eating a banana.

Organisms adapt whether thy change kinds or not.

 

Neither category makes evolution true. Both of them disregard the scientific method.

Let me know what you think.

17175[/snapback]

When they say they look a like it is referring to homology. Evolutionary microbiology and paleontologist are at odds with this issue. A very good example of this is in the naming the common ancestor of the whale. This debate between the two factions can be clearly be seen in an article published in Nature "Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India" (Thewissen, Cooper, Clementz, Bajpai, and Tiwari - December 27, 2007). Here is the opening paragraph in that article:

 

"Phylogenetic analysis of molecular data on extant animals strongly support the notion that hippopotamids are the closet relatives of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). In spite of this, it is unlikely that the two groups are closely related when extant and extinct artiodactyls are analysed [sic], for the simple reason that cetaceans originated about 50 million years (Myr) ago in south Asia, whereas the family Hippopotamidae is only 15 Myr old, and the first hippopotamids to be recorded in Asia are only 6 Myr old. However, analyses [sic] of fossil clades have not resolved the issue of cetaceans relations."

 

Now here they are arguing that DNA is wrong simply because it does not fit into their evolutionary dogma. After all they can not have an end product (whales) 35 Myrs before their common ancestor (Hippos). So paleontologists use homology so they can keep artiodactyls as the common ancestor. That way they do not have to worry about any time lines.

 

Now if you talk to evolutionists about mans closest relative they point to the chimp because the DNA is so similar. That means evolutionists will use what ever is most convenient to their dogma.

 

Notice the last sentence of the paragraph. The fossil record can "not resolve" this issue that is because of the lack of evidence. This is brought out in the first sentence of the article:

 

"Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing." We keep hearing the evolutionists have a myriad of transitional fossils clearly showing the evolutionary process and now they say there are none.

 

If you want some good articles on the subject of whales you can go to:

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

 

Article titles:

 

Indian Whales

What is a whale?

In a whale of trouble

Whale tale two

 

This site contains a huge selection of articles that I would strongly suggest anyone to read.

 

Bob Barclay

[The Debatinator 2]

thank you. It interests me very much.

 

I am currently quoting from a contributor of Skeptic Enquirer.

 

" 'Even if you have a million pieces of evidence, if all the evidence is inconclusive, you can't count it up to make something conclusive.' "

- quoting anthropologist David J. Daegling of the University of Florida in the article Bigfoot Anatomy by Margeuerite Holloway, pg. 50. Scientific American, Dec 2007.

 

How about thaty?

[wednesday 0]

Yeah sorry can you tell me how to use it because I can't/to lazy to figure it out

 

"So far all you're talking about is genetic manipulation. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation. Unless you have proof of animals injecting information into embryos you really have no point."

 

what I'm trying to point out is the possibilities of what can be done to DNA. The injection example just shows that, if need be, DNA can accept a new programing like that of a spider web protein. You don't even have to inject new information, existing information can be altered. These alteration happens naturally all the time. People growing extra limbs, people who have both male and female gentiles, people who see sound and taste color are all example of genetic alterations that occurs naturally. What's my point? A raccoon type creature can adapt to aquatic life through genetic alteration over time. Would you still call it the same name? It doesn't matter, it evolved from a land dwelling animal to an aquatic one.

 

 

@rbarclay

 

I think what is meant by "it is unlikely that the two groups are closely related" is that they are like very distant cousins but still share a common ancestry.

 

"After all they can not have an end product (whales) 35 Myrs before their common ancestor (Hippos)."

 

the cetaceans might have evolved 35 Myrs faster from their common ancestor than the hippopotamus did.

 

"Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing."

 

I think what they are saying here is that the pre evolutionary ancestor of cetaceans has not been found yet.

 

 

" 'Even if you have a million pieces of evidence, if all the evidence is inconclusive, you can't count it up to make something conclusive.' "

 

That is a nice quote.

[rbarclay 0]

Yeah sorry can you tell me how to use it because I can't/to lazy to figure it out

 

"So far all you're talking about is genetic manipulation. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation. Unless you have proof of animals injecting information into embryos you really have no point."

 

what I'm trying to point out is the possibilities of what can be done to DNA. The injection example just shows that, if need be, DNA can accept a new programing like that of a spider web protein. You don't even have to inject new information, existing information can be altered. These alteration happens naturally all the time. People growing extra limbs, people who have both male and female gentiles, people who see sound and taste color are all example of genetic alterations that occurs naturally. What's my point? A raccoon type creature can adapt to aquatic life through genetic alteration over time. Would you still call it the same name? It doesn't matter, it evolved from a land dwelling animal to an aquatic one.

@rbarclay

 

I think what is meant by "it is unlikely that the two groups are closely related" is that they are like very distant cousins but still share a common ancestry.

 

"After all they can not have an end product (whales) 35 Myrs before their common ancestor (Hippos)."

 

the cetaceans might have evolved 35 Myrs faster from their common ancestor than the hippopotamus did.

 

"Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing."

 

I think what they are saying here is that the pre evolutionary ancestor of cetaceans has not been found yet.

" 'Even if you have a million pieces of evidence, if all the evidence is inconclusive, you can't count it up to make something conclusive.' "

 

That is a nice quote.

 

I was wondering what is micro evolution?  what are the evidence of it and are they conclusive? what is your definition of evolution we are discussing? how does the two differ? if you believe in micro evolution does it mean the you acknowledge that there is a form of evolution? why and why not? what is scientific evidence to you?

17332[/snapback]

You are now using evolutionist's classic religious language; might have, could be, suggests that, etc. It is this type of terminology what evolutionists pass off as science. This is not science it is metaphysics in all respects. Metaphysics is speculation, guessing, imagination without any evidence. Metaphysics appears all through the article on whales in Journal Nature. Why? Because that is all they have to go on is speculation. Dr. W.R. Thompson writes about this speculative approach to science in his Introduction to Darwin's "The Origin of Species":

 

"As an example de Quartrefages cited Darwin's explanation of the manner in which a titmouse might become transformed into the nutcracker, by the accumulation of small changes in structure and instinct owing to the effect of natural selection; and then proceeded to show that it is just as easy to transform the nutcracker into the titmouse, The demonstration can be modified without difficulty to fit any conceivable case. It is without scientific value, since it cannot be verified; but since the imagination has free rein, it is easy to convey the impression that a concrete example of real transmutation has been given."

 

This is why evolutionists use speculation. They do not need any proof and then they pass this off as science. Dr. Thompson continues to talk about the fact that scientists have started the decline of integrity by "pursuit of will-o'-the-wisps" leading to "unverifiable speculation." Then these same scientists become offended when some one questions their metaphysical ideas and have implemented measures to suppress any criticism. Dr. Thompson speaks to this:

 

"This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."

 

The article in the Journal Nature is unmistakably talking about the lack of evidence in the whale fossil record and it is exactly because they have not found it yet. That is because it is not there. Evolutionists have been looking for the missing link since Darwin wrote "Origin of Species" and they still have not found it. Because it is not there. Yet they continue to speculate that it is there.

 

As far as micro-evolution is concerned it is a phrase coined by evolutionist Dr. Richard Goldschmidt in the mid-1900's. Dr. Stephen Gould states this fact when he was pushing punctuate equilibrium in his 1977 article "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in the Journal Nature. My zoology professor called it adaptive variation. It refers to change in species to adapt to their environment. However, my cell and genetics professor demonstrated through lab experiments that there are genetic limits to the changes. He stated that while there could be a new species they are still the same kind of organism. That is, fruit flies still produce fruit flies it maybe a new species but it is still a fruit fly.

 

Take the Peppered Moth icon of the evolutionists. There were light and dark colored moths to begin with and there were light and dark colored moths at the end of the experiment. They were moths when the experiment started and they were moths when the experiment ended. Micro-evolution is vertical not horizontal as can be seen in the artificial selection of dog breeds you can produce a wide variety of dog spesies but they are still dogs. Dogs do not evolve into cats or birds this is macro-evolution.

 

Also you have the right to believe whatever religion you want if that is evolution that is your choice. It is my right also to believe in whatever religion I want that is creationism it is my choice. What creationists do not want is the religion of evolution to be taught in schools. It is a violation of the separation of church and state issue.

 

Bob Barclay

[deadlock 3]

what I'm trying to point out is the possibilities of what can be done to DNA. The injection example just shows that, if need be, DNA can accept a new programing like that of a spider web protein. You don't even have to inject new information, existing information can be altered. These alteration happens naturally all the time. People growing extra limbs, people who have both male and female gentiles, people who see sound and taste color are all example of genetic alterations that occurs naturally. What's my point? A raccoon type creature can adapt to aquatic life through genetic alteration over time. Would you still call it the same name? It doesn't matter, it evolved from a land dwelling animal to an aquatic one.

 

Wednesday, you must read the forum rules about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before continue.

[Guest 92g]

what I'm trying to point out is the possibilities of what can be done to DNA. The injection example just shows that, if need be, DNA can accept a new programing like that of a spider web protein. You don't even have to inject new information, existing information can be altered.

Novel information is required to create novel structures. Altering existing information is known as "data corruption". As far as I know, there are no known existing mutations where data corruption has let to knovel structures.

 

These alteration happens naturally all the time. People growing extra limbs, people who have both male and female gentiles, people who see sound and taste color are all example of genetic alterations that occurs naturally. What's my point? A raccoon type creature can adapt to aquatic life through genetic alteration over time. Would you still call it the same name? It doesn't matter, it evolved from a land dwelling animal to an aquatic one.

Mutuations where people, or other critters, e.g. a fly, grow extra wings are not valid examples of creating new information. The information for the limp, or wing must already exist.

 

How do you know that a Raccoon can evolve from an aquatic type creature to a land dwelling type creature?

 

Terry

[wednesday 0]

"Wednesday, you must read the forum rules about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution before continue."

 

So there is scientific evidence of the "process" of evolution if not in a "macro" term but in a "micro" one?

[wednesday 0]

Novel information is required to create novel structures.  Altering existing information is known as "data corruption".  As far as I know, there are no known existing mutations where data corruption has let to knovel structures.

So if a human is born with a tail then that information had to be already in there?

 

How do you know that a Raccoon can evolve from an aquatic type creature to a land dwelling type creature?

turtles and tortoises. turtles are aquatic tortoises are land dwelling. It might be considered micro evolution but it is evolution from land dwelling to aquatic or vise versa depending on how you want to look at it. In the case of sea turtles, the obvious alteration/data corruption are the feet into flippers.

 

yay! i figured out the quoting system

[The Debatinator 2]

What you call a "tail" is supposed. Branching off bone and flesh from other bone that already exists is known as a mutation. No real difference between that and a duck with four legs. Information became messed up. This falls pretty much in both my categories.

 

As far as the turtles go we can't really prove one way or another. They may as well be just different variations of a kind created differently. We don't really have proof that they were once one.

[Guest 92g]

So if a human is born with a tail then that information had to be already in there?

It depends... If a person's tail bone grows a little longer than it should do to some gene not regulating growth correctly, then no, there is no new information.

 

If some mutation took place that actually created a novel structure then that would be different.

 

Can you name any such mutations? Surely after the trillions upon trillions of bacteria that have been experimented with in a lab, someone would have seen the 1st step in goo-to-you evolution.

 

Have you heard about it yet?

 

Have fly's been turned into anything other than fly's with all the experimentation done on them?

 

turtles and tortoises. turtles are aquatic tortoises are land dwelling. It might be considered micro evolution but it is evolution from land dwelling to aquatic or vise versa depending on how you want to look at it. In the case of sea turtles, the obvious alteration/data corruption are the feet into flippers.

You did not answer the question..., and your equivocating about micro-evolution, which is a violation of Forum Rules.

 

Terry

[Guest rjw]

Gidday The Debatinator,

 

Also, there hasn't been a mutation that didn't just take away something, or multiply something the organism already has.

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but whole genome duplications and partial duplications "multiply something the organism already has".

 

Also, fins aren't legs and you're merely putting an idea upon them.  You haven't observed or tested their relation to legs.

 

Lobe finned fish have fins, the internals of which do, in some cases, look remarkably like the internals of legs. Fossil evidence has been increasing this similarity over the past few years.

 

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest rjw]

Has there been any solid proof that creationism is fact? Has there ever been an observation of a new creature being created that doesn't conform to any species we have now or is it just a theory just as the theory of evolution. Although the technology is still in it's infancy, scientist can insert DNA from one species into another (look up goat producing spider web proteins in it's milk) or just manipulate it to get a desired characteristic. In your opinion, how far does it have to go before it's categorize it as a new species?

17292[/snapback]

As far as I know, there has been no direct observation of natural(istic) variation below the level of species in the wild either.

 

So I do not think this argument applies to just creation vs macroevolution. It think it applies to creation vs microevolution. It is just that many, if not most creationists are more accepting of microevolution. Some, I believe, will even accept macroevolution (that is, evolution above the level of species), providing it does not go "too high".

 

 

Regards, Roland

[MRC_Hans 0]

This is something I've been pondering for a while.  I beg you to find a hole.

All proof fits into these two categories

 

Supposed and imposed "relationship.":

Codes of organisms and fossils of animals we have no idea about and yet have the circular logic enough to say that the reason they are so alike is they evolved.

 

"How do you know they evolved one to another?"

"They look so alike!"

"How do we know that alikeness makes them related?"

"Because creatures evolve."

"How do we know this?"

"Because they tested by how alike creatures look."

 

Things that could be totally real even if creatures always stay relatively the same:

Flies make flies.

Birds can be naturally selected out.

I'm eating a banana.

Organisms adapt whether thy change kinds or not.

 

Neither category makes evolution true. Both of them disregard the scientific method.

Let me know what you think.

17175[/snapback]

The argument you are making is called a strawman argument. That is, you assign a ridiculous position to the opposition and proceed to dismantle it. Since it was ridiculous from the start, you can easily do so.

 

Only problem is, you haven't dismantled the argument of the opposition, only your own strawman.

 

Hans

[Bruce V. 34]

When they say they look a like it is referring to homology. Evolutionary microbiology and paleontologist are at odds with this issue. A very good example of this is in the naming the common ancestor of the whale. This debate between the two factions can be clearly be seen in an article published in Nature "Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India" (Thewissen, Cooper, Clementz, Bajpai, and Tiwari - December 27, 2007). Here is the opening paragraph in that article:

 

"Phylogenetic analysis of molecular data on extant animals strongly support the notion that hippopotamids are the closet relatives of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). In spite of this, it is unlikely that the two groups are closely related when extant and extinct artiodactyls are analysed [sic], for the simple reason that cetaceans originated about 50 million years (Myr) ago in south Asia, whereas the family Hippopotamidae is only 15 Myr old, and the first hippopotamids to be recorded in Asia are only 6 Myr old. However, analyses [sic] of fossil clades have not resolved the issue of cetaceans relations."

 

Now here they are arguing that DNA is wrong simply because it does not fit into their evolutionary dogma. After all they can not have an end product (whales) 35 Myrs before their common ancestor (Hippos). So paleontologists use homology so they can keep artiodactyls as the common ancestor. That way they do not have to worry about any time lines.

 

Now if you talk to evolutionists about mans closest relative they point to the chimp because the DNA is so similar. That means evolutionists will use what ever is most convenient to their dogma.

 

Notice the last sentence of the paragraph. The fossil record can "not resolve" this issue that is because of the lack of evidence. This is brought out in the first sentence of the article:

 

"Although the first ten million years of whale evolution are documented by a remarkable series of fossil skeletons, the link to the ancestor of cetaceans has been missing." We keep hearing the evolutionists have a myriad of transitional fossils clearly showing the evolutionary process and now they say there are none.

 

If you want some good articles on the subject of whales you can go to:

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org

 

Article titles:

 

Indian Whales

What is a whale?

In a whale of trouble

Whale tale two

 

This site contains a huge selection of articles that I would strongly suggest anyone to read.

 

Bob Barclay

17325[/snapback]

I just read an interesting article very similar to your post.

 

Whale/hippo/homology

 

Then, in the 1990s, molecular comparisons suggested that whales are more closely related to hippopotamuses 14. In 2001, however, evolutionary biologist Kenneth D. Rose reported that “substantial discrepancies remain†between the morphological and molecular evidence 15. And in 2007, J. G. M. Thewissen and his colleagues pointed out that since whales appear in the fossil record 35 million years before hippopotamuses “it is unlikely that the two groups are closely related.†Thewissen and his colleagues concluded from morphological comparisons that whales are descended from a raccoon-like animal instead. 16

 

The conflict between morphological and molecular phylogenies continues, and the problem is bigger than whales. In 2007, British scientists analyzed 181 molecular and 49 morphological trees and observed that “molecular and morphological phylogenies often seem to be at odds with each other.†17 Clearly, as a general statement, Collins’s claim that DNA trees are strikingly similar to trees drawn from comparative anatomy is false.

 

Bruce

[The Debatinator 2]

The argument you are making is called a strawman argument. That is, you assign a ridiculous position to the opposition and proceed to dismantle it. Since it was ridiculous from the start, you can easily do so.

 

Only problem is, you haven't dismantled the argument of the opposition,  only your own strawman.

 

Hans

17694[/snapback]

 

Do you not cite homology as evidence for evolution? Do not cite the fruit fly studies?

 

Do you suggest that both only make sense in light of evolution?

[The Debatinator 2]

Gidday The Debatinator,

I am unsure of what you are saying here, but whole genome duplications and partial duplications "multiply something the organism already has".

 

Also, fins aren't legs and you're merely putting an idea upon them.  You haven't observed or tested their relation to legs.

 

Lobe finned fish have fins, the internals of which do, in some cases, look remarkably like the internals of legs. Fossil evidence has been increasing this similarity over the past few years.

Regards, Roland

17660[/snapback]

Multiply being give a duck 4 legs and subtract being take away a cat's tail.

 

And look-alikes by any stretch of the imagination do not inherently mean ancestors.

[MRC_Hans 0]

Do you not cite homology as evidence for evolution?  Do not cite the fruit fly studies?

 

Do you suggest that both only make sense in light of evolution?

17716[/snapback]

Homology is part of the evidence of evolution. You claim it is made as a stand-alone argument, and thus circular. That is not he case.

 

Fruit fly studies are mainly genetic studies. They are part of our by now extensive knowledge of genetics. That knowledge, as a whole, shows us how evolution is possible, and is thus evidence for evolution.

 

You cannot say that something makes only sense in view of evolution, because the only alternative to evolution is creation. Creation requires the willful intervention of an intelligence with supernatural powers, and, obviously, for such an entity (God), anything is possible. Thus, any observation at all is compatible with creation, making creation unfalsifiable.

 

Hans

[Guest rjw]

I just read an interesting article very similar to your post.

 

Whale/hippo/homology

Bruce

17703[/snapback]

 

Clearly, as a general statement, Collins’s claim that DNA trees are strikingly similar to trees drawn from comparative anatomy is false.

I think statements such as this, need to be put into a bit of perspective. Go to the “Tree of Life†project at:-

 

http://www.tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1

 

At the above link you will start at the root of the tree.

 

From the Eukaryotes, advance page, by page, by page, first to the Animals then to the Bilateria then to the Deuterostomia then to the Chordata, then to the Craniata, then to the Vertebrata, then to the Gnathstomata, then to the Sarcopterygii, then to the Terrestrial Vertebrates, then to the Amniota, then to the Synapsida, then to the Therapsida, then to the Mammalia, then to the Eutheria – and you will come to the following link:-

 

http://www.tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997

 

That is, some 15 pages in from the root you come to the page that is relevant to what is being claimed here. Remember, each page is branching from each previous page. That is, you generally have branch upon branch upon branch as you go in.

 

In that second link you will find the Condylarthra (which includes mesonychids) and the Artiodactyla which includes hippos, deer, sheep, pigs, …

 

The mesonychids, up until 20 years ago (thereabouts) were proposed as the ancestor. But since then, most accept that the ancestor comes within the Atiodactyla.

 

The dispute you describe is between groups arguing over which in the line of cousins are the true ancestors. It is hardly as if they are arguing as if whales come directly from fish, birds, dinosaurs or insects.

 

Thus, what to them is a major dispute about something deep within the evolutionary tree, deciding whether whales should be shifted a cm here or a cm there, from the branch of one cousin to the branch of another cousin, hardly constitutes having to shift them a km here or a km there, from one group to an entirely different group.

 

If I may be allowed to exaggerate myself, just to drive the point home. It is little more than some population biologists looking at your genome and arguing fiercely that you really did descend from any one of your father’s brothers, including your father. This is a far cry from them arguing that you could have descended from just about any other male within your country.

 

So Wells’ claim that “… as a general statement, Collins’s claim that DNA trees are strikingly similar to trees drawn from comparative anatomy is false.†– is itself such an exaggeration as to be false itself.

 

It is like two men with foggy glasses standing before a forest. They can see the forest. They can see the individual trees. The can even see the leaves on the trees. The can distinguish the ferns from the pines. They can see the shrubs and even name them. They can see the rabbits, the deer, the wolves. The bugs, beetles, dragon flies – all are distinguished as well. All flowers are viewed with clarity.

 

However they are in extreme disagreement over two small insects flying around a flower. One claims it to be a juvenile house fly. The other claims it to be a mosquito.

 

Would you accept the claim:-

 

“The general claim that the two men can see most things in the forest that you and I could see is false�

 

I suspect not.

 

To my mind, that is the equivalent of what is being suggested here.

 

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest rjw]

Multiply being give a duck 4 legs and subtract being take away a cat's tail.

Then, in an evolutionary context, why does this all have to rely on a single mutation?

 

Based on what we know about genetics, it is plausible to give a duck four legs, and it is plausible to take away a cat's tail.

 

Have you ever heard of Hox genes, and their relevance to evolution?

 

And look-alikes by any stretch of the imagination do not inherently mean ancestors.

I agree. But shared characteristics generally do.

 

How do you explain shared characteristics, other than by common descent with modification? I mean, you may well share several characteristics with an unrelated friend, but how to you explain the shared characteristics you have with your siblings, parents, cousins, children, … other than some ancestor/ descendant type of process? Are you suggesting that this cannot be determined because you also share characteristics with unrelated folk?

 

 

Regards, Roland

[The Debatinator 2]

I agree.  But shared characteristics generally do.

 

How do you explain shared characteristics, other than by common descent with modification?  I mean, you may well share several characteristics with an unrelated friend, but how to you explain the shared characteristics you have with your siblings, parents, cousins, children, … other than some ancestor/ descendant type of process?  Are you suggesting that this cannot be determined because you also share characteristics with unrelated folk?

Regards, Roland

17755[/snapback]

I know and accept the fact that a duck with 4 legs and a cat lacking a tail is possible. That is, however, not evolution. Inform me of hox genes and what they have tested to be. Not what we THINK they can do but what we know they can do.

 

 

Also explain to me how homology is a credible source without pre-supposing evolution on scales from kinds to kinds.

[Guest rjw]

I know and accept the fact that a duck with 4 legs and a cat lacking a tail is possible. That is, however, not evolution.

Well it is evolution if it arose by a process of common descent with modification. It is an example of supernatural creation if a supernatural agent popped it into existence from nothing via ways we cannot understand.

 

Inform me of hox genes and what they have tested to be. Not what we THINK they can do but what we know they can do.

If you can get a hold of “Endless Forms Most Beautiful†by Sean B. Carroll, then do so and have a read. The guy is a geneticist who studies such things as hox genes. They are genes that help control the development of various regions within an embryonic organism. Given this, they can radically alter the development of various parts of the body of an organism, as experiments with fruit flies (in particular) show. (You know, those ones with antennae where legs should be and legs where antennae should be?).

 

In the book, Carroll shows how they use the hox genes of extant organisms to infer their existence and expression in extinct organisms. And naturally these inferences are strengthened by laboratory experiments. An example of this is a set of experiments that have helped gain an insight into the evolution of the insect limb pattern from a crustacean like ancestor:-

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/.../nature716.html

 

As the abstract to the article indicates, they tested this idea to see if it was plausible at least. They did this tweaking the proteins (outputs of genes) of crustaceans and insects and swapping them around, to see how the development of juvenile crustaceans progressed. They were able to substantially mimic the insect limb plan development in crustaceans.

 

 

Also explain to me how homology is a credible source without pre-supposing evolution on scales from kinds to kinds.

It is not homology per se. Rather it is the pattern of homologies – a nested hierarchy.

 

Linnaeus, who worked before evolution was on any one’s radar screen, developed a nested hierarchy for classifying organisms. He did so by grouping animals that shared characteristics between themselves, but with no other animals. These shared characteristics are homologies, if you like. They are not evidence for evolution in themselves but rather the patterns they form are, namely a group within a group within a group.

 

If you can tell me of any other natural process that forms a nested hierarchy, other than an ancestor/descendant process with modification from generation to generation, then please do so?

 

Allow me to ask you again:-

 

How do you explain shared characteristics, other than by common descent with modification? I mean, you may well share several characteristics with an unrelated friend, but how to you explain the shared characteristics you have with your siblings, parents, cousins, children, other than some ancestor/ descendant type of process? Are you suggesting that this cannot be determined because you also share characteristics with unrelated folk?

 

I presume you accept homologies between yourself and your relatives. I presume you accept that these homologies exist in a nested hierarchy form that can be constructed by looking at yourself and your immediate family, and then between this and your aunts and uncles and cousins, then between this and your more distant relatives …?

 

How do you explain this grouping within groups (in humans), other than by descent with modification?

 

 

 

 

Regards, Roland

[Guest rjw]

[snip]

 

Thus, any observation at all is compatible with creation, making creation unfalsifiable.

 

Hans

17745[/snapback]

An author I read recently made a distinction here which I agree with.

 

If a poster is talking about scientific creationism then that poster must be prepared to provide empirical evidence for her/his claims when it is asked for. Otherwise that poster cannot claim to be doing science or using science to argue the point.

 

If a poster is talking about a supernatural creator then you are correct. It cannot be scientific. Not much can be said. For example, it is hot and dry here. That fact may have nothing to do with nature. Rather it could well be due to an undetectable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent intelligence directly controlling the weather to make it hot and dry.

 

 

Regards, Roland

[deadlock 3]

Well it is evolution if it arose by a process of common descent with modification.  It is an example of supernatural creation if a supernatural agent popped it into existence from nothing via ways we cannot understand. 

 

You are equivocating on what evolution is.Please, see the forum rules.You cannot use micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution.

[Guest rjw]

You are equivocating on what evolution is.Please, see the forum rules.You cannot use micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution.

18010[/snapback]

Hardly.

 

You wrote (bolding is mine):-

 

The Debatinator: "I know and accept the fact that a duck with 4 legs and a cat lacking a tail is possible. That is, however, not evolution."

 

to which I replied:-

 

Roland: "Well it is evolution if it arose by a process of common descent with modification. It is an example of supernatural creation if a supernatural agent popped it into existence from nothing via ways we cannot understand."

 

So how am I equivocating "on what evolution is"? Am I equivocating on what special creation is, given that it also got a mention in a similar context?

 

 

 

Regards, Roland