My thoughts on evolution

[Pondero]

Non-random doesn’t mean planned, it means following certain rules.

You can’t have rules without someone makes them.

 

[mapleoak]

While it is true that this is not so easy to do with some warm blooded creatures.

not so easy, actually it is impossible to keep breeding up and selecting to the point that your goat becomes a cow.

People like Luther Burbank and plant scientists today are doing this all the time with plants.

But they are not making corn into broccoli

I dare say that dog breeders, among others, have had some success at this as well.

Breeding up is the process of selecting to improve particular traits. It does not make an elbow were there was none.

 

[Sideline]

You can’t have rules without someone makes them.

Well, that’s really a different argument.

When you see a rock tumbling down a hill would you say it was evidence of planning? You could argue that everything is planned. That we are living out some predetermined existence.

But you seem to be arguing against that. You are saying that genetic mutations aren’t responsible for speciation because they are random. Which would suggest that you don’t think everything is planned.

 

[The_Barbarian]

not so easy, actually it is impossible to keep breeding up and selecting to the point that your goat becomes a cow.

In other words, a man can walk a hundred yards because you’ve seen him do it, but he can’t walk fifty miles because you’ve never seen that. But scientists have seen it. So that a little deerlike animal was shown to be the ancestor of modern horses. Would you like to learn about it?

Breeding up is the process of selecting to improve particular traits. It does not make an elbow were there was none.

That is well-documented in the fossil record. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[The_Barbarian]

The hypothesis of the common biological descent of species is ineresting and worth exploring, but must be tested against the evidence.

The evidence:

1. Directly observed speciation
2. Directly observed evolution of irreducible complexity by natural selection.
3. Fossil record showing transitionals between major groups
4. Nested hierarchy of species, found only in examples of common descent, (e.g. family trees)
5. Nested hierarchy of species, according to genetic tests (which are used for paternity tests, so we know it works)
6. Random variation in conserved biological molecules produces nested heirarchies that match the others to a very high degree of precision.

Among others. At some point, you have to come to an accommodation with reality.

Up until now evolution or common descent is no more than an inference based on similarites in the way creatures look and similarities in genetic material.

See above. You should lose big points for lack of research.

The theory has not been able to account for gaps in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of new species.

As Darwin said, the fossil record was very spotty primarily because fossilization is a rare thing and we don’t have all of the existing fossils. But we fill in the gaps monthly as new ones turn up. And the work of Mayr, Eldridge and Gould have shown why allopatric speciation would be less likely to produce fossils.

Nobody has ever seen one species change into another.

Hmm… bad factual error. The first documented observation of speciation was in 1904.

The claim that natural selection explains all biological phenomena is supported neither by empirical evidence nor logical argument.

In fact, such a claim doesn’t even exist. Another ding for factual error.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection explains small changes, or microevolution, as in dog breeding, but does not explain the origin of the higher animal groups.

Another factual error. Evolutionary theory explains common descent.

We are no closer to explaining the origin of life now than in Darwin’s day.

Big goof there; evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life. And God didn’t create everything ex nihilo. He says the earth brought forth living things. And you are a creature of God, aren’t you?

Science can tell us much about how things work but it cannot tell us why they exist or what our ultimate purpose is as human beings.”

Sorry, a fact at the end isn’t enough to save this paper.

 

[steveandersen]

not so easy, actually it is impossible to keep breeding up and selecting to the point that your goat becomes a cow.

Of course you can’t turn a goat into a cow
There already are cows
Those lines split a long time ago
Evolution doesn’t say that you can turn one species into another existing species

What it does say (and what we can observe) is that reproductively isolated populations will begin to genetically diverge from each other.

Since there is no apparent mechanism to stop that divergence, sooner or later the differences will add up to speciation.

But they are not making corn into broccoli Breeding up is the process of selecting to improve particular traits. It does not make an elbow were there was none.

Once again the evolutionary train for adding limbs & joints left the station a long time ago.
Don’t blame evolution for not doing what it doesn’t claim to do.

 

[Bendita_Loma]

Barbarian - here’s couple of more books you might want to read to learn more about the idea of natural selection both as regarding scientific proof and reasoning.

Icons of Evolution - Jonathan Wells
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds - Phillip E. Johnson

From my research much of the information you present as fact is inconsitent with current scientific understanding. The reasoning part is another question; often when authors speak of natural selection they take its truth as a given and then proceed to “prove” it, as in the tautological definition of homology for many Darwinists. The point here is mainly that by deciding ahead of time what they believe to be true, many avenues are cut off. The facts are made to fit the theory rather than vice versa. Read Icons, you might like it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian - here’s couple of more books you might want to read to learn more about the idea of natural selection both as regarding scientific proof and reasoning.

Icons of Evolution - Jonathan Wells

It was a rather poor attempt at polemics. Wells, for example cites Majerus’s work on peppered moths, but the data Majerus presented says exactly the opposite of what Wells claimed it did. Either Wells never read the research and just made up his own conclusions, or he simply lied when he claimed the moths never rested on tree trunks. The book is filled with that sort of thing. Wells has admitted that his devotion to Rev. Myung Son Moon was his motivation to “destroy evolution.”

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds - Phillip E. Johnson

When I got to the part in his first book where he suggested that the long tails of peacocks that allow them to get mates, but make them easy prey to be caught and eaten alive by leopards was just “God being whimsical,” I realized the level of scholarship Johnson brings to the table. He’s a lawyer, and a lawyer’s job is to produce a plausible tale that puts his client in a good light. This time, he failed.

From my research much of the information you present as fact is inconsitent with current scientific understanding.

Well, I’m always ready to learn something new. Bring your “current scientific understanding” out, and we’ll take a look at it.

The reasoning part is another question; often when authors speak of natural selection they take its truth as a given and then proceed to “prove” it, as in the tautological definition of homology for many Darwinists.

You’ve been misled about that. Would you like to learn the difference between analogous and homologous structures, and how we can test that determination?

The point here is mainly that by deciding ahead of time what they believe to be true, many avenues are cut off.

True, but if you think science is done that way, it’s good evidence that you aren’t a scientist.

Read Icons, you might like it.

It’s funny in places, if one is in the right mood. I’ve not decided whether Wells is just careless about research, or intentionally dishonest. Does it really matter as far as the book is concerned?

 

[mapleoak]

In other words, a man can walk a hundred yards because you’ve seen him do it, but he can’t walk fifty miles because you’ve never seen that. But scientists have seen it.

Scientists have seen a man walk fifty miles?

So that a little deerlike animal was shown to be the ancestor of modern horses. Would you like to learn about it?

Sure would.

That is well-documented in the fossil record. Would you like to learn about that?

Sure would.

Of course you can’t turn a goat into a cow
There already are cows
Those lines split a long time ago
Evolution doesn’t say that you can turn one species into another existing species.

(my understanding of) Evolution states that creatures evolve into different creatures over time. Barbarian has said some deer evolved into horses. Maybe I am not talking about the same thing, but if I am, somewhere along the line, the deer would have had to have had a baby with horse DNA.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
In other words, a man can walk a hundred yards because you’ve seen him do it, but he can’t walk fifty miles because you’ve never seen that. But scientists have seen it.

Scientists have seen a man walk fifty miles?

Yes.

Barbarian observes:
So that a little deerlike animal was shown to be the ancestor of modern horses. Would you like to learn about it?

Sure would.

Great. Take a look at this:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/FHCimages/hyracoskel.jpeg

A rather primitive hoofed mammal, with multiple toes (each with a little hoof), generalized mammalian teeth, with molars, premolars, etc. Flexible ankle and spine, and a short face. What about it, other than four feet and hooves, is horselike? (tell me what you think, and we’ll go from there)

Barbarian , concerning the evolution of elbows:
That is well-documented in the fossil record. Would you like to learn about that?

Sure would.

Great. The first sign of an elbow was in certain lob-finned fish (which have the same long bones in their fins that tetrapods have in their limbs)

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/fig41.gif

Take a look at these. Can you tell me which of these are from fish, and which from tetrapods? Notice that they all have the humerus, ulna, radius, and associated small bones of the hand.

Genetics supports this evidence, showing a similar result by modifications to “homobox (HOX) genes.”
gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

(my understanding of) Evolution states that creatures evolve into different creatures over time.

No. Creatures don’t evolve. Populations evolve.

Barbarian has said some deer evolved into horses.

No, I said that horses evolved from a deerlike animal. Deer are an entirely different group.

Maybe I am not talking about the same thing, but if I am, somewhere along the line, the deer would have had to have had a baby with horse DNA.

They all had “horse DNA”; but they all differed slightly in their DNA from horses that immediately followed, and so on.

 

[Bendita_Loma]

It was a rather poor attempt at polemics. Wells, for example cites Majerus’s work on peppered moths, but the data Majerus presented says exactly the opposite of what Wells claimed it did. Either Wells never read the research and just made up his own conclusions, or he simply lied when he claimed the moths never rested on tree trunks. The book is filled with that sort of thing. Wells has admitted that his devotion to Rev. Myung Son Moon was his motivation to “destroy evolution.”

I don’t know if I’m doing this right so that my responses will show up as answers to each quoted section but here goes. While it can be helpful to know something about the writer’s background, to the extent it influences what he writes, the important thing is the argument itself. You regard it as polemics. It doesn’t seem so. Why bring in the ad hominem attacks?

When I got to the part in his first book where he suggested that the long tails of peacocks that allow them to get mates, but make them easy prey to be caught and eaten alive by leopards was just “God being whimsical,” I realized the level of scholarship Johnson brings to the table. He’s a lawyer, and a lawyer’s job is to produce a plausible tale that puts his client in a good light. This time, he failed.

Once again, ad hominem attacks.

You’ve been misled about that. Would you like to learn the difference between analogous and homologous structures, and how we can test that determination?

The point here would be to clearly define homology. Judging from what you presented elsewhere in this thread, I might surmise that you are talking about structures which point to some common archtype, but that’s not how Darwinists use the term.

True, but if you think science is done that way, it’s good evidence that you aren’t a scientist.

No, I am not a scientist, just a layperson seeking to understand. There’s a good quote in Johnson’s book:
"Science is not an inscrutable priesthood. Any person of reasonable intelligence should, with some diligence, be able to understand and critically evalute a scientific theory,” wrote U.S. District Judge James Graham in an Ohio newspaper column in May 2000

It’s funny in places, if one is in the right mood. I’ve not decided whether Wells is just careless about research, or intentionally dishonest. Does it really matter as far as the book is concerned?

Your tone is disdainful. Why?

 

[mapleoak]

Barbarian chuckles:
In other words, a man can walk a hundred yards because you’ve seen him do it, but he can’t walk fifty miles because you’ve never seen that. But scientists have seen it.

Yes.

Okay, well, I guess there is someone out there willing observe anything.

A rather primitive hoofed mammal, with multiple toes (each with a little hoof), generalized mammalian teeth, with molars, premolars, etc. Flexible ankle and spine, and a short face. What about it, other than four feet and hooves, is horselike? (tell me what you think, and we’ll go from there)

Great. The first sign of an elbow was in certain lob-finned fish (which have the same long bones in their fins that tetrapods have in their limbs)
Take a look at these. Can you tell me which of these are from fish, and which from tetrapods? Notice that they all have the humerus, ulna, radius, and associated small bones of the hand.

Genetics supports this evidence, showing a similar result by modifications to “homobox (HOX) genes.”
gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

No. Creatures don’t evolve. Populations evolve.

No, I said that horses evolved from a deerlike animal. Deer are an entirely different group.

They all had “horse DNA”; but they all differed slightly in their DNA from horses that immediately followed, and so on.

I will take your word for it on evidence from fossil records, as I have limited knowledge in that area. However I maintain a belief that evolution did not occur, rather that these fossilized creatures with similarites to other creatures co-existed with each other from the beginning, rather than being developed from other. Just as sheep and goats share a lot of common traits, not to say that they didn’t both exist together from the beginning.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I And besides, we didn’t know days lasted 24 hours until the Middle Ages.

Huh?

Before the time of Christ, the day was considered to be 12 hours long, and the night also 12 hours – making in all 24 hours. There are several mentions of the hour of the day in the Bible.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I will take your word for it on evidence from fossil records, as I have limited knowledge in that area. However I maintain a belief that evolution did not occur, rather that these fossilized creatures with similarites to other creatures co-existed with each other from the beginning, rather than being developed from other.

The problem is, they appear in sequence in the fossil record. So that belief is not supportable.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian acknowledges that scientists have seen a man walk fifty miles)

Okay, well, I guess there is someone out there willing observe anything.

This scientist, for example has. In fact, this scientist has done it. Not that I was all that willing, but the Captain was sort of emphatic about it. You know the kind. Pushy.

 

[Sideline]

(Barbarian acknowledges that scientists have seen a man walk fifty miles)

This scientist, for example has. In fact, this scientist has done it. Not that I was all that willing, but the Captain was sort of emphatic about it. You know the kind. Pushy.

Why on earth did someone want you to watch them walk fifty miles?
Was it on a track, filmed or did you follow him/her? How long did it take?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why on earth did someone want you to watch them walk fifty miles?
Was it on a track, filmed or did you follow him/her? How long did it take?

Well, I don’t know about the Barbarian, but when I was a Captain, I’d get orders from battalion, issue my orders to the platoon leaders and NCOs, then yell, “Saddle up!” and off we’d go.

I’ve probably walked several thousand miles in my time – usually carrying a much bigger load than any sane man would want to carry.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I am interested in this thread, but not informed enough on either side to join in the debate Can you (Sideline, Barabarian, or other posters) recommend a basic text on evolution and one on creationism for the average non-scientific reader? (I’m looking for something more modern than “The Origin of the Species” and “The Book of Genesis”)
Thank you

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why on earth did someone want you to watch them walk fifty miles?

At the time, I was convinced that they were morons. Hard to say what they were thinking about.

Was it on a track, filmed or did you follow him/her? How long did it take?

They just wanted us to go somewhere else, and it wasn’t convenient for them to provide transportation. And no, a nice, level track wasn’t where we walked.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am interested in this thread, but not informed enough on either side to join in the debate Can you (Sideline, Barabarian, or other posters) recommend a basic text on evolution and one on creationism for the average non-scientific reader?

I think, if you really want to get a good overview, with a minimum of previous knowledge necessary, then this:

Get a Grip on Evolution
amazon.com/Get-Grip-Evolution-David-Burnie/dp/0737000368

Would be good. A bit heavier might be Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.”

There are so many different kinds of creationism that it’s hard to say what a good text might be. You could start with Ron Numbers’s “The Creationists.”

Oddly, the best educated YE creationist, Kurt Wise, hasn’t written a book on creationism. Too bad. The Institute for Creation Research has an “Impact” series, which is pretty good for learning about the various creationist doctrines.
icr.org/publications/

I would advise you, as with any YE creationist source, they sometimes don’t check facts very well. Once, on their radio show, they announced that scientists learned Neandertals played tubas and bagpipes. (they didn’t realize that every April, Discover Magazine puts in one “April Fool” article)