Why TOE is not accepted

Faith, what mechanism prevents the accumulation of heritable variations in a population over time, and given environmental pressures, change in that population such that it becomes a different species, phyla, or genus?What stops genetic variation? What stops environmental pressure? What stops selection of individuals by that environmental pressure?

quote:

---

One would expect exactly the same on the principle of design similarity rather than descent.

---

What's the difference?Also, why would a designer (presumably you mean God) replicate so many errors in the genes of later species?

quote:

---

It isn't the only possible explanation, merely one plausible explanation.

---

Come on now, you claimed the following:

quote:

---

The consistency isn't as perfect as you claim, however, but I won't dispute it at the moment. Even if it were, evolution is merely one plausible explanation for it. There is no way to test it.

---

This is the way that the Hypothesis is tested, Faith. Each observation is a test of the theory.Now, I'd really like a fuller reply to the many questions and evidences I asked for in Messahe #159. Remember that there is no huge rush and if you need to go off and do some reading I certainly understand.But as my replies to you get more and more detailed and content-filled, yours to me keep getting shorter and less about facts.Discussing science is about discussing the minutae of facts, so I hope you are going to provide some.Oh and lastly, please remember that the reason I brought up Emily Rosa getting published in JAMA was because you had claimed that the Evo/Cre debate was really all about credentials, yet Rosa was just a 10 year old girl without any credentials.So, that completely debunks your claim that science is some snobbish entity which only listens to people with the right credentials.It's the content that meatters, not the degree.

quote:

---

This remains for science to discover.

---

So, you have evidence of such a thing happening?What is it?

quote:

---

It is what creationists should be working on. I believe it is something in the makeup of the genome, having to do with the allele possibilities that exist for particular loci.

---

Any papers relevent to this available?

quote:

---

The more specialized the breed selected, either by natural selection or artificial selection, by drastic population bottlenecks or slower genetic drift etc., the tendency is always for the genome to show less and less variability or ability to develop new adaptations.

---

Citatioon to the relevent research, please. Or a link to a science-based site to back yourself up, please.

quote:

---

So that there is a natural limit built into the genome that is ultimately reached with any process of selection of traits, until at the extremes like the cheetah there is no more variability left at all.

---

So....all chetas are clones of each other?They each have EXACTLY identical genes?Is that true? I doubt it.Aren't cheetas all descended from just a few breeding pairs because they almost went extinct and that's why their genetic health isn't so good?

quote:

---

Since such selection processes may produce new types that can no longer interbreed with the parent species, they are called new species and the process is called speciation, but the actual genetic picture is of a reduction in genetic variability which absolutely contradicts the idea of evolution beyond such a limit.

---

Again, you are going to have to provide some good research papers which support your claims of less genetic variability due to speciation.

quote:

---

There is also a high degree of vulnerability at these extremes, to disease, to anatomic problems, to extinction, not what one would expect for evolution.

---

Uh, evolution, particularly the Modern Synthesis which includes genetics, precisely predicts these problems when the gene pool becomes very small, as in the cheetah.On the other hand, have you ever heard the term "hybrid vigor"?

quote:

---

But it all fits the idea of a created Kind

---

What is the definition of "kind"?How do I tell one kind from another?

quote:

---

that had very rich original potential for genetic and therefore phenotypic variation -- all the way out to the extreme types such as are found in the fossil record and the frozen animals of the north like the mammoths etc., enormous built-in variation that simply plays out over time until selective pressures reduce its adaptive abilities to the built-in limit -- which is basically a running out of allelic possibilities. Even the varieties of dogs show the enormous variability possible in that gene pool, such drastic differences that they appear not to be the same species -- but the highly bred dogs are not new species unless you define a species as a reduction in genetic variability out to near total inability to vary at all, which is hardly what one would expect of evolution.

---

Wow, what a lot of nonsense.You also need Genetics 101 and Biology 101.

quote:

---

Highly inbred varieties are the ones that demonstrate the absurdity of the idea of evolution, as they demonstrate the reduction in genetic variability in the creation of new breeds,

---

Ever heard the term "hybrid vigor?"

quote:

---

but of course other forms of the same Kind may have more variability and continue the process much longer, or even reach a condition of genetic stability where very little selection or drift is happening, but it's all simply a variation on the original genetic potentials for that Kind.

---

Please provide a precise definition of "kind" and the system by which we classify all organisms into their "kinds".

quote:

---

Subjection to extreme natural selection processes over time, or extreme inbreeding, i.e. artificial selection.

---

As far as I know, inbred animals do not start becoming clones of each other, do they?So, there is genetic variation in any other kind of breeding other than cloning, right?So, try again.

quote:

---

Nothing whatever, except human intervention to protect a particular variety or species.

---

OK, that's two things that would prevent evolution that have no evidence of being blocked...

quote:

---

Mothing whatever, and left to its own devices it will lead to the extinction of an extremely genetically reduced and therefore highly vulnerable variety.

---

Well, then, how is it that there is any life left on the planet?And have you ever heard of "hybrid vigor"?

Please reply substantively (that means with evidence) to the specific points in Message #125.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2005 11:26 AMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2005 11:27 AM

quote:

---

I didn't answer because your question contains a lie, which I suspect you are aware of, namely that I have claimed Biology wasn't real science.

​

In fact, as you probably realize, I have never claimed Biology was not real science. Since I did not make the claim, I do not have to defend it. The truth is I accept Biology as real science.

---

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory of Biology.In fact, it is the basic underpinning for all modern Biological study and theory.So, if you reject the ToE, you pretty much reject much of Biology. It's an inescapeable consequence for you.I thought you realized that, but I guess I was mistaken.Please explain and show with comparitive examples, if possible, how Evolutionary Biology is conducted which renders it invalid compared to the way the rest of biology is practiced.For example, is Botany's reliance upon the field of Population Genetics (which is heavily informed by Evolutionary Theory) detrimental to the results we see in this field? Should we also not trust the scientific results of Bacteriology as this specialty is also heavily reliant upon evolutionary Theory to explain findings?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2005 11:36 AM

quote:

---

1. I am not even sure the claim is true since we see very complex life quite a ways back.

---

Why do we not ever see flowering plants in the lowest layers?

quote:

---

Were the dinosaurs less complex than modern life, for example?

---

Are single-celled algae more simple than dinosaurs?I'd say yes.We never find dinosaurs in the lowest layers where there are mainly single celled organisms, but we do find single celled organisms in all the layers and in the living flora and fauna.

quote:

---

And even microbes can be pretty complex? Truthfully, I don't even think the claim is true.

---

Yes, they can be complex. But would you say a single celled organism without a means for locomotion is more or less simple than a similar single celled organism with a means to locomote?I would call the addition of cilia, let's say, an increase in complexity.So, what about a multi-celled organism? Is that more complex than a single cell? I'd also say yes.Rinse, lather, repeat.

quote:

---

2. But irregardless, it was never a prediction.

---

Yes it was, and is. A "prediction" means "logically follows from".It's another way of saying "This is what we should find if the Theory is correct", or "This is a consequence of the Theory".If the ToE (specifically, common descent with modification) were not correct, there would be no reason to find single-celled organisms giving rise to more complex life.The prediction is that, if the ToE is correct, we should NEVER find, for example, flowering plants in the lowest layers. We haven't yet, in millions of observations, so this confirms this part of the Theory.

quote:

---

It was an apparent observation from the geologic column, an observation YECers have explained differently, for example.

---

The YECers have not accounted for all of the evidence, only part of it. They also require supernatural events that have left no evidence to explain what happened. This means the YEC explanation is less parsimonious and required more assumptions than the current scientific explanation, which is more parsimonious and requires the fewest assumptions.

quote:

---

3. But if true, it would not amount to much of prediction since it can just as easily fit any other potenial model.

---

Not when combined with all the other fulfilled predictions of the Theory.No scientific theory lives or dies upon a single bit of evidence. The ToE has at least a couple of dozen lines of evidence supporting it from half a dozen scientific fields.

quote:

---

Let's say we have a model that aliens have tinkered with life here, and seeded it, and every now and them come back and tinker some more, and they started with smaller life since they lacked the technology to do more, or maybe microbes and stuff migrated here when they came, and then we saw an explosion of life with the Cambrian explosion, etc,...

---

Have we observed any of these aliens? What is the evidence of their tinkering? What testable predictions do you propose which would, if borne out, support the alien seed theory?We have observed DNA, we have observed the effects of changing DNA upon an organism, we have observed speciation in response to both artificial and natural selection.So, your alien explanation, while it fits the facts, is much less parsimonious and makes more uneeded assumptions than the Biological Evolution explanation.

quote:

---

Bottom line is we have not observed macro-evolution,

---

We have observed the consequences of macroevolution, just as we have observed the consequences of electrons, and just as we have observed the consequences of the movements of the planets in our solar system.No human has ever directly observed macroevolution, nor an electron, nor the entire solar system from space, yet we are able to make predictions of future events based upon the theories we have built from observeing the consequences of these phenomena.

quote:

---

and we do not know that natural selection and mutations alone can account for what we see.

---

What is the barrier that would prevent many small heritable changes in a population from accumulating, given environmental pressure and time?

quote:

---

First off, you can be a biologist and not accept ToE, and acceptance of universal common descent (ToE) does not mean you "pretty much" reject all of modern biology.

---

The ToE is the underpinning of all Biology, randman.You might get a Biology degree without accepting it, but I'm not sure how you remain a practicing Biologist, performing experiments and developing theory, without using the ToE.Maybe that's why there are more scientists named Steve who accept the ToE than there are total scientists who reject it and who are Creationists. Project Steve

quote:

---

your question concerning "Biology". The truth is you can accept micro-evolution and thus population genetics, and reject universal common descent and thus ToE, and still have a fine and complete understanding of Biology.

---

Randman, the field of Population Genetics is nothing less than the practical application of Evolutionary Theory. Wikipedia

quote:

---

Evolutionists like to pretend that ToE equated Biology in general and thus suggest anyone that rejects ToE cannot, for example, "population genetics."

---

Please explain to me how one can reject the ToE and still operate within the field of Population Genetics.

quote:

---

Evolution in the broader sense is not denied by anyone. YECers accept speciation, for example, but evolutionists in trying to convince people, will define "evolution" as speciation, and then claim victory because speciation occurs and say it is a fact, but "evolution" in that sense is not the ToE.

---

Of course it is. Evolution, states in the most simple terms, is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.How does this exclude speciation?I might add here that Creationists currently accept speciation. A few decades ago Henry Morris and others vehemently denied that speciation happened and that the so-called created "kinds" were immutable. Now that the evidence is so overwhelming that speciation does occur, most creationists have had to retreat to acceptance of it. They still persist in their denial of longer-term evolution, however, even though they can produce no plausible evidence of any barrier to it.Will you be the first?

quote:

---

As far as within the paradigm of evolutionism does real science go on, I have no doubt that it does, but these faked and overstated claims are a crucial ingredient in how evolution is taught and believed, especially early on, and part of the indoctrination process.

---

Please provide evidence that the work currently done by Evolutionary Biologists does not at any time adhere to the same tenets of science used by any other field of science.For example, you could provide some examples of peer-reviewed Evolutionary Biology papers which should not be trusted because they are based upon falsehoods and lies, or the scientists who reviewd them are so poor at doing science or so blinded by their indoctrination and religious need to accept the ToE that they were easily misled by faulty methodology.You forgot to answer this part of my last message: This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 03:31 PM

quote:

---

Absolutely NONE of that requires a belief in "macro" evolution.

---

Sure it does.Otherwise, all Creationists would accept all the evidence for evolution.I've got some news for you. If you accept population Genetics, then you are an Evolutionist.

quote:

---

Every bit of it is compatible with creationism.

---

Really? All Creationists accept all evolutionary mechanisms as the origin of all species on Earth?Then why all this "kind" nonsense?

quote:

---

I've mentioned the "evolutionary forces" or "mechanisms of evolution" in my own posts about the natural limits to evolution, as all ultimately tending to lead away from the possibility of evolution beyond a certain point.

---

Well, then you reject population genetics, and really all of Biology.There is no observed barrier to evolution. Can you show me one?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 06:17 PM

Can you show me an example from peer-reviewed Evolutionary Biology papers which demonstrates incorrect methodology, incorrect findings, lies, distortions, or otherwise shoddy scientific work?

So, randman is allowed to say whatever disparaging, slanderous thing he wants to about science but doesn't have to back it up?Great.Forget these fora, then.