Why TOE is not accepted

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.

Well, firstly, there's no such thing as "kind", and moreover, you're wrong. Adaptive changes can and do give rise to new species, not just varying individuals in the old ones. It's observed fact. You're right that variation appears to be built into our genome; in fact, there was so much capability for variation "built into" the first organism that it gave rise to all observed species. Pretty cool. How do you figure? The cheetah's alleles are no more "hard-wired" than any other species. There's simply less variation, currently, among cheetahs than other cats because all living cheetahs are the decendants of a very limited gene pool, as the result of a near-extinction.If cheetah populations increase (I don't know if they are right now or not; I rather doubt it as human expansion has been very hard on the big cats) then the variation between individual cheetahs will increase thanks to mutation. If it increases enough, and gene flow is interrupted between two subgroups, a new species of cheetah will arise. Happens all the time. All DNA sequences have the "potential", thanks to mutation, to become any other sequence. As the only thing that separates one species from another, no matter how different, is the sequence of their DNA, all organisms have the capability or potential for rpecisely the sort of long-term change that evolution describes. Er, no, you can't reduce genetic potential. You can reduce the number of actual alleles, but you can never reduce the number of potential alleles in a gene pool, as mutation bestows DNA with the capability to give rise to literally any allele whatsoever. Shocking truth time: in reality, there are no species.

That's not an answer. The sun revolves around the earth was common sense for a very long time.Again, do you have any research, papers, books, or artiles to support your assertion. Many things are common sense, it does not mean that they are science fact. That's not an answer. Waht is preventing the changes from accumulating over time to the point where the creature "speciates"? Is jesus standing in the way keeping the DNA from splitting?

This remains for science to discover. It is what creationists should be working on.{Edit: I realized that my answer after writing all this is: the running out of allelic possibilities.I believe it is something in the makeup of the genome, having to do with the allele possibilities that exist for particular loci. 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. 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. 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. 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. But it all fits the idea of a created Kind 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. 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, 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. Subjection to extreme natural selection processes over time, or extreme inbreeding, i.e. artificial selection. Nothing whatever, except human intervention to protect a particular variety or species. Mothing whatever, and left to its own devices it will lead to the extinction of an extremely genetically reduced and therefore highly vulnerable variety.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-31-2005 08:36 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-31-2005 08:37 PM

No, you wouldn't expect that from common design. When designers design multiple things, each one is unique and suited to its purpose. For instance, here's Dean Kamen, the famous designer:Here are two of his inventions, a kidney dialysis machine and the Segway electric scooter:As you can see, they're nothing alike.Common designers do not result in design similarities, as we can see from my simplistic example. Thus the "common designer" hypothesis (pardon me while I choke on my beverage) cannot be an explanation for the often-counterintuitive similarities between organisms. However, evolution makes predictions that NS+RM will modify structures possessed by an organism's ancestors to fit a new environment, even if a totally new, redesigned structure would be superior. Evolution predicts descent with modification and that's exactly what we observe in the wild.

quote:

---

The sun revolves around the earth was common sense for a very long time.

---

Actually, it still is common sense. It not only do most people still need to be taught this, but most don't travel into deep space to verify it -- it requires a certain amount of trust in the teachers to maintain the belief that the earth spins about its axis and goes around the sun. Sorry, just being difficult.

At the point where the creature "speciates" what has happened genetically is that the accumulated changes amount to a severe reduction in the genetic possibilities, which is the opposite of what would be expected in the development of a true new species according to the ToE.

We're talking about SIMILARITIES, Frog, which are supposed to indicate common descent, but only indicate similar design.

Faith, we went over and over your ideas about geology. You know little and learned nothing.You are now operating in the same mode for biology.This is turning into a stew of issues which should be in their own threads in the science fora. This is not totally your fault but you are a significant problem here.Since you are, apparently, never going to learn a thing, answer appropriately points made to you or admint to your degree of ignnorance I think you are wasting the time of other posters.I am suspending you for a few days (time indeterminate). We'll see if that gives you time to compose answers that make more sense.

Here Here. A good point, and it further supports mine as well.

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"?

Really? That's an outstanding claim! Do you have any scientific evidence, papers, articles, books etc. Which state that there is a reduction in "genetic possibilities" over time?Further, can you prove that there even is such a thing as "genetic possibilities"? Last time I checked genes just split, recombined, and changed thrugh this process. No necissary loss/gain, just change.Also, how do you account for creatures with new adaptations such as DDT resistent insects and Nylon Eating Beatles?

I feel the need to step in here with a difference of opinion on this suspension.This thread is in the "Social and Religious Issues" fora and as such is not the place to discuss science or to demand objective scientific evidence.I am going to reinstate Faith but am also going to insist that science issues be kept to the science fora. This thread is about why the TOE is not accepted.Subjective, personal "evidence" can and will be used in this thread. Anyone not comfortable with this can recreate the discussion to follow a more objective line in one of the science fora.And problems with this decision can be taken to the appropriate thread in my signature box.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I know exactly what we're talking about, and as I just proved, similiarities (particularly the pseudogenetic similarities that Schraf is referring to) don't indicate anything but common descent.For the second time, similarity doesn't indicate a common designer.. What exactly is the barrier to your comprehension, here?