Discussing "29 evidences..."

OK Larry, here we go.
From 29 evidences for macroevolutionFrom 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.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)From 29 evidencesPrediction 1: The fundamental unity of life
Confirmation:
All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers - but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.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.Prediction 2: A nested hierarchy of species
Confirmation:
Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc.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.Prediction 3: convergence of independent phylogenies
If there is one true historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.John Paul:
And SLP accuses Creationists of post hoc gibberish! LOL! Exactly where does the Virus Kingdom fit in?Confirmation:
Many genes with very basic cellular functions are ubiquitous — they occur in the genomes of most or all organisms.John Paul:
Common Creator.Prediction 4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestorsJohn 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.Prediction 5: Chronological order of intermediates
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the correct general chronological order based on the standard tree.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 postedEd.]. 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.------------------
John Paul

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:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

Confirmation:

​

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

​

John Paul:

​

Common Creator.

​

Do you guys think life is just (a) chemical reaction(s)?

---

1/
The genes may be, but the amino acids that make those proteins aren’t. For example, Cytochrome c shows gives a good comparison to taxonomic phylogenies, when comparing amino acids. i.e. Humans & Chimpanzees have a 100% match. Humans & Rhesus Monkeys have 1 difference, Pigs 13, Rattlesnake 20, Tuna 31, Candida 66 etc. The same is true of carbonic anhydrase I, a fast mutator, gives excellent comparisons of the primate taxonomic phylogenies. There is absolutely NO reason God would need to make cytochrome c different for organisms that are TAXONOMICALLY different. Come to that, there is absolutely no reason there should be any cytochrome c amino acid sequence/number differences in any organism, they all work just as well. The differences are there for you to explain, without reference to the supernatural. Creation science, don’t forget.The genes that have been sequenced in humans & chimps, show a 99% correlation. How is this evidence of a creator? Similar taxonomy calls for similar gene sequence? There is absolutely no reason that an Ider should create any duplicate sequences whatsoever. He could mix ‘em up, give a nip & a tuck to the control genes to account for ordering, & there you have it, a chimp with no gene sequence comparable to us. No amino acid/gene sequence similarities between taxonomically similar organisms, would be better evidence of an Ider, the exact opposite of what is found. Again, the differences are there for you to explain, without reference to the supernatural. Creation SCIENCE.The comparable phylogenies that can be made from methods such as these present a real problem to creationists. When the only argument becomes Godidit, the debate is over.2/ Is there any evidence that life isn’t JUST a series of chemical reactions?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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. 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 species. 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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
If you are claiming there is a barrier demonstrate a barrier.John Paul:
If you are claiming there is no barrier please demonstrate there isn't.Larry:
Largely the above is nothing more than hand wringing--is there somthing I'm supposed to respond to?John Paul:
Funny, that's how I feel about the ToE.Larry:
It appears you have decided to post a lot of stuff with no meaning so I'm going to break these up.John Paul:
Well just look at what I was responding to.Larry:
Where is the barrier?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.Larry:
If you don't like taxonomy explain the barrier in terms of genetic distance.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?------------------
John Paul

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)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Either one takes us back 3 billion years.John Paul:
Yeah right, sure they do.Larry:
Why don’t we concentrate on getting there first?John Paul:
Getting where? At the one source? The few? or the many? It does make a big difference.------------------
John Paul

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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.------------------
John Paul

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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
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.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.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
And SLP accuses Creationists of post hoc gibberish! LOL! Exactly where does the Virus Kingdom fit in?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
There is no such thing as a virus kingdom. Viruses have their own classification system for obvious reasons.John Paul:
Actually whether or not viruses have their own Kingdom is debatable.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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
And where is the theory for that?John Paul:
On most Creation websites. It would be in your best intwerest to learn what it is you are debating against.------------------
John Paul