Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Empirical Evidence for Evolution
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 60 (536)
12-06-2001 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by lbhandli
12-06-2001 12:02 PM


Larry:
Your cites don't show anything of the sort.
John Paul:
Yes they do. Between them and the examples I gave there is plenty of reasonable doubt that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.
Larry:
This has been pointed out to you in some detail.
John Paul:
Is that what you call it?
Larry:
Now instead of citing without argument please address the issues brought up previously instead of simply offering up urls.
John Paul:
Larry, first I have to check out what you say Doolittle states about life starting as several populations instead of one. Several populations is what Creationists claim.
One more thing, I hope you realize the difference between inferring from the evidence and actually observing something. That appears to be a confusing point for evolutionists. They think because they infer something that it is observed.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lbhandli, posted 12-06-2001 12:02 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 12-06-2001 12:49 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 19 by lbhandli, posted 12-07-2001 2:55 AM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 60 (537)
12-06-2001 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
12-06-2001 12:10 PM


As opposed to YECs who infer the bible must be right and therefore say that the bible is a true record of what happened (which infers that by reading it you share in the writers infallible observation)?
Yeah that's objective thinking isn't it.....
The bible must be right coz the bible says so...BOLLOCKS...
Oh and about your link about the problems with extrapolation it seems to me that the principle stands for a given system until limiting factors are observed and proved to have constrained the development...
So here is the big question where is your example of constraints in evolution?
You cant just know that the limits exist you must have some data to make your decision on. When they invented steam trains some very respected physicists postulated that people would spontaneously combust while riding on them due to friction from the air. They assumed a limit that was not there you seem to be doing something very similar here....
so bub to quote Heinlein wheres your screwdriver, the one that lets you unscrew the inscrutable?
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-06-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 12-06-2001 12:10 PM John Paul has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 60 (538)
12-07-2001 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by John Paul
12-06-2001 12:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:Larry:
Your cites don't show anything of the sort.
John Paul:
Yes they do. Between them and the examples I gave there is plenty of reasonable doubt that small changes + eons of time = great transformations.
What examples? Full bibliographic citations to said examples please.
quote:
Larry:This has been pointed out to you in some detail.
John Paul:Is that what you call it?
Yes, and you still haven't responded. Please provide the appropriate citations where you were challenged for them. Or a substantive response of how a scientific theory of creation predicts such things as pseudogenes or retroviral insertions with an argument besides "We don't know so it could be...." or "An unknown mechanism didit". I've asked repeatedly. Now either provide the appropriate material or admit you cannot.
quote:
Larry:Now instead of citing without argument please address the issues brought up previously instead of simply offering up urls.
John Paul: Larry, first I have to check out what you say Doolittle states about life starting as several populations instead of one. Several populations is what Creationists claim.
Really, which creationists? For that matter what is the scientific theory of creation that is testable, has confirming evidence and is potentially falsifiable? Exactly what are you arguing in a scientific context? If you are going to continue to assert that your "theory" is better than the entire scientific communities consensus it would be helpful if you provided a detailed theory now.
quote:
One more thing, I hope you realize the difference between inferring from the evidence and actually observing something. That appears to be a confusing point for evolutionists. They think because they infer something that it is observed.
No, they think that an inference that fits the evidence is a valid hypothesis and when that inference is repeatedly found to be consistent with the evidence that inference becomes a theory. It is called science. Now, your entire post was devoid of content. Would you care to try again?
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 12-06-2001 12:10 PM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 60 (539)
12-07-2001 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
12-05-2001 12:16 PM


right lets have another go...
John Paul:
Excuse me, but evolutionists are the ones making the claim that small changes can add up. That means it is up to them to show it can happen. It is not up to me to show it can't happen. Don't feel bad if you can't provide the evidence to suport your PoV, no evolutionist has yet to do so.
so here is how small changes add up to big ones....
graph the following:
x against t where:
x=0.1t+1000
Note dx/dt=0.1 so over the first interval t will go from 0 to 1 while x will increase from 1000 to 1000.1 (1/100 of a percent) a small change.
Now observe what has happened at time t=10000
x=(0.1)(10000)+1000
x=2000
In small steps of hundredths of a percent of the original value x has doubled in magnitude.
You asked for proof that small changes add up, there it is. Now YOU have to show evidence that there are limiting factors in the small changes that occur that prevent them adding up...
After all the logical POV is that a small rate of change over a long enough period integrates to give a large change, UNLESS some limiting factor is observed.
So bub where is it, you got any proof, or are you divinely inspired like that book of yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 12-05-2001 12:16 PM John Paul has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 60 (540)
12-07-2001 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by John Paul
12-06-2001 10:40 AM



John Paul writes:
I say the burden is on you to show the is no limit to small changes adding up and you respond by saying it is up to me to show there is a limit.
This is simple addition. In the case of walking, if one step nets you 2 feet, then 2 steps nets you 4 feet, 3 steps nets you 6 feet, and so forth. You can keep doing this endlessly. On the walk from the US to Australia the limit is the US shoreline.
In evolution the steps are mutation and gene selection. If we keep this simple and just consider mutations at the rate of one per generation, first you have one mutation, then you have two, then you have three, and so forth. What keeps an organism from accumulating mutations endlessly? On the way from one kind to the next, which you believe to be impossible, the limit is caused by...what?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John Paul, posted 12-06-2001 10:40 AM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 60 (890)
12-18-2001 9:42 AM


Well bud Perci seems to have supplied a mechanism for small changes in a biological system adding up where is your limiting factor?

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 60 (894)
12-18-2001 9:56 AM


joz:
Well bud Perci seems to have supplied a mechanism for small changes in a biological system adding up where is your limiting factor?
John Paul:
LOL! No such thing was posted. All evolutionists have is wild speculation- no experimental evidence to substantiate the claim that mutations accumulate in such a way to account for the great transformations- none- zip- zero- nada.
What limits body builders from lifting more & more weight? What limits runners from breaking the sound barrier? Why in all the millions (if not billions) of observed bacterial generations have we not observed bacteria evolving into anything but bacteria? Why does a virus ALWAYS remain a virus?
Evidence and not bold assertion is what I am talking about. What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by NS can lead to the great transformations required by the ToE?
Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story
and (again):
Extrapolating From Small Changes
If small changes accumulated in EVERY instance you guys might have a point. However there are enough examples to show this isn't always the case. That alone puts the onus on you to show it IS the case here.
------------------
John Paul

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Fred Williams, posted 12-18-2001 6:05 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 25 by lbhandli, posted 12-18-2001 7:31 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 27 by mark24, posted 12-18-2001 7:40 PM John Paul has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 24 of 60 (905)
12-18-2001 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
12-18-2001 9:56 AM


P: This is simple addition. In the case of walking, if one step nets you 2 feet, then 2 steps nets you 4 feet, 3 steps nets you 6 feet, and so forth. You can keep doing this endlessly. On the walk from the US to Australia the limit is the US shoreline. In evolution the steps are mutation and gene selection. If we keep this simple and just consider mutations at the rate of one per generation, first you have one mutation, then you have two, then you have three, and so forth. What keeps an organism from accumulating mutations endlessly?
Death.
That is the problem with your model. You assume evolution is moving upward, and refuse to consider the alternative side of the coin. I suspect it is because the wealth of evidence points to this other side of the coin.
Take your example, except replace steps with dimes. Each transaction earns you 10 cents. After 6 transactions, you have 60 cents. Sounds good. The problem is, you are not telling your audience about the quarter it costs you for each transaction. So after 6 transactions you have earned 60 cents, but spent 150 cents. You are 90 cents poorer than when you started. You are going in the opposite direction!
Evolutionists invariably fail to mention the other side of the coin (where all the evidence resides), which casts the illusion of ever-upward evolution (where the evidence is missing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 12-18-2001 9:56 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by lbhandli, posted 12-18-2001 7:36 PM Fred Williams has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 60 (909)
12-18-2001 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
12-18-2001 9:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
LOL! No such thing was posted. All evolutionists have is wild speculation- no experimental evidence to substantiate the claim that mutations accumulate in such a way to account for the great transformations- none- zip- zero- nada.
Actually I have provide a bunch of evidence and you have refused to address it. Let's add:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.html
Now, Kimura finds that the hemoglobin substitution rate very much in line with evolutionary predictions. This fits the scientific theory of evolution. Since there is no scientific theory of creation, it is impossible to tell whether such evidence fits.
How would you explain the evidence? Please be specific and simply don't post a link as you do.
Physics and the limit of our bodies.
quote:
What limits runners from breaking the sound barrier?
Friction.
Both examples have clear limits that we observe. The limit you are trying to assert has not been observed. Please provide evidence or stop making the assertion.
quote:
Why in all the millions (if not billions) of observed bacterial generations have we not observed bacteria evolving into anything but bacteria? Why does a virus ALWAYS remain a virus?
Now you are making a strawman argument. No one claims that one generation or even many generations is going to create a new kingdom. You are trying to test evolution by using a standard which isn't proposed by evolution.
quote:
Evidence and not bold assertion is what I am talking about.
And I keep wondering when you will address the evidence. Please do so.
quote:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by NS can lead to the great transformations required by the ToE?
Doolittle
Kimura
Theobald's page which you haven't addressed except to post a link that didn't actually address the evidence.
In regards to Plaisted please pick out the important elements of the "argument" he makes and write on them. I will point your attention again to the debating guidelines that bare links are discouraged.
You examples are silly because in each case we know of limits. There is no evidence of limitations on genetic change. Either provide evidence or admit you are unable to do so.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 12-18-2001 9:56 AM John Paul has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 60 (910)
12-18-2001 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Fred Williams
12-18-2001 6:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Death.
Except that mutations occur in every generation and so they are passed on if beneficial on a probabistic basis and on probabalistic sense for neutral evolution as well.
quote:
That is the problem with your model. You assume evolution is moving upward,
Wrong. Evolution doesn't have a direction except towards better fitness.
quote:
and refuse to consider the alternative side of the coin.
For there to be an alternative side of the coin there must be an alternative theory. Provide one with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsificaitons.
quote:
I suspect it is because the wealth of evidence points to this other side of the coin.
What evidence? Please be specific and provide supporting citations to the scientific literature.
The rest of your post was an analogy not even tied to evolution. Why don't you address the actual claims of evolution and the evidence cited.
Thanks,
Larry Handlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Fred Williams, posted 12-18-2001 6:05 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:06 PM lbhandli has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 27 of 60 (912)
12-18-2001 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
12-18-2001 9:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
What limits body builders from lifting more & more weight? What limits runners from breaking the sound barrier?

Only being able to increase muscle mass a couple of 10s of percents.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
Why in all the millions (if not billions) of observed bacterial generations have we not observed bacteria evolving into anything but bacteria? Why does a virus ALWAYS remain a virus?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Possible answer. An organism today has to overcome environmental pressures to evolve from niche a to niche b. In the pre-Cambrian fewer environmental pressures existed, so macro evolution was met with less failure.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 12-18-2001 9:56 AM John Paul has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 28 of 60 (976)
12-19-2001 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by lbhandli
12-18-2001 7:36 PM


quote:
Larry: Except that mutations occur in every generation and so they are passed on if beneficial on a probabistic basis and on probabalistic sense for neutral evolution as well.
No, at best 1 in 50 beneficial mutations will survive to eventually become fixed in a population. Regardless, you miss the point. Percy’s scenario, like so many others evolutionists propose, does not allow for error catastrophe and eventual extinction.
quote:
ME: That is the problem with your model. You assume evolution is moving upward,
Larry: Wrong. Evolution doesn't have a direction except towards better fitness.
No, you are wrong. We are debating whether or not large-scale evolution has occurred. In order for large-scale evolution to be true, the net movement must be upward. Sure, there can be sideways movement here, downward movement there, but overall the movement must be upward to get new genetic information that turns a scale into a feather, a protocell into an eye, an arm into a wing, etc.
quote:
Larry: For there to be an alternative side of the coin there must be an alternative theory. Provide one with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsificaitons.
The alternative side of the coin I am referring to is deterioration, or de-evolution. Regarding creation, there is a wealth of evidence, the evidence is powerful and overwhelming. Its you free choice to continue beleiving in a fairytale. I’ve already given one compelling example - it is impossible to have a code without a sender. It is impossible to have a code outside the presence of intelligence. It is impossible to produce a code via randomness and blind selection. There are no known violations to these laws of nature in all of recorded history. Maybe you can produce one and win the nobel prize!
quote:
Larry: What evidence? Please be specific and provide supporting citations to the scientific literature.
I’ve written an article dealing with the deterioration problem. You can find it here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
Let me note here the Addendum:
Dr. James Crow, whom I cited in the article, graciously commented on the article soon after I wrote it. Via personal email he replied "Yours is a serious letter and it deserves a serious answer". He acknowledged it was a "serious problem" for the theory, but not "fatal" (for the record, he made it clear he still believes evolution has overwhelming evidence from other sources).
All these mutation rate studies that come out continue to show a high mutation rate among humans. This is POWERFUL evidence that man & chimp do not share common ancestry, since these studies determine the rate by comparing monkey & human sequences. This tears down the illusion that 99% DNA similarity is evidence for decent. Evolutionists have no answers for this problem. They can only whip up stories like truncation selection (see article), something that has absolutely NO evidence for it. None. It’s not science. It’s story-telling.
[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-19-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by lbhandli, posted 12-18-2001 7:36 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 8:19 PM Fred Williams has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 60 (989)
12-19-2001 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 5:06 PM


And this is different from what I said how?
quote:
Regardless, you miss the point. Percy’s scenario, like so many others evolutionists propose, does not allow for error catastrophe and eventual extinction.
Evolution is quite capable of explaining extinction from many causes. You have made an assertion that it is impossible, this is not relevant to whether common descent is possible.
quote:
No, you are wrong. We are debating whether or not large-scale evolution has occurred. In order for large-scale evolution to be true, the net movement must be upward.
Define large scale, I suppose. Given you are using terminology in a manner not used in science perhaps you could explain how you have decided to use the term.
Evolution must be capable of explaining what we observe. Upwards doesn't have any meaning except in creationist land where there is no reason to use standard terminology. Evolution tends towards fitness. That may be more or less complex or it may not be. If you disagree cite a specific scientific source that agrees with you.
quote:
Sure, there can be sideways movement here, downward movement there, but overall the movement must be upward to get new genetic information that turns a scale into a feather, a protocell into an eye, an arm into a wing, etc.
New genetic information is called a mutation. We observe them all of the time. Perhaps you need to be precise in what you are talking about.
quote:
The alternative side of the coin I am referring to is deterioration, or de-evolution.
So provide the theory of deevolution.
quote:
Regarding creation, there is a wealth of evidence, the evidence is powerful and overwhelming.
Such as? Asserting it doesn't make it so. Provide a scientific theory.
quote:
Its you free choice to continue beleiving in a fairytale. I’ve already given one compelling example - it is impossible to have a code without a sender.
Except the sender is the organism itself and the environment receives the code and determines with feedback if the code is adequate. You have demonstrated that you can assert there is no sender, but not eliminated the sender being the organism's genetic code.
quote:
It is impossible to have a code outside the presence of intelligence.
Assertion. Support it.
quote:
It is impossible to produce a code via randomness and blind selection.
Evolution isn't random. You really need to read some science. Evolution has two random components to it, that does not make it a random process. Please try and understand what you are talking about.
quote:
There are no known violations to these laws of nature in all of recorded history.
I hate to break it to you but you haven't identified a law of nature in the above. You have identified assertions that you repeat.
In regards to your article, the problem is that you have chosen one particular article that attempts to solve a problem that is largely limited by calculational impasse. The sheer amount of calculations required to solve the problem probably preclude it from being adequately solved.IOW, you entire argument is one of god of the gaps.
The larger problem is you misrepresent the evidence for common descent of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. You simply cite the 99% common genetic code. This isn't really the best evidence of common ancestry. The best evidence is the shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions. The common nature of such genetic material without any function shared within a nested hierarchy of species is quite compelling.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:06 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 8:22 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 44 by Fred Williams, posted 12-28-2001 6:21 PM lbhandli has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 60 (999)
12-20-2001 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by lbhandli
12-19-2001 8:19 PM


Larry:
The larger problem is you misrepresent the evidence for common descent of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. You simply cite the 99% common genetic code. This isn't really the best evidence of common ancestry. The best evidence is the shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions. The common nature of such genetic material without any function shared within a nested hierarchy of species is quite compelling.
John Paul:
Common mechanism can also explain shared retro-viral insetrtions and pseudogenes. Also saying "The common nature of such genetic material without any function...", is really not true. Research is showing that what was once thought 'functionless' does indeed have a function.
Pseudogenes, are they non-functional
Even JA Shapiro states the so called 'junk DNA' may be part of the overall system architecture of an organism. See- Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999 May 18;870:23-35
Genome system architecture and natural genetic engineering in evolution.
The problem with Theobald's article is that he claims speciation is part of macro-evolution. Any learned Creationist since the time of Linneaus knows speciation occurs and that is not what is being debated. So of course he can present evidence for macro-evolution if speciation is considered part of that premise. That does not equal evidence for the great transformations such as the alleged whale evolution.
What you can't do is show that random mutations culled by natural selection led to these speciation events which in turn led to the great transformations the ToE requires. When talking about transitional fossils all you have are conceptual precursors but no physical precursors.
Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
Larry:
Since there is no scientific theory of creation, it is impossible to tell whether such evidence fits.
John Paul:
Then perhaps you should learn what it is you are debating against. The Creation model of biological evolution differs with the reigning paradigm in the following ways:
1. The starting point of evolution.
us- Created Kinds (unknown but the research is ongoing)
you- some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.
2. The extent of evolution that can take place.
us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.
you- no limit to the evolution as long as it confers an advantage in a said environment.
3. The apparent direction evolution takes.
us- an apparent downward grade from a once very good Creation.
you- an apparent upward grade, from simpler organism to more complex organisms.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 8:19 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 8:34 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 12-22-2001 1:25 PM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 60 (1001)
12-20-2001 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by John Paul
12-20-2001 8:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
2. The extent of evolution that can take place.
us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.
you- no limit to the evolution as long as it confers an advantage in a said environment.

Okay pal you say you have observed it in nature what are the limits on NS and RM?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 8:22 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 9:05 AM joz has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024