Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by Sopater
You do realize, right, that the type of changes that you dismissively refer to as "a fruit fly changing into a slightly different fruit fly" are the ONLY changes that evolution predicts will ever occur. If you ever saw a dog give birth to something that is obviously and demonstrably NOT a dog, then evolution is falsified. What was observed in those cases is indeed speciation. Most closely related, but different species cannot be distinguished from one another by nonexperts. What you probably meant to claim was that there is no evidence for changes that crossed taxonomic lines higher than species. If that's the case, then don't try to move the goalposts. Retract your original claim and make the modified one that I suggested. Your original claim is demonstrably false.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure why creationists are so gung-ho about ID. To the best I can understand all the ID arguments, if you accept ID you accept the following:
1. That the universe began in the manner outlined by current inflationary theory cosmology (ie. big bang theory).
2. The universe is ~15 billion years old.
3. The earth is ~5 billion years old.
4. Life on earth probably formed via the reaction and agglomeration of certain naturally-occurring chemicals, although this may have occurred as a result of intelligent guidance.
5. The various species on earth formed from a common ancestor via a process of natural selection of different variants of organisms. These variants occurred because of mutations. This process was guided by an intelligent being.
Note that if you remove any reference to the guidance by an intelligent being from these statements, you basically arrive at statements that are accepted by modern science, including #5 which is the theory of evolution. Modern science doesn't address the question of design at all, so even with these references in place, ID is perfectly consistent with evolution. The only quibble that any intellectually honest scientist would have with any of these statements is that the idea of a designer is nonscientific, so shouldn't be included in a scientific theory. Even given the absolute truth of design, however, modern scientific theories, including evolution, remain valid.
So let me get this straight...when a university says that only evolution can be taught in science classes, but other ideas can be taught in other classes, that's censorship. When an evangelical protestant church teaches that the literal creation story in Genesis is correct, and allows no teaching of any other ideas ANYWHERE within the domain of that church, that's perfectly acceptable?
No, I am not clear on this point- if what you state is accurate.
How is it that we hear about common ancestors for man and monkeys...and this being the result of evolution? And the divergence from a common stock ancestor (usually denoted by a "?") in many cladograms I've seen?
Regarding speciation, it is likely that I am using the "wrong" terminology. Perhaps you are right in that I am referring to evolution effecting changes from one genus into another genus or family to family.
Believe me, I am not trying to move the goalposts - I am just trying to pin down the "how" part of vertebrates from invertebrates, men from first mammal, bird from dinosaur...et al. The examples of "speciation" which I was commenting on in the earlier post, according to my understanding, just ain't gettin' me there.
P.S. There was another thread regarding ring species that was interesting to me in which I was led to conclude that often a new "species" designation is simply a literary element.
Here's what I don't get...Why does evolution theory get to "start" after life has already begun by making the pronouncement that "the origin of life is not relevant to the ToE"?...while I.D. isn't allowed to say "the identity of the designer isn't relevant"?
Whether or not you constrain science to the philosophy of materialism - the concept of design is certainly a candidate for investigation from a forensic approach.
ID purports to explain how intelligent life got here, namely that it was designed by an intelligent being. This is begging the question, however. You cannot explain intelligence by invoking a being possessing the property you are trying to explain. That's the logical fallacy of ID. Evolution can explain intelligence without such problems, since no intelligence is postulated in the first place. An analogous problem for evolution would be to explain biodiversity by stating that there were many different types of organisms in existence when life began and each evolved independently into a type of organism seen today. That would be invoking biodiversity to explain biodiversity, similarly to what ID does.
I should have qualified this. Only very small changes are predicted for small numbers of generations. I am unaware of any experiment with fruit flies that has involved say several thousand generations, for example. For small numbers of generations, we would expect only small changes.
My perception of ID is that they say the "designer is not the issue" - that's what many evos glom onto and begin to confer paranoid conspiratorial motives for the ID'ers.
I think what ID'ers are saying is "look at the stuff (animals, plants, microorganisms) and investigate whether they exhibit qualities of design." To me this is a fascinating question. How do we know that Stonehenge is a product of design and not natural occurrence? Are there objective critera that can be used to identify "design" in the physical world? What about abstract art...can design be identified in a paint splotch?
I think ID is an interesting field of inquiry that could draw on many scientific and philosophic disciplines.
A separate issue is the neurotic sacrosanctity that many evos hold toward their hallowed theory.
Well this is where the "believability" factor comes into play. Unless evos can really predict "what some of these changes might be" and "in what time frame or conditions they might occur" then I think the theory is quite literally impotent.
Just saying that "things change whenever and however they change" is not very insightful to this poster.
Good thing I wasn't holding my breath.
Yet another creationist is shown to be unable to back up his assertions.
The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution," he said. "To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’As for Rodhocetus, that was easy, once again relying on your favorite source, we have this statement relating to Rodhocetus:
There are still no known species-species transitionsSo it appears we have nothing BUT speculation and presupposition to base this species on. That was way to easy... Although I was absent for a while, I managed to do this in about 10 minutes of "research". If these are your best examples, I would consider changing religions. Have a great day!
Way to move the goalposts. The issue we were discussing was the existence of transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it shows anatomy intermediate between those of birds and reptiles and dates to a time consistent with being an ancestor or closely related to an ancestor of birds. You promised to show how this evidence is based on 'speculation and presupposition.' Now, without following through on your original boast, you're demanding in addition a detailed evolutionary lineage. In other words, from demanding an example of a transitional species, you're demanding now that I demonstrate every single transitional species .
Surely you didn't think you were going to sneak this past me?
As for Rodhocetus, that was easy, once again relying on your favorite source, we have this statement relating to Rodhocetus: There are still no known species-species transitions
That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that there are no transitional species. Now you demand I produce every transitional species.
Like Diogenes, I still wander the world, still looking for an intellectually honest creationist.
Tell me first what makes Archaeopteryx an invalid example of a transitional species, and then we'll discuss its possible lineages.
You don't have to show me every single transitional species if you can show me ONE that is similar in a change in genetic complexity that has EVER been observed scientifically. Just show me some real science to back up these claims.
Archaeopteryx has features intermediate between birds and reptiles, and shows changes of a degree commensurate for an intermediate between two vertebrate classes. Rhodocetus is intermediate between land-living vertebrates and whales, and shows change of a degree commensurate between two mammalian families.
It is not possible (yet) to obtain a genome for a 100 million year old organism, so you're demanding the impossible. But the homologies and the genetic changes between living species are well documented, and we can infer in many cases the genetic sequence of common ancestors. Those genes are entirely viable.
As for my intellectual integrity, I don't believe that I've made one claim that would call that into question.
Then stop dodging the issue at hand.
I could point out that thus far, only one of us has attempted to change what the other has said. ;-)
Agreed. And I hope you've learned it won't work. :-)
I find it difficult to believe this isn't deliberate obtuseness, but I'll give it one more try.
You asked for an intermediate species. I gave you Archaeopteryx. Now you want a second intermediate species, between Archaeopteryx and something else, and you want me do demonstrate physical change between Archie and that species. Sorry, but you asked that I volunteer an intermediate species for discussion. I did so. I have no wish to come up with a second, because I know inevitably it will be followed by a demand for a third, and a fourth, and so on.
Time to put up or shut up, fish or cut bait, -- or get off the pot. Archaeopteryx has physical characteristics expected for a intermediate between reptile and bird -some distinctly reptilian, some bird like, some intermediate. Archaeopteryx lived at a time consistent with being an intermediate between reptiles and bird. Those are characteristics of an transitional species. In what way is either based on 'speculation and presupposition'? Last chance.
Presupposing of course that there is such a thing as an intermediate between two vertebrate
Of course there is. I've listed the characteristics or an intermediate above, and they depend in no way on evolutionary history.
I'm sorry, but there have been no genetic changes ever observed of the magnitude required to make a leap of such biblical proportions. Homology doesn't prove ancestery any more than it proves intelligent design.
Science doesn't deal in proof. However, application of Occams razor to, for example, the sequences of cytochrome Cs, or myoglobins, or ribosomal proteins of the vertebrates, strongly suggests common ancestry, and it counter-indicates intelligent design. There is absolutely no reason that designed sequences would show the structure of a phylogenetic tree at all, or that the tree would be broadly consistent with ancestry as derived from fossil evidence, and inconsistent with roles or ecological niches. Why are the proteins of whale-sharks like those of small, predatory sharks, and those of whale like those of hippos, when whales are more similar to whale sharks in size and lifestyle than either are to small sharks or land animals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.