Problems of Evolution

Here is my response regarding why I do not hold evolution - Darwinian or otherwise - to be a tenable speculation, which is from a slightly different perspective; it should be considered additional to the points made by others, all of which I am in full agreement with.

The so called “Theory of Evolution” was first proposed by Darwin based on observable, physiological characteristics. This was seized upon as an escape from the dominance of religious thought, which had held that man was a being made, and thus owned, by a mystical God.

Some - a very few - fossilized remains of human-like bones were found, and the “flow-chart” constructed which fitted the theory. Basically, the theory was, in order to explain similarities of form across species, the various species must have had a common ancestor and then “diverged” in small but cumulative ways. It was a neat story. And there are some small ways it does work—but only within species. As an explanation for the variety of species, and for the origins of the existence of man, it is thus far an unproved and unprovable hypothesis.

The fossil record theory of evolution had to rely on a few scattered bones for its evidence, from geological strata dating back 4 million years. Very little—relatively speaking—has been discovered, the majority of which are scattered bones from which final body shapes have had to be reconstructed. The evidence is scanty. The famed paleontologist, Richard Leakey said that if all the bones we had were put together in one room, they'd barely cover a couple of large trestle tables. However, with the discovery that the genome was the conveyer of hereditary material, came the “link” that paleontologists were looking for. DNA carries the information for the amino acid content of proteins and triglycerides of lipids which make up the enzymes, organs and structure of the body. Minor physical variations which were passed on to offspring within species were discovered by Mendel, and rediscovered in the early 20th Century (Mendel's work was largely ignored since no one could understand it, and it was assumed to be either wrong or faked—an attitude which persists in science and academia to this day!!). Using simple crosses, these variations could be linked to genome diversity, later discovered to be variations in DNA content and information.

This is where the major error was made. Information regarding genetics was linked to known anatomy and physiology, and assumed to be direct. In other words, the genes provided the information for the structure of the human form, different humanoid forms had been found and posited to have arisen from previous forms, with humans and apes having arisen from a common ancestor, and all animal life having sprung from the same set of cells with accumulated random errors in the DNA inherited by offspring the means of transmitting that variability.

1. Point mutation. This is when damage to the DNA from external sources such as radiation, or cellular aging, the DNA changes one of its base pairs, thus changing the code from one amino acid to another. Almost always this is deleterious.

2. Recombination. This occurs when DNA from one part of the genome breaks away and rejoins at another part of the genome. It is more regularly and frequently an event in all genomes, prokaryote and eukaryote, as small sections of DNA are exchanged between chromosomes during the phases of cell division, usually being either neutral in effect or deleterious as in Philadelphia 21, which leads to Chronic Myloid Leukemia.

3. Transposition. Small fragments of DNA known as transposons are able to “lift” fragments of DNA and transport them, in the case of bacteria into a different cell via plasmids and viruses, or in the few eukaryotes found to have them ie. Drosophila, around the cell genome.

4. Re-assortment. Possession by eukaryotic cells of two pairs of genetic information which separate randomly in cell division and then pair with the opposite from the second parent during fertilization.

Since evolution posits that changes are acquired and passed on to offspring, only changes in the germ line DNA, i.e. sperm and ova, have any significance. Changes to somatic cells are irrelevant to the theory.

Bacteria have been studied extensively for years. They have a single, looped genome, which has been fully analyzed. With a short life span [E. coli) under optimal conditions reproduces in 20 mins] they are ideal for examining generational changes. Many can swap DNA very fast, as the spread of antibiotic resistance genes demonstrates. In spite of years of treatments and environmental changes, alterations to genomes, spread of genes via phages, plasmids, transposons, no bacteria has ever shown any sign of any characteristics of anything but itself. Even bacterial types, eg. staphylococcus, tuberculosis, streptococcus, do not change into one another.

The most extensively studied eukaryote is the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. With only 4 chromosomes and a reproductive cycle of 7 days, they have made an excellent tool for investigation. Used since 1910, when T. H. Morgan first started modern genetics with them, we have been able to study 4,940 generations. (If we assign 15 years as an arbitrary generational time for humans this is the human equivalent of looking back 74,100 years).

Drosophila, over this time have been exposed to just about every sort of mutant generator. Mutations have been found for almost all characteristics, the wings, color, eyes, thorax components, and many more. Certain genes that convey rapid mutations have been isolated. Drosophila come in every wing shape (including wingless), color and twisted up contorted variety. But in all this time, they have never shown any indication of being anything other than D. melanogaster.

There are reasons why Drosophila is more likely than humans to express an evolutionary change—they have less DNA to be changed. With only 4 chromosomes compared to humans 22, there is a smaller “target” area.

Moreover, they have transposons, which can move DNA rapidly around the cell. Humans have no transposons, and have to rely on point mutation, re-assortment and recombination. However, there is even here a difficulty. Females form their ovaries and ova while they are still themselves embryos. At birth, all of a females reproductive capacity is already “in place”. Ovaries are buried deeply, not easily exposed to environmental assault, and each ova has partially completed its cycle to final stages of release ready for fertilization. We have a better chance with males, whose sperm are made freshly and frequently, in very large amounts, and whose organ of construction is more exposed to the environment. But this means the chances of genetic mutation are halved to only one of the two needed to produce new generations.

Most mutations are deleterious, those that are not are usually neutral (for example, brown eyes to blue).

Because only one parent will be carrying the chance arisen genetic variant, it must be dominant in its expression, that is, it is expressed in the phenotype in preference to the original gene carried by the other non-mutant bearing parent. In most cases, the mutant form is recessive (again, brown eyes to blue).

There is a dilution effect. Down generations, a single mutation, which may gain expression in 100% offspring in the F1 cross, will gain less expression in the F2 as the offspring reproduce with partners without the mutant form and genetic reassortment of chromosomes will produce offspring not carrying the mutant variant. [From this, of course, comes the claim of every observed trait being evidence that we have all arisen from the same cell, female etc. If it was acknowledged cross fertilization with individuals not carrying strain occurs, we are looking at dilution. However, if we all arose from incestuous crossings among siblings, there is more chance of the trait becoming more present in a population].

From plants, prokaryotes, simple single celled organisms, and more complex organisms all studied extensively, forcibly mutated, crossed and re-crossed with selected mates, the only variation ever seen is always within the species. No specie has been seen to change into the beginnings of another.

The theory claims that the selective pressure for a species to change is survival. However, the problem with this is that species survival is directly related to the ability to produce more offspring in the face of the challenge. This means that a change has to occur quickly, yet the theory states that changes are slow, over millennia.

If the theories claim that changes occur but lie dormant until selection favors them, we have to ask how and why changes of complexity which require the entire change to be present occur, and why should they, when the organism was obviously surviving well enough. An example is that of certain insects which when clustered look like a flower. Co-ordinated changes all must occur at the same time, for each insect which carries the different colors and shapes to produce its part of the jigsaw. Given that the insects were obviously surviving well enough to produce these changes—slowly over time according to the evolutionists, we have to assume they were surviving well enough as they were in order to have got to that point. So, why would they change, and how would such a complex change occur by "random mutations"?

The issue of complexity is knotty problem for classical evolutionists. Quite apart from the frequently cited case of the mammalian eye, all aspects of which need to be in place to work, we can simply consider that of the working cell itself. Let’s look at DNA transcription to produce a protein. The correct DNA sequence must be in place. The mRNA must have been produced correctly by its DNA, and be in place; the tRNA—a different one for each amino acid—must have been correctly transcribed and formed; and the ribosomes—both units must have been correctly transcribed and their tertiary structure formed and the enzymes involved must all be present and active. The ATP pump must be working to provide the energy required. The correct solution of salts and trace elements must be present and at exactly the correct pH. The cellular pool must have all components for each amino acid present.

And this is just to form one simple protein. To suggest a small change in one gene can bring about major changes in the entire organism, in the face of such complexity beggars belief.

But there is another major problem which those who linked genetics to paleontology seem not to understand.

To return to the protein, once all the amino acids are linking into the chain, this is only the first stage. The protein then takes a tertiary conformation. Almost all proteins form an alpha-helix. Since a helix can twist right (d) or left (l) in theory this could be either. In fact, apart from a very few rare instances, all proteins are left helices. This tertiary folding is dependent, not only on the amino acids being present in the correct order, but the molecular shape and charge of the amino acids, the liquid environment the protein is suspended in, and the presence of various trace elements and minerals. Since all proteins take a (l)-alpha helix, we are left facing the conclusion that the shape, the three dimensional attribute, is something which the environment the protein is in forces on it, and that there is only one shape available to proteins because of this constraint.

The issue of tertiary structure is found in DNA, which is not linear, as the diagrams represent, but forms a twisting, twisted and twined shape manipulation of which is essential for genetic transcription and recombination to occur.

Developmental biology asks, "what makes the final body shape?" Why an elbow? How come a knee? What rounds a heel, gives a liver the exact shape and conformation it does? And the answer is, we do not know. We do know of certain complexes of gene groups which contribute certain factors involved in the skeleton, largely because of the altered effects seen when the genes are altered. The products of some of these genes, acting in concert with a multiplicity of other factors, does play a part in at least providing the cellular components required to form a developing limb bud, cranium and jaw structure. However, many of the experiments which claim an ‘effectiveness” are simply noting the presence of an essentially toxic compound useless to the body, and a malformation, as the Hox1a gene associated with slightly mal-formed hands and feet of those carrying the variant (very very rare). This does not, of itself, prove the Hox box does in fact control limb structure, since the product of the mutant gene is a shortened form of the required protein, therefore unrecognizable to the body and possibly treated as many other toxic elements are and consigned to the furthest limbs. There is some other, more positive evidence, which does support the contention that the Hox box provides some of the requirements for limb bud formation in the developing embryo up to the 12 week gestation. However, although it provides the limb bud, there is no evidence that this directs and controls the final shape, ie the anatomy of the limb.

There is no genetic evidence which demonstrates the final skeletal form is purely and solely genetically driven. And the skeletal form is the basis of all of paleontology. The evolutionists are in fact basing their entire "theory" on a mistaken link—that of genetics with skeletal form.

Ultimately, there is far too much complexity to the living cell, plant and animal, for single changes to do much other than contribute to likely elimination of the individual carrying the mutation. To suggest a single mutation can so affect an entire species is like suggesting that the fruit seller at the gates of a vast and complex industrial city can significantly affect the entire city by altering where he is standing by a few feet.!!

It is stated by scientists today, that either humans "evolved" from previous, different animals by random mutations in DNA, or we were made by a God. It is never considered that both may be wrong, and there could be other explanations for speciation, a different explanation for the "fossil record." This is due as much to the blind virtually religious fervor of evolutionists as to the same religious dogmatism of the creationists. If one does not accept that something is possible, one does not, after all, go looking for it.

I would like to propose (this should be called the Hewitt Conjecture !!) that it is perfectly possible the reason shape is largely conserved across species, and has stayed so for millions of years, is the same as that which directs tertiary formation of proteins. That it is a combination of factors, including the environment which the forms develop in, which directs the final shape, and that the shape found in all animals, (with a series of minor variations) is so, not because of “descent” from a common ancestor, but because in the environment of this world, it cannot take another. That the fact that this is a water and air based planet, that all living things are made of carbon, with some hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen thrown in, the combination of molecular shapes and charges, pH, salts, trace elements and minerals, water, temperature, gas pressures and many more, combine to effect the developing animal such that the final tertiary structure cannot be anything other than what it is, and which in almost all cases conforms to the same basic shape.

I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall "fish" structure. The starfish and octopi are minimally represented.

There is one final point. The fossil record is not as sequential as paleontologists represent it. Fossil remains have been found "out of sequence" in the time scale and are either ignored or written off as "aberrances, or washdowns."

And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. Hundreds of examples exist. Mary Leakey, of Olduvai Gorge fame, claimed to have found a footprint identical in every respect to that of modern man, in strata identified as being 3.6 million years old. A huge variety of human artefacts, flint tools and bones identical to homo sapiens sapiens have been found in strata confidendently dated to the mid-Pliocene - 3.5 million years ago. A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.

Why are these facts so ignored? Because, in the words of a noted evolutionist, Professor R.A. Macalister, in 1921, "this implies a long standstill for evolution which is contrary to Darwin's theory, and therefor must be disallowed..." We will of course, overlook the sharks, which haven't changed for 150 million years !! A flat contradiction of the "fossil record" and evolution......but which never gets addressed by evolutionists. Wonder why?

Pamela Hewitt is a freelance writer/journalist living in Fremantle, Australia. She is also a medical professional, with a background in genetic research. You may contact Pamela via the Independent Individualist.

Well now. Lets try tying this “theory” to some reality. (You know, the stuff we can see).
If you put a pinprick on a globe in every spot we’ve ever found any fossil remains related to humans, and then added them together, they’d still be the size of a pinprick. Which means, we’ve looked just about nowhere.
Then you look at the number of fossil remains - two trestle tables. Which means, just about damn all. From these astoundingly convincing sources, your fossil record is built and touted as “absolute, proven, not open to discussion”.
Well, you might be happy with that. Doesnt do a heap for me.
Now, let me offer a hypothetical.
Lets say I live in Australia, a continent which also houses Aboriginals who have lived there for - as far as we can tell, which aint far - 10,000 years.
Lets say something comes along - a new ice age - and wipes everyone out.
In a couple of thousand years time, in the new Interglacial, bright eyed young minds dig up bits of my bones, and bits of some old burial sites of Aboriginals. (Perhaps by chance then never found the remains on todays Aboriginals. Or perhaps they all got swept out to sea).
What, given todays beliefs, would they assume was the only possible “true, unarguable” conclusion?
Well, of course, first came the Aboriginals, 12,000 years ago, then came me obviously descended from them 10,000 years later.
Of course, they might by that time have developed intelligence, and be able to say “there could be a variety of explanations. We cannot prove anything. It could be a case of descent because of genetic changes acquired over time. Or maybe two types of people were living concurrently. Or maybe the more recent structure turned up later from somewhere else and something different killed them off. Or maybe, just maybe, we dont have enough data to say anything for sure”
Nah. Never catch on. Got to have a dogma which only the elite “understand”, and then use to say of anyone else “ill educated layman” !!
So no, I dont accept the fossil record. And before you try saying that this isn’t an application of logic, offer some thought of your own, not just another droning choiristers hash of the central dogma your university priests have imposed on you.
Because the series of possible interpretations of the fossil record is logic, devoid of any desire to make it fit a story, or a subjective desire of any kind. It’s just what the facts give us.

Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data.

Isn't that just another way of saying that if something is proven it can be disproven? I think that one's a bit of a word-game. But I digress.

When a hypothesis is well supported by the evidence then it is accepted as a Theory.

But here's the problem: Sometimes a hypotheses will be accepted by some but not by others. And I realize that each side feels that they have the exclusive right to decide whether it's a hypothesis or a Theory and to denounce the other as not real scientists. But the problem still exists, and won't go away by simply pretending it doesn't exist: This is why "Science" needs a dogma -- that no non-natural first-cause happened.

Evolution happens every day.

By way of background, I grew up on a small family farm and participated in all aspects of normal animal husbandry. (Which is hardly uncommon or special, I know.) We had many livestock births but I never saw any baby that grew to be perfectly identical to either of its parents.

There are two kinds of evolution: That which I have seen and know, and that which I have not seen, and, at most, can only believe (until I see it, at which point I can then know it.)

If it didn't then last years flu shot should be just as good.

But this isn't speciation: My understanding is that an immunity is (for all practical purposes) a "blacklist" listing the serial number (DNA) of a certain virus. So the exact same "species" (if you can call a virus a species since it's not even a life form but a bad chain letter) anyway the blacklist is basically against the serial number, or DNA fingerprint. So if the same species -- which had undergone some random changes in DNA (even inactive DNA) so it had a different serial number but was basically the same kind -- were to come back again, then it'll no longer be covered under the old serial number and the old immunity will be of no use. But this is the kind of evolution that we see here and now; the same as when our cow gave birth to a calf who's DNA was not an exact perfect match. (We didn't do any cloning, needless to say.)

It is hardly history, it is a current and ongoing phenomenon.

This division of evolution is very similar to the division of "Science" vs "History": What we did not see would be history. (But history certainly may be a science.) But just because a kind of evolution is present does not mean that a different aspect of it is not history. Just like I wouldn't say that the study of ship building techniques is never history because shipbuilding exists and is practiced today.

What I never did see back on the farm was one kind changing and eventually begetting another kind. It is correct and honest for us to keep in mind the difference between what we know and what we can at best only believe.

-Jesse

At what point does this "microevolutionary" process stop, and what causes it to stop before it becomes "macroevolution."

Funny you should ask -- "Microevolution" stops and "Macroevolution" starts at the same stopsign where my knowledge of evolution stops and my belief would have to pick up. In other words, as I said, there are two kinds of evolution -- that which I've seen and know, and that which I have not seen and can, at best, only believe.

There are several things that I do know - among which are the fact that lots of people believe passionately with all their heart that all speciation was done by evolution.

But remember, knowing that a bunch of people believe it is not the same as me knowing the evidence.

And I also have seen a lot of insults given as answers to people looking for the evidence and it looks like the US government and universities have thrown a lot of money behind research to prove speciation by evolution (How much government money can you throw behind a theory/Hypotheses before it's hard to tell whether it lives off of the evidence or the funding?) -- but what I have not found is any evidence. Needless to say I'm not well impressed when my debate opponents ask me to prove their point. (In other words, I've been told the likes of "Here's 93,000 links. Go find the evidence yourself, get off your sofa.")

What "kinds" are the mudskipper, the porpoise, and the penguin respectively?

I haven't studied these three animals -- so perhaps you could develop your argument a bit more for me (hey, you brought it up :-) -- but just off the cuff I'd say they are the mudskipper kind, the porpoise kind, and the penguin kind, respectively.

As I said, I have heretofore seen a lot of hype, bantering, etc., but not yet any direct evidence for speciation by evolution.

Remember, that even though many people believe with all their heart in something, and even though many scientists assure me that it's true, if I wish to be scientific I must still consider it a hypotheses unless I myself have seen the evidence and thereby know it. If the best I can do is be assured by other people, then I can, at best, believe it, but I don't know it. But merely believing something doesn't rise to the level of science to me. When I can see the evidence myself, then it'll rise to the level of science for me.

Think how bad it would be if one scientist said "Oh, I found evidence and thus and such as true..." and then all the others said "Oh good now we know that to be true," without doing the experiments themselves and without being able to conceive how such a proposition could be true. In order for it to work, every scientist needs to not consider himself to know something unless he either has seen the evidence himself or has seen others display the evidence and can understand how it all works.

Remember, because science is science and not religion, it's alright for those who haven't yet seen the evidence to try to find the evidence. I've come to the conclusion that the correct answer given to people looking for this evidence should be one of the following:

A: You just gotta trust the macro evolutionary scientists, and ignore anybody that disagrees with them.

B: Here's the evidence: Just read such and such a book or article and you too will be able to know rather then just believe.

C: It's not that simple. It's a very complicated. Actually seeing the evidence first had requires you to learn many scientific skills, then study many thousands of fossils and artifacts. Major in Evolutionary Biology in College for years and then you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself. Otherwise you just won't get it, unless you are happy to believe and not know it.

Basically, those are the only possible 3 answers -- either an inquirer can't have the information, or he can and here it is at article xyz, or he can have the information but he's got to devote a significant and specified amount of effort to learning the topic.

But these aren't what I've been hearing! Why? I can only speculate:Option A defeats the purpose, option B doesn't work because nobody can point to a best evidence, (And I'm talking about evidence, not a strong assertion by a writer that the evidence exists), and option C doesn't make the theory/hypotheses(take your pick) sound reasonable to the common man.

So maybe this explains why I'm not getting anywhere on my quest and why people looking for the actual evidence so they can know rather then only believe receive such unsavory and useless responses.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Go to this post. Read it. Tell me what you think about it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508770/posts?page=142#142

I haven't much time at the moment but will try to reply more later.

But as I said I well know there are lots of people who assure me that its true -- but for me to know it rather then at most believe it, I need to see the evidence myself.

That nice chart tells me that somebody thinks they've got it all figured out -- but I can't see the actual fossils. The few I searched for seemed far too lacking to determine their relation, so in order to even know if the named fossils did make a convincing case I'd have to see them or see to scale photos of them. But even then I still have to trust the accuracy of the people who handled the fossils.

You know, just think how great of a tool for the evolutionist side that list would be if it contained photos of the actual fossil evidence. But here I am again trying to find the evidence for your side of the debate :-)

But just by reading that post you refer me to, I still cannot tell which of the listed sequences are very similar, which are great gaps, and the existence of which are supported by hundreds of fossils and which are supported by just a few bits of bone or tooth or whatever.

Another problem is that 50 intermediate fossils over millions of generations is a very sparse picture. We have more species then that alive today.

If you gave me a bucket full of a million little wooden blocks, each with a random number on one side and each colored a random shade or color on each side, I could select and order some of them in a row so that the numbers all counted up from right to left and the colors went from left to righ. But by selecting and ordering differently, I could demonstrate that dark colors were low numbers and high numbers were bright colors, or I could show just the opposite -- all by selecting the "evidence" I was willing to accept.

Similarly, when I have seen the religious fervor with which scientists preach evolution and denounce any dissent, and when I've seen the other questionable tactics used in trying to argue the side of speciation by evolution, I have to wonder if the fossils that I get to hear about are carefully selected and ordered -- showing something that isn't true. For example, (And yes I realize there are more dimensions to the comparisons then this, but this is only a simple example. My point is still valid.) if I were arranging fossils by size and asserting ancestral relationships, I could show that the horse descended from the dog by starting out with all the dogs that are alive today, and sorting them tiny to big. Then starting out with all the horses today, tiny to big. Then I could say the tiny dog was the original granddaddy of them all, and I could then place the tiny horse as the descendants of the biggest dog. (Actually, the biggest dog is bigger then the smallest horse, so I could eliminate some in the middle there.)

Now of course scientists also take into account the shape of the bones and skull and number of bones and in what structure -- but the principle is still the same -- if you take any two similar species, whether or not they are related to eachother, and if you collect their bones for long enough, you will be able to take advantage of the random change in skeleton and find a skull of one species that was a freak incident in one direction (big, small, wide, etc.) and then find the skull of one of the other species which was randomly abnormal in the opposite way, then put them side by side and say "See here! Das mizzing lingk!

So in order for the evidence to be most meaningful, I'd need to see all of it -- not just that which fit nicely into the global common descent tree. (by global I mean the idea that all life shares one common ancestor.)

So in direct answer to your question, (what I think about the post you referenced), I'd say someone did a pretty nice job of gathering together the info, but I'd have to see the evidence it talks about in order to know whether it was good evidence or not. In and of itself, the post is not evidence. Only with much more research on my part would I know whether it was referring to good evidence or not. If I thought it might be useful, I would research it more. But I'm busy enough that I don't generally feel too compelled to try to find the evidence to support your side when your side won't provide good solid evidence or even give straight answers.

Remember, if the best evidence I have is somebody telling me that "it's so," I cannot honestly say that I know, only that I, at best, could believe. But belief alone isn't really science in the purest sense.

But what do you think about the post you listed for me? (142)

Also, I'm still curious -- the other day you mentioned something about your line of work or whatever -- what do you do? I design electronic circuits and kludge together occasional scripts, just to be on the fair side.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: Something else I recently heard of and found very interesting was about inherited dead retrovirus code stuck in DNA. (You might have put me onto that, although I can't find it at the moment. Thanks!) I'd never heard of that before, and quite frankly I'm quite surprised. If true (and again, I'd need to be able to test the data myself) such a thing would be a very thought provoking evidence.

So in order for the evidence to be most meaningful, I'd need to see all of it -- not just that which fit nicely into the global common descent tree.

Why Of course. Consistent with your refrain of "not enough" and "too much!" -- this is "not enough." You need more. You need all of the evidence. The whole of it that exists in archives, libraries, fossil data bases, genome sequences, etc., etc., (and all of it apparently packaged neatly in an impossible to accomplish three sentence post on an internet chat forum.)

But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance. You're not in the least interested in the evidence. After all, as you previously complained -- "Ahh, just as I thought. There's mountains of solid evidence, and yet no-one can give me one good evidence." and "How come it has to be 93,000 [journal articles] or nothing?"

Your childish dishonesty in this correspondence notwithstanding, I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.

Unfortunately, some of the images in the foregoing link have been lost over time (principally in the "Theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition" section), and a few of the links are presently inoperative. It nevertheless remains a reasonable, summary resourse, with a wide variety of internal links for you to follow and study.

You can also re-acquaint yourself with the main NCBI archive and its ancillary free access archive that I directed you to previously (you remember, the life sciences archives that you bizarrely labled "propoganda sites"), and you can actually make use of their internal search engines on this go around.

You can then read through (and follow the links within) the sites available here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and you can peruse some of the many fossil databases available:

here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.

The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.

Why Of course. Consistent with your refrain of "not enough" and "too much!" -- this is "not enough." You need more. You need all of the evidence.

You're incorrectly asserting here that evidence is equal to written articles. When I ask for evidence you reply with a list of thousands of articles -- but that's not the same as evidence. If you were to ask me for evidence for creation and I provided a link go a google search for "Evidence for creation" you'd quite likely not be satisfied.

But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance.

As long as I'm content to (at most) believe something without knowing it, then I don't need to see the evidence. But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence.. Honest folks either say "I know it because I saw it" or "I believe it because I heard it from a source I trust." But my experience regarding "Speciation by evolution" has been that lay people take it largely if not entirely by faith. It's looking like many scientists do too.

I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.

Thanks. I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence. But if there is a certain part that you think is exceptional evidence, I would be glad to re-read it and discuss it. I found lots of people re-speaking popular views on how things happened, but at best I can still only have faith in them -- and then I still won't know but at most would only be able to believe.

The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.

Thanks for the links... but see it looks as if you're giving me thousands and thousands of articles -- more then I could read in a lifetime (or at least a very long time) -- without giving me a clue as to where to start. They aren't all good evidence (I know because I read a few.) Are you saying that you don't know of any good ones but are sure there are some? or are you saying that I have to read them all and devote significant part of my life to studying the topic before I can see the evidence to the point where I can know rather then at best believe?

Straight answers are sometimes very helpful. Sometimes one does need to say to an inquirer "Learn these laws of physics, try them out yourself, then come back and I'll be able to explain it to you."

A few weeks ago I was visiting with good friends, and one of them wanted to know why some hydrogen gas bubbler gimmick wouldn't extend gas mileage like the website claimed. I had to basically say "You need to learn, understand, know and trust the laws of thermodynamics and of conservation of energy. Then I can explain to you why this can't work as advertised."

Sometimes the gap of missing knowledge (not believage) is just to great and it's appropriate to gently explain to someone that they need to learn some set of skills or knowledge (not believage) before they can see the evidence.

Thanks,

-Jesse

PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do. It doesn't make your case look any better. Forum posters know by now that someone's not right just because they insult their opponents.

Are you like this with every complicated scientific theory that's out there, or only evolution?

Every complicated theory that's out there. If I've demonstrated a principle to myself, then I consider my self to know it. If I've been assured that it is true and works by someone I trust and I understand how it's supposed to work and it makes sense with what I do know, then I believe that it's true -- not know. To me, each of the complicated theories that I know about but do not know to be true I consider to have a certain level of certainty based on how well I understand them and their dependent sciences, and how much sense they make, and the like.

For example, I think your complaint would apply equally to the germ theory of disease. I personally have never seen a germ, and I haven't seen a germ do whatever it does in the body to cause illness.

Well, some diseases are bacteria based. I've seen bacteria eating and multiplying in my microscope. I even videoed a paramecium splitting in half. Does that help? :-)

While I have not, for example, seen a virus taking over a cell or whatnot, I do know that I've had many colds. I've got one right now if you needed to know. I've also observed that people tend to catch colds from eachother. So while I consider myself to know that people catch colds from eachother, I don't know just how the mechanism works. But from what I understand of germ theory, it makes sense with what I do know, so I consider germ theory to have a high certainty.

Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?

The fallacy here is the idea that one would demand to know how it works before knowing that it does work, even though they witness it working with their very own eyes. You've mixed here two different issues. What would be reasonable would be for you to demand that before knowing that a certain pathogen is catchy, that you'd have to witness someone catching it. Or, it would be reasonable for you to demand before knowing just how a certain pathogen attacks a certain cell -- you would want to see that pathogen attacking that cell.

Or take your animal husbandry experience. Can you actually show me a sperm cell sperm fertilizing a cow egg and a cow fetus developing? How do I know you didn't put that calf in there yourself?

Now see this is a great question! And this is the difference between Historic Speciation by Evolution: If you doubt the result of my experiment, you can easily try it for yourself! Get some rats, mice, or the all famous guinea pig. The difference is we can all get some mice and see what happens. But this really isn't a fair comparison because we can't go repeat the experiment to see whether a fish became a dog, because we're talking about history. So the next best thing would be for the scientists (who for wish more people to be able to know rather then at best believe) to organize the data and provide high resolution photos and complete data in such a way that any careful observer could inspect all the evidence and see just what there was, and come to his own understanding without having to rely in information about thing's he's never seen from people he's never met.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Have you ever heard this joke?

Q: What did the paramecium say after dividing?
A: A pair of me, see'em?! (para-me-see-em)

You're incorrectly asserting here that evidence is equal to written articles. When I ask for evidence you reply with a list of thousands of articles -- but that's not the same as evidence.

Your request that I have delivered to your door a convoy of fossil specimens, a full laboratory for genetic testing and sequencing, and a team of scientists who will conduct original research in your living room while you snack on corn chips, is respectfully declined. Those nefarious "written articles" put out by the vast conspiracy of evilutionists will just have to do.

But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence

Good lord. I honestly thought you had plumbed the depths of your stupidity in your prior posts. Obviously, I was wrong.

I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence.

Of course you didn't. After all, it was nothing but that strange and scary "written stuff" that your paranoid delusions tell you not to trust.

But my experience regarding "Speciation by evolution" has been that lay people take it largely if not entirely by faith. It's looking like many scientists do too.

Right. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will go to work.

And the tennis ball returns from the "not enough" side of the net to the "too much!" side of the net. Back and forth we go.

Straight answers are sometimes very helpful.

Straight answers to what? You haven't asked any questions. And no, "gimme all the ebidence in a sippy cup" is not a question.

Are you saying that you don't know of any good ones but are sure there are some? or are you saying that I have to read them all and devote significant part of my life to studying the topic before I can see the evidence to the point where I can know rather then at best believe?

You're big on these all or nothing banalities, aren't you. All you really have to do is stop perfecting the ass-dent in your Laz-E-Boy and educate yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, then quit complaining about your ignorance.

PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do.

Good grief, why not? Your posts contain nothing but insults under a thin veneer of feigned inquiry, so responding in kind is perfectly appropriate.

But in the end you're right. Enough of this. Go play your idiotic game with someone else.

That's a terrible joke! I like it.

But from what I understand of germ theory, it makes sense with what I do know, so I consider germ theory to have a high certainty.

That's pretty much where me and most people are with the TOE, I think. It's a lean and powerful explanation of what I see around me, and it makes sense, so I consider it to have a high degree of certainty.

> Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?

I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think I'm asking to know how it works. I'm asking to see it work--to witness someone catching it. What does "catching it" mean, if not having the bacteria or virus attack a cell? How do I know that I caught a cold from someone else, rather than that we both caught it from the miasma that was present where we both were? I think asking to see a virus leave their body, enter mine, and take over one of my cells is pretty equivalent to your asking to see a skeleton for every generation of horse from Eohippus to Big Brown.

I would further say that the way you speak of catching colds--"I've observed that people tend to catch colds from each other," "knowing that a pathogen is catchy"--reveals that you've accepted and internalized the germ theory of disease without applying to it the same standards you want to apply to evolution. I have to wonder if that's because germ theory doesn't conflict with anything else you hold to be true, while evolution potentially does.

That's a terrible joke! I like it.

Thanks. That one was inspired by watching paramecium play, using my homebuilt video-microscope.

That makes sense. Incidentally, either because of what I've seen in nature and what I know or (more likely) what I haven't seen and what I don't know, the TOE (as in all speciation by evolution) doesn't make as much sense to me. It doesn't explain or permit (to my satisfaction) a lot of what I see. Which is why I've been asking "What must I do for me to see the evidence as well.")

I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think I'm asking to know how it works. I'm asking to see it work--to witness someone catching it.

Ahh, you're right. You didn't misunderstand me -- but I slightly misunderstood you and didn't word my statement quite right. Sorry about that! Let me try that again! You had said "Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?" One doesn't need to see a pathogen attacking a cell to find out whether some sicknesses are catchy, just like one doesn't have to see in action the mechanism which brings us gravity in order to know that gravity has never failed them.

Absolutely! But there some interesting dynamics here. I (and lots of people) are more careful about things they consider important. They also tend to defend the things important to them with more fervor. My observation of human nature has shown me that the origins of everything is very important to many people, and that they will support their view on the topic with great fervor. (And I'm talking about all sides here, not just yours or mine.) I have also found that many people don't have a clue about the evidence relating to the TOE but still believe it with all their heart. I've seen all sides stretching things to try to make their argument look better. So even for these reasons alone, it is proper of me to be a little more careful when accepting evidence. Gently put, I've got a higher chance of being given false evidence regarding a hot topic like the origins of everything then I am on a topic like germ theory that isn't so fought over. Furthermore, somethings are just more important to me (and people everwhere) for example my exact understanding of germ theory doesn't really have a great bearing on my life, at least as far as I know. But the laws of motion and energy are of paramount importance while driving down the road at 55MPH. (yeah. small town.) If someone told me that cars became weightless above 55mph, I'd want to get to the bottom of it lest I go flying off the road. Another reason for me to be more careful about evidence relating to the origins of everything is because -- as you mentioned -- "Everything from nothing" not only violates my understandings of the laws of physics as we know them, but it also contradicts the Biblical account of creation, which I believe. But everybody has a starting point: Some start out believing that God did it, others start out believing that it all came from nothing, and there are other varying ideas as well. And some bright minds (Was it Dawkins?) have even proposed that maybe aliens seeded the first form of life onto the earth. Anyway, everybody starts out at some starting point believing almost everything and knowing almost nothing, then working from their starting point, experimenting, observing, and testing, either proving or disproving their beliefs, as they go. I've observed people enough to know that everybody believes strongly in something -- or strongly against something. I also appears to me that most people select evidence to fit their belief -- on all sides. So there is truth in your idea that I'm more careful when believing accounts of evidence which contradict my current belief/starting point. But there are other valid reasons too : It's a very important topic to me, it's a very important topic to those writing about the evidence (and some stretch it)(And yes some stretch it on my side too) -- and as it relates to morals it also is important. If I bet that God is not, and I lose the bet, then I didn't lose anything besides the bet. But if I bet against God, and lose the bet, now I'm in real trouble. Another reason that I ought to be careful when accepting accounts of evidence for the TOE of everything, is that I have observed a tendency for people to want there to be no God, and no such thing as wrong, so that they can do things which would be sin of God existed. So while I have a moral reason to want God to have created the universe, likewise, many of the people advocating the whole or parts of "From nothing to everything" also have a moral interest in God not existing, and in there being an explanation of how everything came to be without a God. Another aspect to it is that my core value beliefs do not require me to dogmatically reject evidences that appear to suggest that God did it, whereas evolutionary science does have a core dogma that requires it to reject any evidence which suggests a non-natural first-cause -- no matter how strong the evidence is. The problem then is that Science dogmatically rejects something which is possibly valid.

Knowing then that whatever TOE-supporting evidence is being presented to me has been filtered or selected by the dogma that there was no unnatural influence, I must realize that I may not be getting the whole picture. And I also know that given a random dataset, one can, by selecting the correct items only, get any desired result. For example, if I was given a bucket with a thousand randomly colored and randomly sized marbles, I could pick out (select) a few handfulls that clearly demonstrated that the big ones were darker, Or I could instead pick out a different set and demonstrate just the opposite. This of course is an example of the extreme, but it demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. Since I know that science has this dogma, I know that whatever evidence that will be reported by the scientists will already have been filtered by their dogma. Thus, absolutely, there are definitely reasons for one to rightly be more careful of some evidence reports then others.

Aren't you too more skeptical of some evidences then others, depending on how important the topic is, who's telling you, etc?

You are also right about my laxness about germ theory. The small amount that I do know about it makes sense. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. But I don't need to. No person can know everything about everything. Some things have to just be believed, and germ theory seems to be a safe candidate at this time for me :-)

Your post was insightful and thought provoking.
Thanks,

-Jesse

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.