The Scientific Method of Evolution

[August]

If this is not the result of genetic limits, what is it the result of? Even though evolution supposedly manifests at the macroscopic level, the variation has to happen at the molecular level.

Also, why is evolution irreversible? No mammal has ever evolved into a reptile, or reptile to amphibian etc.

Once a foundation is layed it is very dificult to change the foundations without disrupting the structure.

Cells for instances have changed very little since the first multicellular life. Once the molecular chemistry of life has been estabilished as a foundation for multicellular life any changes to such foundation would be exceedingly difficult.

In contrast for single celled life there is a great variety to the chemical pathways which can exist.

The same goes with body plans.

Once the nerve is either dorsal or ventral the pattern of an organisms is set, any additions to the system are based on this original foundation. A ventral spine on a human or reptile would be fatal.

In contrast a ventral nerve on a worm like creature is optional.

That did not answer the question. I'll ignore the normal barrage of false analogies, and move on to where it misses the point. Firstly you assert a couple of tautologies and then you move to the macroscopic manifestations.

Point mutations, i.e. base pair substitutions, of individual genes are completely reversable. (Here is one example on how to test that: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/redivc1a.html) That shows that the mechanism of macroevolution, ie the accumulation of microevolutionary mutations, is false. If it was to be true, then we would see reverse evolution, and also, extinction would be a lot less common.

In case you were wondering, I think that inversion, ie chromosome restructuring is a much better explanation for why we don't see reverse evolution, it leads to no intermediate states, and cannot ever be construed as a gradual change. Changes by this mechanism would be drastic and unpredictable, and would explain the gaps in the fossil record a lot better.

[August]

[I think you are both mistaken. There has long been an admission of genetic limits, ever since Huxley published "The Modern Synthesis"

I wasn't very clear. I meant limits from an initial position.
1) evoview - life started with one (or a few) simple systems and evolved from that to all the plants, animal, etc we see today. Examples: cats and canaries and redwoods and slimemold etc all had a common ancestor.
2) idview - life started with the creation of a number (1,000's to 100,000's?) of kinds which can only vary within the genetic limits of the original kind. Examples: lions and tigers and servals and snow leopards and ocelots etc all evolved from a common ancestor C; wolves and coyotes and dingos and dogs etc all evolved from a common ancestor D. C and D have no common ancestor and all their subsequent progeny have no more genetic information than the originals.
[Bgood has already covered other areas.]

I don't understand your point. If there was no limits from an initial perspective, why do we see, as Huxley says in the quote above "a series of blind alleys?". Evolution of new bodytypes etc should have continued ad infinitum, but they haven't, we have just seen adaptation within genetic limits. This can also be seen in numerous human breeder examples. Furthermore, the vast majority of species that ever walked the earth is extinct, further proof of genetic limits.

As for your point 2) above, please show a reference for that.

[August]

The origin of life is the first of a series. The terms of reference for the first in a series can never be totally irrelevant in establishing a sequence or series if you establish that no such first term of the series could exist when constrained by the same terms of reference.

Are you saying 1), or 2), or both 1) and 2)?
1) we have to know how life originated from non-life in order to study its subsequent development
2) we have to know it is possible for life to have originated from non-life in order to study its subsequent development

I thought I made it clear that I meant 1) only. 2) is meaningless, it is possible we live in a dreamworld and all of this is an illusion, anything is possible.

I quoted a few detailed examples on this, and saw no answer to it.

August wrote:
Stop equivocating evolution with other scientific areas to make it appear to be valid science. It must stand on it's own, not continuously compared to other areas which bear no relevance
They are not perfect analogies, but I think analogies are very useful for furthering understanding for people like me. The analogy between water flow and electrical flow is not perfect either but it makes understanding some electrical concepts easier. So at the risk of further annoyance, what is false about this analogy?
http://www.answers.com/geology&r=67 wrote:
geology: 1. The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth.
Geologists (or at least early ones) had no idea of how the earth originated; even today there is no doubt some uncertainty or disagreement about what the early earth was like. So, making an analogy with evolution, geologists cannot study the earth today because they are not sure what the early or initial earth condition (the first in a series) was. Therefore from a philosophical viewpoint, in order to study the current earth, it is first necessary to know what it was like originally. But from a scientific standpoint, the opposite is true - in order to learn anything about the early earth, it is first necessary to have a pretty good understanding of what it is like today and how it has changed recently.

Annoyance? Lol. I am merely pointing out that I see a continuous stream of false analogies, and that while you are right that analogies can help explain some concepts, at some point we have to look at the real thing.

As for your example, the processes that formed the planet are substantially different to those that form the characteristics of it's outer crust today. Despite that, geologists still include the origin of the earth as part of their study. In evolution, the elements needed for the mechanisms to act on are supposedly exactly the same between life and prelife, it's only a critical mass that differs. Also, evolution deals with the study of living things, including humans, which, to quote your earlier example: "What is the difference between a rock and an elephant?"

[BGoodForGoodSake]

That did not answer the question. I'll ignore the normal barrage of false analogies, and move on to where it misses the point. Firstly you assert a couple of tautologies and then you move to the macroscopic manifestations.

Point mutations, i.e. base pair substitutions, of individual genes are completely reversable. (Here is one example on how to test that: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/redivc1a.html) That shows that the mechanism of macroevolution, ie the accumulation of microevolutionary mutations, is false. If it was to be true, then we would see reverse evolution, and also, extinction would be a lot less common.

The accumulation of mutations alone cannot account for change. At least not the type we are talking about here. There is no reason for a species faced with a changing environment not to simply move to a more hospitible environment. Also if there is a new environment chances are that there will already be organisms living there which have the right attributes for such an environment. It's only when there is vacancy in some ecological niche that a population can take advantage of it.

And it is only environmental changes which can have the drastic selective consequences.

In case you were wondering, I think that inversion, ie chromosome restructuring is a much better explanation for why we don't see reverse evolution, it leads to no intermediate states, and cannot ever be construed as a gradual change. Changes by this mechanism would be drastic and unpredictable, and would explain the gaps in the fossil record a lot better.

Perhaps, but lets take the blod clotting mechanism as an example, vertebrates depend on presurized vascular systems, they cannot survive without this system. Wouldn't you say that once a certain level of complexity is built into a system that certain features are no longer as flexible as they once could have been in prior stages of development?

[August]

That did not answer the question. I'll ignore the normal barrage of false analogies, and move on to where it misses the point. Firstly you assert a couple of tautologies and then you move to the macroscopic manifestations.

Point mutations, i.e. base pair substitutions, of individual genes are completely reversable. (Here is one example on how to test that: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/redivc1a.html) That shows that the mechanism of macroevolution, ie the accumulation of microevolutionary mutations, is false. If it was to be true, then we would see reverse evolution, and also, extinction would be a lot less common.

The accumulation of mutations alone cannot account for change. At least not the type we are talking about here. There is no reason for a species faced with a changing environment not to simply move to a more hospitible environment. Also if there is a new environment chances are that there will already be organisms living there which have the right attributes for such an environment. It's only when there is vacancy in some ecological niche that a population can take advantage of it.

And it is only environmental changes which can have the drastic selective consequences.

This is pointless. In a previous discussion l already showed that selection cannot be distinguised from genetic drift.

" "One of the most important and controversial issues in population genetics is concerned with the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining evolutionary change. The key question at stake is whether the immense genetic variety which is observable in populations of all species is inconsequential to survival and reproduction (ie. is neutral), in which case drift will be the main determinant, or whether most gene substitutions do affect fitness, in which case natural selection is the main driving force. The arguments over this issue have been intense during the past half- century and are little nearer resolution though some would say that the drift case has become progressively stronger. Drift by its very nature cannot be positively demonstrated. To do this it would be necessary to show that selection has definitely NOT operated, which is impossible. Much indirect evidence has been obtained, however, which purports to favour the drift position. Firstly, and in many ways most persuasively is the molecular and biochemical evidence..." (Harrison, G.A., Tanner, J.M., Pilbeam, D.R. and Baker, P.T. in Human Biology 3rd ed. Oxford University Press 1988 pp 214-215)"

"In any population, some proportion of loci are fixed at a selectively unfavorable allele because the intensity of selection is insufficient to overcome the random drift to fixation. Very great skepticism should be maintained toward naive theories about evolution that assume that populations always or nearly always reach an optimal constitution under selection. The existence of multiple adaptive peaks and the random fixation of less fit alleles are integral features of the evolutionary process. Natural selection cannot be relied on to produce the best of all possible worlds." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed., W.H. Freeman, New York 1989)"

So if selection is weak at best, and mutations are reversable, how do you arrive at a conclusion that an accumulation of mutations is what causes macroevolution?

Perhaps, but lets take the blod clotting mechanism as an example, vertebrates depend on presurized vascular systems, they cannot survive without this system. Wouldn't you say that once a certain level of complexity is built into a system that certain features are no longer as flexible as they once could have been in prior stages of development?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. But you are making the correct assumption, that a certain level of complexity necessarily has to be frontloaded into a system for inversion to be valid. The prior stages of development for these complex systems by an evolutionary pathway is unknown, as we discussed many times, so inversion would be a better explanation.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This is pointless. In a previous discussion l already showed that selection cannot be distinguised from genetic drift.

" "One of the most important and controversial issues in population genetics is concerned with the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining evolutionary change. The key question at stake is whether the immense genetic variety which is observable in populations of all species is inconsequential to survival and reproduction (ie. is neutral), in which case drift will be the main determinant, or whether most gene substitutions do affect fitness, in which case natural selection is the main driving force. The arguments over this issue have been intense during the past half- century and are little nearer resolution though some would say that the drift case has become progressively stronger. Drift by its very nature cannot be positively demonstrated. To do this it would be necessary to show that selection has definitely NOT operated, which is impossible. Much indirect evidence has been obtained, however, which purports to favour the drift position. Firstly, and in many ways most persuasively is the molecular and biochemical evidence..." (Harrison, G.A., Tanner, J.M., Pilbeam, D.R. and Baker, P.T. in Human Biology 3rd ed. Oxford University Press 1988 pp 214-215)"

Yes but what if the stability no longer exists?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11368151/
In the fossil record mammals remained as shrew like animals for millions of years. What caused them to suddenly flourish?

"In any population, some proportion of loci are fixed at a selectively unfavorable allele because the intensity of selection is insufficient to overcome the random drift to fixation. Very great skepticism should be maintained toward naive theories about evolution that assume that populations always or nearly always reach an optimal constitution under selection.

Quite true.

The existence of multiple adaptive peaks and the random fixation of less fit alleles are integral features of the evolutionary process. Natural selection cannot be relied on to produce the best of all possible worlds." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed., W.H. Freeman, New York 1989)"

Certainly, there is more study required to determine how populations can undergo drastic changes. But this does'nt take away from the observation that species appear to be genetically related, we only need to find the specific route by whic this change occurred.

So if selection is weak at best, and mutations are reversable, how do you arrive at a conclusion that an accumulation of mutations is what causes macroevolution?

Not all mutations are reversible, i.e. extincted. They do accumulate. Natural selection cannot be strong if the mutation is not fatal, we know this. There has to be a change in the environment to force new selective pressures in order for large scale selection to occur. Otherwise a set of traits will coexist. But again this is just a theory which requires more observations and testing.

Perhaps, but lets take the blod clotting mechanism as an example, vertebrates depend on presurized vascular systems, they cannot survive without this system. Wouldn't you say that once a certain level of complexity is built into a system that certain features are no longer as flexible as they once could have been in prior stages of development?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. But you are making the correct assumption, that a certain level of complexity necessarily has to be frontloaded into a system for inversion to be valid. The prior stages of development for these complex systems by an evolutionary pathway is unknown, as we discussed many times, so inversion would be a better explanation.

What is inversion?

After you answer this question I think I will put this issue to rest.
The next time an individual such as wall-dog challenges me to show how evolution follows the scientific process I will refer them to this thread.

At this point it seem that this thread has turned into a thread focusing on the merits of the theory itself and not on its use of the scientific method, so I will let it rest.

[August]

What is inversion?

A chromosome segment is removed, turned upside down and reinserted.

I will also let the issue rest, since it is clear that despite all the claims of how the scientific method is used, there really is not much to support the validity of the theory, other than claims to use the scientific method. There was no experimental proof for macroevolution demonstrated, only inference from microevolution, and that falls in the face of reversable point mutations, and the related inability to distiguish between mutation and natural selection.

[August]

Hey, thanks for the long reply.

i'm sorry about the misinterpretation. those sciences don't use as much experimentation in the traditional sense. but they still rely on experimentation just as much, only that it is a different kind. developing mathematical equations is as much experimentation as growing different crops to determine their nutrient efficiency. it is still possible to develop a mathematical theory that appears correct, but could have some flaw in how it relates to the real world. that is why physics is a constantly changing science, especially quantum physics.

So when ID scientists use the explanatory filter with probability calculations, that is the same. The point is that experimentation, and the scientific method has a pretty wide definition, and you can apply it to many areas. The question then becomes is anything you apply the scientific method to considered science?

i know that human consciousness is a study, and one that i am particularly interested in. but about extra-sensory perception i am not sure. there doesn't really seem to be any evidence in favor of that kind of thing.

Them ESP scientists will tell you different. In the case of human consciousness studies, do you consider that to be valid scientific investigation?

everything must be caused by a physical force because if it isn't, it doesn't affect our universe. if it affects our universe, then it creates evidence of itself in the universe that we are able to observe. we might not be advanced enough to see all of it, but we are still able to become advanced enough. the fact is that there can be no inherent difference between physical and supernatural forces because they both can affect this world and therefore they both have a physical presence. be it gravity, electromagnetism, god, light, matter, they all cause the universe to change in certain ways and that means that they are physical--they can be observed and explained in physical terms.

The problem with your statement is infinite regress. If you talk about electromagnetism as a force, and you say everything must be caused by a physical force, what is the force that caused electromagnetism? And what force caused the force that caused electromagnetism? How about the force that caused the force that caused the force that caused electromagnetism? And so forth....That leads us nowhere. However, we know the universe had a beginning, so some force outside of the physical universe had to have caused it to exist, because everyhting that begins to exist has a cause. Logically we don't need the infinite regress then, and we are debating the identity and nature of the force that caused the universe, and by default the forces and governing laws in it. This is where I sharply differ from you when you lump together God with all the other forces you mention, all of those forces can be traced back to the beginning of the universe. However, God is the force that caused all of those forces.

if something affects our universe, no matter how miniscule that effect is, it leaves some kind of a mark behind. an effect can reveal the cause and every effect has a cause. every cause leaves behind an effect that we are able to observe. the supernatural is explained as having no physical presence. having no physical presence, it cannot have an effect on our universe. if it doesn't have an effect in our universe, it cannot be the cause of anything. if there is no possible observable effects of something, then it doesn't exist. i'm not saying that if we don't find any effects of it, it doesn't exist, but rather that there can be no such thing as a supernatural and that anything is labelled such is better explained as a physical force. that is what naturalism says. i don't really know what you were asking, but that is what i believe.

That was not what I was asking, no, and you just repeated wht you said above.

the evidence is in genetics. recombination of genes allows for a wide variety of change within just one genotype. mistakes in the copying (mutations) allow for even more diversity. thus, change occurs every generation, and each new organism is different from any other. there is no 'new material' that is created, it is just reorganization of amino patterns. all cells are made of different patterns of the same fundamental molecules but the organization and the amount are what makes the difference between a bear and a butterfly. so each new organism is an evolutionary change. i am an evolutionary change from my parents because i have a combination of their reorganized genes (with maybe a few small mistakes in the copying). change occurs in each generation.

Uh, no. I already explained how that does not work elsewhere in this thread.

yes, to some extent. if an organism becomes so balanced with its ecosystem that there is no more drastic population change, then its genes get passed on with little change. this is shown by the unchanged existence of insects and sharks and some reptiles. they fit so well into their niches that there are no (or few) environmental factors which prevent a large amount of them from reproducing.

i don't really know if we can disprove evolution without taking the time and effort to. the only way i can think of would be to observe many different types of organisms in many different environments over the course of hundreds to thousands of years. it just takes that long. or, perhaps if we created a contained environment and made it such that it would be the best environment to make certain organisms evolve, we could observe if it happens, or how it happens. that might be our best bet, as it would take less (relatively) time.

How many generations would you consider to be adequate time for macroevolutionary changes?

after thinking about it for a while, i honestly can't say that evolution might be false. it might be inaccurate, but i don't think the idea is untrue. its like trying to disprove god. to me, both god and evolution are not actual things or entities, but the collective interactions of everything--everything. evolution is a tool of creation, as i have said a few times before. i do think that most people, including many scientists, have an unclear or skewed perspective on evolution and perhaps this is why so many people don't agree with it. when i think of evolution, i don't think of theories or scientists talking about their ideas of evolution, i think of interactions in the world around me that i have observed first hand.

There we have it folks, God and evolution as equals....

You are certainly entitled to your definition of God, but you are wrong. That is not a topic for this thread though.

As for evolutuion as a tool of creation, I have previously misunderstood you. I believe you said that for you evolution does not mean Darwinian or modern synthesis evolution? Until you define exactly what it is you mean by evolution, I cannot answer that.

i beg to differ. we are all made of cells and these cells all have similar basic processes. the short lifecycle only means that evolution can occur faster because gene recombination is more often. yes, there is a lot of filling in between the glimpses that we see (i assume you are talking about fossils). but this agrees with the theory of evolution in that it takes a lot of time for organisms to change. there is a lot of filling in to do between animals that we see, but there was a lot of time between them that we haven't observed.

Ok, why don't you show experimental proof of macroevolution at the cellular level? The drosphila experiments have gone on for close to 100 years, and no macroevolution, they are still drosphila....

i was trying to imply that biologists are not as nearly philosophical about their job as you make them out to be. they don't always think about the origin of life, or about the rammifications of evolution. they observe life, and they record the circumstances of that observation. there is no philosophy in that. if you read through their experiements you can see the raw data and how they interpret it, and you can see if they put a bias into their conclusions or not. this is why theories are constantly being attacked and disproven.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Their a-priori assumptions in the scientific method are philosophical assumptions, so their conclusions will necessarily be subject to those assumptions. However minute and detailed their conclusions may be, they are still subject to the methodological assumptions.

a theory can be very reliable even if one or more of the axioms is unkown. you know why? because it is consistent with our observations of the world around us.

Huh? That makes no sense. An axiom is a given, something that you take to be self-evident before coming to a conclusion. If the axiom is not known, you have no starting point, and you are begging the question. You prove that with your statement that "t is consistent with our observations of the world around us." I am because I am.....

i don't see whay you're trying to get at here. the origin of life doesn't need to be axiomatic, it is a given.

I don't mean to be condascending, but if you are going to debate, please know what you are talking about. Axiomatic means practically the same as "a given." However, the point is that something can only be a given if it is self-evident or proven, and the origin of life is neither in the case of evolution, since it supposedly uses the same mechanisms and elements that came from prelife. You cannot logcally apply those mechanisms to the subsequent in the series if they did not apply to the first.

we know that there is life, it doesn't matter if it started or not. you're saying that the origin of life must be part of evolution because i don't take for granted that life began? well i [/i]don't[/i] take the origin of life for granted. we don't know that there was a real beginning to life. we don't even know if the term 'life' can be confined to just cells.

If there was no real beginning to life, where did it come from?

i would not include the origin of life with evolution because it is not the spreading of genes, it is the development of genes. but at the same time, i could say that it is included because what is the development of genes but the evolution of collective molecules? i think that life developed because these basic molecular building blocks came together through natural processes (which i do not distinguish from god, because god is in everything) and because of their organisation, they were able to replicate. i don't believe in a sudden change from colletive molecules to life, i think the transition is only from simple to more complicated.

You are doing a pretty good job debating yourself here....so I will just let you get on with that.

[aa118816]

"Certainly, there is more study required to determine how populations can undergo drastic changes. But this does'nt take away from the observation that species appear to be genetically related, we only need to find the specific route by whic this change occurred"

BGood- This statement is exactly why evotheists are dishonest. Here are the facts:

1. There is more study required and you do not "only need to find the specific route by which this change occured", you have to prove that a route exists that made the change occur.
2. You quote begs the question as you assume that evolutionary theory is fact without the proof to back up your assertion.
3. If this were real science instead of naturalistic philosophy, the quote would read, "We need to investigate further to see if there is a specific route that would enable a change like this to occur."

If science were taught without the naturalistic filter, there would be no problem. The fact is that you beg the question when you venture away from using the scientific method in an observable manner. For instance, on the other thread I chimed in on, the Whale Phylogeny was shown to be a farce. The artists that drew feet where there are fins is nothing more than a modern day Peking Man impersonator.

Dan

[BGoodForGoodSake]

"Certainly, there is more study required to determine how populations can undergo drastic changes. But this does'nt take away from the observation that species appear to be genetically related, we only need to find the specific route by whic this change occurred"

BGood- This statement is exactly why evotheists are dishonest. Here are the facts:

1. There is more study required and you do not "only need to find the specific route by which this change occured", you have to prove that a route exists that made the change occur.
2. You quote begs the question as you assume that evolutionary theory is fact without the proof to back up your assertion.
3. If this were real science instead of naturalistic philosophy, the quote would read, "We need to investigate further to see if there is a specific route that would enable a change like this to occur."

If science were taught without the naturalistic filter, there would be no problem. The fact is that you beg the question when you venture away from using the scientific method in an observable manner. For instance, on the other thread I chimed in on, the Whale Phylogeny was shown to be a farce. The artists that drew feet where there are fins is nothing more than a modern day Peking Man impersonator.

Dan

ok...
Think of the camel and the llama. We know they are related, they are genetically compatible, they share much of the same genome and they are physically similar. But we don't know the route of devlopment.

The route... I'll let it go.

[aa118816]

In fact, that seems like a fair statement and if science were taught this way, there would be no problems from the majority of rational people. Naturalism may be true (or undirected evolutionary theory), but you have to prove that it is true. Also, I would not disagree that llama's and camel's may have a shared ancestor. This certainly would not be startling.

Dan

[Byblos]

ok...
Think of the camel and the llama. We know they are related, they are genetically compatible, they share much of the same genome and they are physically similar. But we don't know the route of devlopment.

The route... I'll let it go.

In fact, that seems like a fair statement and if science were taught this way, there would be no problems from the majority of rational people. Naturalism may be true (or undirected evolutionary theory), but you have to prove that it is true. Also, I would not disagree that llama's and camel's may have a shared ancestor. This certainly would not be startling.

Dan

Totally agree. If the self-proclaimed neo-darwinist evolutionists would step off their high horses and fully recognize evolution's limitations, the need for ID would greatly diminish. But alas, I do not see that happening. In fact the battle is gearing up to a level of intensity never before seen, and rightfully so. The hypocrisy that unproven evolutionary assumptions can be taught as fact, but that is a luxury not afforded to ID is simply ridiculous and intolerable.

[aa118816]

"everything must be caused by a physical force because if it isn't, it doesn't affect our universe. if it affects our universe, then it creates evidence of itself in the universe that we are able to observe. we might not be advanced enough to see all of it, but we are still able to become advanced enough. the fact is that there can be no inherent difference between physical and supernatural forces because they both can affect this world and therefore they both have a physical presence. be it gravity, electromagnetism, god, light, matter, they all cause the universe to change in certain ways and that means that they are physical--they can be observed and explained in physical terms."

This statement is purely metaphysical. I recommend that you read up on the Kalam Argument as your argument is well countered by the fact that an infinite regress is a potential infinity, not an actual infinity. Also, how do you know that there is not something outside fo the Universe that caused the Universe? Do you have ESP?

I recommend that you view any debate William Lane Craig has been in. JP Moreland has very strong arguments against your broad assertions. Also, your reductionist tactics beg the question because final reductionism has not proven to be fact. There are plenty of causes which are not physical. For instance, is the mind physical? If so, prove it. Are thoughts physical? Is love physical? Is anger physical? Are numbers physical? Is logic physical?

Dan

[Wall-dog]

Think of the camel and the llama. We know they are related, they are genetically compatible, they share much of the same genome and they are physically similar. But we don't know the route of devlopment.

I made a nice, long post earlier that BeGood seems to have ignored. I would suggest that before BeGood continues using genetics as an argument he respond to the problems I brought up with using genetics as evidence for evolution. I'll re-post the relevant portions:

As for the molecular evidence you use to try to show a common ancestor prior to the Cambrian, Dr. Wells discusses this as well:

Quote:
You can't get molecular evidence from the fossils themselves; all of it comes from living organisms. You take a molecule that's basic to life - say ribosomal RNA - and you examine it in a starfish, and then you study its equivalent in a snale, a worm, and a frog. You're looking for similarities. If you compare this one molecule across different categories of animal body plans and find similarities, and if you make the assumption that they came from a common ancestor, then you can construct a theoretical evolutionary tree.

But there are too many problems with this. If you compare this molecular tree with a tree based on anatomy, you get a different tree. You can examine another molecule and come up with another tree altogether. In fact, if you give one molecule to two different laboratories, you can get two different trees. There's no consistency, including with the dating. It's all over the board. Based on this, I think it's reasonable for me, as a scientist, to say that maybe we should question our assumption that this common ancestor exists.

Of course, descent from a common ancestor is true at some levels. Nobody denies that. For example, we can trace generations of fruit flies to a common ancestor. Within a single species, common ancestry has been observed directly. And it's possible that all cats - tigers, lions, and so on - descended from a common ancestor. While that's not a fact, it might be a reasonable inference based on interbreeding.

So as we go up these different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy - species, genus, family, order, class - common ancestory is certainly true at the species level, but is it true at higher levels? It becomes an increasingly uncertain inference the higher we go in the taxonomic hierarchy. When you get to the phyla, the major animal groups, it's a very, very shaky hypothesis. In fact, I would say it's disconfirmed. The evidence just doesn't support it.


He was talking about the red letters you posted earlier...

I agree with you that creatures with a common ancestor would likely follow similar developmental routes, but when you look at different embryos of different species you don't see that. The embryos you see compared are not early-stage embryos but rather embryos in the middle of their developmental stages. Earlier on they don't look similar at all.

Wells:

Quote:
Remember Darwin claimed that because the embrios are most similar in their early stages, this is evidence of common ancestry. He thought that the early stage showed what the common ancestor looked like - sort of like a fish.

But embryologists talk about the 'developmental hourglass,' which refers to the shape of an hourglass, with its width representing the measure of difference. You see, vertebrate embryos start out looking very different in the early cell division stages. The cell divisions in a mammal, for example, are radically different from those in any of the other classes. There's no possible way you could mix them up. In fact, it's extremely different within classes. The patterns are all over the place.

Then at the midpoint - which is what Haeckel claimed in his drawings was the early stage - the embryos become more similar though nowhere near as much as Haeckel claimed. Then they become very different again.


The use of molecular evidence is back-peddling too. Also from Wells:

Quote:
As I said, it's just false that embryos are most similar in their earliest development. Of course, some Darwinists try to get around Haeckel's problems by changing their tune. They use evolutionary theory to try to explain why the differences in the embryos are there. They can get quite elaborate.

But that's doing the same thing that the theory-savers were doing with the Cambrian explosion. What was supposed to be primary evidence for Darwin's theory - the fossil or embryo evidence - turns out to be false, so they immediately say, well, we know the theory's true, so let's use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn't fit.

But then, where's the evidence for the theory? That's what I'd like to know. Why should I accept the theory as being true at all?


Similarities in design are often used as 'evidence' for evolution, including in your posts. Sadly though similarities prove nothing. Wells:

Quote:
The explanation can go either way: design or descent with modification.


And:

Quote:
Actually, these homologies were described by Darwin's predecessors - and they were not evolutionists. Richard Owen, who was the most famous anatomist of Darwin's time, said they pointed to a common archetype or design, not toward descent with modification.


More on common developmental pathways and similar genes (from Wells):

Quote:
One is called 'common developmental pathways,' which means if you have two different animals with homologous features and you trace them back to the embryo, they would come from similar cells and processes. This happens to be mostly untrue.

I mentioned frogs earlier. There are some frogs that develop like frogs and other frogs that develop like birds, but they all look pretty much the same when they come out the other end. They're frogs. So the developmental pathway explanation is false - I don't think anybody who studies development and takes it seriously.

A more common explanation nowadays is that homologies come from similar genes. In other words, the reason two features are homologous in two different animals would be that they're programmed by similar genes in the embryo. But it turns out this doesn't work very well either. We know some cases where you have similar features that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of cases where we have similar genes that give rise to very different features.


My favorite Wells illustration about the folly of genetic similarities as proof of evolution comes when he is asked about Mankind sharing 98 or 99% of our genes with apes:

Quote:
If you assume, as neo-Darwinism does, that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences between us and chimpanzees are due to two percent of our genes. The problem is that the so-called body-building genes are in the ninety-eight percent. The two percent of genes that are different are really rather trivial genes that have little to do with anatomy. So the supposed similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA is a problem for neo-Darwinism right there.


The biggest problem with the theory of evolution though is in the fossil record. Fossils, while problematic for usage in proving theories, are never-the-less useful to disprove theories. Theories should at least be verified as plausible within the fossil record. Dr. Michael Denton, in his book 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,' illustrates the fossil record's debunking of evolution:

Quote:
The univeral experience of palentology... [is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life...what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.


Denton concludes that the fossil record "provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution."

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Think of the camel and the llama. We know they are related, they are genetically compatible, they share much of the same genome and they are physically similar. But we don't know the route of devlopment.

I made a nice, long post earlier that BeGood seems to have ignored. I would suggest that before BeGood continues using genetics as an argument he respond to the problems I brought up with using genetics as evidence for evolution. I'll re-post the relevant portions:

Science will continue to collect and analyze the data,
and will continue to experiment and collect the results.

The findings were posted, I don't need to refute someone else's opinions.