Evidence for God from Science

BeGood,

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

Re-read it. Those weren't opinions. Nothing you've posted about genetics carries any weight.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

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

Re-read it. Those weren't opinions. Nothing you've posted about genetics carries any weight.

As I said this thread was to show how evolution is based on the use of the scientific method to conduct experiments and collect observations. I am not interested in arguing indirectly with someone else. It is quite clear you have made up your mind about what you think of the theory. So I will leave it at that. If you want to argue about evolution there are plenty of discussion boards available for that express purpose.

August wrote:Hey, thanks for the long reply.

Zenith wrote: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?

yes, i believe it would be. but there are always differing views of what science is, and some of them do not create as accurate results as others. everyone that i would classify as a scientist knows that you have to have some level of dissassociation when conducting an experiment so that you have a more naive and less biased perspective on the data you recieve.

August wrote:

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?

yes, i've read of a few credible scientific studies concerning human consciousness.

August wrote:

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.

i don't think it really works that way. forces such as electromagnetism are based on specific attributes that our universe has. they are inherent interactions of energy. the cause of these forces is the structure of our universe. you can't look at every cause as being the same type of cause. the cause of the fundamental forces is not a force itself, it is a shape, or a constant. electromagnetism and gravity describe interactionsof energy and matter, they are not actual things themselves.

we don't know that the universe had a beginning. whatever the big bang was, there had to be something there before it, even if it was just god himself, he was there before the universe. i am not lumping god along with the other forces, though it might've seemed like it. i am saying that these fundamental forces can be compared to god because they are constant and they have an effect on our universe, but they are not tangible; they are interactions. you cannot 'find' gravity and prove it by seeing gravity, you have to prove it by seeing how it affects other things.

also, i don't believe in beginnings of anything. everything that exists now has always existed, but the form in which it has existed is constantly changing. i believe that if god were alone before the universe, then we are all a part of god now. but if there was energy present seperate from god, then god could be a force outside of our known universe (though he would still be a cause in our universe).

August wrote:

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.

could you rephrase your question then? and sorry about the repeating, i have a tendancy to say the same thing in different words for a better chance of people understanding me.

August wrote:

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.

could you maybe copy/paste it again for me?

August wrote:

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?

depends on how fast they reproduce and any drastic unbalancing environmental changes that occur. evolution occurs a lot faster when there is mass extinction or a large availability of unused habitat. but i think i would wager (guesstimate, i don't really know much about this area) 400,000 years to over a million. again, some species evolve faster or slower because of their genes, the effect of their environment, their reproduction rate, and availability of unused resources.

August wrote:

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 am not saying god and evolution are equal forces and i think you are just saying that because you don't like my ideas. i think you know that is not what i was implying. and how do you know i am wrong, have you met god?

my definition of evolution:
the inherent interaction between the composition of an organism's dna and its environment. i believe that change in an organism's genes is directly related to changes in its environment and that none of it--not even mutations caused by error--is random. i believe that there are so many variables in how these changes effect each other that it is easily possible for an intelligent designer to be subltely in control of the overall process without leaving behind too many clues of its presence.

reproduction causes gene recombination, which is like having thousands of different colored tiles rearranged seemingly randomly to create different images; its not necessarily new information, but what it creates is something unique from everything else. whole gene sets are carried over from the parents, which is what makes the offspring similar to the parent. but they are put in different orders, which is what makes them appear slightly different. sometimes there is an error made when copying a base pair, and that particular base is not what it was in the parent gene. this causes a difference in the gene set which makes it unique from even that of its ancestors. most of the time this error is benign or even detrimental to the organism's survival, but sometimes it is actually helpful to them--it all depends on the environment that the organism is in. perhaps the error would cause a wolf to have thicker hair. if the wolf lived in the tropics, it would probably get too hot and be less fit, making it less able to survive and pass on its genes. but if that same wolf lived in a cold region, then it would be able to retain its energy better and would have a better chance of survival, as would its offspring. this wolf would go to more colder climates because there would be less competition there and it would be able to find more food and have more territory without rivals. it would fill a different niche and it would affect the environment it has found.

this process continues, a certain lineage of an organism has a mutation, or certain advantageous genes from its ancestors which allow it to survive in a harsher, or different habitat; it moves into that habitat and there is a stricter selection for individuals with those genes which are favorable to that environment. recombination isolates those genes, strengthening them, and mutation allows for more rapid change.

the theory of the evolution of certain predacious dinosaurs into birds shows how this works (if it is true). these small raptors started growing feathers on their arms. the feathers allowed them to run with more agility and balance, enabling them to evade predators better, since they were small. through recombination, these feather genes became more dominant (evidenced by mendel's experiments). what i believe is that sexual selection caused these feathers to become more pronounced and larger. as they got bigger, they allowed these small dinosaurs to make longer jumps, giving them a better chance of escaping predation; another factor that made these genes more dominant. eventually their feathers became so pronounced that they were able to glide and finally to fly. in gaining flight, they were able to fill in new niches

August wrote:

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....

perhaps they are still drosphila because they are still able to reproduce in enough numbers and there is no threat to their existence. maybe they have not been threatened by extinction in any way for so long that their dna has evolved to resist change, like cochroaches or sharks. asking for experimental proof of evolution is like asking for experimental proof that the star alpha centauri exists--we can see its light, but that light took 4 years to get here and it would take us hundreds of years to get there. we're not gonna find out anytime soon, so we have to assume that it is there until we know for sure.

August wrote:

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.

not everyone has as strong beliefs concerning evolution as you and i do. most people don't think about it almost everyday. there are secular scientists, there are muslim scientists, there are christian scientists, i'm sure there are scientists from many different philosophies and religions. and there are even some of these working on evolutionary ideas. the problem is, if so many theists want to discredit evolution, they need to study it first and accept it as a theory in order to try to disprove it. most do not do this and the ones that attempt to often interpret important aspects of it wrongly just because they have a bias against it. i think there needs to be more religious scientists who don't necessarily believe in evolution, but accept it as a theory and study it as much as any atheist scientist in order to try to disprove it. this would speed things up very much, because there would be a counter to those who believe evolution as fact.

August wrote:

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.....

the axiom here is that life is. it is no more than that. we cannot say that life began because we don't know that. the only thing we know for sure is that life exists. it is impossible to know the starting point of everything, so we have to assume most of it in order to start somewhere. if we don't take things for granted, then we have nowhere to start and we get nowhere.

August wrote:

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.

i don't think i was fully understanding what you were saying, so i think we agree on this point; the origin of life is not taken for granted in evolution. the same processes that were at work before life, are what developed what we define as life, and are what causes evolution in life. but we don't know if there was a beginning to life.

but that doesn't mean that we cannot make assumptions about life; we are still able to observe life now. just because you did not see the beginning of a movie, doesn't mean you can't make accurate observations of what is currently going on in the movie, or accurate inferences as to what has already happened in the movie.

August wrote:

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 don't 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?

who knows. maybe it is eternal, like god. maybe it is something that cannot really be defined like we define it.

August wrote:

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.

i have trouble making up my mind because i don't really make strict distinctions between things; in reality there isn't nearly as much seperation between things as what we make up through language. our words have a way of decieving us to make us define things in a more black and white view instead of everythnig being a part of everyting else and everything having some interaction with everything else.

aa118816 wrote:"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?

the only way i can see the kalam argument working is if the first cause existed eternally. but this would be a sort of infinite regress as well. i really can't see existence of anything without an infinite past because there can be no beginning to everything. 1 does not spring from 0.

there cannot be anything outside the universe, by definition. there can be stuff outside the visible universe, but the actual universe is everything that exists, period. there are theoretical physics describing what exists outside of our observed universe, but it is still physical and it still affects our universe, therefore it is still possible to observe it, though we haven't yet.

aa118816 wrote: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?

note that i did not say that everything was physical. i said that everything must be caused by a physical force. the mind, love, anger, numbers and logic are all intangible and abstract. but they are all caused by physical things. they are all interactions of physical matter and energy. without these physical entities, the abstracts do not exist. as such, the characteristics of the physical things can reveal information about the intangible things. these intangible things are not supernatural, they are just interactions of physical matter and energy. thank you for the recommendation though, i'll look into it.

i do not view myself as a reductionist. i don't like using philosophical labels because their definitions are too defined for my beliefs.

As I said this thread was to show how evolution is based on the use of the scientific method to conduct experiments and collect observations. I am not interested in arguing indirectly with someone else. It is quite clear you have made up your mind about what you think of the theory. So I will leave it at that. If you want to argue about evolution there are plenty of discussion boards available for that express purpose.

So then you are saying that the use of expert testimony to back up my claims weakens the argument?

The problem with the 'theory' of evolution BeGood is that it has been disproven at the macro-level. When theories (or parts of theories) are disproven they must either be modified or (at least in part) discarded. Nobody has thus far been able to modify the 'theory' of evolution to explain how it occurred at the macro level. When they try they keep hitting dead-ends as you have done with genetics. The simple truth is that you can use genetics to give you any result you want. You don't get a tree with genetics - you get a forest. There is no consistency, no repeatability, and thus no valid scientific methodology.

I won't discount that evolution was a legitimate theory when Darwin wrote his books, but it is not a legitimate theory at the macro-level today. We can say, quite conclusively, that it never happened at the phyla level.

Wall-dog wrote:

As I said this thread was to show how evolution is based on the use of the scientific method to conduct experiments and collect observations. I am not interested in arguing indirectly with someone else. It is quite clear you have made up your mind about what you think of the theory. So I will leave it at that. If you want to argue about evolution there are plenty of discussion boards available for that express purpose.

So then you are saying that the use of expert testimony to back up my claims weakens the argument?

The problem with the 'theory' of evolution BeGood is that it has been disproven at the macro-level. When theories (or parts of theories) are disproven they must either be modified or (at least in part) discarded. Nobody has thus far been able to modify the 'theory' of evolution to explain how it occurred at the macro level. When they try they keep hitting dead-ends as you have done with genetics. The simple truth is that you can use genetics to give you any result you want. You don't get a tree with genetics - you get a forest. There is no consistency, no repeatability, and thus no valid scientific methodology.

I won't discount that evolution was a legitimate theory when Darwin wrote his books, but it is not a legitimate theory at the macro-level today. We can say, quite conclusively, that it never happened at the phyla level.

uhm... where has it been disproven and by who?

Wall-dog wrote: So then you are saying that the use of expert testimony to back up my claims weakens the argument?

No, what I am saying is that even though I address the issues you bring up, you continue as if I had never said a word.

Wall-dog wrote:The problem with the 'theory' of evolution BeGood is that it has been disproven at the macro-level.

The problem with this thread is that you keep repeating yourself, it's like a mantra.

Wall-dog wrote:When theories (or parts of theories) are disproven they must either be modified or (at least in part) discarded. Nobody has thus far been able to modify the 'theory' of evolution to explain how it occurred at the macro level.

I can clearly tell that you haven't properly researched the subject. Please stop badgering me to continue with this subject.

Wall-dog wrote:When they try they keep hitting dead-ends as you have done with genetics. The simple truth is that you can use genetics to give you any result you want. You don't get a tree with genetics - you get a forest. There is no consistency, no repeatability, and thus no valid scientific methodology.

Again I doubt you have analyzed the data yourself, this is far from the truth. The relationships may be hazy in some areas but that is what is to expected, we are just beginning to crack the code. Generally there are relatively few inconsistencies.

Wall-dog wrote:I won't discount that evolution was a legitimate theory when Darwin wrote his books, but it is not a legitimate theory at the macro-level today. We can say, quite conclusively, that it never happened at the phyla level.

Again this only illustrates your misunderstanding of the theory. Why do you distinguish the phyla level from the species level? Do you not realize what you are talking about?

Zenith,

Dr. Wells in a quote on page two or three of this thread. It was one of my posts.

BeGood,

I fail to see how your continued use of genetic evidence refutes the problems involved with using genetics as evidence for evolution. Until you can explain the problems with genetic evidence that I posted earlier, I would ask that you stop using it because it is meaningless.

Why should I stop quoting experts? I've posted the qualifications of everyone I've quoted. You seem to think that I and everyone else here should take your opinion and hold it above some of the best scientific minds in the United States. Perhaps you should tell me why I should listen to you instead of some of the best scientific minds in their respective fields? There is no reason for me to post my opinions or subjections I come up with on my own unless I can support them. Arguing without evidence and without qualifications serves nothing but ego. The point of this thread is to see how well evolution stacks up against the scientific method. I have no desire to stroke my ego in the process so I'll keep quoting others to support my arguments.

Wall-dog wrote:Zenith,

Dr. Wells in a quote on page two or three of this thread. It was one of my posts.

i reread your posts in the thread. wells brings up some good points, though some of it is just misinterpretation of the theory of evolution. but he centers too much of his evidence against evolution on the fossil record. there is no proof in any of your quotes of wells' that shows evolution is false; his main arguments are personal logic.

the cambrian explosion could be explained by a worldwide disaster. something that wipes out a majority of the life on earth at the time as well as a majority of the fossils. it would have happened midway between the start of evolution of simple organisms into more complex ones and when all the fossils we've found from that period first fossilized. the majority of fossils of organisms in the process of evolving into those that we know from after the cambrian explosion would have been destroyed without a trace while the more simpler ones and the ones that were able to survive disaster continued to evolve into the organisms of the cambrian explosion. the increased rate of evolutionary change would be due to the large amount of available space and minerals for consumption; i.e. less competition=more variation. there are any number of explanations for the cambrian explosion, you don't have to stick to one just because you believe the theory of evolution is incorrect.

i reread your posts in the thread. wells brings up some good points, though some of it is just misinterpretation of the theory of evolution. but he centers too much of his evidence against evolution on the fossil record. there is no proof in any of your quotes of wells' that shows evolution is false; his main arguments are personal logic.

The topic of this thread is 'The Scientific Method of Evolution.' I think you just illustrated that there is none. Consider that your arguments in favor of evolution all center on explaining why evolution might be possible in spite of all the evidence against it. Usually hypothesis must actually pass tests. Evolution not only qualifies as being falsifiable but it has actually been falsified. All of the evidence points against it.

the cambrian explosion could be explained by a worldwide disaster. something that wipes out a majority of the life on earth at the time as well as a majority of the fossils. it would have happened midway between the start of evolution of simple organisms into more complex ones and when all the fossils we've found from that period first fossilized. the majority of fossils of organisms in the process of evolving into those that we know from after the cambrian explosion would have been destroyed without a trace while the more simpler ones and the ones that were able to survive disaster continued to evolve into the organisms of the cambrian explosion. the increased rate of evolutionary change would be due to the large amount of available space and minerals for consumption; i.e. less competition=more variation. there are any number of explanations for the cambrian explosion, you don't have to stick to one just because you believe the theory of evolution is incorrect.

Once again - all this does is provide a hypothetical (and somewhat absurd IMHO) proposal to explain why the fossil record points so conclusively away from evolution.

BeGood,

I'm not going to badger you to continue. All I'm going to do is point out that you used genetics as the backbone for your argument on evolution and I showed how genetic evidence is flawed. You continued to use genetic arguments without discussing the inherent problems of using genetics in evolution. If you send the same genes to different labs you get different trees. That's pretty conclusive evidence that the genetic arguments are inherently flawed. And that was just ONE of the problems. I pointed out that you were still using genetics and asked that you support the use of genetics or stop using them as the basis for your arguments. Then you went into some kind of babble about me repeating myself. What-ev-er. Everyone on this board can hit the back button to re-read this thread. We all know who has been repeating himself.

If you don't want to continue this discussion, that is your decision to make.

Wall-dog wrote:The topic of this thread is 'The Scientific Method of Evolution.' I think you just illustrated that there is none. Consider that your arguments in favor of evolution all center on explaining why evolution might be possible in spite of all the evidence against it. Usually hypothesis must actually pass tests. Evolution not only qualifies as being falsifiable but it has actually been falsified. All of the evidence points against it.

you're taking my words the wrong way. i was simply showing that his interpretation of the evidence is not the only interpretation, and it is not the only thing that could be true. there are other factors in how we see the fossil record. and if you had been reading my posts you would know that my arguments for evolution do not center on explaining why evolution might be possible in spite of the evidence against it. only this last post has. most of what we observe supports the theory of evolution. you seem to be only looking at what anti-evolutionists theorize. also, it would be arrogant and immature to say that all evidence contradicts the theory of evolution. most of it is widely interpretable anyways, especially the fossil record.

Wall-dog wrote:

the cambrian explosion could be explained by a worldwide disaster. something that wipes out a majority of the life on earth at the time as well as a majority of the fossils. it would have happened midway between the start of evolution of simple organisms into more complex ones and when all the fossils we've found from that period first fossilized. the majority of fossils of organisms in the process of evolving into those that we know from after the cambrian explosion would have been destroyed without a trace while the more simpler ones and the ones that were able to survive disaster continued to evolve into the organisms of the cambrian explosion. the increased rate of evolutionary change would be due to the large amount of available space and minerals for consumption; i.e. less competition=more variation. there are any number of explanations for the cambrian explosion, you don't have to stick to one just because you believe the theory of evolution is incorrect.

Once again - all this does is provide a hypothetical (and somewhat absurd IMHO) proposal to explain why the fossil record points so conclusively away from evolution.

you're entitled to your opinion; one could say the same thing about ID. i did not say this was what happened, but it could have.

Wall-dog wrote: BeGood,

I'm not going to badger you to continue. All I'm going to do is point out that you used genetics as the backbone for your argument on evolution and I showed how genetic evidence is flawed. You continued to use genetic arguments without discussing the inherent problems of using genetics in evolution. If you send the same genes to different labs you get different trees.

Where did you get this? This is not the case.

Wall-dog wrote:That's pretty conclusive evidence that the genetic arguments are inherently flawed. And that was just ONE of the problems. I pointed out that you were still using genetics and asked that you support the use of genetics or stop using them as the basis for your arguments. Then you went into some kind of babble about me repeating myself. What-ev-er. Everyone on this board can hit the back button to re-read this thread. We all know who has been repeating himself.

If you don't want to continue this discussion, that is your decision to make.

Very well lets address the points.

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.

Did Dr. Wells really misspell snail?
=P

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.

Yes one certainly can.

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 do, because there are possibilities for phylogenic similarities, for instance multiple occurances of venom in snakes or other examples of convergent evolution. The genetic evidence is stronger than phylogenic trees based on physical features. For instance the hyenna is more closely related to cats than dogs altho many would think the reverse.

You can examine another molecule and come up with another tree altogether.

Again one has to analyse many different genes to get the most likely tree. Because one can get small anomolies is does not invalidate a method. For instance one can use one method to diagnose a disease and come up negative and use another test to come up positive, this dowes not invalidate the first test. This is a strange objection, does one really expect that analysis of a single gene should lead to a complete and perfect tree? That's unreasonable and shows a misunderstanding of the technique.

In fact, if you give one molecule to two different laboratories, you can get two different trees.

Care to share the source? Where is the data to show this is the case. In any comparative analysis of genes multiple statisticle methods are used, they will yield different results, but not drastic as you seem to be imagining.

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.

The assumption is not based on statisticle analysis. It is based on the fact that genes for different animals have inactive sections which can have any sequence. Yet they are similar. Why? Why not have all the same sequence? Or why not have random sequences?

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.

If it occurs at certain levels how can it be shown that it does not occur at higher "levels". What defines levels? How can you show these levels statistically through gene analysis? Do these levels actually exist?

While that's not a fact, it might be a reasonable inference based on interbreeding.

Is it possible that some groups of animals have changed so much they can no longer interbreed? Doesn't this requirement seem arbitrary? For instance a dog and a wolf can interbreed. So can a tiger and lion. But a cat and tiger can't yet we consider them related. What about a sheep and a cow?

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.

Does it not strike you that the various animals have similar bone structure. Do they need to? For instance here are the wings of bats and birds.

Is'nt it strange how the same skeletal structure is reused over and over again, when there is no need for it to? And they are used differently in each case. Look below.

Here's a Mouse
GDVEKGKKIF VQKCAQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAAGFSYTD ANKNGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKGE RADLIAYLKK ATNE

a Monkey
GDVEKGKKIF IMKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGLFGRKT GQAPGYSYTA ANKNKGIIWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFVGIKKKEE RADLIAYLKK ATNE

and a penguin
GDIEKGKKIF VQKCSQCHTV EKGGKHKTGP NLHGIFGRKT GQAEGFSYTD ANKNKGITWG EDTLMEYLEN PKKYIPGTKM IFAGIKKKSE RADLIAYLKD ATSK

Notice how the mouse and the monkey are more similar than the penguin. And this is based on just one gene.

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.

I would ask you to examine the data and the theory and reconsider what you are trying to say. You seem to be going at this subject rather simplistically.

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.

Read my posts again, Haeckel's theory was disproven, the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is a bit more complicated than what Haeckel proposed, and the various stages of development are no longer thought to show the progression of evolution.
The current theory is that development itself has undergone evolution and that changes indevelopment can occur at anytime during the development of an organism.

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.

Take a look at the embryo's of a whale a bird and a horse, the part of the embryo which are homologous all develop into the arm bones of each animal, even though each animal has a different function for theri limbs.

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.

This is not the case, the cambrian fossils are not primary evidence, and neither are embryo's. Studies of development don't counter evolution, you are only countering Haeckles theory which has been overturned, and then protesting that the theory has been replaced?

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?

Proteins come from genes.
Genes are subject to change.
Mutations occur.

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.

Please show me the studies.

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.

Again please reference source.

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.

Based on what? Is he aware that enzymes(proteins) further produce additional genes from the primary genes?

So the supposed similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA is a problem for neo-Darwinism right there.

How so?

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.

One has to admit that what one accepts as transitional is subjective. What for instance is a transitional form between a dog and a shared ancestor between dogs and cats. It would look neither like a dog or a cat but share anitomical features to both. But then you would ask for a half cat half dog specimen. Or say it doesn't show enough similarities to a dog. But then what is the organism if not a cat nor a dog?

And please don't say it's just a jaw. There is no need to discuss your objections, the point is we don't have a complete knowledge but there is compelling evidence. If you wish to object that is fine, but if you want to discuss these objections please take it to another discussion board.

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

Again quote's without the evidence is annoying to argue, please provide a paper or some type of study next time.

BeGood,

Excellent! I'm glad you have decided to defend genetics. It's a bit of a lynch pin in your argument. I'll give you a proper response as soon as I have time!!

Wall-dog wrote:You can examine another molecule and come up with another tree altogether.

Wall-dog does seem to have a point here; see this 2003 news release:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/9094.html wrote:The problem with that approach, according to the new Wisconsin study, is that trees constructed on single genes often seem to lack reliability. Different genes give different answers so that one gene from a group of organisms depicts one tree, while a different gene from the same organisms will paint an entirely different phylogenetic picture.

Unfortunately, it continues:

Using new genomic sequences from eight yeast species, the group in Carroll's lab, which was led by post-doctoral fellows Antonis Rokas, Barry L. Williams and Nicole King, were able to assess the reliability of trees constructed using more than 100 genes. The result was a single tree with no doubt.

"We were shocked. We didn't expect such an unprecedented level of resolution," says Rokas. "Some genes give you one story, some genes give you another, but with enough of them together we get a single picture."

Apparently, the catch with the single-gene model is that some of the thousands of nucleotides that make up a gene can be biased as natural selection acts on the gene to fulfill a certain role. "Each gene carries information concerning both history and selection. Genes alone are biased, but together their shared history overrides each genes' unique bias and provides a surprisingly strong picture of evolution," says Williams.

The implications of the study are exciting, and provide encouraging news for the future of understanding the tree of life, says Carroll. As the data sets get larger, the influence of variation caused by natural selection becomes small enough that true historical relationships can be worked out.

Article

Nature 425, 798-804 (23 October 2003) | doi: 10.1038/nature02053
Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies

Antonis Rokas1,2, Barry L. Williams1,2, Nicole King1 and Sean B. Carroll1
Top of page
Abstract

One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes. To systematically investigate the degree of incongruence, and potential methods for resolving it, we screened the genome sequences of eight yeast species and selected 106 widely distributed orthologous genes for phylogenetic analyses, singly and by concatenation. Our results suggest that data sets consisting of single or a small number of concatenated genes have a significant probability of supporting conflicting topologies. By contrast, analyses of the entire data set of concatenated genes yielded a single, fully resolved species tree with maximum support. Comparable results were obtained with a concatenation of a minimum of 20 genes; substantially more genes than commonly used but a small fraction of any genome. These results have important implications for resolving branches of the tree of life.

Understanding the historical relationships between living organisms has been one of the principal goals of evolutionary research. Molecular phylogenetic data are instrumental in research on the history of life1, 2, 3, the polarity of phenotypic and developmental evolution4, and on the diversity of living organisms5. Despite tremendous progress in recent years, phylogenetic reconstruction involves many challenges that create uncertainty with respect to the true historical associations of the taxa analysed. One of the most notable difficulties is the widespread occurrence of incongruence between alternative phylogenies generated from single-gene data sets. Incongruence occurs at all taxonomic levels, from phylogenies of closely related species6, 7 to relationships between major classes8, 9 or phyla and higher taxonomic groups10, 11, 12.

Both analytical and biological factors may cause incongruence10, 13. Analytical factors affecting phylogenetic reconstruction include the choice of optimality criterion14, limited data availability15, 16, taxon sampling17 and specific assumptions in the modelling of sequence evolution18. Biological processes such as the action of natural selection or genetic drift19, 20, 21, 22 may cause the history of the genes under analysis to obscure the history of the taxa. The large number of potential explanations for the presence of incongruence in molecular phylogenetic analyses makes decisions on how to handle conflict in larger sets of molecular data difficult23. For example, two genes with different evolutionary histories (for example, owing to hybridization or horizontal transfer) for a particular taxonomic group will by definition be incongruent while still depicting true histories20. Data sets composed of genes showing heterogeneity in mode of sequence evolution may also compound bias rather than resolve the true history24. Furthermore, because current tests are not always reliable25, 26, it has been difficult to estimate incongruence. To overcome the effect of analytical and biological factors by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, many researchers have attempted to address difficult phylogenetic questions by analysis of concatenated data sets1, 27, 28, 29. However, phylogenetic analyses of different sets of concatenated genes do not always converge on the same tree8, 9, and some studies have yielded results at odds with widely accepted phylogenies30. Although theory suggests that a number of factors (such as gene number, sequence length, optimality criterion and rate of evolution) may influence phylogenetic reconstruction14, 15, 31, the effect of these factors has not been systematically explored with large data sets derived from biological sequences. Recent progress in the genomics of the yeast genus Saccharomyces32, 33, 34 has presented an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate these issues in eukaryotic phylogenetics.
...
Our results show that there is widespread incongruence between phylogenies recovered from individual genes. Therefore reliance on single or a small number of genes has a significant probability of supporting incorrect relationships for the eight yeast taxa. Perhaps surprisingly, none of the factors known or predicted to cause phylogenetic error41 could systematically account for the observed incongruence, suggesting that there may be no good predictor of the phylogenetic informativeness of genes. However, regardless of the source of incongruence, concatenation of a sufficient number of unlinked genes (20 genes in this study) yields the species tree with remarkable support.

Where did you get this? This is not the case.

You are refuting Dr. Jonathan Wells. Considering his credentials, I'm going to have to ask for more than just you saying he is wrong. If Dr. Wells says that sending the same gene to different labs produces different results, I'm going to have to take his word for it unless you can give me more than just 'this is not the case.'

If you listen to Dr. Wells you will find out that throwing more genes into the mix doesn't pin-down the results but creates even more possibilities for matches. In other words, with one gene you get multiple trees but with many genes you get a forest. The problem really is the way genetics work. For starters, we don't know that similar gene patterns implies relationship. Next, we don't really know what the genes all do. We share 98 to 99% of our genes with the ape for example. That would imply that the differences between us and the ape are all in the 2% that are not shared. That however is not the case. Actually ALL of the body-building genes are in the 98 to 99% we share with the ape. The one to two percent of genes that are different don't deal with anatomy.

Really the big problem with genetic trees though is how they are created. People look at the genes and try to find similarities - as you have done in your illustrations. It's like a jigsaw puzzle of a snow-storm with pieces that can be fit together hundreds or even thousands of ways. And the more pieces you add the more options you have for reconstruction. This is highly subjective. That's why you get different trees. When you take bad science and add more bad science to it you don't get good science. It just doesn't work that way.

You do, because there are possibilities for phylogenic similarities, for instance multiple occurances of venom in snakes or other examples of convergent evolution. The genetic evidence is stronger than phylogenic trees based on physical features. For instance the hyenna is more closely related to cats than dogs altho many would think the reverse.

We don't know enough about genes to make that statement - and particularly not when different labs come up with different results. That's conjecture based on the fact that a tree based on anatomy creates a different tree than the myriad of trees based on genetics. But again, the real problem is that the results created by genetics are subjective.

Again one has to analyse many different genes to get the most likely tree. Because one can get small anomolies is does not invalidate a method. For instance one can use one method to diagnose a disease and come up negative and use another test to come up positive, this dowes not invalidate the first test. This is a strange objection, does one really expect that analysis of a single gene should lead to a complete and perfect tree? That's unreasonable and shows a misunderstanding of the technique.

How much do you know about medical science? The art of diagnosis can be subjective too. Some tests are very conclusive but most tests only point in particular directions. In many cases many tests are needed before a diagnosis can be done. This is why doctors are so highly trained and so well paid - because their jobs are highly subjective and mistakes can cost lives so we want to make sure they know what they are doing.

Your description rightfully shows the subjective nature of genetics.

Care to share the source? Where is the data to show this is the case. In any comparative analysis of genes multiple statisticle methods are used, they will yield different results, but not drastic as you seem to be imagining.

That was a direct quote from Doctor Wells, who holds two PHDs. I'll cite Dr. Wells as my source. Should I post his credentials again? He is one of the nations top experts in this field. I don't know his source. I haven't seen the data. But based on his credentials I'm going to have to take his word for it.

The assumption is not based on statisticle analysis. It is based on the fact that genes for different animals have inactive sections which can have any sequence. Yet they are similar. Why? Why not have all the same sequence? Or why not have random sequences?

Why do you call it an assumption? Either Doctor Wells is correct that the genetic trees can point anywhere - that creating them is subjective - or he is making it up. Based on his credentials, what rational reason would I or anyone else on this board have not to take his word for it? Is Doctor Wells not a noted expert? Would his testimony not be admissible in court?

The problem isn't that sequences can't be shown to be similar. The problem is that other sequences can also be shown to be just as similar with different organisms. It's all over the map. Using genetics to show a direct relationship - mother, father, brother, uncle, etc. has been shown to be reliable. Using genetics to show a relationship between species? Too many assumptions and too many possible results. It's subjective.

If it occurs at certain levels how can it be shown that it does not occur at higher "levels". What defines levels? How can you show these levels statistically through gene analysis? Do these levels actually exist?

I wouldn't use something subjective like genetics to prove anything.

What defines the levels? People do. Do the levels exist? You bet. They are standard classifications. What may or may not exist are relationships between them. And that's kind of the point to this whole debate. The thesis that these relationships exist belongs to evolution so I don't know why you would try to refute them now.

Is it possible that some groups of animals have changed so much they can no longer interbreed? Doesn't this requirement seem arbitrary? For instance a dog and a wolf can interbreed. So can a tiger and lion. But a cat and tiger can't yet we consider them related. What about a sheep and a cow?

We don't really know that a tiger and lion are related. They look like they might be and evolution is a legitimate theory at that level. Even at that level though it is only a theory.

Is'nt it strange how the same skeletal structure is reused over and over again, when there is no need for it to? And they are used differently in each case. Look below.

Isn't it also strange how well that structure works in all three situations? Isn't that a strong case for a designer - who would be likely to re-use ideas for similar situations? In fact, those similarities were used as an argument for design before they were used as an argument for evolution.

The current theory is that development itself has undergone evolution and that changes indevelopment can occur at anytime during the development of an organism.

So then you are saying that it means nothing. I think we agree.

Take a look at the embryo's of a whale a bird and a horse, the part of the embryo which are homologous all develop into the arm bones of each animal, even though each animal has a different function for theri limbs.

That would be a great argument except that they all function so well. These similarities can be just as easily used to show design, where a designer used a similar technique for a similar situation.

This is not the case, the cambrian fossils are not primary evidence, and neither are embryo's. Studies of development don't counter evolution, you are only countering Haeckles theory which has been overturned, and then protesting that the theory has been replaced?

But they were supposed to be the primary evidence. They have been replaced not because they didn't mean anything but because they pointed the other way. I'm protesting because the underlying theory has not been replaced. The underlying theory is evolution.

Proteins come from genes.
Genes are subject to change.
Mutations occur.

Big changes or little changes? Do they still occur or are there limits to evolution? How can you possible know that evolution occurs at the macro-level? Nobody is questioning that it occurs within species...

Please show me the studies.

Again please reference source.

Based on what? Is he aware that enzymes(proteins) further produce additional genes from the primary genes?

How so?

Reference sources and studies? You've been complaining about my use of sources and now you want to see them? Never mind that you are taking something that was a direct quote and asking to see the source. I've alredy cited those.

I didn't perform the studies. Nor do I need to. I'm not a scientist. That's why I prefer to quote. If I cited myself as a source I'd be laughed off this forum. I don't have the expertise. If I DID perform a study on something like this myself the results would be considered highly suspect for the same reason.

Is Doctor Wells aware that enzymes(proteins) further produce additional genes from the primary genes? Are you really asking that???

One has to admit that what one accepts as transitional is subjective. What for instance is a transitional form between a dog and a shared ancestor between dogs and cats. It would look neither like a dog or a cat but share anitomical features to both. But then you would ask for a half cat half dog specimen. Or say it doesn't show enough similarities to a dog. But then what is the organism if not a cat nor a dog?

Have you ever seen the cartoon Cat Dog? It's subjective because it hasn't been shown to exist. Again - that is kind of the point!

And please don't say it's just a jaw. There is no need to discuss your objections, the point is we don't have a complete knowledge but there is compelling evidence. If you wish to object that is fine, but if you want to discuss these objections please take it to another discussion board.

Can I call it just a picture of a jaw then? Actually if you look at it another way it looks kind of like a duck. I can even hear it quacking. What's your point? Oh - and the duck thing is a joke. Though it really does kind of look like a duck. LOL!

Again quote's without the evidence is annoying to argue, please provide a paper or some type of study next time.

I'm sorry it annoys you but I'm not going to stop using expert testimony to prove my point.