Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 07-18-2002, 07:36 AM

Because organisms appear in the fossil record suddenly and the theory of evolution has no way to explain this besides an argument from silence. ie. the fossil record is limited. You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection. It is not a reproducable thing. If we really understood genetics, and it were possible, We should be able to make a reptile from a fish by manipulating the DNA to simulate what evolution did over time.
Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

Mageth · 07-18-2002, 07:52 AM

You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection.

Well, no one here claims a living organism "becomes" a vastly different organism over time anyway.

Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

How would it support your theory? It would show that god doesn't have to go "poof" for once species to evolve into another.

Tabula_rasa · 07-18-2002, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Because organisms appear in the fossil record suddenly and the theory of evolution has no way to explain this besides an argument from silence. ie. the fossil record is limited.

I have already pointed out ealier in this thread that so-called arguments against evolution are not evidence for intelligent design.

Quote:

You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection. It is not a reproducable thing. If we really understood genetics, and it were possible, We should be able to make a reptile from a fish by manipulating the DNA to simulate what evolution did over time.
Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

Hmmm... There was a thread recently on the talk.origins newsgroup that asked a question several days ago similar to the one you pose. Here is the google reference for it:

<a href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z5E925B41" target="_blank">http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z5E925B41</a>

Summary: The technology to do the gene sequencing to go from species A to species B does exist. However, biologists have only recently mapped out the genome of humans. They have only recently started to map out the genome of chimpanzees. Beyond this, genome mapping has not been done, primarily because of the cost of doing so.

The poster didn't pose your exact question. It sounds like he was asking for something more possible, like showing that the DNA of one of two related, but morphologically different species (i.e. camels and llamas) could be manipulated through known mutation pathways to produce the other specie's DNA.

Yes, the poster pointed out how ID supporters would claim this as their victory, too. Problem is, as I stated in my previous post and which I see you've chosen to ignore, there is no evidence to support a non-naturalistic mechanism by which offspring are produced. Oh yeah. And last I checked, humans were not supernatural beings.

Tabula_rasa

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Tabula_rasa ]

scigirl · 07-18-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
If we really understood genetics, and it were possible, We should be able to make a reptile from a fish by manipulating the DNA to simulate what evolution did over time.
Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

Check out <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000201&p=" target="_blank">this old thread</a> which discusses the following paper:
<a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm" target="_blank">First Genetic Evidence of how major changes in body shapes occurred during early animal evolution</a>.

We're getting there, Geo!

scigirl

scigirl · 07-18-2002, 09:37 AM

I'm interested to here more about your theory.

Something to consider: What evidence would disprove your theory? This is a very very important question if you want it to be scientific. You need specific findings (fossils, DNA, etc) that if found, would weaken your theory. If it is not falsifiable, it isn't science (irrespective of if it's "true" or not - does that make sense?)

Check out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">29+ Evidences for Macroevolution</a> from talkorigins to see what data would disprove evolution. Here's some examples:

Quote:

For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. [...] In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code.
...
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.
...
More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. [...] Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well (Hillis et al. 1996; Li 1997).

One common objection is the assertion that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry, and thus anatomically similar organisms are likely to be similar biochemically (e.g. in their molecular sequences) simply for functional reasons. According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. Though this logic may seem quite reasonable initially, all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not true - similar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies (see predictions 4.1 and 4.2 for a detailed explanation).

There's tons more.

Did they update this article recently? It's exploded with stuff - very cool!

scigirl

Skeptical · 07-18-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Because organisms appear in the fossil record suddenly and the theory of evolution has no way to explain this besides an argument from silence. ie. the fossil record is limited.

Oh good grief.

The fossil record _IS LIMITED_! That's not an argument from silence, it's a fact. Not every organism that dies leaves a fossil. Not every species leaves a fossil. If you wonder why people think your a retard it's because you keep saying such idiotic things. Use your brain for once. Do you understand the process and conditions by which fossils are formed? If so, can you see why the fossil record is incomplete? Try using _logic_ and _reasoning_ and _facts_ for a change instead of a priori assumptions. It might be an enlightening experience.

Quote:

You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection. It is not a reproducable thing.

Evolution _is_ a reproducible thing, it's just that the time scale involved is far too long for it to be seen directly without a time machine. The day we invent a time machine my only request is that we send all YEC's back a few hundred million years and let them roam around with T-rex. Course, some would still claim it was all a trick. Those would be the ones we would leave behind.

Quote:

If we really understood genetics, and it were possible, We should be able to make a reptile from a fish by manipulating the DNA to simulate what evolution did over time.
Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

My god I think you've got it!!! The problem with creation "theory" is that it cannot be proven or disproven, therefore its meaningless as an explanatory theory. This is _exactly_ why its not science. You are admitting that _even in theory_ there is no evidence that would disprove YE ideas, which means that the idea is worthless.

I have tried repeatedly to be civil to you although you have repeatedly ignored my posts in threads I have replied to you showing why you were wrong. You have continued to post nonsense.

You want to run away, go ahead. I don't know why you respond to threads in the first place if you want to keep you head buried in the sand. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

bluefugue · 07-18-2002, 10:08 AM

Quote:

The day we invent a time machine my only request is that we send all YEC's back a few hundred million years and let them roam around with T-rex. Course, some would still claim it was all a trick. Those would be the ones we would leave behind.

They'd probably start stomping on all the mosquitoes to get revenge on us...

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-18-2002, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Did they update this article recently? It's exploded with stuff - very cool!

That's a really cool evolution article. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I loved reading Theobald's rebuttal to Ashby Camp for the first 5 predictions. I'm hoping that Theobald finishes the rebuttal for the rest of Camp's critique.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2002, 07:36 AM	#41
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Because organisms appear in the fossil record suddenly and the theory of evolution has no way to explain this besides an argument from silence. ie. the fossil record is limited. You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection. It is not a reproducable thing. If we really understood genetics, and it were possible, We should be able to make a reptile from a fish by manipulating the DNA to simulate what evolution did over time. Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well.

07-18-2002, 07:52 AM	#42
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You can't prove that a living organism can become a vastly different organism over time through chance mutations filtered by natural selection. Well, no one here claims a living organism "becomes" a vastly different organism over time anyway. Being able to do that though would support my theory just as well. How would it support your theory? It would show that god doesn't have to go "poof" for once species to evolve into another.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.