[_ Old Earth _] Debate "blue lightning and tuatha'an"

[Asimov]

Ok everyone, this is the formal debate you've all been waiting expectantly to observe.

The debate is exclusively between Blue Lightning and myself, so we would appreciate others not part of the debate to kindly not post in here.

Blue will start by posting one paragraph. The paragraph will outline one point that Blue Lightning considers is a problem for the Theory of Evolution.

I will then write a one paragraph refutation.

Blue will post once more in refutation to my refutation. Then I will be given a post to conclude.

After blue and I have exchanged our points (2 paragraphs each), we will move on to another point. This is to avoid the arguments becoming stale and repeated. The rules are as stated in invitation.

Blue, you may start.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Problem #1 w/ the ToE:

One of the problems with the theory of evolution is that it depends on the classification of species in both modern and extinct organisms, but these classifications are largely subjective. For example, a teacher might say that macroevolution has been observed in a major organism group since the domesticated canine is a distinct species from the wolf, the known ancestor of the domestic dog. While it is true that the wolf is very close to the animal group that our lovable pooches most likely came from, the problem is that dogs and wolves often reproduce with each other - so are they truly separate species? As I have mentioned before, the chihuahua and the great dane are much more genetically different than wolves and huskies, yet it would be laughable to say that chihuahuas and great danes are of separate species. But what would a modern archaelogist say if he were to see a great dane and a chihuahua skeleton for the first time without having every known of the two breeds; would he believe that these two vastly different organisms were different species? Most likely since the only thing that truly unites them from the skeletal perspective is their teeth alignment. Now some people would say however that this is an anomally because humans have bred dogs to capitalise on the diversity that can occur within a species and that naturally this would not occur since such radicals would not be beneficial (after all, does anyone truly believe a tea-cup chihuahua could survive in the wild?). However, take a look at the diversity within different cat species (and remember how loosely we can use the word 'species') and you'll see that reproducing animal groups diversify naturally quite a bit. In fact, I am providing a link to a website where people are breeding cats of different species to create hybrids (can anyone say new species?). While the cats are breeding in unnatural conditions, its completely conceivable that more similar cat species would likely breed together in nature over time, thus linking all these cat species in a genetic pool. I say this with the reminder however that not all cat species share a genetic pool and this should be stated (lions for example). But it seems to knock a big chink in our scientific classifications when species of cats that were supposed to have macroevolved from other species are now being bred with each other to create hybrid species... aren't hybrids supposed to just refer to breeds and cars?

http://www.chausie.net/aboutourcattery.html

My red light is now blinking and I want to avoid the buzzer. :wink:

Later,

BL

 

[Asimov]

Ok, good post blue. I guess your main question is "what defines a species?". For reference, I will be using wikipedia. The biological definition of species is "a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding." Ernst Mayr defines species as a "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". In binomial nomenclature, a species is the last name in italics which start with the genus name, then a designation to describe it. It is the entire binomial, not the second descriptor that makes up the species name. For example if I take Canis adustus and Canis lupus. It is not correct to say lupus and adustus are separate species with the genus name canis. The correct term would be canis lupus is the descriptive term for the gray wolf (and all sub-species involved of course). I would like to add that the dog and the wolf are not separate species. Recently, the common dog has changed to Canis lupus familiaris, and the dingo to Canis lupus dingo. So, the dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf. There are 7 different species with the Canis designation. I cannot say for certain whether or not a chihuaha is more genetically different to a great dane, then a wolf and a husky. I simply do not know if this is true. I do know that the Siberian Husky is one of the oldest breeds of dogs, so that may account for it. And as to your question about chihuahua skeletons and their differences to a great dane, once again, I do not know. They don't seem to have much of a problem in classifying ancient horses with modern horses today. Nor with human skeletons and their ancestral australopithecus. Suffice it to say, I'm sure a modern archaeologist who found a great dane skeleton and a chihuahua skeleton would at first glace think the chihuahua to be some kind of rodent, until further examination revealed it to be more dog-like, because of certain factors that do classify it as a dog (bone structure, teeth, skull structure). I would also like to add that there are 5 different definitions of species: morphological species, biological species or isolation species, mate-recognition species, phylogenetic or evolutionary species, and microspecies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... ml#Canidae

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Alright, I'll get to the response here in just a second. First I want to make sure that you're going to refute my response, then start a new topic... correct? Okay, now let's get shakin' and bakin'.

Now you started off by assuming that my main question is "what defines a species?" However, the question really isn't what defines a species (I think it can be assumed that you and I are going to know those simplistic answers), but really is that definition adequate? That is the question. And it's an important one because our concept of macroevolution depends on an objective, correct standard for species classification. You see, if horses and donkeys are different species, then macroevolution occurs every time a mule or hinny is born... but I suspect that horses and donkeys are not macroevolved separate species, but simply one species displaying its capacity for great variation. So while Ernst Mayr says that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups," I think we can see that this standard is both absurd and unfollowed. It is absurd in that if we followed this standard then chihuahuas (since we have used them so much) isolated to the continent of Australia would be a different species than chihuahuas of Hawaii since they are isolated from reproduction at the current time. Perhaps if they were moved then they would be yet another species (one might say evolved) since they would then be able to mate with the once isolated other species. But on a more serious note, the definition is completely ignored by the scientific community - just take a look at horses and donkeys again; they interbreed all the time, yet they are separate species. And I can name dozens if not hundreds other such examples. Finally let me say that concerning what archaelogists would say about chihuahua and great dane skeletons and whether or not they were of the same species, your response depended on the idea that we have all the pieces and all those pieces (referrig to peices of a puzzle) correctly identified... you see, archaelogists would need to know what you and I know about dogs before they would be able to come to the conclusion that those dogs were of the same species and I'm not sure they would have that. Sure, they could figure out that they were both mammals, but both dogs? Probably not. Likewise I doubt that we have many of our fossils figured out very well - especially since we have few pieces and can never know for sure if we have them identified correctly.

Let me conclude by saying that I think you will find the website I am providing humorous. The article begins with: "Under conditions of domestication it is possible to obtain hybrids between equid species," which we know by your provided definitions of species to be false. I suppose we can begin to see the convoluted and subjective understanding of species and just how little the word "species" has come to mean although it is the cornerstone in determining if macroevolution has been observed.

http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html

Later,

BL

 

[Asimov]

Alright, I'll get to the response here in just a second. First I want to make sure that you're going to refute my response, then start a new topic... correct? Okay, now let's get shakin' and bakin'.

Yes, I make a rebuttal to your response, then you start another topic, on the problems with evolution.

Anyways, on to the last comments. I know exactly what you are saying, and how you think about this whole concept, and I agree that it doesn't make sense. Except when you realise that having definite concepts in Evolution and in classification is the human mind trying to make sense of it all. Macro evolution is simply a construct, as is micro evolution. Species is simply a construct. You can't have definitive lines drawn in the sand. You can't say "Oh here's a bunny, and here is a hare, that's the line, nothing ever crosses it". That is the problem with trying to make sense of macro evolution. It's a fuzzy line that is hard to define, because each species is related to each other, in one way or another. Horses and donkeys are Morphologically different species. Just as zebras are morphologically different species. But they are all biologically the same species. The binomial Equus caballus and Equus asinus are morphologically different, but they are all part of the Equus species. And, as a last aside, what you said about chihuahuas in hawaii and chihuahuas in australia. If the chihuahuas in australia are sexually isolated from each other, but can interbreed, they are a species. Over time though, if one did not mix the two populations, they would diverge to the point where they would be different species, because they wouldn't be able to interbreed with any other dog. Macro evolution does not depend on it being observed, because macroevolution does not exist literally. There is no barrier between macro and micro evolution, it simply exists in your mind.


Ok, blue, you can start a new topic.

 

[Asimov]

Ooooooookay. (take two)

Argument For Evolution #1:

We all know how viruses work, correct? The virus invades a cell and injects it's DNA, thereby hijacking the original cells purpose and turning into a virus replicator. The cell then releases new copies of the virus. This process happens when you get sick from anything like the common cold, to HIV. Usually the cell the is hijacked dies after releasing the virus. Sometimes, when the process goes wrong the cell survives with select portions of the virus DNA in it’s own genome. These infections gone wrong vary from infection to infection, not from virus to virus. This means that each infection gone wrong is as different as a fingerprint or a scar that is viewable in different species. This also means that because the scar is in the genome, it will be hereditary. If you receive a virus and it scars your genome instead of infecting you, it will be viewable in your children, your children’s children, and so on and so forth at the exact same spot in their DNA as it is found in your own. Infections are known to occur in the blood stream, and mucous membranes, as well as the lungs. Sometimes, however, these infections occur in the sperm or egg cell of the host organism. Although the odds are that the sperm will actually fertilize an egg is extremely low, it has been known to happen. What results is that the offspring of the original host will have this virus scarring in every cell. These extremely rare cases are known as “Endogenous Retroviral Insertions†(ERV’s for short). ERV’s are very similar to retroviruses, which helps in identification. They have also been observed in vitro, which helps for good documentation. Not only that, but ERV’s have been known to imbed themselves into the entire species, via genetic drift, or natural selection. The implications for Evolution add tremendous weight to common descent of organisms. If these ERV’s are hereditary, then any offshoot species of an infected species will also have the insertion in their genome. This helps in phylogeny, and have helped corroborate and improve our original classifications of animals. We have observed ERV’s between humans and chimps, Gorillini and Hominini, Homininae and Ponginae, Hominidae and Gibbons, Primates and Old World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys. This has also been known in helping classify the Felidae, and Canidae families.

http://www.hallym.ac.kr/~jinpark/int.html
http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Retroviruses.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Excellent, excellent post! The ERV argument is probably the strongest argument for evolution that I see, and so I am glad that I am debating someone who knows it, has at least a good understanding of it, and will use it as their first point.

Let me summarize the argument a bit for those who aren't knowledgable about ERVs. An ERV is an endogenous retrovirus, what appears to be a left over scar implanted on genetic code that a virus leaves. When that extra genetic code is left on a reproduction cell (sperm/egg), then that genetic code is transferred along with the normal code to the offspring. Scientists discovered ERVs... I guess in the mid-1900's... but that wasn't all that they learned. We also discovered that in humans and many other hominids there exists shared ERVs sitting in the same places on our genetic coding - obviously this must mean that an ancestor organism to all these species passed on an ERV through their offspring and now hominids share it, right? Well, not quite. In order to accept this explanation, one must first accept that macroevoltion exists (that is that an organism population can change so much that its genetic code cannot be shared with another organism population that at one point could)... but yet this has been unobserved. And the other problem is this, and it is the major one: When scientists discovered ERVs and began to accept that this was yet more proof of common ancestry, they did so because they believed ERVs to be useless remains of viral infections passed on from organism to organism. We have since learned, through research and better technology, that this is not the case. It seems now that many ERVs we observe existing commonly in similar species are actually acting beneficially for the population - that is, they are serving a purpose. I won't go into much detail, because it is extremely complex and jargonistic, but I will provide a link to that information. In any case, the idea that useless information has been passed down is being debunked by the scientific community as the commonheld ERVs are showing significant functions within the code. The fact is that if you accept the ToE then your logical next step is to accept that these commonly held ERVs are the result of a long-gone ancestor's viral infection... but if you don't accept the ToE, then your logical view is that commonly held ERVs are much like other genetic coding in that more similar species share more similar coding and this sequence located in the correct place has a purpose in being there (some that we have already discovered and some that we are still discovering). The ERV argument for the ToE is much like the transposon argument or the vestigial organ argument - that is, it doesn't make or break the ToE.

BTW, here's the book with the information on ERV beneficial functions:
http://www.landesbioscience.com/iu/outputisbn.php?isbn=1-58706-213-5
Although Sverdlov's conclusion is incorrect in my opinion, you'll see that he acknowledges that commonly held ERVs are serving a purpose... you'll especially want to read the chapter: "Influence of HERVs on cellular gene expression" by Leib-Mosch.

Looking forward to your rebuttal,

BL

 

[Asimov]

I don't deny that ERV's serve a purpose. That is how natural selection works. ERV's contain vestiges of gag, env, and pol genes that are used for coding of the viral surface proteins. Also note that each step in the ERV process is uncommon to say the least. Yes, some ERV's (and maybe some yet undiscovered) have purposes in being there. Their purposes came as a result of natural selection. I find it extremely unlikely that 4 or 5 species who are similar (without assuming common descent) would have the same ERV in their coding, in the exact same place in their genome. I find it rather odd that you do not seem to find it evidence for common descent between species that are related, not to mention that while these ERV's are beneficial to the organism, they are still viral fingerprints, and do have the makings of a retrovirus. Your argument also seems to rest on the belief that scientists use vestigial to mean useless. This is not the case. Vestigial is an implication that the structure (such as the human tail), had a different use in the past. The virus' original purpose is to harm the organism in order to replicate it's own DNA. What resulted in the making of the insertion was a change that over several unlikely events and natural selection, produced a vestigial structure that aided the organism. Your right, it doesn't make or break the ToE, but it does add evidence to it. Could you provide an alternate reason as to why these ERV's came about, other than being hereditary? And why we find ERV's between humans and chimps that are not found in gorillas. But that gorillas share ERV's with humans and chimps, but not orangutans??

ugh...I shouldn't be writing at 2am...well, I look forward to reading your rebuttal, and subsequent new topic!


http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/Retroviruses.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/nolan/tut ... _prot.html

 

[Blue-Lightning]

The biggest problem with your assessment of ERVs and natural selection is that it goes against the ERV-macroevolution argument. You see, in order for the ERV argument to take a hold, then ERVs must be worthless to the organism... then the theory that useless viral genetic scars (ERVs) are transmitted down the line from ancestoral organism to future macroevolved organisms makes much more of a compelling argument. However, now that we know that these appearantly common-held ERVs are indeed serving a purpose, they really aren't significant for a macroevolution argument because we all agree that more similar species are going to share more common genetic codes. Now I understand that you wonder how I can say these things with the knowledge that an ERV is a viral scar... my argument though is that common-held ERVs may not be viral scars but may simply be genetic information additional to the regular DNA and that true ERVs are simply look-a-likes left by viruses. I say this because we have yet to observe a virus leaving a beneficial ERV, but we are quickly discovering real purposes for these common-held additions to DNA that are in many ways the same otherwise as modern ERVs. And I think that is an important point because while natural selection would certainly weed out harmful ERVs, ERVs aren't very often harmful (although the ones that are really are), they are almost always just "extras" - just scars left over. But one has to wonder if an important addition to genetic code is scar or something else. And so we come to the end of the ERV topic, learning that common-held genetic supplements long thought to be ERVs are actually vital to the organisms' survival whilst modernly observed ERVs have never been even beneficial. We have learned that more similar organisms share more common-held "ERVs" just like they share more similar DNA. But has this argument really yeilded any real proof of macroevolution? Or has it simply confirmed what both sides agree upon, that more similar species share more common characterisitics? And aren't we back to the same splitting divide again... I think these beneficial genetic supplementations were placed there intelligently and only appear to be ERVs whilst you view them to truly be very old ERVs that are providing very necessary functions by happenstance. I guess we could end the topic by pondering your theory and how ancient organisms were living before they were lucky enough to receive important ERVs to pass on to their offspring.

One last thing, your definition of vestigial is a little off... vestigial actually means the remains of something or a lesser developed tissue/organ. Obviously vestigial doens't apply to common-held "ERVs."

Because I understand that most internet information is already outdated since common-held ERV function is quite new, I'm providing quotes from the book I cited earlier. I know that not many, if any, of you will read the book, so I want to provide these quotes.

I'll get the next topic started soon,

BL

]"...the hosts exploit the capacity of TEs [transposable elements] to generate variations for their own benefit. The retroelements can come out as traveling donors of sequence motifs for nucleosome positioning, DNA methylation, transcriptional enhancers, poly(A) addition sequences, splice sites, and even amino acid codons for incorporation into open reading frames of encoded proteins. The number of described cases in which retroelement sequences confer useful traits to the host is growing. Retropositions can therefore be considered as a major pacemaker of the evolution that continues to change our genomes. In particular HERV [human endogenous retrovirus] elements could interact with human genome through (i) expression of retroviral genes, (ii) human genome loci rearrangement following the retroposition of the HERVs or (iii) the capacity of LTRs [long terminal repeats that are common to ERVs] to regulate nearby genes. A plethora of solitary LTRs comprises a variety of transcriptional regulatory elements, such as promoters, enhancers, hormone-responsive elements, and polyadenylation signals. Therefore the LTRs are potentially able to cause significant changes in expression patterns of neighboring genes."

"We found frequent coincidences in positions of HERV-K LTRs and mapped genes on human chromosome 19 where the situation with mapped genes is slightly better. Although it would be premature to interpret this result as the indication of the regulatory interplay between closely located LTRs and genes, still some the the coincidences seem interesting. Most striking is the frequent coincidence of the LTRs with Zn-finger or Zn-finger-like genes scattered all over the chromosome. . . . Among other interesting coincidences, the LTRs were often detected in the vicinity of a number of genes (RRAS, EPOR, JAK3 etc.) implicated at different stages of Jak-Strat signal transduction pathway. The frequent coincidences of the LTRs with the genes of similar or concerted functions might suggest either functional involvement of the LTRs in the expression of the genes or their evolutionary relations."

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Problem #2 w/ the Theory of Evolution: Complex Unlearned Behaviors

As you know, I have been trying to stay on a very simplistic and a-jargonistic manner of writing and I'm going to try and continue that so that those who are not science buffs cans follow along. So in the spirit of what I just said, let's take on a very common, very "understood" process that almost everyone has or can observe for themselves - the birth of a litter of kittens. Now I know that the rule is one paragraph, so don't think I'm cheating: I'm going to split this paragraph so I can go ahead and provide a link for those of you who want to do a real quick catch-up on that process.

http://cats.about.com/cs/pregnancybirth/a/pregnancybirth_3.htm

Okay, now that you have read that and you're thinking, "Okay... so what," I want you to look at this article a little more closely - specifically at the actions that the mother cat (or queen) does during this process. Let's make a list of a few of the things that she must do in order for her kittens to survive. 1) Precisely cut the amniotic sac so that the kitten is released (and you know carnivores are so adept at precision with their teeth), 2) stimulate breathing through licking the kitten, 3) cut the umbilical cord one inch from the kitten, and 4) if needed eat the afterbirth. Now why is that important you might ask. Well, here's why: the theory of evolution has no explanation for these highly complex, unlearned behaviors that the mother cat must perform correctly and so most evolutionists just skip over this part of organisms. That is, how does an organism obtain precise, complicated understanding or reflexes such as what we have here through evolution? Obviously these actions have to be genetically coded, but evolution doesn't have an answer for how the genetic programming to create the brain construction that would allow for unlearned, complex behaviors to exist. In fact, it defies the theory of evolution. Now you can say that its just a more complicated reflex like moving your hand from something hot, but let's think about that. In that situation "hot" goes to the spinal cord and the spinal cord sends back and emergency message "move." Okay, I can see how that could have evolved under the theory of evolution. But this? Once kitten born cut sac around kitten but be careful not to cut kitten. Once sac cut lick kitten. Once kitten licked, cut cord on kitten's stomach one inch from kitten with teeth. If in unsafe location or feel in need of nourishment, eat afterbirth. And it's not just cats - we can name animals that have even more complicated birth processes. And sure things mess up from time to time, but that doens't negate the fact that it goes the way it should most of the time. Why, it's flat-out amazing! And you know, we could get into the complex behaviors that the queen will suddenly start using that are unlearned after the kittens are born such are her unique meow-pur that she will make to let them know she is there.

For me, it's one of those things that lets me know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory of evolution doesn't explain this thing.

Looking forward to your response,

BL

http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/Kardas/Courses/GPWeiten/C6Learning/LearnedUnlearned.html - One more link dealing with complex, unlearned behaviors

 

[Asimov]

Welcome back, BL. I read the article veeerrry carefully and you’re right, I did think “okay….so what?†And your question was basically, how does an organism obtain precise, complicated understanding of reflexes such was what we have here through evolution. In answer to your question, a lot of behaviors are learned from the previous organism’s parents. Not only that, but some behaviors are genetic as well. The problem is that a lot of cats, and many mammals don’t know what to do when they are giving birth. They become scared and confused at the bloody goopy sacs coming out of them and in many cases will eat their young. This happens because they did not learn these behaviors from their parents. In many cases the first birthing (as in cases with humans as well), the first litter, or the first child, is always the hardest and most confusing for the mother, because she doesn’t have these instincts hardwired into her brain. This is a problem in domesticated animals such as cats, dogs, cows, because they don’t have those survival instincts anymore. The humans take care of them, and teach them. For an example of inherited behaviors; (this is found in many biology textbooks), birds. African parrots (lovebirds) build nests. We take two varieties of these nest-builders. Fischer’s lovebirds rip strips of vegetation and then flies off and builds it’s next. OTOH, the peach-faced lovebird cuts small strips of vegetation, then tucks the vegetation into it’s tail before flying off. The vegetation must be pushed in just right; understandably, it is a complex behavior. Geneticists mixed the two birds together, and what do you think happened? The hybrid bird tore off strips of medium length vegetation, and attempted to tuck the strips into their feathers. In some cases, the bird did not let go of the feathers, in other cases the strips of vegetation were tucked in improperly and dropped. IOW, the rear tail tucking method failed, and the birds learned after a few years to carry the strips. Now get this; the hybrid birds still turned their heads to tuck the strips into their tail feathers, before flying off. I think that’s pretty amazing, and a good example of inherited complex behavior. Another way organisms can get behaviors is culture. Chimpanzees exhibit this cultural variation. Scientists observed 39 different behavior patterns, which include grooming, tools, and courtship, which are customary in some chimp communities, but absent in others. In conclusion, unlearned behaviors are genetic, and explainable by evolution.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

This is by far your weakest response. But anywho, let's dive into it:

So baby kittens learn how to cut umbilical cords an inch from their offspring by observing their mothers do it to them??? Is that the gist of your argument? Because if it is then you have truly downgraded from the level of debate that you had settled at. You see, I seriously doubt that newborn kittens lacking the ability to even open their eyes or do much more than suckle observe just a whole lot right off the bat. And thank you for telling me that evolution explains highly-complicated, non-learned behaviors and then failing to explain how. And yes, that was the question - how could the theory of evolution explain this. You failed to supply any reasonable answer whatsoever. And while I do appreciate the anecedotes about chimpanzee cultures and "hybrid" (which goes back to the species classification topic) bird nest learning, I still have yet to hear how the ToE explains genetic coding that creates a brain which will be hardwired to perform the actions that most female cats do when giving birth, even on the first litter. I will eagerly await that answer for a second time. Unfortunately I will not be able to respond to whatever theory you manage as we must move on to another topic.

I apologize if I have seemed harsh - I just hope this type of response does not become the norm.

Best wishes,

BL

 

[Asimov]

When I read your response, I was at first confused, as I thought I had made a good point. Then I realised that I had misunderstood what was being asked, and realised that yes, in the context of what you were asking, it is a very poor argument. So, now that I actually understand what is being asked, I will get on to this reply.

First, we'll get to learned behaviors, such as these cats. Behavior has both a genetic factor and a learned factor. If the cat no longer knows how to perform the birthing techniques that she must perform, she either did not grow up in an environment which allowed her to learn the behavior, or lost the genetic factor due to domestication and humans basically coddling house cats. That is what I was trying to say. Now, you asked "how does TOE explain this complex behavior". After thinking about it last night, coming up with an explanation, I realised that you are arguing about an Irreducibly Complex system, IC for short. Genetic behaviors work just as any other inherited trait, it works with natural selection and mutation. I know you’re not going to consider this a particular good response, but I really don’t know exactly how this behavior would have come about exactly. I do know that it would have evolved from rudimentary forms of reproductive behavior, that gradually branched out into populations having different ways of birthing children. It’s not a strong argument, but I don’t see how this actually discounts evolution. It would seem that there would be much easier ways to birth children than the complex behavior we see today, and that accounts for generations and generations of populations of organisms slowly gaining different methods that offered a slightly better reproductive advantage! In the end you get a composited mass of behaviors coming together from rudimentary to more complex.

Ok, BL, that is my response. I know it doesn’t explain much, and I’m proud to say “I don’t knowâ€Â, because then it means there is something to know. I think I’ll come up with one more topic, we’ll do our little exchange, then I’d like to end it with a cross-examining period where you ask me up to 10 questions, and then I’ll answer and ask you up to 10 questions.

After that we’ll conclude with a one paragraph statement.

 

[Asimov]

Argument for Evolution #2

This is a common one, the fossil record. The fossil record provides us with not only our first impression of evolution, but a corroboration with genetics in order to help our understanding of the world. We have fossils which demonstrate lineage from primitive fish to sharks, fish to amphibians, transitions among amphibians, amphibian to reptiles, transitions among reptiles, reptiles to mammals, and reptiles to birds. Not only that, but hominid fossils, whale fossils, and horse fossils offer us some more clues as to how organisms evolve. The order in which fossils are found also helps provide a clear picture to Earth's history in which life has formed and evolved. For example, the Archaeopteryx lineage provides us with a good idea as to how birds evolved.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

You've heard the phrase, "dead men tell no tales," right? Well, seems whoever came up with that phrase hadn't heard of the fossil record, huh? However, all these bones weren't the "first impression" of evolution - Darwin first originated the idea when he observed very differentiated species living on the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Chile. But do the fossils in the ground actually show us concrete proof of macroevolution, or can they simply be explained by macroevolution just as they can be explained by other theories? I think the latter. Take for example this idea: let's say ALF is wanting to know about how life came to be the way it is on the earth and since he's an alien, I think I can fool him pretty easily (as he hasn't lived here and heard all the theories). So I take modern skeletons and I create a web of evolutionary chains for ALF. I tell him, this mouse here, it developed into this gopher and you can see the similarities for yourself. ALF looks at it and says he agrees, but ya' know, he doesn't see any proof that those two species are linked because he doesn't see any "transition species." Okay, not a problem - I show ALF a chipmunk skeleton and ALF is now very impressed... obviously the mouse evolved into a chipmunk and the chipmunk evolved into a gopher! Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? And some of you evolutionists are pretty mad right now about how over-simplistic it is, aren't you? But you know what? We're doing the same thing with fossils that we find in the ground all the time. We take one skeleton that is similar to another skeleton and we say, okay, this one evolved into this one. Oh sure, we check to see how deeply they are buried and perform carbon-dating on them to figure it out... but really we're just dropping these fossils into a theory that we're using to explain these fossils. One thing that strikes me about the fossil record is how many goof-ups have been exposed and how vehemently scientists at one time defended these now debunked remains. Take a look at Lucy for example! Ah, but what about the archaeopteryx you ask. Well, if a bird with some physiological similarities to therapods impresses you then let me introduce you to the platypus or the echidna or any variety of bats and I'm sure we can have an amazing time.

You see, the problem with the "fossil record" is that once you have established the ToE as fact, you're by nature going to try and figure out "how all these fit together." You're probably not going to sit back and say, "hmm... maybe these don't go together." Just like how you accept the ToE although you can't come up with any explanation for how complex, unlearned behaviors could have evolved, you most likely accept the ToE although you can't come up with any explanation for how the archaeopteryx has completely devloped contour feathers and no therapod has any transition feathers... I guess some mutation just gave the archaeopteryx completely functioning, complex mechanisms known as feathers that allowed it to just start flying. How 'bout that, huh?

:smt102

j/k

Later,

BL

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... archie.htm

 

[Asimov]

No, fossils do not show us concrete proof of macro evolution (whatever that is, eh?). Yes what you stated was very ridiculous, as you ALF is not being shown objective evidence. You are basically showing him what he wants to see, which is not necessarily the truth. If you are implying that scientists are fallaciously coming up with evidences and then using them as fact…However, that is besides the point. Evolutionary theory does not operate solely on fossils, as I mentioned before, they are simply corroborative evidence that give us clues. We take a skeleton, and examine what is similar to other skeletons, in terms of bone structure, I don’t see how that can be viewed as false. Analogy: If you take a skeleton of an organism with certain features, then find another organism with similar features in a different strata, you have evidence that supports one organism evolved over a certain period of time into this organism. Then you find another organism between the two, with some features from one, and some features from the other, and you have a transitional fossil, Blue. How is that false thinking?? Second…fossils (such as dinosaur bones) are not carbon dated. As to your goof ups, I hope you are not referring to piltdown man and such? As for Lucy, she is a genuine fossil, related to humans, if you are referring to the case with her knee joint, you are sadly mistaken. As for the platypus and echidna, they are transitional species which found a niche in their environment. Archaeopteryx is physiologically similar to theropods, which adds weight to the reptile to birds idea. The problem is that we don’t establish the TOE as fact then go and look for evidence. Attempts to falsify this “established†fact is exactly what science does. If one were to view the morphological and genetic similarities to the organisms of now, and then in the fossil record view morphological similarities in the organisms of then and analyze the two, how is it fallacious to theorize that we came from these organisms?? I accept ToE based on the evidence it has, and am proud to say “I don’t know†about something. Absence of an exact explanation is not means to throw an entire theory out. Feathers can be explained by evolutionary theory, just as the eye, or complex behaviors. You are asking for something that is almost impossible to answer, and are rejecting it because there is no exact answer. No, Archaeopteryx did not mutate completely developed feathers, and there is speculation on its ability to fly.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

If you're wondering what macroevolution is, I think it can easily be defined. "The evolution of an organism population so that they are genetically isolated from other organism populations that were once reproductively viable." That looks like a good definition. Additionally, I would like to review a quote that you have made that I find laughable at best:

If you take a skeleton of an organism with certain features, then find another organism with similar features in a different strata, you have evidence that supports one organism evolved over a certain period of time into this organism. Then you find another organism between the two, with some features from one, and some features from the other, and you have a transitional fossil, Blue.

I don't even know where to begin. So let's see... I find partial skeleton of a wolf in said strata, I then find partial skeleton of "dire wolf" in next strata, and I then find partial skeleton of badger in next strata. Now bare in mind that all these skeletons have similarities. But guess what? Modern wolves didn't macroevolve from dire wolves or badgers. I guess I'm just frustrated with your analogy because it is the cartoon fossil record - that is it seems like you just pulled it out of an elementary textbook. Fossils are just not that simple and as I said before, if we scattered modern fossils throughout the strata, I could create a false evolutionary chain that would fool even you. But that wouldn't make it right. And no, scientists aren't being wrong on purpose - they are simply wrong because they believe a false premise. As for Lucy, I believe that the head of the Smithsonian recently questioned publicly whether or not Lucy should remain in the reputable museum (unfortunately, I couldn't find the news snippet). And your very short response to my in-depth reply to archaeopteryx... if archaeopteryx is a transitional species, then why does it have modern feathers?

In conclusion, whereas you feel that you lack answers for how things occurred under the ToE, I understand that the things I have brought up are in contradiction. You don't just lack the ability to explain complex, unlearned behaviors or how to answer why archaeopteryx has modern contour feathers, you lack the understanding that there aren't answers to these problems. I have presented them to you because they contradict the theory. The theory can't explain complex, unlearned behaviors and modern contour feathers blow the idea that archaeopterxy was transitional right out of the water. I think I should frustrate you when we debate creationism in the same way you have frustrated me... by saying "I don't know but that doesn't discredit the theory" repeatedly.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/evol/ev-ibeld.htm

BL

 

[Asimov]

Ok, BL. I understand perfectly what you mean. And my inability to explain phenomena certainly does not reflect upon Science's efforts in discovering how the world works, and the variation of our species. I'm not a scientist, nor do I have years and years of schooling behind my back to fully understand the complexity that is the ToE. Science is not perfect, nor is it omniscient. It's self-correcting, and maybe in the near future, we will find answers to these questions, and maybe they will fundamentally change our idea of evolution. But operating on "What ifs" and incredulity as a driving force in seeking knowledge is counter intuitive.

There's my conclusion. I enjoyed the debate, even if you did not. It was my first, and definitely not my last, as I need to brush up on my debating skills. All in all, you are currently out of my league in debate, I salute you BL.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I'm not out of your league, I simply have questions that can't be answered through the ToE. They are the questions that never get asked. They are the questions that get ignored. And usually those kinds of questions are the most important.

I salute you to though, for debating me and for acknowledging that you didn't have the answers when you didn't. I enjoyed it and I still extend the opportunity to participate in a creationism debate if you so desire.

My biggest hope through this debate is that you at least see those who disagree with the ToE as a little more credible... and if you begin to wonder about what I've said, well then then you're heading in the right direction.

Thanks,

BL