Posted on 07/29/2011 9:24:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You can start by googling Protoavis.
This one is from an article on archaeopteryx that can be found on creation.com:
A bird which is unquestionabiy a true bird has been found which dates (by the evolutionists’ own methods) at some 60 million years older than Archaeopteryx. This was announced in Science-News 112:198, Sep. 1977) The find was assessed as above by Dr. James Jensen of Brigham Young University. The article also quotes Prof. John Ostrom of Yale:
‘… we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived.’
An attack on creation.com won’t help you here..... they are not the original source.
“Evolution is testable and reproducible and falsifiable. So is the common descent of species.”
How is it reproductible? Can we take a monkey in a lab and change a monkey into a person? Have we ever directly observed a monkey becoming a man?
No, it’s not falsifiable. Evolution makes no testable claims.
“What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?”
The part which concerns speciation. Differentiation has been observed and was recorded by Darwin. Genetics, as Mendel found is also falsifiable and is based on science.
Evolution? Not so.
“I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.”
Indeed. This is differentiation as observed by Darwin. Can you make the bacteria spontaneously form?
“What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.”
True, but all scientific theories are falsifiable.
The argument that species are themselves immutable, is at present a conjecture. Plus there’s Lamarck. Darwin’s not the only game in town.
“Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.”
Similarities in composition does not necessarily imply similarities in origin. There are other explanations.
“The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.”
Unfortunately, direct proof of such is not to be had. Circumstantial evidence, yes. Proof on the level of say general relativity? No. All scientific theories make falsifiable claims. Darwinism does not.
“Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don’t accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.”
Again, there are more theories then just this one.
“So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?”
Different from the theory that argues that every species that needed preservation from the flood is the same as every species in existence?
“What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?”
The same that is used by cattle breeders. Differentiation.
What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?
Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don’t need one?
So what is going to stop adaptive “micro” changes within a population such that two separate branches will accumulate a 2% genetic difference, as is the amount of difference between humans and chimpanzees?
Apply the meaning to “Protoavis”.
If the structures on the one known fossil of Protoavis are in fact quill knobs, it pushes the origin of feathers back a long ways before Archeopteryx.
But Archeopteryx need not be the originator of feathers (and chances are it was most certainly NOT) for it to be a species that combines traits of dinosaurs and birds such that it was a feathered flying dinosaur instead of a feathered flying dinosaur that was going to give rise to modern birds.
Evolution makes many testable claims. Claims such as that changes in the natural environment will lead to differential reproductive outcomes within a population such that some genetic variations will predominate in subsequent generations. That has been shown time and time again.
How do you define the mechanism of “differentiation” such that novel antibiotic resistance variations arise within a population after the invention of a new antibiotic?
Saying a word is not defining a mechanism.
What mechanism do you propose?
Apparently you don't think you need to.
Probably because the only known mechanism for this “differentiation” is natural selection of genetic variation.
I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.
Yes, that’s 100% true. But, your bacteria is going to be just that - bacteria. It’s not going to get up off the slide, open the lab door and walk down the street. It starts off as bacteria, and ends up as bacteria.
I believe that yes, there are changes based on influences such as environmental changes, infections, genetic mutations and abnormalities. These changes do not beget speciation. I do not believe these influences can change a dinosaur into a bird, or a cat into a dog, or monkey into man.
First, unless you supply a link to a claim made directly from a creationist stating that all mutational changes are maladaptive, this is a strawman. You state it is so, but I have not seen any such claim - and I periodically check in on these debates.
Second, what evidence can you proffer that micro changes have actually accummulated to the point of a chimp turning human, or a human chimp? Stating that it is theoretically possible is a far cry from stating it has occurred.
Once we have established that the environment selects genetic variations such that adaptive changes can and will happen, what is going to STOP the accumulation of change between two separate species such that they become some 2% genetically different, as humans and chimps are 2% genetically different?
What is going to stop “micro” changes form accumulating into “macro” differences?
Do you find it difficult to believe that mice and rats share a common ancestor?
Here is a source a former FReeper “GodGunsGuts” used to post.
So you admit it is theoretically possible? What is going to stop mutational changes of some 2% genetic difference over some six to seven million years?
As far as evidence of the common ancestry of humans and chimps we have, not only the genetic similarity, but also the presence of ERV sequences that show common descent.
Do you need an explanation of what ERV sequences are and how they show common descent?
What follows is another Creationist disavowing that mutations can lead to advantageous adaptations.
It is not at all an uncommon belief among Creationists.
Please note how they link mutation to sin entering the world, thus all change from the “original Creation” that was “perfect” cannot be said to be adaptive; not if the original configuration was “perfect”.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html
Mutations only corrupt the information already present. Leaving the organism with less genetic information, and a lower chance of survival.
This is in line with Biblical Creation, and the laws of Thermodynamics. The original Creation was perfect, and now because of sin it is starting to decay. The world and everything in it will continue to “unwind” and fall apart until the time when Christ comes.
Do you find it difficult to believe that mice and rats share a common ancestor?
No, because mice and rats are both in the family. However, mice, rats, moles do not have a common ancestor as a mountain lion, cougar, panther, or short-hair tabby.
If you tear apart 3 cars down to base mechanical structures, a Ford F150, a Chevy 1500, and a Dodge Ram 1500, they’ll look the same; sure. But they are completely different. They have the same parts, but they are put together a little different.
We’re the ‘same’ as a lot of animals on this planet, because of all the planets that exist, this one supports life - we know that for a fact. The raw materials for life are going to be similar, just like the engines, transmission, etc. for the trucks. But they’re going to be different.
you can wave your hands and scream your ‘just so’ stories all you want, and call it common descent, i, and most thinking people, recognize common design...as God designed it.....simple.
Just because you look at a mouse and a rat and see that they are “both in the family” but fail to recognize that humans and chimps are “both in the same family” doesn't make one axiomatic and the other an impossibility.
Zoologists classify humans as a primate, because we are. Among the primates, the two that are closest related are humans and chimps.
I suppose you have no problem looking at a chimp and a gorilla and seeing that they are “both in the family”. But by what criteria do you include two species that are further apart in DNA as part of the same family, but fail to include the two members that are the most similar in DNA?
If you don't understand what ERV’s are, just say so.
But it doesn't seem to matter, if you had any interest at all in learning the subject you would already know it.
Being a Creationist means never having to let evidence change your view.
Best if you don't look too closely at the evidence then, as it will be a waste of my time and yours.
:) Thanks!
“I described how evolution is reproducible. But you are now talking about how common descent of species is reproducible, way to move the goalposts”
Uh, considering how you stated common descent is essential to evolution, your objection has no merit.
“are you unaware that they are two separate phenomena?”
Give that I’m arguing that the phenomena you describe is ‘differentiation’ (which btw is hte term used by Darwin), I would presume this wasn’t the case.
“Evolution makes many testable claims. Claims such as that changes in the natural environment will lead to differential reproductive outcomes within a population”
Which isn’t falsifiable because evolution never makes claims as to how the animals will change to adapt to their environment. It doesn’t make an empirical claim that mutation x will arise in animal y in a time period z. All it says is that animals change with their environment. Which gets us back to the just so stories.
“such that some genetic variations will predominate in subsequent generations. That has been shown time and time again.”
Indeed, however a scientific theory can’t just say that large objects attract one another. It has to say that the force between the objects is governed by an inverse square of the distance between them. One is falsifialbe, the other is not.
“How do you define the mechanism of “differentiation” such that novel antibiotic resistance variations arise within a population after the invention of a new antibiotic?”
“because the only known mechanism for this “differentiation” is natural selection of genetic variation”
Indeed. Now is your argument simply, “common descent is a mere conjecture?”
I didn’t state that common descent is essential to evolution. That would be incorrect. Evolution IS essential to common descent - but it doesn’t work both ways. Do you understand why?
One doesn’t need to know the EXACT mutation to know that adaptive mutations will arise and be selected for and thus lead to a differential reproductive outcome.
A physicist doesn’t know WHICH atom will undergo radioactive decay - but they know the rate at which it will happen. But maybe radioactive decay isn’t falsifiable under your ludicrous system because they don’t know exactly WHICH atom will decay! Maybe to you Physics is a “just so” story. LOL!
So the mechanism of “differentiation” you accept is the same one proposed by Darwin, absent anything coherent you put forth one must suppose so. So as long as nobody calls it a theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation you are OK - they just need to call the exact same mechanism “differentiation” through natural selection of genetic variation - and that makes it all copacetic?
So your only explanation for the difference between human populations, novel antibiotic resistance, environmental adaptations of a population, etc - is natural selection of genetic variation! Wow. You must really admire Darwin for coming up with a theory that has SUCH AMAZING explanatory powers.
Absent Darwin you HAVE no explanation!
Let that sink in for a second.......
Oh yes, that in light of the most current data and the most current model, the idea that this particular fossil was a predecessor of birds is probably not correct. Falsification.
Your criteria seems to be that unless we can push two continents together and see the resulting mountain - the geological model that Continental upthrusting is the mechanism will be unsound.
You have confused in your mind evolution and common descent of species and what I find to be essential to either, to the point of misquoting me.
To clear up any confusion try this analogy....
Erosion can cause valley formation. Valley formation can be seen as a result of erosion forces.
Similarly....
Evolution can cause common descent of separate species. Common descent of species can be seen to be the result of evolution.
So it seems you have no problem at all with the theory of evolution Darwin described being the mechanism of evolution - so long as I call it differentiation.
Your problem seems to be just how much difference can be accumulated?
How about a 2% genetic difference?
What would stop a 2% genetic difference from accumulating between two separate species, considering that mutation IS going to happen?
the fact that by definition, species cannot interbreed with one another?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.