Belgian freak
27 Apr '05 10:12 Origionaly posted by Belgain freak
Could you answer these points? The first supports evolution, the second casts doubt on creationism - or do you have another take on them?
1) certain physical traits are of advantage to creature from different families but similar lifestyles. For example, the super optic lobe (SOL) is the bulge of bone above your eye where your eyebrow is - it's found in a lot of animals who's eyes face forwards to allow depth perception, such as eagles, humans, chimps, crocs and lions, because loss of 1 eye is a major disadvantage to survival.
Here's the bit that supports Theory of Evolution (ToE). Long before we could identify the individual gene groups responsible for certain physical traits ToE had mapped out where species were though to have diverged. It stands to reason that if species B & C diverged from A, and A already had a SOL, then the gene group responsible for the SOL in A would remain the same in both B & C. Likewise, if species D did not have a SOL but species E & F both do then the SOL must have evolved after the division of species and therefore the gene group must be different. Although ToE predicted where species diverged and what from decades before gene technology this has now been shown to be true countless times - where ToE predicted that B & C evolved from A, and A already possessed a certain trait, that the genes responsible for this trait are still the same in B & C, and visa versa with E & F having different gene groups from each other because D didn't have those genes to give. Going back to the previous example, Lions and crocs were predicted to have diverged long before they had SOLs, and their gene groups for SOL have been shown to be different, whereas chimps and humans have the same gene group for SOL which fits the prediction that we come from a common ancestor who already has SOLs. How is this prediction by using ToE possible if not because ToE is correct?
2) Genetic diversity - we see it all around us and there's way too many gene varients to have come from 2 people (who could hold a maximum only 2 varients for each group each). So, without accepting that new gene groups have been created since Adam & Eve, or since Noah & family if you wish, where have all the extra gene groups come from?
I wanted to write a fuller response but it seems I am not going to get the time. I have just jotted down a few unconnected thoughts about the questions. Here they are. Sorry I took so long.
Question 1.
1. The claim that the loss of one eye is not backed by empirical evidence.
2. The claim that 'long before' we could identify gene groups seems an exaggeration. How long?
3. We have tentatively identified some gene groups, but we are far from the point that you assume in the criticism.
4. How did ToE map out points of divergence? Molecular clock theory has been dropped. Do you have any other that I am not aware of? Mathematical models do NOT assume phyletic gradualism. They just arrange data point into groups based on similarity in Cartesian space. It is people who talk about "common ancestors". There are NO data points on dendrograms or in the fossil record. Its a mathematical construct.
5. There is no emperical evidence for ancestral species from which organisms are claimed to diverge. It is an assumption of the ToE.
6. You mention "decades" before gene technology and "contless times". Well, you could at least give us some, say 10, examples or references out of the contless (millions?) you suggest.
7. The claims that lions and crocs are "predicted" to diverge, is not a prediction of the ToE but it is what the ToE is based on. We cannot use observations from which we derive a theory as evidence for that thoery, because that is circular reasoning.
8. You claim that the common ancestor of crocs and lions did not have the same group of SOLs. Where is the evidence? How can you be sure without any evidence? The only 'evidence' is that they do not have the same gene groups noe. But this is a theory, not a prediction from the theory. What if the common ancestor for crocs and lions did have the same gene groups or SOLs. The ToE would claim that one line lost the trait and then re-evolved it using other gene groups. So the ToE would not be disproved by the presence or absence of the same gene group for the SOLs in crocs and lions. It is just not science.
9. Lastly, at he philosophical level, the evidence is not incompatible with creation. Take for example the evolution of the car. We can trace different lineages and design patterns between two different makes of cars. But they all have a designer and they are all separate creations. One did not change into another by chance.
Question 2.
1. It is not clear what you mean here. Science tells us that genetic diversity always decreases from a maximum for any species, including the human species. This is one of the basic reasons for extinction, and from a creation perspective, the creation of new life forms.
2. Genetic diversity in humans has not nearly been exhausted. Every male produces millions of gametes in their lifetime, and every one is unique. Even if we double the maximum possible time for the origin of the human species, we would not have used half the possible variations.
3. The question about the origin of new genetic information is precisely one that the creation position raises. Where, if it all happened by chance, do all the extra gene groups come from? Evolutionists themselves admit that "chance and necsssity" may eliminate the unfit, but can it create the fit and even more, produce new species?
Could you answer these points? The first supports evolution, the second casts doubt on creationism - or do you have another take on them?
1) certain physical traits are of advantage to creature from different families but similar lifestyles. For example, the super optic lobe (SOL) is the bulge of bone above your eye where your eyebrow is - it's found in a lot of animals who's eyes face forwards to allow depth perception, such as eagles, humans, chimps, crocs and lions, because loss of 1 eye is a major disadvantage to survival.
Here's the bit that supports Theory of Evolution (ToE). Long before we could identify the individual gene groups responsible for certain physical traits ToE had mapped out where species were though to have diverged. It stands to reason that if species B & C diverged from A, and A already had a SOL, then the gene group responsible for the SOL in A would remain the same in both B & C. Likewise, if species D did not have a SOL but species E & F both do then the SOL must have evolved after the division of species and therefore the gene group must be different. Although ToE predicted where species diverged and what from decades before gene technology this has now been shown to be true countless times - where ToE predicted that B & C evolved from A, and A already possessed a certain trait, that the genes responsible for this trait are still the same in B & C, and visa versa with E & F having different gene groups from each other because D didn't have those genes to give. Going back to the previous example, Lions and crocs were predicted to have diverged long before they had SOLs, and their gene groups for SOL have been shown to be different, whereas chimps and humans have the same gene group for SOL which fits the prediction that we come from a common ancestor who already has SOLs. How is this prediction by using ToE possible if not because ToE is correct?
2) Genetic diversity - we see it all around us and there's way too many gene varients to have come from 2 people (who could hold a maximum only 2 varients for each group each). So, without accepting that new gene groups have been created since Adam & Eve, or since Noah & family if you wish, where have all the extra gene groups come from?
I wanted to write a fuller response but it seems I am not going to get the time. I have just jotted down a few unconnected thoughts about the questions. Here they are. Sorry I took so long.
Question 1.
1. The claim that the loss of one eye is not backed by empirical evidence.
2. The claim that 'long before' we could identify gene groups seems an exaggeration. How long?
3. We have tentatively identified some gene groups, but we are far from the point that you assume in the criticism.
4. How did ToE map out points of divergence? Molecular clock theory has been dropped. Do you have any other that I am not aware of? Mathematical models do NOT assume phyletic gradualism. They just arrange data point into groups based on similarity in Cartesian space. It is people who talk about "common ancestors". There are NO data points on dendrograms or in the fossil record. Its a mathematical construct.
5. There is no emperical evidence for ancestral species from which organisms are claimed to diverge. It is an assumption of the ToE.
6. You mention "decades" before gene technology and "contless times". Well, you could at least give us some, say 10, examples or references out of the contless (millions?) you suggest.
7. The claims that lions and crocs are "predicted" to diverge, is not a prediction of the ToE but it is what the ToE is based on. We cannot use observations from which we derive a theory as evidence for that thoery, because that is circular reasoning.
8. You claim that the common ancestor of crocs and lions did not have the same group of SOLs. Where is the evidence? How can you be sure without any evidence? The only 'evidence' is that they do not have the same gene groups noe. But this is a theory, not a prediction from the theory. What if the common ancestor for crocs and lions did have the same gene groups or SOLs. The ToE would claim that one line lost the trait and then re-evolved it using other gene groups. So the ToE would not be disproved by the presence or absence of the same gene group for the SOLs in crocs and lions. It is just not science.
9. Lastly, at he philosophical level, the evidence is not incompatible with creation. Take for example the evolution of the car. We can trace different lineages and design patterns between two different makes of cars. But they all have a designer and they are all separate creations. One did not change into another by chance.
Question 2.
1. It is not clear what you mean here. Science tells us that genetic diversity always decreases from a maximum for any species, including the human species. This is one of the basic reasons for extinction, and from a creation perspective, the creation of new life forms.
2. Genetic diversity in humans has not nearly been exhausted. Every male produces millions of gametes in their lifetime, and every one is unique. Even if we double the maximum possible time for the origin of the human species, we would not have used half the possible variations.
3. The question about the origin of new genetic information is precisely one that the creation position raises. Where, if it all happened by chance, do all the extra gene groups come from? Evolutionists themselves admit that "chance and necsssity" may eliminate the unfit, but can it create the fit and even more, produce new species?