Tarzan,

If you’re interested in other such examples of intermediates or those which can be used as examples bridges one group to another group I recommend researching groups like the early reptiles and their descendants the mammal like reptiles and their descendants the reptile like mammals. With regards to these groups, its sometimes hard to identify which are clearly reptile and clearly mammal as the intermediates are so numerous, so numerous in fact that paleontologists continue to debate on where the lines are drawn between such large groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodont

“... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?”

Well of course it would have been able to, members of the same species by definition are able to breed amongst and with each others of the same species. Some members of one species can interbreed with another closely related species (lions and tigers or horses and donkies), but they generally reproduce with difficulty or produce infertile offspring so the lineage can’t continue with this hybrid, be it a Liger or Mule. With this in mind, it’s at possible that Archaeopteryx was not only able to mate with those of its own species, but also those genetically close enough, but again the offspring would be infertile.

From the site you referenced – http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html

“Two important points evolutionary biologists rely on when claiming Archaeopteryx was a transitional form, are the claws on its wings and its teeth.”

Take all the intermediate features, and how closely they demonstrate Archaeopteryx and those of its type as being a transitional species. No modern birds have teeth, but the first birds did, not just teeth either, but notable reptilian teeth. No modern birds have a reptile like head and no beak/bill either like Archaeopteryx and others like it. No modern have a long tail with feathers either, but the first birds did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

“shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods,”

You can find some on talkorigins, but here are some tidbits. I think PBS or Nova’s site also has some info on them. Refer to the articles from Wiki and not just the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

http://pandasthumb.org/links.html

agentorangex... i know the difference between micro and macro, sorry if i worded incorrectly... i did read up on theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx... saw 2 opposing viewpoints

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html

... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?

... shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods, would be interesting reading... thanks for the kind replies

Tarzan,

Re-read what the differences are between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the allelic genetic variance from generation to generation, like how your parents might have blue eyes, while you have brown, or how the offspring of a black and white person will have such a variance from its parents in many respects.

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level boundary, so anytime a species diversifies into a new species, you have macro evolution. This is when genetically speaking, a species becomes isolated and can’t breed with its former ancestor, at this point each species goes on it’s own genetic trajectory.

“but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks”

These are examples and not realistic ones, however a better example is reviewing extinct species, and other extinct species, which lived more recently, and then extant (living) species and showing their common ancestry. For this I suggest looking at major animal groups, like theropod dinosaurs and birds, and then such examples of species like Archaeopteryx, which exhibited transitional features between both groups.

Another example would be reviewing the transitionals between lobe finned fish and early amphibian tetrapods. If you’d like the examples for these, please ask, I’ll cite them.

Another example would some interesting apes from Africa who began walking upright and showed a progressive use of tools and growing of the cranium and development of culture.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

agentorangex, i read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and all i saw was micro evolution.... plants mutating into different kind of plants.. flies mutating into differing flies... but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks... etc

“I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is.”

ID folk say it’s a theory and as such it should have many avenues from which it can pull its evidence from and be falsifiable and falsified from, just like how evolution pulls from many different avenues of knowledge and based on them and their falsifiability they and it can be falsified. How is ID falsifiable?

“is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being”

Firstly, you’re wrong animals don’t ‘desire to change’ in accordance with evolution, their change is the result of external forces, conditions and environmental pressures, most of which they absolutely no direct control over and due to their lacking control the only course of action they have to continue to exist is to change.

“it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability”

How do you mean, elaborate please. Evolution for a given animal makes a certain animal(s) more apt of survive in a given environment, but environments aren’t static and as such animals continually have to adapt. Perhaps bacteria are the best ‘all suited’ of all animals to survive all habitats, virtually all animals are local their niche, biome and this is where they thrive, outside of it, food and resource competition makes a living harder.

“Also, origins is a problem for evolution”

How? Evolution would still be a viable concept regardless if aliens engineered it, god poofed it, or if it arose naturally, in the end evolution as a process still holds water. Evolution only seems to be a problem for those that expect evolution to explain origins, but alas it does not.


“I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will".’

Reject NS you might, but the problem is as it pertains to ‘Science’ and how ‘god’s will’ is totally unfalsifiable and as such can’t be explained in a scientific manner and this is the problem ID faces and it can’t explain the designer for fear of being called religion. So what ‘common sense’ basis reveals to you NS isn’t tenable as an explanation for evolution?

For instance, how does ID explain ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion in a scientific manner? Surely ‘the designer made it that way’ isn’t a scientific explanation as its not falsifiable.

“From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence,”

They don’t? The notion of IC is based squarely on personal incredulity and ignorance. ‘ I don’t know how it could have evolved, so a designer MUSTA dun it’. That sums of the arguments for IC pretty much. The instances of IC Behe refers to have been addressed and shown to have evolutionary pathways, and yet still I hear time and again how I am supposed to be in awe of the complexity of the flagella or the immune system.

‘take it up with them.’

Or just watch Ken Miller address Behe’s argument for IC here…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A


“it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas,”

How is arguing for IC not an argument from god of the gaps again? Look at how all the examples Behe has given have been shown to have evolutionary explanations and in the end Behe is the one looking not too wise in defining them as IC and he did so chiefly b/c ‘he couldn’t see how evolution could make sense of it’.

‘I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack...”

how’s it an attack, it’s the truth. ID lost in peer reviewed science journals? Check. Lost in court to have it injected into classrooms? Check. Last resort is to mass media and PR

‘Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test,”

They’ve been put to the test and each time have fallen just like William Paley’s old watchmaker arguments. SSDD.

“say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective”

Well, lets hear some actual SCIENTIFIC evidence with respect to ID that stands up to testing and critique. The way you talk it’s just overflowing, so lets hear some. I’ll wait….

"Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution."

Hate to burst your bubble, but simply stating it's falsifiable doesn't make it so. Show HOW it's falsifiable based on it's own evidence and testing.

Correction: There are many theories in Evolutionary thought, but they are not so wide in explanation (at least as far as I have seen) as ID theory.

Agentorange (Part 1),

I will briefly respond here, thanks for your posts though!

"Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?"

I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is. I.D. ranges from Theistic Evolution to 6-Day Creationism. My position is closer to a "theistic" evolution, and yes there are "atheistic" and "theistic" branches of evolution. Personally, I have near zero training in science and therefore I am not qualified to debate any specifics. However common sense leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being, it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability). Also, origins is a problem for evolution, whether or not evolution deals with it does not matter, because there was an origin and that origin will vastly effect the way we interpret data and look for answers regarding evolution. ERVs and Chromosomes aside.

That being said, perhaps there is in fact good evidence for evolution, big deal!? I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will". This is Intelligent Design. Perhaps you can substitute an alien for God, as Richard Dawkins apparently has done (still waiting for substantiation of that though) and Watson, from Watson and Crick most certainly assumed.

Agentorange (Part 2)

"B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence."

From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence, but what they believe is evidence supporting their position. You may disagree, but you should take it up with them. Anyways, it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas, except when they are pointing out supposed holes in evolutionary theory. This is a baseless attack, and is not valid.

"We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific."

I have never heard an ID proponent call for adopting a new theory, only to discuss ideas.

"But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns."

I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack... Anyways, Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test, and he said if they are really as fraudulent as Evolutionists claim then they can be blown away. Why would Stein say this if it was able to happen? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between the two sides...

Anyways, I think this whole debate is laughable and a shame. If I were a brilliant scientist on either side I would say "Hey let us discuss and reason and come to a conclusion" So far, I haven't been hearing that from the Evolutionist side, I just hear a lot of baseless attacks. (I say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective, they are based on ignorance thereof, and they really really are).

Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution.

seed,


“You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date”

Seedy, all science is based on the natural world, as soon as you include the super natural into the equation to explain things it ceases to be Science. This is why calling is ‘naturalism’ as if its comparable to other isms is wrong and horrid logic.

“They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent.”

Certain DNA? The sheet fact that DNA is a common coded heredity passed down each generation only adds more evidence for evolution, for if it didn’t exist it would he hard if not impossible to explain how species change in response to their environment. And to you, how can you make sense of such evidence but by inferring such evolution or common descent? Surely were evolution and common descent not to be valid we would have found it to be falsified on many fronts, but after finding genetics we’ve found it to fill in further gaps and define more details only reaffirming current knowledge of evolutionary biology.

“They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries.’

So what is your alternative explanation, that some super duper ID is magically controlling the beak sizes and allowing bacteria to magically have the ability to all of a sudden digest nylon? Natural Selection is a natural process, just like the coming and going of the weather, there need not be string pulling. How is such a hypothesis of ID working on such micro levels even testable or falsifiable?

“But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution.”

Sure it’s a valid question, we don’t know how yet, but does not knowing how rule out evolution once life exists? No, it most certainly doesn’t.

“Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak.”

And Behe? Were his ideas refused an open forum? No, they weren’t. His idea of IC from ‘Darwin’s Black box’ have been addressed in literature and only fools still use the flagella and others as instance for ID.

“gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time,”

and the evolutionary process is one we can test everyday in the labs and based on such knowledge can make falsifiable predictions, even regarding where we should find certain intermediate forms like Tiktaalik. Now why should we be able to make such a prediction of where/when such transitional forms should exist unless such evolution at the macro level are indeed true? Additionally, genetic evidence like ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion can only be explained by inferring such macro-evolutionary changes. Again, these are facts and such facts only make sense in light of large macro changes over time.

Chris333

“Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?”

Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?

“until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"”

No chris, if ID is actually supported by actual evidence and actual testing it will be a form of science regardless of how hard anyone tries to ignore it. B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence.

“Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right?”

You lead off, go ahead pick the areas in which evolutionary theory can’t yet explain. Don’t cry, now is your chance, pick something it can’t legitimately explain. We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific. But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns.

Good points Chris. The fact is is that Neo-Darwinism may never be capable of actually being proven in as a historical fact. Here, the naturalist must take it by faith. They see certain DNA that seems to demonstrate common decent. They see various changes in beaks and colors as well as in bacteria that they interpret to imply natural selection and random genetic mutations are our beneficiaries. All the while numerous skepticism remains in their thinking regarding the historical evidence surrounding the Nazarene. Never mind the changed lives. The hundreds of prophecies are to ancient to understand nor can the texts be reliable. It is interesting indeed the way evidence can be rallied behind while other evidence can be shrugged off without a moments notice.

To presuppose evolution to the detriment of scientific research only leads to the degradation of science and the trustworthiness it exerts in the community.

You speak clearly here that it is the best model that naturalism has to date. This speaks to the issue that seems to be lost in the academic community. If this simple concept was nailed down, I think that it would do wonders for scientific progress. Until it is one hundred percent certain, it has the power to do indeterminable harm.

Agent, your list only reveals the reality of changes, not the benefits of teaching evolution. All creationists worth their credentials recognize changes. While it is debated within creationists and ID proponents exactly what these changes constitute, neither deny them.

Agentorange continued,

"Right, but like i'd said before, with regards to evolution working as a process or not, it matters not how life originated, so essentially it's a non-factor in determining if evolution be true or not. "

But it is a valid question, one which is essential to evolution. Still, I believe that ID proponents by and large have more problems than just origins.

"Myers has submitted an article to peer review (free speech) and it was promptly destroyed"

Myers article was not even supposed to be allowed to be peer reviewed, that was a slip in the system so to speak. It is one thing to give objective criticism, it is another to outrightly ban an idea from scientific inquiry.

"And do we not have facts about the holocaust, gettysburg adress, WWII, gravitation, heliocentrism, and evolution? Ahh, but we do and as such we are responsible to teach the facts as this is what is supported."

WWII happened recently and we have historical documents, places and people to verify what happened, gravity is a constant force which we can feel and test virtually any time, heliocentrism is not as easy to test as gravity, but it can be known by simple observation and record. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years, and cannot be seen today, the only way to access said facts is by labratory. Certainly there are facts supporting it, but it is not comparable to the others you mentioned, even on a basic level.

Agentorange,

"Agriculutture (genetically modified crops), medicine (evolutionary techniques for medicines), healthcare ( identifying unique genes in hosts which corelate to diseases or make the host immune to them) want more?"

I believe that ID does not exclude any of the mentioned benefits of evolutionary theory, as such it would not matter which theory one espoused, the only thing that would change is the perspective or means of reaching the conclusion. Perhaps an example of something that evolutionary theory gives us, which ID cannot?

"To get to that level it has to EARN its way, by showing EVIDENCE and TESTING which supports their claims. Simply putting it into the ring to be shredded wont advance anything, we need sound hypothesis which can be supported by plenty of evidence and produce results. ID has had a few articles go before the peer reviewed journals, alas they were SHREDED for lacking evidence"

This seems very unscientific, it is basically like someone saying, "Hey professor, I have a theory about such and such" To which the professor abruptly responds, "You are so stupid, how could you have a theory about this, just by the title of your theory I can see that there is no evidence for it, hahaha, I am so smart and superior, hahaha, you have to earn your way, until then I will laugh at you, hahahaha"

"AGAIN, Stein is Wrong here. Theories in science have boundaries on what they can and can't explain, no single theory can explain all facets of all things all at once. Theories in science are like collective pieces of a pie of truth which collectively explain the universe."

Fine, now lets talk about holes in the evolution theory, and lets talk about how and if they can be explained using the evolutionary theory, or if some new theory should be introduced, that is what science is about right? (Wait, maybe I am mistaken, maybe science just maintains the old forms of thought FOREVER)