That has been the position of science for a long time. And, there is evidence of that working, as there are and always have been many theists who also make scientific contributions. Of course, those contributions do not reference god in any way, because that's not part of the realm of science. It's outside scientific method. This comes out by looking at how scientific method is defined. And, it's why it might be interesting if someone were to try to make a definition of the process religion uses for exploring our universe.
Since more people are familiar with the UD model, i will go there, first. I am just going to touch on the evidence, as we can dig deeper, sourcing & quoting studies as we scrutinize each model. This will be a long, slow, systematic process, that does not lend itself to soundbites or bumper sticker slogans. I request science & reason for any rebuttals. The UD Model Definitions: Life began as a single organism, & evolved into the complexity & variety we see today. All living things are related, since they are universally descended. Slow, gradual, cumulative processes were the Cause for the variety of organisms. Predictions: there should be many transitional forms, where species are becoming another, in every family/genera. Old ones dying out, & new ones adapting. The Evidence: Regarding transitional forms, there is a problem of evidence. Most of what is called 'transitional' is speculative. There is no way to conclusively determine the ancestry. Just because some organisms 'look' similar, does not indicate ancestry. This is where the genetic information comes in. We can follow if an organism has actual descendancy from another, with certain dna 'tags' For example. We can trace the mtDNA in canids, & see a direct line of descent between wolves, domestic dogs, coyotes, dingos, foxes, etc. We can follow the clear lines of amazing variety within this animal phylotype. There is hard evidence.. the mtDNA flag, that is passed down from mother to daughter, and that indicates ancestral descendancy from a common parent. Here is a study where the mtDNA was traced in several different canids.. i'll quote some of the study, in boxes. The graph shows the genetic connection, following the mtDNA. source Now, to show the problem of 'speciation', almost all of the family canidae can reproduce with each other, yet they are called a different species! So how does that work, to define 'speciation' as the inability to reproduce? So, we have some hard evidence.. that of the dna flags, that can trace actual descendancy, and we can see a wide variety within canids. But are any of these 'transitional forms?' Not that i can see. They are still all canids, can reproduce with each other, bark like canids, bite like canids, eat like canids.. as far as anyone can see, they are all still canids. Now, 'Canidae' is a family designation, in the phylogenetic tree of life. But you can see it fails in this, as too many of these family members, which are supposed to be different species, can still reproduce, & are of the same genetic type.. they share not only similar genetic makeup, but can even reproduce. So this shows some of the difficulty in making arbitrary labels of 'species!', when it lacks the hard evidence to make it. A similar dna trail can be made with equidae, & we can follow the connections between horses, donkeys, & zebras. Now, some of them can only produce a hybrid.. a mule or such, so they have become somewhat isolated, reproductively. But from genetics we can see the clear indicators of descent, so that is a better indicator than reproduction. As to transitional forms. We see the variation in canidae & equidae. But are they transitional forms? From what to what? There are some nice drawings that assert such descendancy, but there is no hard genetic evidence to show it. There is no evidence, that i have seen, that shows any relation between canidae, equidae, or any other phylogenetic family. It is all conjectured & assumed. ..drawn as a plausible possibility, but with no hard evidence to back it. The genes between equid & canids are completely different. Most canids have 78 chromosomes.. 39 pairs. Most equids have 64.. 32 pairs. So where or what is the transition between canids & equids? Canidae is from the order carnivora, in the UD model. So there should be some kind of transition between skunks, cats, otters, & dogs. We should expect there to be some kind of transitional forms, that show a connection between them, such as with the various canids. Here is the UD model for descent, for a few common animals.. to show the classification. We can follow the genetic connection in the canis genus, and there is not a distinct reason to have wolf & the domestic dog as separate species, since they can reproduce. Genetically, they are the same 'species', just a little different morphologically.. IOW, they are mere variations of the same phylotype. But there is no evidence of anything transitioning between canidae and felidae.. there are no blends of felids & canids. Even though the cheetah has dog-like feet, it is still genetically a felid. So why no evidence of transition? Why is there so much evidence for the relations within canids, equids, & felids, but nothing for any transitional forms? The evidence is lacking. We would expect there to be transitional forms in this model, but there are none. We find each phylotype as distinct, separate, & with a unique DNA to its phylogenetic family. There is nothing to suggest a transition between felids & canids, or others in the carnivora order. The evidence is lacking, & no conclusion can be made, regarding this prediction. I will leave it to others to explain why there are no transitional forms, in the order carnivora, when that is what is claimed by the model. If anyone has any evidence FOR transitional forms, within a family/genus/species, i would be very interested in seeing it. And, if anyone has a plausible explanation as to why we see no transitional forms, when that is what is predicted by the model, i would be interested in that, as well.
In another thread you claim,,and I quote "Atheists are less intelligent than believers." Do you have any scientific evidence that supports your assertion?
I have only addressed one prediction, in this model, to give it the attention it deserves. I would hope that each one could be scrutinized, & the evidence examined. If there is none, we have to observe that. Speculating about some future evidence, or hearsay, or assertions, will not be considered. Studies, quotes, & sourced references to any evidence will be needed.
Most of this looks to me like a criticism of the taxonomy, not of evolution. And, in fact, there are more than one taxonomic trees proposed, representing recent finds, and different levels of aggressiveness in making changes. Plus, you're concerned that we didn't find all the fossils. I am, too. We should do more exploring. If you want to know how chromosome number changes, you can google "How does chromosome number change" If you want to read about Dormaalocyon latouri, which is thought to be the last common parent of dogs and cats you can google "what did dogs and cats descend from?" Since it lived 55 million years ago we don't have a complete fossil record.
Daily observation on this and other Boards online. Guys, leave it alone. You convince no one, simply no one, other than you are being silly.
Yes, there is a problem with taxonomic classifications. they are based in the assumption of UD, & are basically circular reasoning. That is why i have made a more generic f/g/s, or 'phylotype' as a descriptor. I have not gotten to fossils, yet. This is about transitional forms, or species. If you want to talk about chromosome numbers, go for it. Try to correlate it to the discussion. No need to mask any ad hom. Casting aspersions on my knowledge is pretty pathetic. You can demonstrate your knowledge here in real time, & you don't have to compete or compare yourself to me. If you want to bring up evidence for a transitional species, why not do it? Just hinting about it is not evidence. Hiding behind long time periods is not a good excuse, for the lack of transitional forms. You still have no evidence for the claim. Thanks for the mostly topical reply.
1. Taxonomy is descriptive. It is not being used as evidence. It's being used to document and communicate. There is no circle. Taxonomy is a generally useful term applicable to description of information. 2. You got to fossils when you introduced the possibility of a critter that lived 55 million years ago. And, you ignored the fact that there are known transitions between many of the dog types that are alive today. In fact, it is highly likely that humans were involved in breeding dogs from wolves, all the way down to those trinket sized pooches movie stars carry in their purses. That's evolution, too - just not "natural selection". Also, in the past people on this board have given evidence of the evolution of new species. Those, too, are transitions. Evolution holds all species to be transitional. That is, there is always something that came before and something that came (or will come) after. There is also extinction, of course. But, the point is that individual changes are often/usually small, with the overall effect requiring many. You can't pick one out of the middle and say "that is a transition" and then pick another one and say "that is not a transition". 3. It was you who brought up chromosome numbers. I'm just pointing out how you can read about it if you're interested. There are a number of ways chromosome number can change, and it makes no sense to describe them all here. Plus, I would just have to go look it up! 4. I don't compare myself to you in any way. Sorry if I was too abrupt, or ... 5. As above. Dogs. All organisms are transitional. Maybe science has found something that stopped evolving. Human evolution might be slow right now (not sure of the consensus on that), but there is evidence it hasn't stopped - blue eyes, change to allow digesting milk as an adult, smaller brains. 6. Evolution can take a long time periods to cause differences as large as those between cats and dogs. There is no speed limit here and there isn't one rate. Anyone else? Please be fully critical of what I've said - additions/corrections/shaddups.
the prediction was: there should be many transitional forms, where species are becoming another, in every family/genera. Old ones dying out, & new ones adapting. I provided an observation of a lack of evidence for this prediction. If you wish to rebut that, you would need to show evidence for this prediction. I'll repeat my final point: If anyone has any evidence FOR transitional forms, within a family/genus/species, i would be very interested in seeing it. And, if anyone has a plausible explanation as to why we see no transitional forms, when that is what is predicted by the model, i would be interested in that, as well. Otherwise, we'll go on to the next prediction. Fossils, time, & other things can be addressed later.
Fossilization is an uncommon process and finding one even more so. Speciation is an extremely gradual and incremental process which is virtually impossible to see in any one creature. Expecting to see the combination of these two ephemeral possibilities in some combined situation will simply never happen. You are asking to watch a Diamond form from coal.
The opposite is also true! Right in this thread we have the OP pushing the false equivalence of genuine science with bogus "creation science". To deny that is the epitome of silliness would be disingenuous. Furthermore the OP is far from being the only theist who promotes this kind of idiocy all over internet boards.
But if we provide the actual evidence the OP will just claim that it is "heckling". Let's address these fallacies in a logical manner. The OP is alleging that the definition of a species is the inability to interbreed. In which case the mystery of speciation has been resolved already. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217151645.htm And before the OP throws a hissyfit the REVERSE experiment has been performed in order to create a new species of fruitfly that cannot interbreed with others from the original gene stock. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ Now that we have thoroughly debunked the theist myth that there is no evidence for the existence of new species we can turn to the myth about "missing evidence". What the OP is DEMANDING is that all 35 generations would have to be included in the fossil record for that evidence to exist. But even if those fossils were to exist they would not provide the evidence that the OP is demanding because DNA DOES NOT FOSSILIZE! The changes in the fossil record are to physical characteristics of the skeleton and that takes a great deal more than just 35 generations. That is a process that occurs on a time scale of hundreds of thousands of years. The fossil record of hominids covering a couple of million years demonstrates that the kind of evidence the OP wants has to have happened on an a daily basis for the last 500 million years or so. The problem with the OP's bizarre demand is that were such a fossil record to exist there would be no life left on this planet because fossilization events cause the demise of the creature that was fossilized. A flood, volcanic ash, a meteor strike, an earthquake, even just falling into a tar pit are catastrophic events for the creatures who are caught up in them and wiped out. The OP is being DISINGENUOUS by demanding evidence that does not exist while REJECTING the evidence that DOES exist. Fossils do not contain DNA but DNA does contain "fossil" evidence if you understand what you are looking at. Mitochondrial DNA points to all 7 billion humans alive on the planet today sharing a single common ancestor. http://www.scienceinafrica.com/biotechnology/human-origins/human-origins-evidence-genes In essence the evidence that the OP fallaciously alleges does not exist actually does exist but just not in the format that the OP is demanding. That the OP lacks either the knowledge or the willingness to acknowledge the scientific evidence is not the problem of science. The OP's theist confirmation bias is to reject the scientific evidence that exposes the fallacies of his allegations. And that is why this thread should NOT be in the science forum at all since the OP is not interested in the acknowledging and dealing with the scientific evidence that refutes his bogus allegations.
I only see that as a means of appeasing the moderate religious. The only difference between 'how' and 'why' questions is a matter of how the question is framed and not the substantive answer.
No it wasn't. You evaded providing us with your explanation of how to investigate religious claims in a way analogous to scientific claims. Don't worry you're not the first to do this and you won't be the last. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You couldn't show it
These are assertions, not evidence. Do you have any evidence for point #1? I have seen none, & will now go on to address the ID model & it's first prediction. Excuses for why you cannot see any evidence is not evidence. It does not provide anything but plausibility, if you give credence to the excuses. But we are not compiling a list of excuses, but examining the empirical evidence, to see how it fits in either model.
Now, i will look at point #1 in the ID model. Definitions: A creator, or unseen, intelligent designer created each living phylogenetic type, as a family/genus/species. A multitude of variety of living things began all at once, simultaneously. This is not necessary, but seems reasonable, given the interdependency of living things. Predictions: There are no evolutionary changes taking place, at the macro level. Only horizontal, 'micro' adaptation is occurring. Using the same canid study of genetics, let us see if its findings are congruent with the ID model. This is the one i quoted yesterday, with the chart. How do we 'know?' the above, that Darwin merely speculated? DNA. Specifically, the mtDNA flag that indicates direct descent. They admit that the origin of the diversity among canids is mostly unknown. I'll try to summarize a few of the main points, as they would apply to the ID model. 1. Most varieties of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs. 2. Selection acts on existing variability. 3. ALL of this variability must have existed in the ancestral wolf/parent. 4. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such diversity. This is not inconsistent with the ID model. It fits the prediction. In this study, we can follow 'micro' evolution, or simple variation within a phylogenetic type (f/g/s, phylotype, or whatever you want to call it.. the base genetic structure of an organism). there is no indication of any 'macro' changes, or structural changes in the genome. Chromosome pairs are not being added or removed, new traits are not being created, & the organisms are merely displaying a built-in variety, from genes that were already present. This study supports the prediction of the ID model. These are minor changes in existing diversity, not structural changes in the genome. This is the first point for both models. I request evidence for or against, with sound reasoning to apply it to the models. I have only presented this one canid study, & there are thousands more that could be presented, for or against either model. But this one study, with its conclusions, seems to favor the ID model, on the surface. I would be very interested in hearing any alternate explanations, or counter evidence that would dispute this conclusion.
You were told the methods of exploration and proof were different for both. I am telling you that again. Because you disagree means nothing.
