Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

All forms are transitional forms.

Intermediate links between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Read it again. “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record.”

He was proven wrong by paleontology and modern evolutionary theory.

If you have to go back over a century to a source that is far removed from modern knowledge you have nothing more than a strawman.

That never ending switch and bait tactic again. Explain to me Darwin’s evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Read it again. “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record.”

We have found these, just look at the ancestors of modern humans. Obviously no one should expect for scientists to have found or even that they will find all of them, as that would be ridiculous, but they have found some.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have found these, just look at the ancestors of modern humans. Obviously no one should expect for scientists to have found or even that they will find all of them, as that would be ridiculous, but they have found some.

I'm amazed that so much has been found.
Fossilization is such an unlikely process.

 

[Shad]

Intermediate links between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Read it again. “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record.”

I do not need to read it again since fossil records and methodology have vastly improved since Darwin. All of which supplies evidence Darwin was not aware of. Like I said you need to go back over a century to a man that lacked modern knowledge. It is nothing more than a strawman since no one follows Darwin theory of evolution as it was. The modern theory has gone well beyond Darwin's works. Darwin was ignorant of geology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, etc

That never ending switch and bait tactic again. Explain to me Darwin’s evolution.

I do not need to, see above. You are arguing against a theory as it was over a century ago. All it is not a bait and switch but your own fallacy proving your argument has no merit since you can not tell the difference. Evolution does not need to answer the origins of life since it deals with life that already exists and/or has existed.

This is no different that claiming models of planetary orbits need to account for the "origin" of the universe. Like evolution these models cover what already exists, nothing more.

 

[JM2C]

You do understand that the theory of evolution has changed quite a bit since the time of Darwin, right? Why is Darwin's views on evolution relevant rather than looking at modern evolution theory. I don't think anyone here is limited to arguing only for what Darwin believed to be the case. That would be ridiculous.

Explain the modern theory of evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Explain the modern theory of evolution.

"The neo‐Darwin view of evolution incorporates modern understanding of population genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology, to which is being added knowledge of the molecular sequencing of DNA and the insights it provides concerning the phylogeny of life. The major premises of the genetic (synthetic) theory of evolution are: evolution is the change of gene (allele) frequencies in the gene pool of a population over many generations; species (and their gene pools) are isolated from one another, and the gene pool of each species is held together by gene flow; an individual has only a portion of the pool, which came from two different parents, and the portions are different in each individual; the alleles the individual receives are subject to chromosomal or gene mutations and recombinations; natural selection will favor some individuals, who will then contribute a larger portion of their gene combinations to the gene pool of the next generation; changes of allele frequencies come about primarily by natural selection, but migration, gene flow, and chromosomal variations are contributing factors; isolation and restriction of gene flow between subpopulations and their parent populations are necessary for the genetic and phenotypic divergence of the subpopulations." (Modern Theory of Evolution)

 

[JM2C]

I do not need to read it again since fossil records and methodology have vastly improved since Darwin. All of which supplies evidence Darwin was not aware of.

You can find fossils, no argument there, but transitional forms from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal is what you can’t account for, and that is, macroevolution. Until you find the intermediate links between amphibians evolving into reptiles, then you can’t argue that macroevolution is just a long series of microevolution.

All forms are transitional forms.

If you’re talking about macroevolution, then “all forms are transitional forms” but that’s just your opinion. Macroevolution is the theoretical extrapolation of microevolution.

 

[JM2C]

"The neo‐Darwin view of evolution incorporates modern understanding of population genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology, to which is being added knowledge of the molecular sequencing of DNA and the insights it provides concerning the phylogeny of life.

The major premises of the genetic (synthetic) theory of evolution are: evolution is the change of gene (allele) frequencies in the gene pool of a population over many generations; species (and their gene pools) are isolated from one another, and the gene pool of each species is held together by gene flow; an individual has only a portion of the pool, which came from two different parents, and the portions are different in each individual; the alleles the individual receives are subject to chromosomal or gene mutations and recombinations; natural selection will favor some individuals, who will then contribute a larger portion of their gene combinations to the gene pool of the next generation; changes of allele frequencies come about primarily by natural selection, but migration, gene flow, and chromosomal variations are contributing factors; isolation and restriction of gene flow between subpopulations and their parent populations are necessary for the genetic and phenotypic divergence of the subpopulations." (Modern Theory of Evolution)

I wish you could summarize this for me.

 

[JM2C]

We have found these, just look at the ancestors of modern humans. Obviously no one should expect for scientists to have found or even that they will find all of them, as that would be ridiculous, but they have found some.

Lucy?

 

[gnostic]

Explain the modern theory of evolution.

Do you have a couple of years to learn and understand modern evolution?

Do you really think evolution is static and stuck in the 19th century?

Natural Selection (NS) have expanded beyond Darwin's original theory on NS in the 20th and 21st centuries. Because there are better technology and tools that have been developed since Darwin's time, we have better understanding of Natural Selection than Darwin ever did.

Mutation is another mechanism to the theory of evolution, and could encompass Natural Selection and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Other mechanisms are -

1. Gene Flow (in which population B migrate to population A, intermix with each other, transferring genes or alleles from one to another, otherwise known as gene migration; this is when changes in external environment don't force change upon existing population, so it is not like NS),
   
2. Genetic Drift,
   
3. and Genetic Hitchhiking.

I know less of the last 2 mechanisms, so I will leave it to others to explain GD or GH to you.

Just because there are 4 newer evolutionary mechanisms, Natural Selection is still a very relevant and valid mechanism in evolution today, which is why NS hasn't been refuted and discarded, and there being EVIDENCES still support NS.

But my point is that biologists are no longer relying on Darwin's old theory. If you truly want to learn evolution, then at least do some reading of modern evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Lucy?

Among many others, yes. I believe that Lucy was the first of many.

 

[leibowde84]

I wish you could summarize this for me.

Do you have trouble understanding it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What do you care that you have no emotions according to creationism since you consider creationism wrong.

I am merely pointing out that it is objectively true that I have emotions. And if that is true and your creationism model doesn't follow that it means that your creationism is wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can you support macroevolution when you can’t even find the missing links or “transitional forms” to support this baseless theory.

Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record


“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

No, no. You don't get to bring this up again as though we haven't already discussed it and shown that you are mistaken.

 

[Shad]

Intermediate links between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Read it again. “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record.”

Still wrong as you are creating a strawman. All transitional forms are intermediate links between existing and extinct species. You definition is completely arbitrary. Take a look at the link. A intermediate link between Homo Sapiens and Homo Heidelbergensis would be Homo Erectus. The term intermediate applies to to species which have a species between each other. There is no such thing as a half Sapien half Eructus species which is why your argument is based on your own ignorance of the topic at hand.


Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
A New Approach to Earth History | Fish to amphibian

That never ending switch and bait tactic again. Explain to me Darwin’s evolution.

Nope just pointing out your flawed logic.

I do not need to explain Darwin's evolution since it is outdated by the modern theory. Do you not understand this or are you incompetent? Just as I do not need to explain Newtonian mechanics based on Newton when the modern physics is the form now used. Newton couldn't figure out why planets moved, he thought it was angels. His outdated and incorrect views have been corrected by modern work. You question is a strawman, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

You can find fossils, no argument there, but transitional forms from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal is what you can’t account for, and that is, macroevolution. Until you find the intermediate links between amphibians evolving into reptiles, then you can’t argue that macroevolution is just a long series of microevolution. If you’re talking about macroevolution, then “all forms are transitional forms” but that’s just your opinion. Macroevolution is the theoretical extrapolation of microevolution.

The Lung Fish is a transitional form between fish and land animals. We already have a living example. It has a primitive form of lungs which is not found in the majority of fish. Your point has been refuted and is a strawman.

 

[Midnight Rain]

What he argued was that some muslim chooses with his heart and this lead him to rape a child to death, and therefore choosing with your heart is wrong and it should be held as fact what is good and evil.

Granted I didn't read the whole conversation but if that was in reference to his last post no that doesn't seem to be at all what he said.

He calculates saying to be angry at that muslim based on the fact that life is good and the muslim destroyed life. That is acting like a robot, in a forced way, and emotions require freedom, therefore he has no emotions, according to creationism.

He destroyehd someone's life. Raping a girl doesn't always kill her. It kills her soul and every man who does so should be castrated with a rusty spoon. I would imagine that he found this enraging because "it is wrong". Purely emotional response but with good reason to.

And I am quite sure it is more true than not. The only thing he and evolutionists generally do at the forums is destroy perfectly valid subjective beliefs in the soul and God for the sole reason that it is not objective. Again, and agsin, and again, it is systematic intellectual rejection of subjectivity altogether. That does not provide for any emotional life.

You can't have a perfectly valid subjective belief. Those are conflicting terms. Or at least potentially conflicting terms. To be "validated" or to become "valid" requires objective verification by definition. You sir are confused.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I wish you could summarize this for me.

 

[Parsimony]

They can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.

What are you basing this on? As far as I am aware, they did not sequence the nuclear genome of the lizards, only the mitochondrial genomes. It was the mitochondrial genomes that were found to be the same. If you can find a link from an authoritative source saying that the nuclear genome was also sequenced and found to be identical to that of the ancestral population from other islands, please do share it.

It was just an enlargement of muscles in the valve between small and large intestine that was already there.

Which provided a new function: fermentation of food to allow it to digest more thoroughly. Modification of existing body parts to perform new functions is a very big part of evolution. Evolution does not propose the creation of new traits out of nowhere: they result from the modification of existing traits and genes. Here is an excerpt from a paper about the lizards' evolution:

This shift to a predominantly plant-based diet has resulted in the dramatic evolution of intestinal morphology. Morphological analysis of preserved specimens shows the presence of cecal valves (Fig. 4) in all individuals, including a hatchling (26.4-mm snout-vent length, umbilical scar present) and a very young juvenile (33.11-mm snout-vent length) examined from Pod Mrčaru. These valves are similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards (13, 14) and are not found in other populations ofP. sicula (13) or in P. melisellensis. Cecal valves slow down food passage and provide for fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to volatile fatty acids (15, 16). Indeed, in the lizards from Pod Mrčaru, nematodes were common in the hindgut but absent from individuals from Pod Kopište. The fact that <1% of all currently known species of squamates have cecal valves (13, 14) illustrates the unusual nature of these structures in this population.

The Italian wall lizard also demonstrates the observable evolution of (1) symbiosis (the evolution of the cecal valve allowed microorganisms to populate the digestive tract and break down cellulose for the lizard to use as fuel), and (2) the improvement of existing traits (increase in head size and bite strength). Interestingly, you keep talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics like it always makes things worse over time and causes them to break down. Yet it is observably true that these lizards have improved bite strength over their ancestors. Obviously, the 2nd LoT doesn't prevent evolution from making improvements.

The same thing as the E.coli feeding on glucose in an aerobic environment but after consuming all the glucose they started to eat citrate to survive, and the same thing happened; they can’t find any genetic basis for the change so there is NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION.

Did you even read the link I posted earlier? The link did say that they found "the genetic basis for the change". Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the link:

We previously described the evolution of a novel trait, aerobic citrate utilization (Cit+), in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Here we analyze genome sequences to investigate the history and genetic basis of this trait.

Did you not even read the first paragraph? The paper says that genes in the Cit+ population had mutations that the Cit- population did not have. Without these mutations, they cannot metabolize citrate aerobically. The mutations are indeed responsible for this new capability.

The local lizards disappeared overtaken by the introduced lizards and if you read Lenski’s E.coli the same thing happened after E.coli started the citrate diet, they became strong and all those E.coli feeding on glucose with the same mechanism disappeared also. No new genetic information on both.

First of all, there were no local Italian wall lizards on the island that they were introduced to for the experiment. Secondly, I've already explained that the genetic basis for the change in the E.coli was found.

If you take a group of skinny malnourish people from a starving country and bring them to a country that is rich in food and nutrients, and leave them there for 100 years, they will change in appearance too, and just like the lizards, you won’t see a trace of them from the time they came into that country that is rich in food and nutrients after 100 hundred years. Did they gain any NEW GENETIC INFORMATION? NO, because the mechanism was there already and it’s just a matter of exercising that mechanism.

Which is not the same thing as the E.coli experiment because they did find the genetic changes which facilitated aerobic citrate metabolism. The mechanism was not "there already". If it was, then the Cit- E.coli would haven been able to metabolize citrate aerobically just like the Cit+ could. But they could not, despite being raised in the exact same environment. The mutant genes responsible for this were found and were not present in Cit- bacteria. A new gene called the rnk-citT module was found to be responsible for the initial ability for aerobic citrate metabolism in the evolved strains and further mutations resulted in improvement of the strains' ability to metabolize citrate aerobically. So we not only have an observable example of a new gene which allowed the E.coli to do something it could not do before, but also mutations which improved that ability.

If you a have a manual four speed four-wheel drive and drive it only on rough mountains or very rough countries in a low range mode most of the time, you won’t be able to use all the gears because the most you could use in that mode is up to the 2ND gear only at slow speed, [I’m talking about a 67’ Land Rover series 2A] but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the 3RD and the 4TH gear mechanisms.

Now, when you hit the pave road for the first time, not in a low range mode anymore but in high range mode, you would be able to use the 3rd gear and the 4TH gear mechanisms.

Now, think of each GEAR as NEW INFORMATION AND NEW MECHANISM.

Did you go to a mechanic, before you hit the pave road, and ADD THE TWO NEW GEARS INTO YOUR TRANSMISSION?

NO, because the mechanisms, i.e., the 3rd gear and the 4th gear, were always there, it just wasn’t use.

IOW, NO NEW GEARS, NO NEW MECHANISM AND NO NEW INFORMATION.

Except that the old E.coli strains didn't have the "3rd and 4th gear" for metabolizing citrate aerobically because they do not have the mk-citT module or the other mutations which refined its abilities. This is confirmed by genetic tests. Please read the paper.

We are talking about E.coli eating glucose and citrate as food and human as regular food and lactose. You can’t feed E.coli and human with rocks and rocks is never categorized as food to both. One could eat organic soil to cure crohn’s disease but never rocks.

It was to refute your claim that a population can adapt to a new food because it "needs" to. Evolution doesn't think and plan like that. It doesn't say, "hmm, there's nothing to eat but lactose, so I'd better evolve a way to digest that".

Are you sure about that?

I am positive. Animals could not have evolved from a modern bacterium.

Several types ofE. coliexist as part of the normal flora of the human gut and have many beneficial functions, such as the production ofvitaminK2. They also prevent harmful bacteria, known as pathogenic bacteria, from establishing themselves in the intestine.

Which has nothing at all to do with whether they are the ancestors of any animals or not.

Bait and switch

There is no bait and switch here: evolution does not act on individuals, it acts on populations. Evolutionary theory does not say that a fish can turn into an amphibian or anything else.

How can you support macroevolution when you can’t even find the missing links or “transitional forms” to support this baseless theory.

Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

A whole lot of fossils have been found since Darwin's day. Just take a look at all of the hominid ancestors for one. As you go further back in the fossil record, their brain cases become smaller and their physical characteristics become more like non-human apes. You have Homo erectus (70,000-1.9 million years ago), which is very much like modern man but with a smaller cranial capacity (850-1,100 cc vs 1,350-1,400 cc for modern humans). Before that, you have Homo habilis (1.5-2.8 million years ago) with a cranial capacity of only 550-687 cc. Australopithecus (2-4 million years ago) was much like a chimpanzee in cranial capacity (438-452 cc) but had a pelvis much more similar to that of a human. There are plenty of other primitive hominid types known besides these. Other than these, we have found quite a few transitional forms in the fossil record: turtles with half-formed shells, whales with both teeth and baleen, birds with teeth and bony tails, early therapsids with traits between reptiles and mammals, etc.

So we could avoid misunderstanding in the future; tell me Darwin’s view of evolution; Was it from inorganic to organic to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal?

No, it was from the first prokaryotes to the first eukaryotes to the first colonial organisms to the first truly multicellular invertebrates to the first notochord-bearing invertebrates to the first true vertebrates like fish to the first amphibians to the first reptiles to the first therapsids to the first mammals, etc.

Also, I see that you conveniently left out any addressing of the nylon-digesting Flavobacterium I mentioned. At least three different genes have been found to be responsible for this ability, each one performing its own function in the step-by-step process of the breaking down of man-made nylon polymers. Nylon doesn't exist in nature, as as such these genes could not have "already been there". Interestingly, this has been replicated in the laboratory: scientists were able to witness the evolution of a strain of Pseudomonas that was also capable of digesting nylon.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Intermediate links between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Aren't you an intermediate link between your ancestral grandparents and your future grandchildren?

....Doesn't that make you a transitional form?

If you don't like that analogy, try this one:
Aren't you part of a generation of homo sapiens that is markedly taller and larger than previous generations of homo-sapiens?

....Doesn't that make you a transitional form?

Explain to me Darwin’s evolution.

Living things are descended from previous forms of things like them....

Follow that to it's logical conclusion, and you'll also see that it implies that all living things are related.
(Hence, the Origin of Species.)

What I think you creationists so often fail to realize is that arguing against evolution makes about as much sense as saying that you aren't related to your grandparents.