What Evolution teaches vs what we observe in nature [Archive]

Scop274

March 18th, 2009, 9:47 am

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 9:50 am

It is always a good tactic in a debate to use a completely nonsensical graph or chart in order to prove your point.

The graph shows the evolution of the different kinds of created beings. At the bottom of the graph is creation and we see the orchard spreading up where the different kinds evolve into different races or species before the flood. Then the process starts again after the flood. Time on the right side is increasing upward but for some reason the point of the arrow doesn't show.

What is different in this graph from the evolution tree is there is no common ancestry. And this is what we observe in nature, there is no interbreeding between the species, they are in their own orchard. I hope that helps.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 9:51 am

Are you going to give any proof that this is what we observe in nature?

Cause just about 99.9% of biologists disagree with you.

I need proof of what you can walk outside and see?

Scop274

March 18th, 2009, 9:54 am

I need proof of what you can walk outside and see?
Where is your proof that natural selection decreases genetic information?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 9:55 am

Where is your proof that natural selection decreases genetic information?

Two white bears don't produce a brown bear.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 10:00 am

Two white bears don't produce a brown bear.

And don't forget, two short hair dogs don't produce a long hair dog. That means the long hair gene is gone.

Buffalo

March 18th, 2009, 10:16 am

There is a difference between what Evolution teaches and what we observe in nature. Evolution teaches that natural selection accounts for an increase in genetic information producing more complicated species. What we observe in nature is natural selection results in a decrease in genetic information.

What evolution teaches is natural selection creates completely new traits. What we see in nature is natural selection allows existing traits to survive to produce offspring while others are eliminated.

What evolution teaches is the concept of the evolutionary tree where one kind of animal becomes a completely different kind of animal. What we observe in nature is more of an orchard concept where variations within each kind become a new species but are still a member of the family of the original kind.
OK
Just to point out, natural selection does not "create completely new traits". It is a process by which existing favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations and unfavorable ones become less common. The traits must already exist for them to be passed on. (and that's a simplified version)
Also, natural selection has no end game. The favorable traits are favorable for survival and reproduction. This can mean an increase in "complexity" or a decrease.
As for your two white bears don't produce a brown bear, that is because the alleles necessary to produce a "brown" hair bear are not present in those "white" hair bears. But my two black cats can produce a litter with a variety of different color coat kittens. Because the alleles for those other colors are present in the black cats, but not expressed.
The basics of evolutionary theory have been posted many times on these boards. If one starts a thread to attack evolutionary theory, they should at least know what it is.

Vaard

March 18th, 2009, 10:34 am

so what the OP is saying is that his ignorance of science and the theory of evolution is some kind of proof that evolution is wrong........

makes sense if you dont think about it.......

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 10:34 am

OK
Just to point out, natural selection does not "create completely new traits". It is a process by which existing favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations and unfavorable ones become less common. The traits must already exist for them to be passed on. (and that's a simplified version)
Also, natural selection has no end game. The favorable traits are favorable for survival and reproduction. This can mean an increase in "complexity" or a decrease.
As for your two white bears don't produce a brown bear, that is because the alleles necessary to produce a "brown" hair bear are not present in those "white" hair bears. But my two black cats can produce a litter with a variety of different color coat kittens. Because the alleles for those other colors are present in the black cats, but not expressed.
The basics of evolutionary theory have been posted many times on these boards. If one starts a thread to attack evolutionary theory, they should at least know what it is.

Evolution teaches that arms and legs were produce from necessity, those are new traits which weren't there before. So evolution does teach that new traits can be produced. If natural selection only passes on traits that already existed then how as you say, they can get more complex? More complex than what they already are? I agree, evolution is not an originator, but a selector. Meaning arms and legs cannot originate from natural selection.

Yes your cat produces different colors from the colors within that species of cat. But two tuxedo cats don’t produce a Siamese cat. I was just using white as a simple example, what I meant was two polar bears only produce a polar bear.

Buffalo

March 18th, 2009, 10:52 am

Evolution teaches that arms and legs were produce from necessity, those are new traits which weren't there before. So evolution does teach that new traits can be produced. If natural selection only passes on traits that already existed then how as you say, they can get more complex? More complex than what they already are? I agree, evolution is not an originator, but a selector. Meaning arms and legs cannot originate from natural selection.

Yes your cat produces different colors from the colors within that species of cat. But two tuxedo cats don’t produce a Siamese cat. I was just using white as a simple example, what I meant was two polar bears only produce a polar bear.
You do not even understand the basics of evolution theory. It has been explained numerous times, I don't want to do it again. It is a non starter if you misrepresent what the theory or mechanisms are.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 10:57 am

Two white bears don't produce a brown bear.

1) They might.
2) Even if they didn't, that's not a "decrease" in genetic information.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 10:59 am

And don't forget, two short hair dogs don't produce a long hair dog. That means the long hair gene is gone.

My wife has green eyes...Marley has blue eyes.

Does that mean the green eye gene is "gone"?

Nope - it just isn't expressed in Marley

(Note - heredity of eye color is not this simple...it's just an example to point out your misunderstanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype)

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:00 am

I was just using white as a simple example, what I meant was two polar bears only produce a polar bear.

What does one polar bear and one grizzly bear produce?

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:05 am

There is a difference between what Evolution teaches and what we observe in nature. Evolution teaches that natural selection accounts for an increase in genetic information producing more complicated species. What we observe in nature is natural selection results in a decrease in genetic information.

What evolution teaches is natural selection creates completely new traits. What we see in nature is natural selection allows existing traits to survive to produce offspring while others are eliminated.

What evolution teaches is the concept of the evolutionary tree where one kind of animal becomes a completely different kind of animal. What we observe in nature is more of an orchard concept where variations within each kind become a new species but are still a member of the family of the original kind.

Um... I'm pretty sure that some creationists would vehemently oppose this chart.

Why?

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

You're basically saying that Noah was derelict in his duties to God, and did NOT get every animal species onto the ark.

From a scientific point of view, where are the species on the nodes of the phylogeny? What are your timepoints of divergence? What are the bootstrap values on your tree?

Until you affix those values and give actual data for reference, that phylogeny is nothing more than a doodle on MS Paint.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:09 am

There is a difference between what Evolution teaches and what we observe in nature.
No, there isn't...I'll address each misconception.
Evolution teaches that natural selection accounts for an increase in genetic information producing more complicated species.
First mistake - the theory of evolution posits that mutation leads to an increase in genetic information.
What we observe in nature is natural selection results in a decrease in genetic information.
This is correct, and it's also what the theory of evolution predicts.

What evolution teaches is natural selection creates completely new traits. What we see in nature is natural selection allows existing traits to survive to produce offspring while others are eliminated.
Incorrect - a recent experiment (details of which I know we have provided to you numerous times) showed that A COMPLETELY NEW TRAIT (the ability to utilize citrate) evolved in E.Coli

What evolution teaches is the concept of the evolutionary tree where one kind of animal becomes a completely different kind of animal.
This is also incorrect - one population of a species (let's call them Widgets) may, in response to different selection stresses, evolve into a new species (let's call them Flibbits)...but that doesn't mean there aren't any more Widgets
What we observe in nature is more of an orchard concept where variations within each kind become a new species but are still a member of the family of the original kind.
Do you realize that you just admitted we observe speciation in nature? I don't think you meant to do that, because now you can never fall back on the "That's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution" canard.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:09 am

Two white bears don't produce a brown bear.

:)) :))

Thank you Troops, this is a sincere offer, by me, to give you reference material for studying Genetics. If you understood the base concept of Mendelian Genetics in Polyploid Eukaryotes, you'd also understand many concepts to disprove your prior contentions about the "loss of information."

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:10 am

My wife has green eyes...Marley has blue eyes.

Does that mean the green eye gene is "gone"?

Nope - it just isn't expressed in Marley

(Note - heredity of eye color is not this simple...it's just an example to point out your misunderstanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype)

Again, that was a simple explanation, two dogs of a species of dog that have short hair produce a dog of that species that has short hair. They will never produce a dog with long hair even if you put them in a cold environment. We have long hair dogs in hot environments and they produce long hair dogs and get hot. People say they do not belong in hot enviroments. This is what we see in nature.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:12 am

Evolution teaches that arms and legs were produce from necessity, those are new traits which weren't there before. So evolution does teach that new traits can be produced. If natural selection only passes on traits that already existed then how as you say, they can get more complex? More complex than what they already are? I agree, evolution is not an originator, but a selector. Meaning arms and legs cannot originate from natural selection.

Yes your cat produces different colors from the colors within that species of cat. But two tuxedo cats don’t produce a Siamese cat. I was just using white as a simple example, what I meant was two polar bears only produce a polar bear.

You're stuck on individual organisms.

Modern Evolutionary Theory delves on the GENE as its base unit. ALLELES are different permutations of genes, and are passed through the population by reproducing, or sexually recombining.

If you continue to insist on viewing individual organisms as the main unit of evolution, I can understand your incredulity. However, you'll be attacking Lamarkianism, NOT evolutionary theory. It's sad to say, but you're centuries behind scientific advances here.

tocsinia

March 18th, 2009, 11:14 am

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:14 am

Again, that was a simple explanation, two dogs of a species of dog that have short hair produce a dog of that species that has short hair. They will never produce a dog with long hair even if you put them in a cold environment. We have long hair dogs in hot environments and they produce long hair dogs and get hot. People say they do not belong in hot enviroments. This is what we see in nature.

So nucleotide tautomerisms never happen? Point, frameshift and suppression mutations have never been observed?

Every human child will be an exact clone of its mother's and father's attributes?

Again, you're using pre-1950's science to try to attack a 2009 scientific theory.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:14 am

:)) :))

Thank you Troops, this is a sincere offer, by me, to give you reference material for studying Genetics. If you understood the base concept of Mendelian Genetics in Polyploid Eukaryotes, you'd also understand many concepts to disprove your prior contentions about the "loss of information."

Okay I have a question for you. Does antibiotic resistant bacteria represent a loss or increase in genetic diversity?

badkarma

March 18th, 2009, 11:17 am

The graph shows the evolution of the different kinds of created beings. At the bottom of the graph is creation and we see the orchard spreading up where the different kinds evolve into different races or species before the flood. Then the process starts again after the flood. Time on the right side is increasing upward but for some reason the point of the arrow doesn't show.

What is different in this graph from the evolution tree is there is no common ancestry. And this is what we observe in nature, there is no interbreeding between the species, they are in their own orchard. I hope that helps.
I, for one, am certainly glad that you believe this and care enough about educating the rest of us that you spent at least 3 minutes in MSPaint creating this wonderful graph.

Now, having said that I am assuming each of those threes is supposed to represent a different "kind", to use your words. That each was created, not evolved from common ancestors, right? if that is the case, why does the bacteria and protozoa tree split into 3 distinct kinds, each deserving of its own tree, after the flood? Where did those 2 completely separate kinds, in each tree come from if they did not evolve from a common ancestor?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:18 am

You're stuck on individual organisms.

Modern Evolutionary Theory delves on the GENE as its base unit. ALLELES are different permutations of genes, and are passed through the population by reproducing, or sexually recombining.

If you continue to insist on viewing individual organisms as the main unit of evolution, I can understand your incredulity. However, you'll be attacking Lamarkianism, NOT evolutionary theory. It's sad to say, but you're centuries behind scientific advances here.

Wait a minute, I saw you in another thread attacking a document written in 1972, now you are telling me to get with the program? :mrgreen:

We have to look at individual organisms to understand evolution because the organism don't re-produce outside of their kind like what we observe in nature. That is what this thread is all about, the differences in what evolution teaches as to what we see in nature.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:22 am

We have to look at individual organisms to understand evolution because the organism don't re-produce outside of their kind like what we observe in nature.

No, you have to look at individual organisms because if you looked at genes, you'd see that you were completely mistaken.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:24 am

I've got a few problems outside of faith with evolution.
Basically, they all deal with reproduction.
First, you've got to make a huge leap and assume that there are two of the same species but different sexes that are "evolving" at the same rate and will be able to locate each other and reproduce.
Just one example of a few of the other problems I have. Salt water is caustic to dolphin sperm. So, the male dolphins are noticing that they are getting older and the females are past their prime and gee our pods are decreasing. It's getting harder to fish. What could be the cause of that? Let's get together and fix this problem guys. Oh geesh, we need to develop a non-permeable sheath and fast!
Simpy, individual animals are not concerned nor capable of dealing with the survival of their species.

A dolphin that has a gain-of-function mutation to its developmental genes that creates a sheath around its penis (so as to prevent salt water from contacting its semen) would be able to successfully mate (and reproduce) far more often than the other dolphins that lack that gene.

True or false? If you answered True, then you're a proponent of natural selection.

Think it can't happen? Well, human genitalia also have varying attributes based on mutations to developmental genes. Some people prefer a particular type of mutation over others (I won't delve further into this topic though :cool: ).

There's also another far Northern deer species whose name escapes me now. Their tendons make a clicking noise. Scientists theorize it's to keep the herd together in blizzards. Were they really all chewing the cud and thought ya know, let's have a group project and work on some audible signal, which really could draw predators to us in a whiteout? C'mon.

You're attacking Lamarkianism, not Evolutionary Theory.

Just think about our vocal chords. We can make complex noises that we can interpret as commands. The original use of those vocal chords was to warn other members of our tribe of danger by screaming, but the mutations of those vocal chords, in addition to an increase in brain size, allows us to use them for other purposes. To use another analogy, do we, or do we not, distinguish between humans who have GOOD and BAD vocal talent?

Yes or no?

Also, with all of this natural selection garbage. Why are there such devastating genetic deformities? Shouldn't these be falling by the elimination wayside?
In animal husbandry for example, when you breed say a cow for more muscle, something else is going to give, weaker skeleton perhaps. You cannot continue to strive for leaner muscle mass if there is no support system and expect the species to continue.

You're looking at the whole system at an individual basis.

Yes, "weaker" individuals that cannot adapt to their environment are more likely to be preyed upon by predators or to starve when their food supply runs out.

Consequently, a cow who has a mutation to her legs in order to run faster would have a benefit in escaping from predators.

Keep in mind too, that the ancient "cow" looked more like this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/education/ice-age-res/images/woodland-musk-ox.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/education/ice-age-res/muskox.shtml&usg=__RTk5usWvAQfFcNTeCtYcZS3FkNA=&h=423&w=550&sz=303&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=FsuOa8xwN7ViZM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dox%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Human selective breeding has changed it a bit, don't you think? If you think that selective breeding has changed the ox into something different (with larger mammary glands for milk production), then you're a secret proponent of natural selection.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:25 am

I, for one, am certainly glad that you believe this and care enough about educating the rest of us that you spent at least 3 minutes in MSPaint creating this wonderful graph.

Now, having said that I am assuming each of those threes is supposed to represent a different "kind", to use your words. That each was created, not evolved from common ancestors, right? if that is the case, why does the bacteria and protozoa tree split into 3 distinct kinds, each deserving of its own tree, after the flood? Where did those 2 completely separate kinds, in each tree come from if they did not evolve from a common ancestor?

Those are the bacteria and protozoa that survived the flood. Noah didn't have to take bacteria and protozoa onto the Ark because they could survive in water or floating grasses.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:29 am

Those are the bacteria and protozoa that survived the flood. Noah didn't have to take bacteria and protozoa onto the Ark because they could survive in water or floating grasses.

all the freshwater bacteria and protozoans could not have survived in the water or on floating grasses...

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:30 am

A dolphin that has a gain-of-function mutation to its developmental genes that creates a sheath around its penis (so as to prevent salt water from contacting its semen) would be able to successfully mate (and reproduce) far more often than the other dolphins that lack that gene.

True or false? If you answered True, then you're a proponent of natural selection.

Think it can't happen? Well, human genitalia also have varying attributes based on mutations to developmental genes. Some people prefer a particular type of mutation over others (I won't delve further into this topic though :cool: ).

You're attacking Lamarkianism, not Evolutionary Theory.

Just think about our vocal chords. We can make complex noises that we can interpret as commands. The original use of those vocal chords was to warn other members of our tribe of danger by screaming, but the mutations of those vocal chords, in addition to an increase in brain size, allows us to use them for other purposes. To use another analogy, do we, or do we not, distinguish between humans who have GOOD and BAD vocal talent?

Yes or no?

You're looking at the whole system at an individual basis.

Yes, "weaker" individuals that cannot adapt to their environment are more likely to be preyed upon by predators or to starve when their food supply runs out.

Consequently, a cow who has a mutation to her legs in order to run faster would have a benefit in escaping from predators.

Keep in mind too, that the ancient "cow" looked more like this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/education/ice-age-res/images/woodland-musk-ox.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/education/ice-age-res/muskox.shtml&usg=__RTk5usWvAQfFcNTeCtYcZS3FkNA=&h=423&w=550&sz=303&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=FsuOa8xwN7ViZM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dox%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Human selective breeding has changed it a bit, don't you think? If you think that selective breeding has changed the ox into something different (with larger mammary glands for milk production), then you're a secret proponent of natural selection.

A dolphin couldn't be a dolphin without reproducing in the first place. What was a dolphin until it had the correct mutation to reproduce? We should see the same sheath in that species in order for it to pass it on to produce the dolphin species.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:31 am

Okay I have a question for you. Does antibiotic resistant bacteria represent a loss or increase in genetic diversity?

Depends on the situation.

If it is a mutation to small subunit ribosomal proteins that prevent macrolide antibiotics from binding to the ribosome, then it is neither. Its a NEW ALLELE.

If it is a duplication of an acetyl-transferase gene (genes get duplicated all the time), and that gene has been mutated to target an aminoglycoside antibiotic, then it is an increase in genetic diversity within the population that carries that duplicate. Other examples include the gain of a plasmid or the incorporation of a genomic island/transposon.

If it is a deletion (or nonsense mutation) of an ion channel that was hijacked by an antibiotic to target the ribosome, then it is a loss of function mutation.

Keep in mind, too, that the environment determines what traits are beneficial to a host organism. Sometimes mutations that grant antibiotic resistance reduce the organism's efficiency in an environment that lacks the antibiotic. HOWEVER such mutations GREATLY increase the organism's fitness in an environment that DOES have the antibiotic present! Again, Evolutionary Theory (even during Darwin's initial hypothesis) predicts that the ENVIRONMENT determines what traits will increase an organism's fitness!

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:31 am

Okay I have a question for you. Does antibiotic resistant bacteria represent a loss or increase in genetic diversity?

I'll defer to Greyclouds the Microbiologist, but I think it is an increase in genetic information (a new allele evolved to grant the resistance)

Edit - oooo....that was too weird. Simultaneous posting! Get out of my head Greyclouds!

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:32 am

all the freshwater bacteria and protozoans could not have survived in the water or on floating grasses...

If you will notice in the graph, they all didn't survive.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:34 am

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:34 am

A dolphin couldn't be a dolphin without reproducing in the first place. What was a dolphin until it had the correct mutation to reproduce? We should see the same sheath in that species in order for it to pass it on to produce the dolphin species.

Dolphins evolved from a vast family of mammals that had common ancestors with pigs and horses.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17963/evolution.html

http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/cetacean.htm

They still have a pelvic bone as evidence of such ancestry, as well as 18S rRNA sequences that are similar to pigs, camels and hippopotami.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:34 am

If you will notice in the graph, they all didn't survive.

they're here now...they survived.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:36 am

Wouldn't all three examples technically be an increase in diversity (since prior to the occurrence of any of these three changes, the population of bacteria had diversity of 'X', and now it is 'X+ something')?

Again, it depends on the composition of the population.

If the allelic frequency of the ion channel in the third example was at 0% (no presence of the allele at all), then that strain would have a net loss of genetic material from the wildtype.

You are correct though, since in reality such events do not always occur. There are always allelic frequencies that mirror wildtype strains (meaning that pre-existing alleles almost never are completely lost; it does happen and can be observed though!).

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 11:39 am

Again, it depends on the composition of the population.

If the allelic frequency of the ion channel in the third example was at 0% (no presence of the allele at all), then that strain would have a net loss of genetic material from the wildtype.

You are correct though, since in reality such events do not always occur. There are always allelic frequencies that mirror wildtype strains (meaning that pre-existing alleles almost never are completely lost; it does happen and can be observed though!).

Thanks! (Bacteria Nerd) :snooty:

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:40 am

Wait a minute, I saw you in another thread attacking a document written in 1972, now you are telling me to get with the program? :mrgreen:

I was attacking www.answersingenesis.com for USING a document from 1972 as evidence. It's cherry-picking a source that has since been disproven.

We have to look at individual organisms to understand evolution because the organism don't re-produce outside of their kind like what we observe in nature. That is what this thread is all about, the differences in what evolution teaches as to what we see in nature.

That makes no sense, genetically. So my child will be a 100% carbon copy clone of my genetic information, since we must look at individuals for allelic combinations?

No, instead you have to look at a POPULATION in order to determine allelic frequencies.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:41 am

Depends on the situation.

If it is a mutation to small subunit ribosomal proteins that prevent macrolide antibiotics from binding to the ribosome, then it is neither. Its a NEW ALLELE.

If it is a duplication of an acetyl-transferase gene (genes get duplicated all the time), and that gene has been mutated to target an aminoglycoside antibiotic, then it is an increase in genetic diversity within the population that carries that duplicate. Other examples include the gain of a plasmid or the incorporation of a genomic island/transposon.

If it is a deletion (or nonsense mutation) of an ion channel that was hijacked by an antibiotic to target the ribosome, then it is a loss of function mutation.

Keep in mind, too, that the environment determines what traits are beneficial to a host organism. Sometimes mutations that grant antibiotic resistance reduce the organism's efficiency in an environment that lacks the antibiotic. HOWEVER such mutations GREATLY increase the organism's fitness in an environment that DOES have the antibiotic present! Again, Evolutionary Theory (even during Darwin's initial hypothesis) predicts that the ENVIRONMENT determines what traits will increase an organism's fitness!

True the environment determines the traits and the enviroment of the bacteria is full of antibiotics which are attacking the protein in the bacteria. The bacteria changes and no longer produces the normal protein. That is a loss of genetic information.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:43 am

I was attacking www.answersingenesis.com for USING a document from 1972 as evidence. It's cherry-picking a source that has since been disproven.

That makes no sense, genetically. So my child will be a 100% carbon copy clone of my genetic information, since we must look at individuals for allelic combinations?

No, instead you have to look at a POPULATION in order to determine allelic frequencies.

Sure I will agree with that. That doesn't change the truth of the OP.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:45 am

Thanks! (Bacteria Nerd) :snooty:

Bacteria have been very good to me :cool:

Amazingly, pure cultures of E.coli (supposedly all genetically uniform) can diverge into multiple, unique, strains when the nutrients in their medium are exhausted. Then, cannibal strains (strains that are more efficient at processing the remains of dead bacteria) of E. coli thrive on the dead components of their ancestors and slowly oxidize everything in the media.

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n2/fig_tab/nrmicro1340_F3.html

Natural selection in plain, unavoidable, sight.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 11:45 am

they're here now...they survived.

If evolution happened before the flood, it can happen after also, so they didn't all have to survive.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 11:49 am

True the environment determines the traits and the enviroment of the bacteria is full of antibiotics which are attacking the protein in the bacteria. The bacteria changes and no longer produces the normal protein. That is a loss of genetic information.

This could result in the loss of that ion channel:

Original partial sequence: AGGAGATTACATC

Mutated partial sequence: AGGAATTAGATC

One nucleotide changed into a stop codon. That prevents the protein from being made from the mRNA, and thereby stops the cell from making the ion channel.

How easy do you think it is to revert that mutation back to normal if the cells are placed in a different environment devoid of the antibiotic?

Here is a cheat sheet:

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

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 12:04 pm

This could result in the loss of that ion channel:

Original partial sequence: AGGAGATTACATC

Mutated partial sequence: AGGAATTAGATC

One nucleotide changed into a stop codon. That prevents the protein from being made from the mRNA, and thereby stops the cell from making the ion channel.

How easy do you think it is to revert that mutation back to normal if the cells are placed in a different environment devoid of the antibiotic?

Here is a cheat sheet:

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

Then you agree that is a loss of information. Information does not come from nowhere so I don't believe that it will revert back because where would it get the increase in information?

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 12:10 pm

Then you agree that is a loss of information. Information does not come from nowhere so I don't believe that it will revert back because where would it get the increase in information?

Its a nonsense mutation that can EASILY be reverted back to the original phenotype.

Alright, here's an analogy to modern day life:

Your car gets a flat tire and you get it towed back to your house. Suddenly, you cannot drive your car anymore. Logically, you do "not" have a working car.

After a couple of weeks, you get your new paycheck, and you're able to save up for a new tire. Now that your financial situation has improved, you get up the energy to go to your car and switch out the flat for a new tire. Suddenly you "DO" have a working car again.

If we take your logic in this post above, you could never get your car back. You "lost" it. Its impossible to get it back!

Much as in the example that I illustrated, the gene was never "lost" instead, it was only in an unworking state. When the nucleotide was "replaced," then the gene could produce its product again! Suppression mutation at work! This is observable in the laboratory and happens SO OFTEN that you can easily google for observations. Oh, and the nucleotide replacement happens at random in a CHEMICAL phenomenon known as tautomerism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keto-enol_tautomerism#DNA

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 12:31 pm

If evolution happened before the flood, it can happen after also, so they didn't all have to survive.

That's speciation...

that's the second time in this thread that you have admitted that speciation occurs (in fact, you've relied on the fact that it occurs)...Have you changed your mind about the theory of evolution?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 12:47 pm

That's speciation...

that's the second time in this thread that you have admitted that speciation occurs (in fact, you've relied on the fact that it occurs)...Have you changed your mind about the theory of evolution?

If by speciation you mean common ancestry, no I don't believe that. However I do believe in evolution within each kind.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 12:57 pm

Its a nonsense mutation that can EASILY be reverted back to the original phenotype.

Alright, here's an analogy to modern day life:

Your car gets a flat tire and you get it towed back to your house. Suddenly, you cannot drive your car anymore. Logically, you do "not" have a working car.

After a couple of weeks, you get your new paycheck, and you're able to save up for a new tire. Now that your financial situation has improved, you get up the energy to go to your car and switch out the flat for a new tire. Suddenly you "DO" have a working car again.

If we take your logic in this post above, you could never get your car back. You "lost" it. Its impossible to get it back!

Much as in the example that I illustrated, the gene was never "lost" instead, it was only in an unworking state. When the nucleotide was "replaced," then the gene could produce its product again! Suppression mutation at work! This is observable in the laboratory and happens SO OFTEN that you can easily google for observations. Oh, and the nucleotide replacement happens at random in a CHEMICAL phenomenon known as tautomerism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keto-enol_tautomerism#DNA

Both of the examples you sited, my car being fixed and laboratory experiments require an intelligence behind them. That is not what we observe in nature.

I think we are going to make a creationist out of you yet. I understand that you have many years of defending evolution left, you are in school and soaking up all you can. However you aren't afraid to tackle the hard questions and that is good. Eventually you will tire of defending an unworkable theory and start questioning that everything you see and do does not support macro evolution, it only supports micro evolution.

Start noticing how when your profesors get that glaze in their eyes and states the memorized line that is not observable "over many millions of years this produces all we see today, class dismissed." You will know when they are just toeing the party line.

Haplo

March 18th, 2009, 1:26 pm

If by speciation you mean common ancestry, no I don't believe that. However I do believe in evolution within each kind.
So what is the mechanism that limits the extent of speciation? What keeps species from becoming so different from another of their "kind" that they become a new kind all of their own?

Dem

March 18th, 2009, 1:27 pm

If by speciation you mean common ancestry, no I don't believe that. However I do believe in evolution within each kind.
What do you mean by "kind", I'm always confused when creationists use that word.

Dem

March 18th, 2009, 1:30 pm

Start noticing how when your profesors get that glaze in their eyes and states the memorized line that is not observable "over many millions of years this produces all we see today, class dismissed." You will know when they are just toeing the party line.
So you don't believe the Earth is 4 Billion or so years old?

And you disregard all the fossil evidence in support of evolution, as well as the DNA evidence for common ancestry?

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 1:36 pm

Both of the examples you sited, my car being fixed and laboratory experiments require an intelligence behind them. That is not what we observe in nature.

Did you even read the tautomerism url that I posted?

If you claim that such an event requires "intelligence" then you do not understand the following:
1. Keto-Enol intermediates (Basic Chemistry)
2. DNA replication and repair mechanisms (Basic Genetics)

Nucleotide tautomerisms are NATURAL, UNGUIDED chemical transitions from a keto to enol form and vice versa. They happen randomly and CAN be incorporated during DNA replication.

I think we are going to make a creationist out of you yet. I understand that you have many years of defending evolution left, you are in school and soaking up all you can. However you aren't afraid to tackle the hard questions and that is good. Eventually you will tire of defending an unworkable theory and start questioning that everything you see and do does not support macro evolution, it only supports micro evolution.

1. I attended all Catholic private schools until I began college (surprisingly at a Jesuit College).
2. My Catholic education included the Ken Ham videos.
3. I was a literalist creationist before I started college.
4. I was a reluctant biology freshman my first year.
5. I was completely and totally convinced that the evidence supported evolutionary theory over creationism after my first genetics class.

Sorry, but, been-there, done-that :D. Really, the data only makes sense when you've had a broad education in the physical sciences. If you can't tell me right off the bat what a thymine dimer is, you haven't really covered the material enough to make even a REMOTELY informed decision.

Start noticing how when your profesors get that glaze in their eyes and states the memorized line that is not observable "over many millions of years this produces all we see today, class dismissed." You will know when they are just toeing the party line.

What college did you attend??

My bioinformatics professor does speak with a heavy German accent, but he gets very excited over talking about amino acid sequence alignment under a maximum likelihood methodology!

Oh, and, PS, I'm a grad student, not an undergrad. I've done my own research and all of the data confirms the Theory of Evolution. I even give help sessions to Microbiology students on microbial genetic diversity.

I WISH I could provide data that unabashedly changes or refutes the Theory of Evolution! I REALLY DO! I could publish that data almost instantaneously, and I would be set up with an academic job faster than you can blink! Every scientist's DREAM is to come up with their own hypothesis!

The only thing that smashes that dream is the absence of evidence to support such a hypothesis!

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 1:36 pm

So what is the mechanism that limits the extent of speciation? What keeps species from becoming so different from another of their "kind" that they become a new kind all of their own?

Excellent question!

Any creationists want to tackle this question and provide data?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:16 pm

So what is the mechanism that limits the extent of speciation? What keeps species from becoming so different from another of their "kind" that they become a new kind all of their own?

Design? We can look at the reproduction capabilities of different species. A dog cannot reporduce with a cat so how can they be from the same ancestry?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:18 pm

What do you mean by "kind", I'm always confused when creationists use that word.

It's a Biblical word in Genesis. Some say we don't know what a species is, so much for science. The Bible says animals were created in kinds and reproduce according to their kinds and that is what we see in nature.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:19 pm

So you don't believe the Earth is 4 Billion or so years old?

And you disregard all the fossil evidence in support of evolution, as well as the DNA evidence for common ancestry?

No such thing. Matter of fact Darwin mentions that in the Origin of the Species as a problem that needs to be solved, the lack of fossil evidence to back up his theory. The DNA cannot be traced back to common ancestry, if it could we could reproduce all transitional animals but there aren't any.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:21 pm

I WISH I could provide data that unabashedly changes or refutes the Theory of Evolution! I REALLY DO! I could publish that data almost instantaneously, and I would be set up with an academic job faster than you can blink! Every scientist's DREAM is to come up with their own hypothesis!

The only thing that smashes that dream is the absence of evidence to support such a hypothesis!

No you would be laughed at and discounted as a religous fanatic.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 2:26 pm

No you would be laughed at and discounted as a religous fanatic.

Until scientific evidence has been presented that refutes evolution, your claim here is untested.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:27 pm

Until scientific evidence has been presented that refutes evolution, your claim here is untested.

You can't refute something that takes a belief system to believe in. No one has ever observed macro-evolution and it is falsifiable so it's not a fact.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 2:29 pm

You can't refute something that takes a belief system to believe in. No one has ever observed macro-evolution and it is falsifiable so it's not a fact.

Get back to me after you learn what science is.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 2:30 pm

Design? We can look at the reproduction capabilities of different species. A dog cannot reporduce with a cat so how can they be from the same ancestry?

Why do dogs and cats have the following similar features:

1. a placenta
2. mammary glands
3. X and Y chromosome determination of sexual characteristics/genitalia

They have ALOT in common... they've just differentiated in slight physiological and genetic ways as to prevent sexual recombination of their genomes. For instance, a male great Dane cannot naturally impregnate a female chihuahua. Genetically determined size differentials prevent their sexual organs from matching.

Does that, by definition, mean that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are not derived from the same ancestry? If we didn't actually select for such changes in our history, then you could argue that both dogs are not from the same ancestry from your "logic."

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:35 pm

Why do dogs and cats have the following similar features:

1. a placenta
2. mammary glands
3. X and Y chromosome determination of sexual characteristics/genitalia

They have ALOT in common... they've just differentiated in slight physiological and genetic ways as to prevent sexual recombination of their genomes. For instance, a male great Dane cannot naturally impregnate a female chihuahua. Genetically determined size differentials prevent their sexual organs from matching.

Does that, by definition, mean that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are not derived from the same ancestry? If we didn't actually select for such changes in our history, then you could argue that both dogs are not from the same ancestry from your "logic."

Most life forms that we see have similar features, that is evidence of a common designer for a common world and laws that we live in. Can a great Dane's sperm inseminate a chihuahua's egg? That's the real question, no whether he can physically do it.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 2:36 pm

No you would be laughed at and discounted as a religous fanatic.

No, if I presented data that did not conform to Evolutionary theory, and proposed a counter-hypothesis that BETTER explained the data AND all other phenomena, I'd be a hero!

Richard Dawkins is one such individual.

He changed the focus of evolutionary theory from Phenotypic traits to GENES. This was a BIG shake-up of the field of Evolutionary Biology. The gene was not seen as a separate entity from the genome; not considered to have an independent agenda.

His modification to the Theory of Evolution better accounted for the mass presence of mobile genetic elements in lifeforms today.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:37 pm

Get back to me after you learn what science is.

You mean the science that was started by creationists that believed that if the world was created then it must be orderly and we can do experiments to prove that? Let me know when you get to know the Creator. ;)

Vaard

March 18th, 2009, 2:37 pm

if the dozens of other threads didnt help TyT understand evolution, what makes anyone think a dozen more will help?

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 2:38 pm

You mean the science that was started by creationists that believed that if the world was created then it must be orderly and we can do experiments to prove that? Let me know when you get to know the Creator. ;)

I think you've reached an evolutionary dead-end here ... ;)

Vaard

March 18th, 2009, 2:38 pm

You mean the science that was started by creationists that believed that if the world was created then it must be orderly and we can do experiments to prove that? Let me know when you get to know the Creator. ;)

no, the science you would be burned at the stake for if it contradicted the bible.....

you know, real science........

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 2:40 pm

No, if I presented data that did not conform to Evolutionary theory, and proposed a counter-hypothesis that BETTER explained the data AND all other phenomena, I'd be a hero!

Richard Dawkins is one such individual.

He changed the focus of evolutionary theory from Phenotypic traits to GENES. This was a BIG shake-up of the field of Evolutionary Biology. The gene was not seen as a separate entity from the genome; not considered to have an independent agenda.

His modification to the Theory of Evolution better accounted for the mass presence of mobile genetic elements in lifeforms today.

Naturalism begats naturalism, any new discoveries by naturalists only make them think how they can plug it into their preexisting beliefs in evolution. They might alter their theories but they still believe in evoluton.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 2:41 pm

if the dozens of other threads didnt help TyT understand evolution, what makes anyone think a dozen more will help?

It's fun for a while, like playing minesweeper. When you win, the game resets. Ultimately, though, you have to get on with your life.

captusa

March 18th, 2009, 2:45 pm

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 2:47 pm

Most life forms that we see have similar features, that is evidence of a common designer for a common world and laws that we live in.

Ah, so to take your "Barahmology (sp?)" concept further, can we therefore state that similar features indicate a similar "Barahm" or "kind?"

In that case, we could easily place placental mammals in one "kind." That includes us, as well!

Ah, but placental mammals share characteristics with monotremes! That means that monotremes are also in the same "kind."

Oh, but then monotremes lay amniotic eggs like reptiles! They must be in the same kind as well.

Reptiles have similar genetic sequence to birds and amphibians, and all three lay amniotic fluid filled eggs. Again the same kind.

Amphibians are water-dependent and share features with many vertebrate fish too...

Do you get the picture, yet? The designation of "kinds" eventually envelopes EVERYTHING into the same "kind!" Its the only rational way to approach this topic without being illogical!

Can a great Dane's sperm inseminate a chihuahua's egg? That's the real question, no whether he can physically do it.

Potentially, but physical barriers to in vivo insemination are a distinguishing feature that supports natural selection.

Some different "kinds" can even impregnate another "kind!" Donkeys and Horses can mate to produce a sterile Mule.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 2:49 pm

if the dozens of other threads didnt help TyT understand evolution, what makes anyone think a dozen more will help?

Its just as much for TyT's benefit as it is for many other people wanting to clear up misconceptions about the theory.

'Sides, if I can teach just one person some scientific principles, it's been a winning battle.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 2:53 pm

Its just as much for TyT's benefit as it is for many other people wanting to clear up misconceptions about the theory.

'Sides, if I can teach just one person some scientific principles, it's been a winning battle.

As much as it's been a lost cause for TyT, you're hoping to teach the lurkers. That in itself is noble. As a practicing scientist myself, I appreciate your vigor and expertise. Your posts are bountiful.

Vaard

March 18th, 2009, 3:00 pm

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 3:02 pm

As much as it's been a lost cause for TyT, you're hoping to teach the lurkers. That in itself is noble. As a practicing scientist myself, I appreciate your vigor and expertise. Your posts are bountiful.

Thank you! While I'm not naive enough to believe that people share the same enthusiasm for Genetics knowledge that I do, I still believe that base knowledge of the field of science is good to have.

At the very least, it will let you chuckle at the tele-marketers that try to sell you home-brew antibiotics that are "100% (not "just" 99.9%) effective." :lol:

Buffalo

March 18th, 2009, 3:04 pm

Thank you! While I'm not naive enough to believe that people share the same enthusiasm for Genetics knowledge that I do, I still believe that base knowledge of the field of science is good to have.

At the very least, it will let you chuckle at the tele-marketers that try to sell you home-brew antibiotics that are "100% (not "just" 99.9%) effective." :lol:
Hey, I'm just trying to make a living.:mrgreen:

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 3:06 pm

Naturalism begats naturalism, any new discoveries by naturalists only make them think how they can plug it into their preexisting beliefs in evolution.

You're discussing two different concepts here. Naturalism is distinct from Evolutionary Theory.

They might alter their theories but they still believe in evoluton.

Scientific theories CAN be altered to accommodate new data! Happens all the time!

Quantum theory, for instance, still has a couple of niggling points to iron out.

IF, however, the theory has proven to be insufficient to cover the majority of possible phenomenon, THEN it can be happily discarded.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 3:10 pm

Design? We can look at the reproduction capabilities of different species. A dog cannot reporduce with a cat so how can they be from the same ancestry?

Not the question...if a population of wolves can, over millions of years of being affected by natural selection, lead to many different species (the speciation within "kinds" you have proposed), what is the mechanism that prevents speciation to something that is not of the wolf "kind"?

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 3:10 pm

...
Quantum theory, for instance, still has a couple of niggling points to iron out. ...

As a scientist on that side of the aisle, I can attest that those "niggling" points are of immense contention. The theory is so damn accurate everywhere else. Exciting stuff!

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 3:21 pm

As a scientist on that side of the aisle, I can attest that those "niggling" points are of immense contention. The theory is so damn accurate everywhere else. Exciting stuff!

Fully agreed! I enjoyed learning of Quantum mechanics and its room for expansion (as I'd term those "points" ;)).

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 3:39 pm

Not the question...if a population of wolves can, over millions of years of being affected by natural selection, lead to many different species (the speciation within "kinds" you have proposed), what is the mechanism that prevents speciation to something that is not of the wolf "kind"?

Of course I don't agree with your premise of millions of years but I will ignore that because it doesn't matter in order for me to answer the question. The genetic information for the bird kind, the cat kind, or the horse kind was not in the original created dog kind, that is why the dog kind cannot evolve into a different kind.

The original dog/wolf kind that was created had within it the genetic information that would produce and evolve into the rest of the dogs and wolves. During the natural selection process they change and become different types of dog/wolves but all still the same kind of animal. The genetic information for a doberman is not in the shephard, meaning two shephards cannot produce a doberman, so we see that in nature as a kind evolves it looses genetic information.

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 3:40 pm

You're discussing two different concepts here. Naturalism is distinct from Evolutionary Theory.

Scientific theories CAN be altered to accommodate new data! Happens all the time!

Quantum theory, for instance, still has a couple of niggling points to iron out.

IF, however, the theory has proven to be insufficient to cover the majority of possible phenomenon, THEN it can be happily discarded.

Not as distinct as first glance. Evolution is embraced by naturalists and that is the basis for evolution, natural processes.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 3:50 pm

Not as distinct as first glance. Evolution is embraced by naturalists and that is the basis for evolution, natural processes.

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

"Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is an epistemological method of proofing hypotheses. It requires that hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and others have advocated this view. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic."

Evolutionary Theory is a Scientific theory. Science employs a sort of methodological naturalism in the Scientific Method.

Evolutionary Theory may be an extension of the General Use of methodological naturalism by Science in general, but such a methodology is not exclusive to Evolutionary Theory.

You might as well have been talking about Quantum theory! It too uses a naturalistic methodology. Do you think that theory is completely unassailable too?

Thank you Troops

March 18th, 2009, 3:55 pm

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

"Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is an epistemological method of proofing hypotheses. It requires that hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and others have advocated this view. Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic."

Evolutionary Theory is a Scientific theory. Science employs a sort of methodological naturalism in the Scientific Method.

Evolutionary Theory may be an extension of the General Use of methodological naturalism by Science in general, but such a methodology is not exclusive to Evolutionary Theory.

You might as well have been talking about Quantum theory! It too uses a naturalistic methodology. Do you think that theory is completely unassailable too?

Did you have this post ready to go, just waiting on my reply? :)) When I say naturalism begats naturalism is people that are ardent supporters of natural only processes, nothing supernatural as ever happened or ever will, are the same ones that support evolution. They have no other theory.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 4:10 pm

Of course I don't agree with your premise of millions of years but I will ignore that because it doesn't matter in order for me to answer the question. The genetic information for the bird kind, the cat kind, or the horse kind was not in the original created dog kind, that is why the dog kind cannot evolve into a different kind.

The original dog/wolf kind that was created had within it the genetic information that would produce and evolve into the rest of the dogs and wolves. During the natural selection process they change and become different types of dog/wolves but all still the same kind of animal. The genetic information for a doberman is not in the shephard, meaning two shephards cannot produce a doberman, so we see that in nature as a kind evolves it looses genetic information.

Really? Here's another data set to disprove your statement:

Species / Number of chromosomes / Genome size
African Wild Dog / 78 / 2.73 gigabases
Bat-eared Fox / 30 / ?
Bengal Fox / 60 / 2.85 gigabases
Dingo / 78 / 2.81 gigabases
Dog/ 78 / 3.09 (average) gigabases
Fennec Fox / 64 / ?

Granted, comparisons of genome size fall under the issue of the c-value paradox (genome size does not necessarily equal complexity), but to state that genetic information is consistently lost is misleading at best.

Genome expansion and ratcheting are two common phenomenon; genomes do not simply ratchet into eventual oblivion as you suggest.

Oh, and expand your "dog/fox/wolf kind" to include bears, would you? They're genetically similar, and unless you define conditions to prevent them from sharing a putative common ancestor, there is far more evidence that they DO have a common ancestor than they do not.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_S4_i_HnniXs/SMvpWAr0fXI/AAAAAAAAAE8/fAG39EcSUNo/s320/carnivore+phylogeny.jpg

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 4:14 pm

Did you have this post ready to go, just waiting on my reply? :)) When I say naturalism begats naturalism is people that are ardent supporters of natural only processes, nothing supernatural as ever happened or ever will, are the same ones that support evolution. They have no other theory.

Nope, typed it up when I saw your post. Bioinformatics made me a very fast typist :cool:

Replace the word "evolution" with "Science" and you are correct. Science cannot predict supernatural events, nor describe their mechanisms. Therefore, science is unable AND unwilling to account for supernatural forces.

Quid

March 18th, 2009, 4:19 pm

Can I point out that All Breeds of domesticated dogs are all the same species (Canis lupus familiaris)?

Same with cats (Felis catus)?

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 4:21 pm

Can I point out that All Breeds of domesticated dogs are all the same species (Canis lupus familiaris)?

Same with cats (Felis catus)?

Yes! Albeit with genome sizes that can differ by a gigabase (1 billion base pairs) or more!

2.65 - 3.88 gigabases.

Quid

March 18th, 2009, 4:25 pm

Yes! Albeit with genome sizes that can differ by a gigabase (1 billion base pairs) or more!

2.65 - 3.88 gigabases.
Granted, But most dog breeds can produce viable offspring regardless, a hallmark that all are the same species.

captusa

March 18th, 2009, 4:31 pm

Granted, But most dog breeds can produce viable offspring regardless, a hallmark that all are the same species.

This is true for dogs and wolves but there are many cannids that cannot mate with each other that have been listed.
Species / Number of chromosomes / Genome size
African Wild Dog / 78 / 2.73 gigabases
Bat-eared Fox / 30 / ?
Bengal Fox / 60 / 2.85 gigabases
Dingo / 78 / 2.81 gigabases(Dingo may be a breed since they are thought to be decended from domesticated dogs)
Dog/ 78 / 3.09 (average) gigabases
Fennec Fox / 64 / ?
Artic fox
Jackal
red fox

There is a difference between different species of animals and different breeds.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 4:34 pm

Granted, But most dog breeds can produce viable offspring regardless, a hallmark that all are the same species.

And the disparity of breeds is a testament to Man's ability to force particular characteristics out of an existing gene pool. The same diversity exists within the human gene. Fortunately, I can only think of one group of madmen who planned to force a particular "breed" from humans.

Dem

March 18th, 2009, 4:35 pm

Did you have this post ready to go, just waiting on my reply? :)) When I say naturalism begats naturalism is people that are ardent supporters of natural only processes, nothing supernatural as ever happened or ever will, are the same ones that support evolution. They have no other theory.
Are you saying that the only proponents of Evolution are atheists/naturalists?

Because that is untrue. There are many Scientists that happened to be Christian that are proponents of Evolutionary Theory.

Greyclouds

March 18th, 2009, 4:36 pm

Granted, But most dog breeds can produce viable offspring regardless, a hallmark that all are the same species.

Very true.

As a meta-genomics Microbiology grad student, I'm not very fond of our sexual fecundity definitions for species in the "higher taxa" Eukarya.

Here's what I mean: Right now, multi-cellular Eukaryotes are defined into species based on what they can mate with (and produce fertile offspring with).

BACTERIA, however, are differentiated into species based on the genetic similarity of their small Ribosomal Subunit RNA sequences. If those sequences are less than 97% similar, then both are different species!

If we approached multi-cellular Eukaryotes with the same system (small subunit of the Ribosome; less than 97% similarity to be called species), then MAMMALS would all be one species!!

If anything, I hope that people realize that multi-cellular Eukaryotic life is far less diverse than microbial life. I mean, sure, we can't see microbes with the naked eye, but their metabolic potential and ubiquity speaks FAR more for their fitness than any multi-cellular Eukaryotic species.

captusa

March 18th, 2009, 4:49 pm

......The original dog/wolf kind that was created had within it the genetic information that would produce and evolve into the rest of the dogs and wolves. During the natural selection process they change and become different types of dog/wolves but all still the same kind of animal. The genetic information for a doberman is not in the shephard, meaning two shephards cannot produce a doberman, so we see that in nature as a kind evolves it looses genetic information.

The loss of genetic information is not nature but human.
The doberman is a combination of many breeds.
Selective breeding by humans eliminated dogs that did not fit the conformation desired.
Speciazation requires a mutated gene and speciazation has occurred.
It can be argued that some mutation was necessary for dogs to become more suitable for living among people but not enough to cause speciazation but that is not a certainty.
That mutation had to occur sometime between eohippus and Secretariat is undoubtable.

James Juno

March 18th, 2009, 4:51 pm

Very true.

As a meta-genomics Microbiology grad student, I'm not very fond of our sexual fecundity definitions for species in the "higher taxa" Eukarya.

Here's what I mean: Right now, multi-cellular Eukaryotes are defined into species based on what they can mate with (and produce fertile offspring with).

BACTERIA, however, are differentiated into species based on the genetic similarity of their small Ribosomal Subunit RNA sequences. If those sequences are less than 97% similar, then both are different species!

If we approached multi-cellular Eukaryotes with the same system (small subunit of the Ribosome; less than 97% similarity to be called species), then MAMMALS would all be one species!!

If anything, I hope that people realize that multi-cellular Eukaryotic life is far less diverse than microbial life. I mean, sure, we can't see microbes with the naked eye, but their metabolic potential and ubiquity speaks FAR more for their fitness than any multi-cellular Eukaryotic species.

There's a reason the little guys hold the record, bar-none, as the most temporally successful critters known to us. And also why, if we find life elsewhere in our own solar system, it will likely be represented by this group.

Marleysdaddy

March 18th, 2009, 5:27 pm

Nope, typed it up when I saw your post. Bioinformatics made me a very fast typist :cool:

Replace the word "evolution" with "Science" and you are correct. Science cannot predict supernatural events, nor describe their mechanisms. Therefore, science is unable AND unwilling to account for supernatural forces.

I think 'unwilling' is going too far...science is 'willing' to tackle anything it can...'unable' is the key word.

biggles53

March 18th, 2009, 10:50 pm

It's a Biblical word in Genesis. Some say we don't know what a species is, so much for science. The Bible says animals were created in kinds and reproduce according to their kinds and that is what we see in nature.

Still a very hazy definition of what a "kind" is, but at least you were prepared to be pinned down to a reproductive function which acts as a boundary for "kinds"..

You say that animals can only reproduce within "kinds", right? You further say that evolution is possible within "kinds", but that it cannot cause one "kind" to evolve into a different one...do I have this correct also?

So, if I were able to show to you evidence of a particular species, a population of which had "adapted" (to use your preferred term) to such an extent that it was unable to successfully reproduce with the original, parent population, your theory would be disproven...correct?

AeroEngineer

March 18th, 2009, 10:55 pm

Quid

March 18th, 2009, 11:18 pm

This is true for dogs
There is a difference between different species of animals and different breeds.

I understand that. I was implying that a Springer Spaniel and a Golden Retriever could produce viable offspring as they belong to the same species. A Jackal and Hyena, both dogs, could not do the same.

captusa

March 18th, 2009, 11:47 pm

I understand that. I was implying that a Springer Spaniel and a Golden Retriever could produce viable offspring as they belong to the same species. A Jackal and Hyena, both dogs, could not do the same.

The premiss was that since animals were classified in the Bible as "kind" all the ark needed was one pair of each kind of unclean non-avians.
Dogs were given as example of a kind.
That would have explained hundreds of breeds of Dogs and wolves.
What was being pointed out that there were hundreds of species of cannines that would not be able to reproduce as a "kind" like jackals, several specie of foxes, wild dog.
Coyotes might be included in the same "kind" as dogs and wolves but certainly not Kit foxes.
BTW hyenas are not canines

sgtmac_46

March 19th, 2009, 5:22 am

Are we examining the same nature?
Not the same one i've been observing, apparently.

sgtmac_46

March 19th, 2009, 5:24 am

Still a very hazy definition of what a "kind" is, but at least you were prepared to be pinned down to a reproductive function which acts as a boundary for "kinds"..

You say that animals can only reproduce within "kinds", right? You further say that evolution is possible within "kinds", but that it cannot cause one "kind" to evolve into a different one...do I have this correct also?

So, if I were able to show to you evidence of a particular species, a population of which had "adapted" (to use your preferred term) to such an extent that it was unable to successfully reproduce with the original, parent population, your theory would be disproven...correct? Uhm, no.......you're not going to disprove faith with logic and reason.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 10:30 am

I think 'unwilling' is going too far...science is 'willing' to tackle anything it can...'unable' is the key word.

True. Maybe its just that my definition of supernatural abilities include the unpredictable breaking of physical laws in order to be actionable.

If we can "predict" such events (with trace amounts of accuracy), then yes, science would be willing to devise a hypothesis to govern these phenomena.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 10:36 am

I'm not reading through all of this thread, but to those of you who are interested in the evolution/creation debate, check out Kenneth Miller's books-

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

The guy has frequently debated members of the Discovery Institute and does it very professionally. BTW- he is a devout Catholic.

This guy doesn't understand intelligent design. He thinks it is an argument against evolution. That is wrong, it is an argument for a creator. Of course creationists need to debate evolutionists because of their stronghold in the education system but we can make an argument for a creator without mentioning evolution. Just believe that all the science experiments show the creators handywork.

": What is intelligent design?

Miller: My understanding of intelligent design is that it is the argument that the structures, features, organs, and biochemical pathways that we find in living cells are so complex that they could not have been produced by natural processes such as evolution and that they would require the intervention of an intelligent designer outside of nature to bring them into existence."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 10:41 am

Still a very hazy definition of what a "kind" is, but at least you were prepared to be pinned down to a reproductive function which acts as a boundary for "kinds"..

You say that animals can only reproduce within "kinds", right? You further say that evolution is possible within "kinds", but that it cannot cause one "kind" to evolve into a different one...do I have this correct also?

So, if I were able to show to you evidence of a particular species, a population of which had "adapted" (to use your preferred term) to such an extent that it was unable to successfully reproduce with the original, parent population, your theory would be disproven...correct?

I can't wait until science can tell us what a species is.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 10:42 am

Not the same one i've been observing, apparently.

So you have observed humans coming from a different species?

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 10:52 am

This guy doesn't understand intelligent design. He thinks it is an argument against evolution. That is wrong, it is an argument for a creator. Of course creationists need to debate evolutionists because of their stronghold in the education system but we can make an argument for a creator without mentioning evolution. Just believe that all the science experiments show the creators handywork.

No, actually Miller is dead on correct about the assertions of Intelligent design.

": What is intelligent design?

Miller: My understanding of intelligent design is that it is the argument that the structures, features, organs, and biochemical pathways that we find in living cells are so complex that they could not have been produced by natural processes such as evolution and that they would require the intervention of an intelligent designer outside of nature to bring them into existence."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

Irreducible complexity:

Michael Behe, a biochemist currently teaching at Lehigh University, coined a term for describing the design phenomenon inherent in molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellar motor -- "Irreducible Complexity" -- "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

from:http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

Its an argument from incredulity. That protein complexes are "sooooo" complex that we cannot ever hope to explain their individual component origins through natural mechanisms.

Since that argument has been made, we've done the following:

1. The flagellum and Type Three Secretion System have been shown to be made of nearly identical protein components: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

2. The Blood clotting cascade is far less complex than Behe claims:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1C-3WBFNW8-J&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=d9b068466ea146101ea95093bed7ddf1

3. Transitional states in the development of visible spectrum radiation detection (an "eye") have been identified in modern day animals. Many protein components are common to all animals that detect the visible spectrum of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png

"Irreducible complexity" is only based on what we have not YET explained in terms of protein interactions. As such, each new discovery peals back the argument and exposes it as a "god of the gaps" theory in disguise.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 11:00 am

I can't wait until science can tell us what a species is.

The designation of species becomes less and less important the more that we discover about population genetics.

Instead, competing gene families are what we should focus on. There are cellulosidic gene families that enable host organisms to compost your tree waste in your back yard. There are developmental gene families that allow some organisms to have multi-chambered stomachs, with which they can further degrade otherwise inedible plant matter. Finally, there are also gene families that convert solar energy into readily transportable sugar molecules.

A designation of "species" only appeals to our visual interpretation of genetic differences in organisms. "That bird is red, while that bird is blue; they both consume the same thing, but cannot mate with each other. Ergo, species!"

Don't get me wrong. We have extensive taxonomies of multi-cellular Eukaryotes for a reason. We enjoy classifying our world into organized hierarchies. I'm only suggesting that taking the WHOLE organism and branding it separate from its requisite genetic material is a bit of a mistake.

A mistake that we're hoping to correct with new advances in genome sequencing technology.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 11:15 am

No, actually Miller is dead on correct about the assertions of Intelligent design.

Irreducible complexity:

Its an argument from incredulity. That protein complexes are "sooooo" complex that we cannot ever hope to explain their individual component origins through natural mechanisms.

Since that argument has been made, we've done the following:

1. The flagellum and Type Three Secretion System have been shown to be made of nearly identical protein components: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

2. The Blood clotting cascade is far less complex than Behe claims:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1C-3WBFNW8-J&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=d9b068466ea146101ea95093bed7ddf1

3. Transitional states in the development of visible spectrum radiation detection (an "eye") have been identified in modern day animals. Many protein components are common to all animals that detect the visible spectrum of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png

"Irreducible complexity" is only based on what we have not YET explained in terms of protein interactions. As such, each new discovery peals back the argument and exposes it as a "god of the gaps" theory in disguise.

Like I said that's part of the discussions but that's not the total sum of the argument like he paints it to be. He is coming to the table believing evolution to be true then saying prove it's not. I could do the same thing to him.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 11:16 am

The designation of species becomes less and less important the more that we discover about population genetics.

Instead, competing gene families are what we should focus on. There are cellulosidic gene families that enable host organisms to compost your tree waste in your back yard. There are developmental gene families that allow some organisms to have multi-chambered stomachs, with which they can further degrade otherwise inedible plant matter. Finally, there are also gene families that convert solar energy into readily transportable sugar molecules.

A designation of "species" only appeals to our visual interpretation of genetic differences in organisms. "That bird is red, while that bird is blue; they both consume the same thing, but cannot mate with each other. Ergo, species!"

Don't get me wrong. We have extensive taxonomies of multi-cellular Eukaryotes for a reason. We enjoy classifying our world into organized hierarchies. I'm only suggesting that taking the WHOLE organism and branding it separate from its requisite genetic material is a bit of a mistake.

A mistake that we're hoping to correct with new advances in genome sequencing technology.

Science makes mistakes? Shocking.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 11:24 am

Like I said that's part of the discussions but that's not the total sum of the argument like he paints it to be. He is coming to the table believing evolution to be true then saying prove it's not. I could do the same thing to him.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument though:

The Theory of Evolution began as a hypothesis to explain the existence of different alleles in highly similar individual organisms. Through interpretation of more data, it has been refined and supported to be a modern theory encompassing the selection of certain alleles over others in a population.

Intelligent Design began as a supposition of incredulity over the presence of seemingly "overly-complex" biological systems. Several systems that seemed to defy explanation (at the time) were presented to support this contention (note: this is not presentation of POSITIVE data to support ID). Evidence was discovered that showed a parsimonious method by which such mechanisms could be selected for via the Theory of Evolution's predictions. Intelligent Design's "irreducible complexity" metric was not changed in light of its refutation.

Do you see the difference?

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 11:27 am

Science makes mistakes? Shocking.

Of course!

But here's the funny thing: When Science makes mistakes, it adapts to those mistakes and either rejects or modifies its theories.

Newton failed to account for certain variables in his Principia. Does that mean that the entire study of physics must now be discarded for his failure to see all ends?

If you're going to argue that, and still use your computer to type a response to me... well...

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 11:31 am

Herein lies the flaw in your argument though:

The Theory of Evolution began as a hypothesis to explain the existence of different alleles in highly similar individual organisms. Through interpretation of more data, it has been refined and supported to be a modern theory encompassing the selection of certain alleles over others in a population.

Intelligent Design began as a supposition of incredulity over the presence of seemingly "overly-complex" biological systems. Several systems that seemed to defy explanation (at the time) were presented to support this contention (note: this is not presentation of POSITIVE data to support ID). Evidence was discovered that showed a parsimonious method by which such mechanisms could be selected for via the Theory of Evolution's predictions. Intelligent Design's "irreducible complexity" metric was not changed in light of its refutation.

Do you see the difference?

I disagree with you assesment on how intelligent design came about. It began as a way for creation to gain a foothold in the classroom. The arguments for ID are many and widespread. Yes evolution cannot explain the complexities of DNA, yes evolution cannot explain the information needed for the building blocks of life, yes evolution cannot explain why we wear clothes, yes evolution cannot explain why humans are nice to each other, etc etc etc...

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 11:42 am

I disagree with you assesment on how intelligent design came about. It began as a way for creation to gain a foothold in the classroom.

You just proved the Prosecution's case in the Dover ID trial!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The Defense (The Dover School Board, which advocated the teaching of Intelligent Design as science) claimed that ID was NOT creationism in disguise!

Too bad, you could have been a prosecution witness :D I kid, I kid...

The arguments for ID are many and widespread. (1)Yes evolution cannot explain the complexities of DNA, (2)yes evolution cannot explain the information needed for the building blocks of life, (3)yes evolution cannot explain why we wear clothes, (4) yes evolution cannot explain why humans are nice to each other, etc etc etc...

Bolding mine, to highlight points.

(1) Evolution does not even discuss such things. The theory of Genome Plasticity is the relevant theory here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(2) Evolution does not even discuss such things. The theory of Abiogenesis is the relevant theory here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(3) Evolution does not even discuss such things. Behavioral Psychology is the relevant field here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(4) Evolution does not even discuss such things. Behavioral Genetics is the relevant field here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

I get the distinct feeling that you're amassing everything that you dislike about the Sciences and calling that amalgamation "Evolution." Can you please elucidate exactly what the Theory of Evolution states?

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 11:49 am

You just proved the Prosecution's case in the Dover ID trial!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The Defense (The Dover School Board, which advocated the teaching of Intelligent Design as science) claimed that ID was NOT creationism in disguise!

Too bad, you could have been a prosecution witness :D I kid, I kid...

Bolding mine, to highlight points.

(1) Evolution does not even discuss such things. The theory of Genome Plasticity is the relevant theory here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(2) Evolution does not even discuss such things. The theory of Abiogenesis is the relevant theory here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(3) Evolution does not even discuss such things. Behavioral Psychology is the relevant field here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

(4) Evolution does not even discuss such things. Behavioral Genetics is the relevant field here. You're attacking the wrong thing.

I get the distinct feeling that you're amassing everything that you dislike about the Sciences and calling that amalgamation "Evolution." Can you please elucidate exactly what the Theory of Evolution states?

Those are all arguments against evolution because evolution cannot explain them, so evolution is not true. Creation can explain them.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 12:01 pm

Those are all arguments against evolution because evolution cannot explain them, so evolution is not true.

Incorrect. You're actually claiming that Psychology, Behavioral Genetics, Chemistry, Physics and Molecular Biology are not correct because of your supposition below:

Creation can explain them.

So can the other fields!

Alright, lets take another look at how things are explained in the Genesis stories:

(1) DNA isn't even mentioned in the Genesis stories. In fact, DNA is unnecessary for the creation of all life forms according to the recordings of Creation. The creation account mentions NOTHING about DNA, the creation of the molecule or its intricacies. Molecular Biology and Abiogenesis theory DO explain the DNA molecule in a parsimonious fashion.

(2) Dust is used as the building block of life in the Genesis stories. Well, earthen dust contains high amounts of silicates. Silicates cause cell death. You must suspend science (in general) in order to believe that dust is the building block of all life forms.

(3) We supposedly wear clothes because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good an evil (a euphemism for sexual knowledge/activity). Well, this does not explain why there are such things as nudist colonies, nude beaches and a lack of shame while you're nude during sexual intercourse. Behavioral psychology offers far better explanations of the above phenomena as well as our trends towards clothing.

(4) What part of the Genesis stories dictates that we are supposed to be nice to each other? Cain murders Abel, and God keeps Cain alive! Adam blames Eve for making him eat the fruit, and both are thrown out of the garden anyways! Also, if you're arguing from a Christian perspective, Jesus wouldn't come to save humanity for another 4000 years. That's alot of time for human beings to die in sin, no?

badkarma

March 19th, 2009, 12:14 pm

Those are all arguments against evolution because evolution cannot explain them, so evolution is not true. Creation can explain them.
uh oh. Gravity can not explain any of those things either. We may be in trouble.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 12:23 pm

Incorrect. You're actually claiming that Psychology, Behavioral Genetics, Chemistry, Physics and Molecular Biology are not correct because of your supposition below:

So can the other fields!

Alright, lets take another look at how things are explained in the Genesis stories:

(1) DNA isn't even mentioned in the Genesis stories. In fact, DNA is unnecessary for the creation of all life forms according to the recordings of Creation. The creation account mentions NOTHING about DNA, the creation of the molecule or its intricacies. Molecular Biology and Abiogenesis theory DO explain the DNA molecule in a parsimonious fashion.

(2) Dust is used as the building block of life in the Genesis stories. Well, earthen dust contains high amounts of silicates. Silicates cause cell death. You must suspend science (in general) in order to believe that dust is the building block of all life forms.

(3) We supposedly wear clothes because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good an evil (a euphemism for sexual knowledge/activity). Well, this does not explain why there are such things as nudist colonies, nude beaches and a lack of shame while you're nude during sexual intercourse. Behavioral psychology offers far better explanations of the above phenomena as well as our trends towards clothing.

(4) What part of the Genesis stories dictates that we are supposed to be nice to each other? Cain murders Abel, and God keeps Cain alive! Adam blames Eve for making him eat the fruit, and both are thrown out of the garden anyways! Also, if you're arguing from a Christian perspective, Jesus wouldn't come to save humanity for another 4000 years. That's alot of time for human beings to die in sin, no?

It looks like evolution is an argument against creation. ;)

captusa

March 19th, 2009, 12:27 pm

Really? Here's another data set to disprove your statement:

Species / Number of chromosomes / Genome size
African Wild Dog / 78 / 2.73 gigabases
Bat-eared Fox / 30 / ?
Bengal Fox / 60 / 2.85 gigabases
Dingo / 78 / 2.81 gigabases
Dog/ 78 / 3.09 (average) gigabases
Fennec Fox / 64 / ?

Granted, comparisons of genome size fall under the issue of the c-value paradox (genome size does not necessarily equal complexity), but to state that genetic information is consistently lost is misleading at best.

Genome expansion and ratcheting are two common phenomenon; genomes do not simply ratchet into eventual oblivion as you suggest.

Oh, and expand your "dog/fox/wolf kind" to include bears, would you? They're genetically similar, and unless you define conditions to prevent them from sharing a putative common ancestor, there is far more evidence that they DO have a common ancestor than they do not.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_S4_i_HnniXs/SMvpWAr0fXI/AAAAAAAAAE8/fAG39EcSUNo/s320/carnivore+phylogeny.jpg

Modern biology is not my forte.
Would the number of chromosome indicate the same specie (kind if preferred) ?
I knew Dingos were decendents of dogs but I had assumed African pack dogs were a different species.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 12:31 pm

It looks like evolution is an argument against creation. ;)

How did you arrive at that conclusion after all of the posts in this thread? I'm quite perplexed.

badkarma

March 19th, 2009, 12:33 pm

How did you arrive at that conclusion after all of the posts in this thread? I'm quite perplexed.
he did not arrive at that conclusion through this thread. Instead, he brought it with him knowing full well that no matter how much evidence was presented or how many times his ideas are debunked he would never change his mind.

captusa

March 19th, 2009, 12:43 pm

Originally Posted by Thank you Troops
Those are all arguments against evolution because evolution cannot explain them, so evolution is not true. Creation can explain them.

Leprosy is described by the Bible as a curse of God
as are other diseases.
Some forms of leprosy are curable or controlable.
Since we can't cure all leprosy or all diseases so the study of medicine is not true.
All diseases can be explained by "Goddidit".

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 12:43 pm

How did you arrive at that conclusion after all of the posts in this thread? I'm quite perplexed.

Because Darwin rejected God so he had to come up with an alternate answer.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 12:44 pm

Modern biology is not my forte.
Would the number of chromosome indicate the same specie (kind if preferred) ?
I knew Dingos were decendents of dogs but I had assumed African pack dogs were a different species.

As per the number of chromosomes, not necessarily.

For example, humans have 46 chromosomes and Chimpanzees have 48. It turns out that this is because Human chromosome #2 is a fusion of Chimp chromosomes #2p and #2q. Apart from that, we have ~96% identity of nucleotide sequence with Chimps and >99% identity of amino acid sequence (of proteins coded by genes) with Chimps.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Such differences, though, can result in an incompatibility of sex cells. For example, if human sperm was used in an attempt to fertilize a Chimpanzee egg, the resulting zygote would probably die before coming to term. Why? Because the chromosomes would improperly partition.

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

Basically, you'd get the chromosomes being pulled to different daughter cells, and incomplete genetic material could result. Maybe one daughter cell gets three copies (instead of two) of chromosome #2p! This would be much akin to throwing a monkey wrench into a conveyor belt's gears, and would likely result in the death of the embryo.

So chromosome count is important in determining sexual compatibility.

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 12:45 pm

Leprosy is described by the Bible as a curse of God
as are other diseases.
Some forms of leprosy are curable or controlable.
Since we can't cure all leprosy or all diseases so the study of medicine is not true.
All diseases can be explained by "Goddidit".

I am glad you read the Bible, it has an answer to all life's mysteries, unlike science.

Dem

March 19th, 2009, 1:02 pm

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Because Darwin rejected God so he had to come up with an alternate answer.

Darwin became agnostic, and his theory was derived from evidence he observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views

Must God be the answer for everything? Beware the affirmation of the preceding question!

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

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 1:56 pm

Darwin became agnostic, and his theory was derived from evidence he observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin#Religious_views

Must God be the answer for everything? Beware the affirmation of the preceding question!

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

Darwin did not observe macro-evolution, only micro-evolution and then he invented a good story about Time being a god that causes all this macro-evolution that has never to this day been observed.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 2:08 pm

Darwin did not observe macro-evolution, only micro-evolution and then he invented a good story about Time being a god that causes all this macro-evolution that has never to this day been observed.

Where do we draw the line between "macro" and "micro" evolution?

What is the exact quantity of genotypic/phenotypic mutations that limits "micro" from becoming "macro?"

Thank you Troops

March 19th, 2009, 2:51 pm

Where do we draw the line between "macro" and "micro" evolution?

What is the exact quantity of genotypic/phenotypic mutations that limits "micro" from becoming "macro?"

I draw the line at common ancestry for all animals and for animals to not appear whole from the beginning, whenever the beginning was. There is no observable evidence of common ancestry and that animals have not been whole animals with lungs, hearts, brains, nostrils, teeth, etc. from the beginning. That is what this post is about, what evolution teaches vs what is observable.

Greyclouds

March 19th, 2009, 3:14 pm

I draw the line at common ancestry for all animals and for animals to not appear whole from the beginning, whenever the beginning was. There is no observable evidence of common ancestry and that animals have not been whole animals with lungs, hearts, brains, nostrils, teeth, etc. from the beginning. That is what this post is about, what evolution teaches vs what is observable.

Ok, so you believe that all amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are all descended from a common ancestor; Vertebrate fish, from another; and invertebrates from yet another?

Is this correct, or can you get more specific to explain your reasoning?

Thor

March 19th, 2009, 6:07 pm

I am glad you read the Bible, it has an answer to all life's mysteries, unlike science.

Excuse me?

Was it the Bible or science that was able to determine that the Earth revolved around the sun?

Was it the Bible or science that told us what causes disease?

Was it the Bible or science that showed us how to put a rocket into space?

Was it the Bible or science that demonstrated how physical traits are passed on to succeeding generations?

Was it the Bible or science that told us how the human body functions?

Was it the Bible or science that created drugs which cure or alleviate everything from headaches to high blood pressure to mental disorders?

I could keep going on....

I have no problem living my life without the Bible. I have no doubt that my life would be much more difficult without science.

captusa

March 19th, 2009, 6:16 pm

I draw the line at common ancestry for all animals and for animals to not appear whole from the beginning, whenever the beginning was. There is no observable evidence of common ancestry and that animals have not been whole animals with lungs, hearts, brains, nostrils, teeth, etc. from the beginning. That is what this post is about, what evolution teaches vs what is observable.

So at least 2 of every specie that could not produce fertile offsprings with other specie was present at the beginning and at least one pair of every specie of animal and 7 pair of every bird and ungulate was on the Ark.
That would be impossible.
I could name 20 specie of bear that could not be considered the same "kind" in that they are not related in a way that they could decend from any of each other.

captusa

March 19th, 2009, 6:24 pm

Originally Posted by captusa
Leprosy is described by the Bible as a curse of God
as are other diseases.
Some forms of leprosy are curable or controlable.
Since we can't cure all leprosy or all diseases so the study of medicine is not true.
All diseases can be explained by "Goddidit".

I am glad you read the Bible, it has an answer to all life's mysteries, unlike science.

So we should abandon all medicine ?
Should we ignore the fact that we have found out the cause and cures of some diseases and deny the existance of bacteria and viruses (viri) because medicine hasn't found out the cause of all diseases and go back to assuming all disease is a curse of God ?

I hope you aren't serious.

PercyVere

March 19th, 2009, 7:13 pm

Are we examining the same nature?Or the same evolution?

PercyVere

March 19th, 2009, 7:18 pm

biggles53

March 20th, 2009, 4:22 am

Uhm, no.......you're not going to disprove faith with logic and reason.

Except that TyT's statement was NOT one of faith! He was making a scientific statement; namely, that "kinds" are defined in much the same way as scientists sometimes define species - that they are animals which are able to successfully reproduce with one another.

So, my question to him (and yourself if you like?) is:

If you say that animals can ONLY reproduce within kinds, and that one kind cannot evolve into a different kind, then if we could find an example of animals within a kind adapting (evolving) to the extent where they can no longer reproduce with the original, parent group, then this scientific assertion will have been disproven.

Would you like to see the evidence....?

sgtmac_46

March 20th, 2009, 5:53 am

Except that TyT's statement was NOT one of faith! He was making a scientific statement; namely, that "kinds" are defined in much the same way as scientists sometimes define species - that they are animals which are able to successfully reproduce with one another.

So, my question to him (and yourself if you like?) is:

If you say that animals can ONLY reproduce within kinds, and that one kind cannot evolve into a different kind, then if we could find an example of animals within a kind adapting (evolving) to the extent where they can no longer reproduce with the original, parent group, then this scientific assertion will have been disproven.

Would you like to see the evidence....? Won't change a thing......his question may have SOUNDED like one of science......but it was rooted in faith. ;)

sgtmac_46

March 20th, 2009, 5:55 am

PercyVere

March 20th, 2009, 5:55 am

Uhm, no.......you're not going to disprove faith with logic and reason.Why not? If logic and reason prove that faith is nothing more than an inherent human trait, a delusion common to all human societies, throughout history, and clear result of our biological and societal evolution ... then faith does indeed disappear in a puff of logic.

sgtmac_46

March 20th, 2009, 6:03 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
The Problem of Evil and the corresponding Problem of Free Will are why I became agnostic.......when they occurred to me as a teenager.

sgtmac_46

March 20th, 2009, 6:04 am

Why not? If logic and reason prove that faith is nothing more than an inherent human trait, a delusion common to all human societies, throughout history, and clear result of our biological and societal evolution ... then faith does indeed disappear in a puff of logic. Then obviously your skills of logic are not up to the task, as the faith of the faithful has not disappeared in a puff of logic, in your wake, like God in the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', when confronted with the paradox of the Babel fish. ;)

biggles53

March 20th, 2009, 8:19 am

Won't change a thing......his question may have SOUNDED like one of science......but it was rooted in faith. ;)

So, yours would be like the position of Henry Morris, who famously stated that when reality and the scriptures collide, reality must be wrong....!?

PercyVere

March 20th, 2009, 10:45 am

Then obviously your skills of logic are not up to the task, as the faith of the faithful has not disappeared in a puff of logic, in your wake, like God in the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', when confronted with the paradox of the Babel fish. ;)Wouldn't that be a failure of logic with the faithful, not with me?

Thank you Troops

March 20th, 2009, 2:01 pm

Thank you Troops

March 20th, 2009, 2:02 pm

Won't change a thing......his question may have SOUNDED like one of science......but it was rooted in faith. ;)

All peoples positions on what happens when we die are rooted in faith, even scientists. That's why there are scientists that believe in God too.

Thank you Troops

March 20th, 2009, 2:05 pm

Wouldn't that be a failure of logic with the faithful, not with me?

I see no failure in the logic of the OP. What is taught about evolution, that we all come from a common ancestry and originally from a mud puddle is not observable. However what is observable is we all reproduce after our own kind and man is special over all the earth.

Thor

March 20th, 2009, 3:06 pm

What is taught about evolution, that we all come from a common ancestry and originally from a mud puddle is not observable.

Straw man. No scientist has ever postulated that life began in a "mud puddle".

biggles53

March 21st, 2009, 9:19 am

You are dying to show it so go ahead.

Soitainly.....knock yourself out....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

These include examples of speciation events of both plants and animals, and both in the wild and the laboratory.....

Herradura

March 21st, 2009, 9:39 pm

Straw man. No scientist has ever postulated that life began in a "mud puddle".

Straw man? Not really. Science (cosmology) postulates something even more ridiculous; that everything in existence came from nothing.

Herradura

March 21st, 2009, 9:46 pm

Soitainly.....knock yourself out....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

These include examples of speciation events of both plants and animals, and both in the wild and the laboratory.....

That article is non-conclusive at best. The author himself painfully admits that the descriptions of observed speciation were a failure (in his opinion of course, but isn’t that what the historical sciences are? Opinions?)

biggles53

March 22nd, 2009, 3:57 am

That article is non-conclusive at best. The author himself painfully admits that the descriptions of observed speciation were a failure (in his opinion of course, but isn’t that what the historical sciences are? Opinions?)

I beg your pardon...??

Where do you get the idea that they were a "failure"??

These are examples of speciation which have been described in many, many scientific publications. Are you seriously suggesting that they aren't genuine..??

Herradura

March 22nd, 2009, 2:02 pm

I beg your pardon...??

Ditto...

Where do you get the idea that they were a "failure"??

Did you read the whole article? Or just the parts you assumed supported your case?

These are examples of speciation which have been described in many, many scientific publications..

Did you say described? They are non-conclusive and based on assumption, no real testing or serious observation occurred over time. Stop taking shortcuts, you can start the journey of a million miles with one step, but you can’t span the whole journey in one step. Stop assuming and let real science present the truths over time.

Are you seriously suggesting that they aren't genuine..??

I’m suggesting they are not conclusive…

captusa

March 22nd, 2009, 4:33 pm

This is a bad start. You've misrepresented both nature and evolution.

Do you think if more people understood the concept of Evolution there might be fewer posts against the theory ?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

biggles53

March 22nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Ditto...

Did you read the whole article? Or just the parts you assumed supported your case?

Did you say described? They are non-conclusive and based on assumption, no real testing or serious observation occurred over time. Stop taking shortcuts, you can start the journey of a million miles with one step, but you can’t span the whole journey in one step. Stop assuming and let real science present the truths over time.

I’m suggesting they are not conclusive…

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to show me an example of what the heck you are talking about!!

Thank you Troops

March 23rd, 2009, 10:36 am

Soitainly.....knock yourself out....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

These include examples of speciation events of both plants and animals, and both in the wild and the laboratory.....

Interesting article thank you. I see a lot of words like "hypothesized" "appears", “suggests”, “tackle in greater depth”, “species look very similar”, etc… but I won’t dwell on that for expediency, I understand that is the nature of science.

Breeding experiments are controlled and governed by intelligence and that by its very nature does not duplicate what we see happening naturally. One important thing the article states is species differentiation concepts are “inapplicable in practice”.

However let me get to the meat of my rebuttal. After each case of “speciation”, the plant or animal is the same plant or animal. Yes maybe they cannot breed with the previous “species” of that plant or animal but they are still the same plant or animal. The flies were still files and the ferns were still ferns. The OP still holds in that we don’t see and witness evolution from common ancestry, what we do see and witness is plants and animals reproducing after their own kind.

Thor

March 23rd, 2009, 11:03 am

Straw man? Not really. Science (cosmology) postulates something even more ridiculous; that everything in existence came from nothing.

Science does not postulate that "everything in existence came from nothing". Where did you get this idea?

It is your side that believes everything came from nothing. Is it not believers who think that there was nothing until a spirit in the sky waved his hand and created the universe? And you just said this notion is "ridiculous".

Are you saying that it is impossible for something to be created out of nothing? (Because I would agree!)

Greyclouds

March 23rd, 2009, 1:22 pm

Interesting article thank you. I see a lot of words like "hypothesized" "appears", “suggests”, “tackle in greater depth”, “species look very similar”, etc… but I won’t dwell on that for expediency, I understand that is the nature of science.

Breeding experiments are controlled and governed by intelligence and that by its very nature does not duplicate what we see happening naturally. One important thing the article states is species differentiation concepts are “inapplicable in practice”.

However let me get to the meat of my rebuttal. After each case of “speciation”, the plant or animal is the same plant or animal. Yes maybe they cannot breed with the previous “species” of that plant or animal but they are still the same plant or animal. The flies were still files and the ferns were still ferns. The OP still holds in that we don’t see and witness evolution from common ancestry, what we do see and witness is plants and animals reproducing after their own kind.

I ask this again: Where do we stop at the delineation of "kinds?"

Until several species start to have observable divergent traits?

Is the Platypus the only species in existence that has its own individual "kind" since it is representative of traits inherent in mammals and reptiles?

Is a Bat a part of the "bird" kind since it has an convergent evolutionary trait (wings)?

I understand that your position posits that there are "limits" to allelic diversity that can spawn different phylogenetic taxa of organisms, but where does it end? Genus level? Order level? Where and by what mechanism?

Haplo

March 23rd, 2009, 1:26 pm

I ask this again: Where do we stop at the delineation of "kinds?"

Until several species start to have observable divergent traits?

Is the Platypus the only species in existence that has its own individual "kind" since it is representative of traits inherent in mammals and reptiles?

Is a Bat a part of the "bird" kind since it has an convergent evolutionary trait (wings)?

I understand that your position posits that there are "limits" to allelic diversity that can spawn different phylogenetic taxa of organisms, but where does it end? Genus level? Order level? Where and by what mechanism?More importantly what I want to know from them is why they believe humans to be the only of our kind.

Greyclouds

March 23rd, 2009, 2:31 pm

More importantly what I want to know from them is why they believe humans to be the only of our kind.

Very true. We are not the only species to have cognitive abilities; we're just the ones who have a higher intellectual capacity than the rest.

Marleysdaddy

March 23rd, 2009, 2:53 pm

What is taught about evolution, that we all come from a common ancestry and originally from a mud puddle is not observable.

1) the theory of evolution only teaches the first part (common ancestry)...abiogenesis teaches our ideas on origins (not exactly a mud puddle)

2) You do understand that if either of these things were "observable" that they would no longer need to be explained by the THEORIES of evolution or abiogenesis, because if we OBSERVE them, they would become FACT!

Marleysdaddy

March 23rd, 2009, 2:55 pm

Straw man? Not really. Science (cosmology) postulates something even more ridiculous; that everything in existence came from nothing.

I have emphasized your commission of the fallacy of straw man...in a response defending TYT's straw man, no less. Bravo! :clap:

Were you going for a meta-joke?

Thor

March 23rd, 2009, 3:32 pm

I have emphasized your commission of the fallacy of straw man...in a response defending TYT's straw man, no less. Bravo! :clap:

Were you going for a meta-joke?

Wow! You've spotted the rare double straw man!

Now, was the straw man created, or did he evolve? :think:

Thank you Troops

March 23rd, 2009, 3:40 pm

I ask this again: Where do we stop at the delineation of "kinds?"

Until several species start to have observable divergent traits?

Is the Platypus the only species in existence that has its own individual "kind" since it is representative of traits inherent in mammals and reptiles?

Is a Bat a part of the "bird" kind since it has an convergent evolutionary trait (wings)?

I understand that your position posits that there are "limits" to allelic diversity that can spawn different phylogenetic taxa of organisms, but where does it end? Genus level? Order level? Where and by what mechanism?

I'll have to say I am not sure but scientists are working on that as hard as they are working on what is a species.

Haplo

March 23rd, 2009, 6:30 pm

Thank you troops, what are the kinds that you believe to be original? Are all cats great and small of the same "kind"? How about wolves, dogs, coyote, hyena and foxes? Did they start with one kind of animal?

This has been asked many times to those who believe in "micro" evolution but not "macro" evolution and if it's been answered on here then I've honestly missed it. What limits divergent branches of the same root kind from growing so different over time that they can be considered a new kind? What limits micro from turning into macro?

biggles53

March 23rd, 2009, 10:13 pm

However let me get to the meat of my rebuttal. After each case of “speciation”, the plant or animal is the same plant or animal. Yes maybe they cannot breed with the previous “species” of that plant or animal but they are still the same plant or animal. The flies were still files and the ferns were still ferns. The OP still holds in that we don’t see and witness evolution from common ancestry, what we do see and witness is plants and animals reproducing after their own kind.

No, no, no!

I asked for a definition of "kind". YOU said that it was a classification wherein the members could reproduce with one another.

So, by YOUR reckoning, if we have animals which vary from the parent population to the extent that they no longer are able to reproduce with the 'originals', then a new "kind" has formed!

This is not MY assertion....it's YOURS!

Are they still "flies"? Yes, of course they are. Evolutionary theory would not predict otherwise. However, they have evolved sufficiently for the differences to mean that reproduction can no longer occur. That's evolution!

captusa

March 23rd, 2009, 10:40 pm

I'll have to say I am not sure but scientists are working on that as hard as they are working on what is a species.

Your premise was that all the species on the earth were decended from a "kind" that was on the Ark through breeding.
The vast differences between cannines of the same genus and species suggest that breeding can produce vast differences in characteristics which is true.
But no matter how similar or different a speciazation can not occur from breeding alone.
There is a breed of dog call Little Fox that looks very much like a red fox.
Genetically the Little Fox breed of dog is a totally different specie than any fox while a Rottweiller, wolf and chihauhua are the same specie or kind.
From your assumption that all bears decended from one pair of the "kind" bear would require that the decendants would still be the same specie which is not true.
Notice in the millenea from before the first wolf with traits that made it capable of living with humans and the hundreds of years of selective breeding there has been no speciazation of these cannines.
A chihuahua can decend from the "kind" "wolf " but a black bear and a brown bear (specie not color) can not decend from any different bear by breeding.

TimeToRelax

March 25th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Marleysdaddy

March 25th, 2009, 2:48 pm

More Clues that the Earth is Young

Written by: Bruce Malone
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately one hundred thousand years ago.
No, it doesn't.
DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human)
Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about five thousand years ago (based on evolutionary thinking).
Not exactly
http://www.appiusforum.com/civilizations.html
In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind ninety-five thousand years—after becoming fully human—to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!
Again, wrong...agriculture was developed at least 11,000 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_founder_crops

Marleysdaddy

March 25th, 2009, 2:49 pm

Also,

When you post an article, it would be good to comment on it, rather than merely cut and paste it.

Greyclouds

March 25th, 2009, 4:14 pm

More Clues that the Earth is Young

Written by: Bruce Malone
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately one hundred thousand years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about five thousand years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind ninety-five thousand years—after becoming fully human—to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!

The author's incredulity doesn't take into account the nomadic nature of most human tribes well prior to the formation of the first civilization.

Sure, it may seem like common sense for us today that 1+1 = 2, but prior to the advent of numbers and a structured language, being able to express such a simple mathematical concept to other human beings would have been an uphill battle!

There are chimpanzees that can be taught to type words on a computer. The fact that we can teach them to do such an act should not induce incredulity over the fact that they have not yet invented a computer themselves.

Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide Flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet's surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one-year period of a worldwide Flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.

Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":

1. All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which should have long ago disappeared.

2. All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and should have a maximum life expectancy of one hundred thousand years.

3. The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.

4. The spiral galaxies should have long ago un-spiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe should have long ago dispersed.

Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist, but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.

Not really. Young Earth hypotheses have a HUGE battle to fight over the most easily observed phenomenon:

Star Light.

We can see stars in the Andromeda galaxy. They are 2.5 million light years away. It takes light 2.5 million years to reach our planet, yet we can still see the light from that galaxy's stars!

How young does the author of this article think that the Earth is, again?

Oh and there are more ancient meteorites than this author lets on.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Note the Argon dating used.

What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age." A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this Flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article.[/COLOR]

http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=6&c=5

If there was a release of carbon into the atmosphere, that would NOT change the ratio of carbon isotopes inside a sample.

Keep in mind that the RATIO does not change the RATE OF DECAY. The rate of decay changes the RATIO!

Did the Author take a chemistry class?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

captusa

March 25th, 2009, 11:45 pm

The author's incredulity doesn't take into account the nomadic nature of most human tribes well prior to the formation of the first civilization.

Sure, it may seem like common sense for us today that 1+1 = 2, but prior to the advent of numbers and a structured language, being able to express such a simple mathematical concept to other human beings would have been an uphill battle!

There are chimpanzees that can be taught to type words on a computer. The fact that we can teach them to do such an act should not induce incredulity over the fact that they have not yet invented a computer themselves.

Not really. Young Earth hypotheses have a HUGE battle to fight over the most easily observed phenomenon:

.................
Did the Author take a chemistry class?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

This is the most obvious bit of stupidity (I didn't read very much).

3. The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.

The author of the article can't even acknowledge the sun.

Sketch

March 26th, 2009, 2:37 am

Thank you troops:

What is a "kind"?

(Advanced warning: no matter how you choose to define it, exceptions will abound - I know this because the same holds true no matter how we choose to define " species")

Are foxes, hyena's and poodles a "kind"?

Are dolphins and killer whales a "kind"?

Are turtles and tortoises a "kind"?

Are spiders and ticks a "kind".

Chimps and bonobos?

There are lots of these kinds of pairings.

PredFan

March 26th, 2009, 3:07 am

PredFan

March 26th, 2009, 3:13 am

I see no failure in the logic of the OP. What is taught about evolution, that we all come from a common ancestry and originally from a mud puddle is not observable. However what is observable is we all reproduce after our own kind and man is special over all the earth.

The OP was a complete mess. You sited facts about Evolution and you used them against evolution.

Of course what happened millions and millions of years ago is not observable. But evolution continues today and it IS observable.

What ISN'T observable is that a supreme being did the creating.

PredFan

March 26th, 2009, 3:23 am

Did the Author take a chemistry class?

I doesn't seem that that author took any classes in science whatsoever.

rgdavis

March 26th, 2009, 10:01 am

The OP was a complete mess. You sited facts about Evolution and you used them against evolution.

Of course what happened millions and millions of years ago is not observable. But evolution continues today and it IS observable.

What ISN'T observable is that a supreme being did the creating.

The evolution that continues today is micro-evolution, better known as adaptation. Darwin's evolution, or macro-evolution, is NOT observable. A fish can evolve into a better fish, or a monkey to a better monkey, but neither will become a different type of animal or a human being.

Evolutionists assert [among other things] that evolution results in an increase in genetic info and progressively higher order beings but how can anyone reconcile that in the face of the observable and time tested Laws of Thermodynamics? The second law states [and I'm paraphrasing, but look it up on your own and you'll see I'm accurate] "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". This law makes Darwin's evolution absolutely impossible. I do believe in God as the Author of all creation but no one has to have the same beliefs as me to see that macro-evolution is bogus. Anyone who is a critical thinker and cares enough to weigh the facts without bias must acknowledge the evidence and throw Darwin's idea of evolution to the trash can.

badkarma

March 26th, 2009, 10:19 am

The second law states [and I'm paraphrasing, but look it up on your own and you'll see I'm accurate] "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". This law makes Darwin's evolution absolutely impossible.
the 2nd law is entropy in a closed system but the earth is not a closed system. I am sure you have seen the big yellow thing in the sky that constantly bombards us with energy from outside of the earth.

Also, I do not believe the words death to life is included in any version of the 2nd law except the ones creationists use.

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 1:55 pm

pinqy

March 26th, 2009, 2:21 pm

The evolution that continues today is micro-evolution, better known as adaptation. Darwin's evolution, or macro-evolution, is NOT observable. A fish can evolve into a better fish, or a monkey to a better monkey, but neither will become a different type of animal or a human being. There aren't different types of fish or monkies???? And what if there was a fish with lungs? Wouldn't that be a different kind of fish, no matter how you drew the lines? And forget about the whole "better" thing...evolution is about change, not becoming "better," which is a relative thing.

Evolutionists assert [among other things] that evolution results in an increase in genetic info and progressively higher order beings No, they don't actually. Evolution states that the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time and often results in divergent species. This could be by increase or decrease in "genetic info" (not really sure what you think that means) and "higher order beings" doesn't really mean much and is not a claim of Evolution.

The second law states [and I'm paraphrasing, but look it up on your own and you'll see I'm accurate] "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". This law makes Darwin's evolution absolutely impossible.How exactly...even accepting your definition? What is the mechanism of energy transfer that you believe violates the Second Law?

Anyone who is a critical thinker and cares enough to weigh the facts without bias must acknowledge the evidence and throw Darwin's idea of evolution to the trash can.Then why is that the only people who do that are minority sects of Christianity and Islam?

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 2:24 pm

The evolution that continues today is micro-evolution, better known as adaptation. Darwin's evolution, or macro-evolution, is NOT observable. A fish can evolve into a better fish, or a monkey to a better monkey, but neither will become a different type of animal or a human being.

So Darwin's finches were an example of "macroevolution?" Or did you not read the Origin of Species?

Evolutionists assert [among other things] that evolution results in an increase in genetic info and progressively higher order beings but how can anyone reconcile that in the face of the observable and time tested Laws of Thermodynamics? The second law states [and I'm paraphrasing, but look it up on your own and you'll see I'm accurate] "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". This law makes Darwin's evolution absolutely impossible. I do believe in God as the Author of all creation but no one has to have the same beliefs as me to see that macro-evolution is bogus. Anyone who is a critical thinker and cares enough to weigh the facts without bias must acknowledge the evidence and throw Darwin's idea of evolution to the trash can.

Simple refutation of the above paragraph based on the bold words (bolding, mine):

Closed System.

Earth is not a closed system. Matter can enter from space, right? We also lose matter from our atmosphere at a regular rate.

Oh, and this is the actual second law of thermodynamics (it doesn't say anything about life or death):

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 2:42 pm

What prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Darwinists produced evidence for micro-evolution, not available to Darwin, but failed to provide evidence for macro-evolution. The failure to produce evidence for macro-evolution is simply caused by the fact of the discontinuity of nature, the reality of gaps in nature. But being convinced of the continuity of nature, biologists neglected or explained away discontinuity in the living world and in the past. Secondly the all-sufficiency of pure chance as the creative agency of evolution has never been proved. Notwithstanding these disproofs, Darwinism continues to be mainstream science because of the Priority of the Paradigm: there is simply no scientific alternative theory. Above that the Darwinian worldview satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world, which has also motivated all cosmogenic myth makers of the past

I can't make a better argument against the theory of Evolution than the ones made by fellow scientists and biologists.

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 2:47 pm

What prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

I also asked you questions in the other thread that you did not address,do you mind addressing them here.

God is My Rock

March 26th, 2009, 2:58 pm

Simple refutation of the above paragraph based on the bold words (bolding, mine):

Closed System.

Earth is not a closed system.

No but the universe is a closed system.

Or are you saying that there is something outside of everything that is?

Are you a closet theist ? :mrgreen:

captusa

March 26th, 2009, 3:21 pm

.......Evolutionists assert [among other things] that evolution results in an increase in genetic info and progressively higher order beings but how can anyone reconcile that in the face of the observable and time tested Laws of Thermodynamics? The second law states [and I'm paraphrasing, but look it up on your own and you'll see I'm accurate] "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity"......

Instead of asking those who have a familiarity with the 2nd law of thermodynamics to look it up why don't you.
You don't have the slightest idea of what the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is or means.
The fact that organizations like Discovery list it as evidence against the theory of evolution shows the utter distain they have for the intelligence of their audience.

One of the better ways of phasing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is
"Energy cannnot pass from a colder object to a warmewr object."

captusa

March 26th, 2009, 3:28 pm

No but the universe is a closed system.

Or are you saying that there is something outside of everything that is?

Are you a closet theist ? :mrgreen:

Evolution took and does take place on Earth.
Earth is not a closed system in regards to energy.
The second law of thermodynamics has a great implication on philosophy and theology as dose the Heissenberg uncertainty principle.
They have been deeply discussed but neither has much to do with the origin of the species.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 3:34 pm

Instead of asking those who have a familiarity with the 2nd law of thermodynamics to look it up why don't you.
You don't have the slightest idea of what the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is or means.
The fact that organizations like Discovery list it as evidence against the theory of evolution shows the utter distain they have for the intelligence of their audience.

One of the better ways of phasing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is
"Energy cannnot pass from a colder object to a warmewr object."

Dang a person needs a dictionary to keep up with this easily explained myth. :))

Do take a look at this source before continuing with your debate.

You guys lack unity just like some of my Christian brothers.:razz:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

I am reading through this just so i can explain some of these fancy words you guys throw around.

The problem is ,there seems to be a lot of holes that is taught as the gospel concerning evolution.

badkarma

March 26th, 2009, 3:37 pm

No but the universe is a closed system.

Or are you saying that there is something outside of everything that is?

Are you a closet theist ? :mrgreen:
What does the universe being a closed system have to do with the earth being an open one? put simply, if the earth gains a little heat from the sun losing a lot of heat, then the net sum is a negative for the universe as a closed system, but positive for the earth an open one.

I don't think entropy means what you think entropy does.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 3:40 pm

What does the universe being a closed system have to do with the earth being an open one? put simply, if the earth gains a little heat from the sun losing a lot of heat, then the net sum is a negative for the universe as a closed system, but positive for the earth an open one.

I don't think entropy means what you think entropy does.

Hey, i hate the steelers.

We don't see eye to eye on much.

Dem

March 26th, 2009, 3:47 pm

I can't make a better argument against the theory of Evolution than the ones made by fellow scientists and biologists.

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf (http://home.planet.nl/%7Egkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf)
A review of a twenty year old book by Michael Denton. Dentons latest book, "Natures Destiny", assumes evolution to be true.
Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Evidence for macro evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

badkarma

March 26th, 2009, 3:48 pm

Hey, i hate the steelers.

We don't see eye to eye on much.
you can hate the Steelers all you want. but I can theorize that they are the best team in the NFL, and then provide the evidence that they are the current champions as proof of said theory. Sure, they may not be the best at every individual position, but over all they are the best. if you would care to offer some evidence the disproves my theory, by all means please do so.

You can disagree with evolution as well, but people can come up with the theory of evolution, and then spend 150 years providing evidence for and refining the theory. Sure, some individual pieces of the theory may not be correct or need refining, but over all the theory itself is pretty sound. If you would care to disprove this theory you are more than welcome to do so.

I hope I did not read your reply incorrectly heh.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 3:58 pm

you can hate the Steelers all you want. but I can theorize that they are the best team in the NFL, and then provide the evidence that they are the current champions as proof of said theory. Sure, they may not be the best at every individual position, but over all they are the best. if you would care to offer some evidence the disproves my theory, by all means please do so.

You can disagree with evolution as well, but people can come up with the theory of evolution, and then spend 150 years providing evidence for and refining the theory. Sure, some individual pieces of the theory may not be correct or need refining, but over all the theory itself is pretty sound. If you would care to disprove this theory you are more than welcome to do so.

I hope I did not read your reply incorrectly heh.

No i am still sickened by that play just before halftime.

That would be my only argument against the steelers,but any who scoreboard.

And there is still to many holes in the theory of evolution,for it to be sound.

IMHO

captusa

March 26th, 2009, 4:04 pm

Dang a person needs a dictionary to keep up with this easily explained myth. :))

Do take a look at this source before continuing with your debate.

You guys lack unity just like some of my Christian brothers.:razz:

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

I am reading through this just so i can explain some of these fancy words you guys throw around.

The problem is ,there seems to be a lot of holes that is taught as the gospel concerning evolution.
What words were too big for you.
Some creationist brought up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics claiming it contradicted the theory of evolution.
Good luck reading.
For some reason when I went to the site the font was too small to read.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 4:04 pm

A review of a twenty year old book by Michael Denton. Dentons latest book, "Natures Destiny", assumes evolution to be true.
Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Evidence for macro evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Of course he is not gonna change his view,he didn't change his view when he could not prove something but insisted to keeping to the theory.

For me, to make it sound , prove your case and then continue on.

He didn't do that,just like what i posted earlier.

Darwinists produced evidence for micro-evolution, not available to Darwin, but failed to provide evidence for macro-evolution. The failure to produce evidence for macro-evolution is simply caused by the fact of the discontinuity of nature, the reality of gaps in nature. But being convinced of the continuity of nature, biologists neglected or explained away discontinuity in the living world and in the past. Secondly the all-sufficiency of pure chance as the creative agency of evolution has never been proved. Notwithstanding these disproofs, Darwinism continues to be mainstream science because of the Priority of the Paradigm: there is simply no scientific alternative theory. Above that the Darwinian worldview satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world, which has also motivated all cosmogenic myth makers of the past

I can't make a better argument against the theory of Evolution than the ones made by fellow scientists and biologists.

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 4:05 pm

What words were too big for you.
Some creationist brought up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics claiming it contradicted the theory of evolution.
Good luck reading.
For some reason when I went to the site the font was too small to read.

Magnify it.

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 4:08 pm

Darwinists produced evidence for micro-evolution, not available to Darwin, but failed to provide evidence for macro-evolution. The failure to produce evidence for macro-evolution is simply caused by the fact of the discontinuity of nature, the reality of gaps in nature. But being convinced of the continuity of nature, biologists neglected or explained away discontinuity in the living world and in the past. Secondly the all-sufficiency of pure chance as the creative agency of evolution has never been proved. Notwithstanding these disproofs, Darwinism continues to be mainstream science because of the Priority of the Paradigm: there is simply no scientific alternative theory. Above that the Darwinian worldview satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world, which has also motivated all cosmogenic myth makers of the past

I can't make a better argument against the theory of Evolution than the ones made by fellow scientists and biologists.

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

Pseudogenes provide evidence of macroevolution (if you define macroevolution as the Theory of Common Ancestry of multicellular Eukaryotes).

A Pseudogene is a gene that has been "inactivated" but still has remnant genetic sequence in the same location in the genome. Basically, its like a broken down car; it is still physically there, but it can't start up because it's missing important parts of the engine.

This article contains ALOT of good examples highlighting the similarity and differences between humans and other animals. Common to all animals? Pseudogenes!

Warning: pdf link http://papers.gersteinlab.org/e-print/sciam2/reprint.pdf

CILIA projecting from human olfactory epithelium (left) are studded with invisible odorant
molecule receptors that detect smells. A family of more than 1,000 genes encoding those
olfactory receptors in mammals has been identified, although individual species vary widely
in their total number of olfactory receptor genes and the percentage of that repertoire that
has died and become pseudogenes. Large-scale pseudogenization is most often seen among
genes that, like the olfactory receptor family, are responsible for responses to the
environment. An organism’s pseudogenes may therefore reflect species-specific changes
in circumstances during its evolutionary history.

They also show a comparison between dogs, humans and apes in terms of pseudogene content of olfactory receptor pathways. This is why your dog has a far better sense of smell than you do!

CHROMOSOMES of humans and mice carry
a very similar array of functional genes
(orange) but reveal distinct differences
in their pseudogenes (blue), which can
highlight important turning points in an
organism’s evolutionary history. For example,
the counterpart of a mouse gene called Gulo
has become a pseudogene (Gulo) in humans
and other primates. Gulo makes an enzyme
that is the last element in a biochemical
pathway for synthesizing vitamin C.
Most mammals possess the active
gene, but the primate lineage seems
to have lost it more than 40 million
years ago. When the Gulo gene
became a pseudogene, primates
became dependent on food
sources of vitamin C to avoid scurvy.

Chimpanzees share this pseudogene with us, and they too are dependent on eating vitamin C from food just like us.

Cool huh? Amazing too, that these pseudogenes occur in organisms that group together based on 18 S rRNA gene sequence as well, huh?

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 4:22 pm

<snip>

I can't make a better argument against the theory of Evolution than the ones made by fellow scientists and biologists.

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

Just to warn you, 1997 was a LOooooooong time ago for molecular biology. We've come a long way since then, and that article REALLY is showing its age.

For example (from that link):

In The Typological Perception of Nature Denton shows that variation in nature is around a 'type'. 'Basic types' or 'basic design' is invariant. He points to structures like cilia, mammalian hair and genetic code. Classes of organisms (not at the species level) are absolutely distinct and that the diagnostic characteristics are present in invariant form. Keywords: invariant, abrupt, discontinuity, typological. The 'typologists' (Linnaeus, Agassiz, Cuvier) did not retreat from empiricism, it was Darwin who retreated from empiricism, according to Denton.

Oh boy. The poor author forgets to mention that the codon table is UNIVERSAL between "types," and that the 16S and 18S rRNA genes share enough sequence homology as to be able to be aligned.

Oh, and gene families show enough sequence similarity between "Classes" of Eukaryotes as to be distinguishable.

Because of genome sequencing since 1997, we can now take a look at a nucleotide sequence and pick out protein domains based on the motif of that sequence. It's like looking at an animal and pointing out something that would function as its "arm" or "head." Common appendages (or protein domains in this example) stick out among "orders" of organisms.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 4:25 pm

Just to warn you, 1997 was a LOooooooong time ago for molecular biology. We've come a long way since then, and that article REALLY is showing its age.

For example (from that link):

Oh boy. The poor author forgets to mention that the codon table is UNIVERSAL between "types," and that the 16S and 18S rRNA genes share enough sequence homology as to be able to be aligned.

Oh, and gene families show enough sequence similarity between "Classes" of Eukaryotes as to be distinguishable.

Because of genome sequencing since 1997, we can now take a look at a nucleotide sequence and pick out protein domains based on the motif of that sequence. It's like looking at an animal and pointing out something that would function as its "arm" or "head." Common appendages (or protein domains in this example) stick out among "orders" of organisms.

It's been updated since that year, the last year it was updated was 2005.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 4:33 pm

Just to warn you, 1997 was a LOooooooong time ago for molecular biology. We've come a long way since then, and that article REALLY is showing its age.

For example (from that link):

Oh boy. The poor author forgets to mention that the codon table is UNIVERSAL between "types," and that the 16S and 18S rRNA genes share enough sequence homology as to be able to be aligned.

Oh, and gene families show enough sequence similarity between "Classes" of Eukaryotes as to be distinguishable.

Because of genome sequencing since 1997, we can now take a look at a nucleotide sequence and pick out protein domains based on the motif of that sequence. It's like looking at an animal and pointing out something that would function as its "arm" or "head." Common appendages (or protein domains in this example) stick out among "orders" of organisms.

This was an earlier post.

DNA gave us individuality,which is illogical to think we all came from the same substance but we are not exact clones of each other.

Why did the evolving stop ?

Why do we not reproduce what we use to be?

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 5:08 pm

Darwinists produced evidence for micro-evolution, not available to Darwin, but failed to provide evidence for macroevolution.
Darwin witnessed what you call micro-evolution...google 'Darwin's Finches'
The failure to produce evidence for macro-evolution is simply caused by the fact of the discontinuity of nature, the reality of gaps in nature.
There are numerous data which provide evidence of speciation (what you call macroevolution)...here is one excellent example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
But being convinced of the continuity of nature, biologists neglected or explained away discontinuity in the living world and in the past.
Please elaborate on what you think biologists "neglected or explained away"
Secondly the all-sufficiency of pure chance as the creative agency of evolution has never been proved.
That is the case for two reasons.
1) the all-sufficiency of pure chance as the creative agency of evolution has never been asserted (it's another of your straw men)
2) Nothing in science is "proved"
Notwithstanding these disproofs, Darwinism continues to be mainstream science because of the Priority of the Paradigm: there is simply no scientific alternative theory.
I already told you that 'Darwinism' was not the current theory of evolution...so your paradigm talk is nonsense. Scientists overturned the faulty portions of Darwin's theory long ago...People have tried to construct alternate theories, and none have explained the phenomenal evidence as well as the current theory. In the future, perhaps someone will develop a theory that is better, and the current theory will be modified or discarded.

You seem to think that we still believe exactly what Darwin published in November of 1859, and that is just not the case.

Above that the Darwinian worldview satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world, which has also motivated all cosmogenic myth makers of the past
1) The theory of evolution does not discuss the origin of the world, or even the origin of life.
2) The Bible also satisfies the "deep psychological need for an all embracing explanation for the origin of the world", it's just not a scientific one. Does that make the authors and editors of the Bible "cosmogenic myth makers"? :think:

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 5:10 pm

I also asked you questions in the other thread that you did not address,do you mind addressing them here.

Link them, and I'll gladly answer...as long as you answer mine.

What prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 5:13 pm

No but the universe is a closed system.

1) I don't think we know that

2) Even if it is closed, that still doesn't result in the theory of evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

populations of organisms evolving on this tiny planet does not reduce the overall entropy of the entire universe.

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 5:17 pm

Source http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

Before you posted this link, did you read the warning?

The book is neither free from scientific errors (12) nor free of bias. Because of the errors and the bias, I cannot recommend it to those with little biological training

Marleysdaddy

March 26th, 2009, 5:24 pm

This was an earlier post.
and I'll give some of the answers I gave earlier
DNA gave us individuality,which is illogical to think we all came from the same substance but we are not exact clones of each other.1) genes can mutate - the changing of just one nucleotide base can have a profound phenotypic effect
2) "We" are sexual creatures, meaning that NONE of our offspring are exact clones of either parent. You received half of your DNA from your mother and half from your father...THAT is why we aren't clones of each other

Why did the evolving stop ?

It didn't.
Why do we not reproduce what we use [sic] to be?
What do you mean by "what we used to be?"

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 6:28 pm

This was an earlier post.

DNA gave us individuality,which is illogical to think we all came from the same substance but we are not exact clones of each other.

We are only different from each other by > 200,000 nucleotide base pairs on average. That's less than 0.001% of our genome.

Humans have 3.2 billion nucleotide base pairs in their genomes.

Why did the evolving stop ?

It hasn't. There are people immune to HIV and Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague) infections:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX3-4K***F6-1&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=1e158883f120a0c1f5edb9c2c57dc3b6

Who knows what alleles will be present in human populations in 300,000 years? Your lifespan is far far far far far too short to ever see any noticeable differences in allelic frequencies in the human population.

Why do we not reproduce what we use to be?

Because sustained mutations in THEIR genomes make THEM different from OUR genomes. You understand that while you share SOME genes with an amoeba (you do), you cannot reproduce into an amoeba due to a lack/presence of other genes.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 6:38 pm

Link them, and I'll gladly answer...as long as you answer mine.

What prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Not sure.

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 6:48 pm

Not sure.

That is ok.

Not a single reputable scientist has yet to find instances where we can definitively claim that one species could not have come from another. Simply based on 18S rRNA sequencing (a gene shared by all Eukaryotes, from the tiny amoeba to the giant blue whale), we can easily say that all Eukaryotes are descended from a common ancestor.

Primarily due to the fact that the sequence similarity of all 18S rRNA genes can ONLY be explained by a common ancestry.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 6:55 pm

We are only different from each other by > 200,000 nucleotide base pairs on average. That's less than 0.001% of our genome.

Humans have 3.2 billion nucleotide base pairs in their genomes.

It hasn't. There are people immune to HIV and Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague) infections:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX3-4K***F6-1&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=1e158883f120a0c1f5edb9c2c57dc3b6

Who knows what alleles will be present in human populations in 300,000 years? Your lifespan is far far far far far too short to ever see any noticeable differences in allelic frequencies in the human population.

Because sustained mutations in THEIR genomes make THEM different from OUR genomes. You understand that while you share SOME genes with an amoeba (you do), you cannot reproduce into an amoeba due to a lack/presence of other genes.

If they really understand that much about our gene make up, why can't they cure cancer and ect ?

It seems like a bunch of fancy words to try to support a theory.

There is zero evidence of the human species evolving.

It's built on speculation and assumptions, then becomes belief.

It is irrational,to believe that we all evolved ,from the same substance,and we are not just clones of each other.

Why is that ?Incompatible DNA,the thing that gives us Individuality.

Now i am sure science will continue to try to explain away common sense,but it does not fit, and it is not proven that is why it is a theory.

Now if you gave a scientist enough time to explain why we are not alone in the universe,he could do it but just like this it will have missing links and holes to fill in.

Haplo

March 26th, 2009, 7:02 pm

Not sure.All that's needed to disprove "macro" evolution is to find such a barrier.

Greyclouds

March 26th, 2009, 7:04 pm

If they really understand that much about our gene make up, why can't they cure cancer and ect ?

It seems like a bunch of fancy words to try to support a theory.

There is zero evidence of the human species evolving.

It's built on speculation and assumptions, then becomes belief.

It is irrational,to believe that we all evolved ,from the same substance,and we are not just clones of each other.

Why is that ?Incompatible DNA,the thing that gives us Individuality.

Now i am sure science will continue to try to explain away common sense,but it does not fit, and it is not proven that is why it is a theory.

Now if you gave a scientist enough time to explain why we are not alone in the universe,he could do it but just like this it will have missing links and holes to fill in.

Common sense? Common sense dictates that the Earth is flat (without any measuring tools or prior knowledge)! It was not until scientific discovery that we provided evidence that the Earth is NOT flat!

Cancer is the accelerated proliferation of our own cells. We can genetically engineer cures RIGHT NOW, but they are potentially just as bad as the disease (depending on the person treated).

Are the holes you're attempting to elucidate really just your own incredulity of the theory? Like, "it seems so complex or outlandish to be truth!" That's what Einstein reportedly claimed when he read Schrodinger's quantum theory derivatives; quantum computing is soon to be a real possibility DESPITE its complexity.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 7:10 pm

All that's needed to disprove "macro" evolution is to find such a barrier.

I like the explanation God gave,he created everything according to it's kind.

If that is not the case, you should be able to take DNA from two different species and create a new species.

You can't go beyond the rules of creation.

Everything is distinct in nature,the proof is it's DNA.

Angryamerican

March 26th, 2009, 7:15 pm

Common sense? Common sense dictates that the Earth is flat (without any measuring tools or prior knowledge)! It was not until scientific discovery that we provided evidence that the Earth is NOT flat!

Cancer is the accelerated proliferation of our own cells. We can genetically engineer cures RIGHT NOW, but they are potentially just as bad as the disease (depending on the person treated).

Are the holes you're attempting to elucidate really just your own incredulity of the theory? Like, "it seems so complex or outlandish to be truth!" That's what Einstein reportedly claimed when he read Schrodinger's quantum theory derivatives; quantum computing is soon to be a real possibility DESPITE its complexity.

I will admit my science back ground is not up to par with with some of you.and it is probably clear to you,and mostly what i know is from conflicting writings against the theory.

But i know enough to reason on what i have read.

captusa

March 26th, 2009, 7:25 pm

If they really understand that much about our gene make up, why can't they cure cancer and ect ?

We know a lot more genes, humans and other, than we knew 20 years ago and we would know nothing MUCH LESS if we left everything to the explaination "Godddit".

It seems like a bunch of fancy words to try to support a theory.

There is zero evidence of the human species evolving.

Too bad science has to make you deal with polysyllabic words to explain sophisticated theories.
And there is hundreds of years of collected evidence for the evolution of homo sapians dating back to before Darwin.

It's built on speculation and assumptions, then becomes belief.
That's the way theory of gravity developed.
That's the way all the theories of chemistry developed.
That's the way the science of medicine develope.
That's how science works
It is irrational,to believe that we all evolved ,from the same substance,and we are not just clones of each other.
How can it be irrational when all the evidence points to it to have occurred.
Why is that ?Incompatible DNA,the thing that gives us Individuality.

Now i am sure science will continue to try to explain away common sense,but it does not fit, and it is not proven that is why it is a theory.

Common sennse (and Aristotles theory of gravity) told us that the heavier something is the faster it falls.

Common sense tells you that little plants and animals that can't be seen (like bacteria, viruses and ameobas) can't harm an adult human being.

Common sense tells me that it is silly to believe that there is some guy in the sky that watches sparrows fall and is offended if I get laid.

Now if you gave a scientist enough time to explain why we are not alone in the universe,he could do it but just like this it will have missing links and holes to fill in.

Can't fgure out what you're trying to say in the last paragraph.

Haplo

March 26th, 2009, 9:32 pm

I like the explanation God gave,he created everything according to it's kind.I see no explanation in the Bible, just jumps to conclusion based on it.
If that is not the case, you should be able to take DNA from two different species and create a new species.New species have been created in tests with flies I believe it was.
You can't go beyond the rules of creation.I agree...the difference is I see nothing in nature that restricts members of one kind from ever changing enough to become their own kind
Everything is distinct in nature,the proof is it's DNA.Have to disagree here...nature is very grey.

This'll have to be my last post from work untill I can reply normaly. Home computer is in the shop so can't chat from there

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 9:21 am

There is zero evidence of the human species evolving.
The fact that you ignore the evidence does not mean there is zero evidence. I already posted a link for you about endogenous retroviruses.

It is irrational,to believe that we all evolved ,from the same substance,and we are not just clones of each other.
Only if you ignore mutation and sexual reproduction...

Now i am sure science will continue to try to explain away common sense,but it does not fit, and it is not proven that is why it is a theory.
Nothing in science is proven...but thank you for throwing out the "It's just a theory" canard...it makes your position very clear

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 9:23 am

I like the explanation God gave,he created everything according to it's kind.

If that is not the case, you should be able to take DNA from two different species and create a new species.

Why do you think "you should be able" to do that? That scenario doesn't make any sense, nor is that what the theory of evolution states.

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 9:26 am

I will admit my science back ground is not up to par with with some of you.and it is probably clear to you,and mostly what i know is from conflicting writings against the theory.

But i know enough to reason on what i have read.

I don't think you do

This is made clear by your repeated beatings of straw men instead of the actual claims of evolutionary theory. Based on that evidence it appears that one of the following two things is true.

Either you don't know enough about the theory to argue against it, and thus the creation of straw men is unintentional

or

You understand the theory but are being intellectually dishonest by creating the straw men.

Are there other possibilities? If so, what are they?

badkarma

March 27th, 2009, 9:44 am

It is irrational,to believe that we all evolved ,from the same substance,and we are not just clones of each other.
take 2 dice and roll them. Now roll them again. Did you get the same number? probably not. But still, roll them again please. And again. lets say 1000 times, that seems like a reasonable sample size.

According to what you are saying here, it is irrational for you to believe that those dice did not land on the same number all 1000 times that you rolled them.

Thor

March 27th, 2009, 10:37 am

I like the explanation God gave,he created everything according to it's kind.

First of all, you assert there is no proof that evolution is true. And yet, here you assume that the Bible is true (for which you have no proof). Seems to me that you're not being very consistent.

Now for my main point.

If I could go back to ancient Rome, I could explain to them what causes the sun to shine. I could tell them about nuclear fusion and explain how this causes the sun to release energy.

And these people would no doubt scoff at me. They would tell me how the sun is a fireball created by Apollo (or some such thing). They would tell me how my explanation of nuclear fusion makes no sense. They would also tell me that the idea of Apollo making a fireball in the sky explains the sun perfectly.

When I see your above comment I think of trying to explain the sun to ancient Romans.

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 12:06 pm

I will admit my science back ground is not up to par with with some of you.and it is probably clear to you,and mostly what i know is from conflicting writings against the theory.

That is ok! I will be the first to admit to you that I haven't the foggiest notion on the complexities of mathematics, or even the workings of the modern combustion engine (apart from the chemistry). We all have to specialize in our absorption of knowledge because of the limitations of our own intellectual capacities.

Having said that, I still trust the mathematician and the auto mechanic (albeit with a tiny bit of background research on the subject myself).

But i know enough to reason on what i have read.

As someone who specializes in the field of Molecular Biology, I can tell you that the link you posted is pretty bad. In the future, here's how you can tell:

My rebuttals of the points found in this link: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

1. If scripture is quoted while discussing the merits of Evolutionary Theory, the authors are not engaging in a SCIENTIFIC dialogue. If their points can stand up to scrutiny WITHOUT using scripture as a crutch, THEN they have a leg to stand on! Remember, ALL of science is based on determining PHYSICAL mechanisms, not spiritual.

2. When they lump the Theory of Evolution together with OTHER scientific theories and try to attack the entire mass, then they're being outright DECEPTIVE. It's like me lumping together the Theory of Relativity with Atomic Orbital Theory and Quantum Theory, calling it the grand unifying theory and then stating that it's all hogwash because of its "Far reaching generalities." When they have to change the scope of the theory to attack it, that's a sign that they are doing so without evidence.

3. When they claim that the Theory is a "faith," then they're attacking the very principle of the English language. This is by far a HUGE sin of deception. Faith is a belief in spiritual principles and morals that can never be physically proven. A scientific theory is the best accumulated knowledge on a physical mechanism that we have up to this point. If they use "faith" to describe Evolutionary Theory, they might as well call everything they do in life "faith." I have "faith" that when I turn on my computer, it doesn't turn into a fish. Ridiculous!

4. When they present terms and mechanisms WITHOUT giving SPECIFIC examples of when and how this occurs in nature. For example, macro vs micro evolution. Not a single person claiming to be a scientist has ever presented a case where the mutation rate of an organisms' genome STOPS or SLOWS because that organism was fast approaching a "macro evolutionary event." Hence, until they present the hard and fast DATA, ignore them, please.

5. When they express incredulity about the Theory. This is much akin to a child complaining about his/her homework, saying that it's too hard to complete. There is no room for this in the sciences. Imagine if the inventor of the computer said, "this technology is WAY too hard to understand," and did not work on the electronics behind the computer. Irreducible complexity was their "big gun" for pushing the incredulity argument, but it has since been refuted. Time and time again.

If you have scanned an article using these five concepts, and they do NOT apply to the statements therein, then you have every right to consider it as a legitimate discussion of the Theory.

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 12:27 pm

That is ok! I will be the first to admit to you that I haven't the foggiest notion on the complexities of mathematics, or even the workings of the modern combustion engine (apart from the chemistry). We all have to specialize in our absorption of knowledge because of the limitations of our own intellectual capacities.

Having said that, I still trust the mathematician and the auto mechanic (albeit with a tiny bit of background research on the subject myself).

As someone who specializes in the field of Molecular Biology, I can tell you that the link you posted is pretty bad. In the future, here's how you can tell:

My rebuttals of the points found in this link: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/korthof18.pdf

1. If scripture is quoted while discussing the merits of Evolutionary Theory, the authors are not engaging in a SCIENTIFIC dialogue. If their points can stand up to scrutiny WITHOUT using scripture as a crutch, THEN they have a leg to stand on! Remember, ALL of science is based on determining PHYSICAL mechanisms, not spiritual.

2. When they lump the Theory of Evolution together with OTHER scientific theories and try to attack the entire mass, then they're being outright DECEPTIVE. It's like me lumping together the Theory of Relativity with Atomic Orbital Theory and Quantum Theory, calling it the grand unifying theory and then stating that it's all hogwash because of its "Far reaching generalities." When they have to change the scope of the theory to attack it, that's a sign that they are doing so without evidence.

3. When they claim that the Theory is a "faith," then they're attacking the very principle of the English language. This is by far a HUGE sin of deception. Faith is a belief in spiritual principles and morals that can never be physically proven. A scientific theory is the best accumulated knowledge on a physical mechanism that we have up to this point. If they use "faith" to describe Evolutionary Theory, they might as well call everything they do in life "faith." I have "faith" that when I turn on my computer, it doesn't turn into a fish. Ridiculous!

4. When they present terms and mechanisms WITHOUT giving SPECIFIC examples of when and how this occurs in nature. For example, macro vs micro evolution. Not a single person claiming to be a scientist has ever presented a case where the mutation rate of an organisms' genome STOPS or SLOWS because that organism was fast approaching a "macro evolutionary event." Hence, until they present the hard and fast DATA, ignore them, please.

5. When they express incredulity about the Theory. This is much akin to a child complaining about his/her homework, saying that it's too hard to complete. There is no room for this in the sciences. Imagine if the inventor of the computer said, "this technology is WAY too hard to understand," and did not work on the electronics behind the computer. Irreducible complexity was their "big gun" for pushing the incredulity argument, but it has since been refuted. Time and time again.

If you have scanned an article using these five concepts, and they do NOT apply to the statements therein, then you have every right to consider it as a legitimate discussion of the Theory.

As usual, very well put.

And as usual, you should really consider being a professor (I'm not letting up on you ;) )

rgdavis

March 27th, 2009, 1:09 pm

Instead of asking those who have a familiarity with the 2nd law of thermodynamics to look it up why don't you.
You don't have the slightest idea of what the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is or means.
The fact that organizations like Discovery list it as evidence against the theory of evolution shows the utter distain they have for the intelligence of their audience.

One of the better ways of phasing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is
"Energy cannnot pass from a colder object to a warmewr object."
No, sorry. The 2nd Law is as I paraphrased "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". See 'entropy'.

Your description doesnt look like any of the Laws.

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 1:23 pm

As usual, very well put.

And as usual, you should really consider being a professor (I'm not letting up on you ;) )

Started looking at post-docs already :D

The unfortunate thing is that I'll also start to have to look in the unversitys' obituaries... morbid stuff :(

captusa

March 27th, 2009, 1:56 pm

No, sorry. The 2nd Law is as I paraphrased "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". See 'entropy'.

Your description doesnt look like any of the Laws.

The way you paraphrased the 2nd law of Thermodynamics has very little if any relationship to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
The way I paraphrased the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is completely accurate to the extent of the statement.
I recall days of working on several of the proofs related to increase of entropy in perfect, reversible adiabatic reactions and none of them dealt with life.
The fact that agencies like Discovery uses the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in relation to evolution and biology is an indication of the total disregard they have for the education and intelliegence of their audience.

What is the source of your knowledge of entropy and the information you used for your incorrect paraphrase of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 1:56 pm

No, sorry. The 2nd Law is as I paraphrased "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". See 'entropy'.
Please provide the source you found that includes anything about death or life in the definition of the Second Law.

If you google 'Second Law of Thermodynamics', here are the first two returns

Versions of The Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Versions_of_The_Law)
There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, but all are equivalent in the sense that each form of the second law logically implies every other form.[1] Thus, the theorems of thermodynamics can be proved using any form of the second law and third law.

The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is as follows:

In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.

Thus, while a system can undergo some physical process that decreases its own entropy, the entropy of the universe (which includes the system and its surroundings) must increase overall. (An exception to this rule is a reversible or "isentropic" process, such as frictionless adiabatic compression.) Processes that decrease total entropy of the universe are impossible. If a system is at equilibrium, by definition no spontaneous processes occur, and therefore the system is at maximum entropy.

Also, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when aided by an external agent (i.e. the compressor). Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.

The exception to this is in statistically unlikely events where hot particles will "steal" the energy of cold particles enough that the cold side gets colder and the hot side gets hotter, for an instant. Such events have been observed at a small enough scale where the likelihood of such a thing happening is large enough.[2] The mathematics involved in such an event are described by fluctuation theorem.

A third formulation of the second law, by Lord Kelvin, is the heat engine formulation, or Kelvin statement:

It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.

That is, it is impossible to extract energy by heat from a high-temperature energy source and then convert all of the energy into work. At least some of the energy must be passed on to heat a low-temperature energy sink. Thus, a heat engine with 100% efficiency is thermodynamically impossible.

And

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy (http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

Your description doesnt look like any of the Laws.
You are completely wrong.

Here is the description from Captusa
"Energy cannot pass from a colder object to a warmer object.

and here is the description from Rudolf Clausius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius), one of the founders of thermodynamics!

"Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

captusa

March 27th, 2009, 2:04 pm

no, sorry. The 2nd law is as i paraphrased "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". See 'entropy'.

Your description doesnt look like any of the laws.

2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist lord kelvin stated it technically as follows: "there is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." in more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
'
'
'
'

captusa

March 27th, 2009, 2:43 pm

No, sorry. The 2nd Law is as I paraphrased "nothing in a closed system goes from death to life, or from inactivity to activity". See 'entropy'.

Your description doesnt look like any of the Laws.

Notice the spontaneous reaction to your depiction of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
In no attempt to "gang up" on you it would be interesting to find out where you got your misconception of the 2nd Law and you should recognize the contempt that whatever source that gave you that information had for you.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 4:27 pm

Why do you think "you should be able" to do that? That scenario doesn't make any sense, nor is that what the theory of evolution states.

I feel God is the one that set the boundaries and we really don't evolve,we were created according to our kind.

And you said earlier that we are still evolving,what species is there that evolved from man ?

I understand we keep getting new illnesses and viruses,but what does that have to do with evolving in to other species ?

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 4:37 pm

I don't think you do

This is made clear by your repeated beatings of straw men instead of the actual claims of evolutionary theory. Based on that evidence it appears that one of the following two things is true.

Either you don't know enough about the theory to argue against it, and thus the creation of straw men is unintentional

or

You understand the theory but are being intellectually dishonest by creating the straw men.

Are there other possibilities? If so, what are they?

I think i understand your position better than you understand mine so i have a few questions for now.

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of millions of years?

The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, How come they have not degraded ?

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 4:47 pm

And you said earlier that we are still evolving,what species is there that evolved from man ?
Evolution and speciation are two different things. The human population is still evolving (as evidence of that, just simply compare a child's genome to the parents' genomes)...to my knowledge, the human population has not yet given rise to a new species.

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 4:50 pm

I think i understand your position better than you understand mine so i have a few questions for now.
I am well versed in many of the arguments of Creationism (It's a topic I take very seriously). You are either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding the claims of evolutionary theory.

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of millions of years?

The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, How come they have not degraded ?
If you give me links supporting both of these claims, I will be glad to read them and offer my rebuttals.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 5:00 pm

I am well versed in many of the arguments of Creationism (It's a topic I take very seriously). You are either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding the claims of evolutionary theory.

If you give me links supporting both of these claims, I will be glad to read them and offer my rebuttals.

Source for the ancient DNA.

http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm

Source for ancient Amino Acid.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/survive.htm

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 5:01 pm

I think i understand your position better than you understand mine so i have a few questions for now.

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of millions of years?

Amino acids are quite stable under certain conditions. So are smaller peptides.

Its only when you have catalysts that can degrade them and consume them (read: other cells, since they are simply packages of enzymes) that their shelf-life decreases greatly.

The existence of viable ancient DNA in the spores of bacterium, that should have degraded long ago, How come they have not degraded ?

Spores are an AWESOME case in longevity!

A high protein coat, coupled with a smaller lipid membrane, prevents radiation to the genomic dna over time. Four copies of the host genome inside the spore allows for data redundancy, so to speak (if one gene is mutated, at least you have three more copies to steal parts from!). Also, a high concentration of solute (either calcium or sugar molecules) prevents damage to the host genome in very hot conditions.

Consider too that the inside of the spore is almost dessicated (devoid of free-floating water molecules), and you've got ideal conditions in which you can preserve DNA.

http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/579

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 5:06 pm

Source for the ancient DNA.

http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm

Note that all conditions had the genome preserved in dessication. Water is necessary for the ionization that allows for nucleophilic attack on the phosphate backbone of DNA (in layman's terms: you need water to chemically breakdown DNA over time).

Source for ancient Amino Acid.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/survive.htm

Same deal. Depending on the presence of water and the presence of ions in the fossils, you need high concentrations of both in order to get complete degradation of proteins, peptides and amino acids to constituent acetyl groups and carbon dioxide.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 5:11 pm

Note that all conditions had the genome preserved in dessication. Water is necessary for the ionization that allows for nucleophilic attack on the phosphate backbone of DNA (in layman's terms: you need water to chemically breakdown DNA over time).

Same deal. Depending on the presence of water and the presence of ions in the fossils, you need high concentrations of both in order to get complete degradation of proteins, peptides and amino acids to constituent acetyl groups and carbon dioxide.

How can they revive what they are finding,then extract complete DNA STRANDS ?

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 5:15 pm

Note that all conditions had the genome preserved in dessication. Water is necessary for the ionization that allows for nucleophilic attack on the phosphate backbone of DNA (in layman's terms: you need water to chemically breakdown DNA over time).

Same deal. Depending on the presence of water and the presence of ions in the fossils, you need high concentrations of both in order to get complete degradation of proteins, peptides and amino acids to constituent acetyl groups and carbon dioxide.

Why won't you read what the author is saying,then look at the sources he is quoting.

You know this question has not been answered,the science world should have an answer why DNA STRANDS are surviving fully intact after 500 million years would you not agree ? if you are gonna believe we evolved.

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 5:21 pm

How can they revive what they are finding,then extract complete DNA STRANDS ?

Because the organism shed the spore coat and became a vegetative cell again.

http://www.microbeworld.org/know/spore.aspx

After that, it can reproduce just like a normal cell. After tons of replication cycles, scientists can extract the genome of the cell and sequence it.

DNA is very easy to extract from living cultures of microbial cells:

http://www.hawaii.edu/microbiology/MO/dnaextract1.htm

That is just a rudimentary protocol for extracting genomes from Gram Negative Bacteria.

Marleysdaddy

March 27th, 2009, 5:24 pm

Source for the ancient DNA.

http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm
This paper fails to support ANY of its claims...for example
Some of the life-forms date as far back as 135 million years which was the time of the dinosaurs. Can DNA survive that long? Many point to the plain physics of degrading DNA over time and state that organisms cannot survive for millions of years without having the bases of the DNA, which constitutes the genetic code, degrade to such an extent that the organisms would no longer be viable.

Who are the many doing the pointing? A scientist could never get away with such unsupported claims. You should have taken the advice Greyclouds offered earlier
Source for ancient Amino Acid.

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/survive.htm
Though the term 'creation-science' makes no sense, I read this one as well...

Why is it that amino acids are still found in fossils and are not broken down after hundreds of million of years? It might be natural to expect that amino acids would be found in fossils. But this is only true if the fossils are not too old because amino acids break down with time. According to the Bible, a global flood that distroyed [sic] the whole world, took place less than 5000 years ago. So if we take our hints from Scripture, the fossils that were buried during this flood have only been around for 5000 years.
Again, you should have taken Greyclouds advice
Originally posted by Greyclouds
1. If scripture is quoted while discussing the merits of Evolutionary Theory, the authors are not engaging in a SCIENTIFIC dialogue. If their points can stand up to scrutiny WITHOUT using scripture as a crutch, THEN they have a leg to stand on! Remember, ALL of science is based on determining PHYSICAL mechanisms, not spiritual.

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 5:26 pm

Why won't you read what the author is saying,then look at the sources he is quoting.

I have, and I did. The sources are, again, old. 1990's.

Here's a newer one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321502?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Prior estimates to the degradation of DNA dealt with inhibitors to PCR, not the actual fidelity of the DNA strand. Big difference, there. It was only through refined demineralization of the sample that allowed for amplification of ancient DNA strands.

You know this question has not been answered,the science world should have an answer why DNA STRANDS are surviving fully intact after 500 million years would you not agree ? if you are gonna believe we evolved.

Please see above. Dessication is a friend to fossilization AND DNA/peptide preservation. Minerals, however, inhibit PCR and therefore make us believe that the DNA is simply not there.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 5:26 pm

Amino acids are quite stable under certain conditions. So are smaller peptides.

Its only when you have catalysts that can degrade them and consume them (read: other cells, since they are simply packages of enzymes) that their shelf-life decreases greatly.

Spores are an AWESOME case in longevity!

A high protein coat, coupled with a smaller lipid membrane, prevents radiation to the genomic dna over time. Four copies of the host genome inside the spore allows for data redundancy, so to speak (if one gene is mutated, at least you have three more copies to steal parts from!). Also, a high concentration of solute (either calcium or sugar molecules) prevents damage to the host genome in very hot conditions.

Consider too that the inside of the spore is almost dessicated (devoid of free-floating water molecules), and you've got ideal conditions in which you can preserve DNA.

http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/579

How did we Evolve,if the DNA strands are still fully intact ?

I really would like you to read what i post and i will read what you post.

This guy has a phd in your field,i think i will invite him to the debate.

source http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm

Another interesting article: "Prehistoric bacteria revived from buried salt" by J. Travis in Science News Volume 155, June 12, 1999, p. 373. In this article, J. Travis has interviewed such men as William D. Rosenzweig and Russell H. Vreeland of Penn. University who have now announced to have isolated and revived bacteria from salt deposits that is 250 million years old. Also in the paper, a researcher is mentioned, who is said to have been ahead of his time claimed, back in the 1960s, to have revived bacillus and other bacteria from salt deposits more than 500 million years old.

So now we have bacterial spores lasting for 250 million years and maybe as long as 500 million years. Is that possible?

I especially like what Melanie R. Mormile from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. said: (I must tell you that Melanie has herself reported salt-derived microbes of at least 97 million years old in age) "Whenever anyone claims they have revived organisms that are millions of years old, she says, you've got to sit back and go, 'Wow, that's incredible. How can that be?' "

I think this is amazing! Because the long ages supported by the evolutionary process is not questioned, researchers are forced to try to come up with unlikely possibilities. They are forced to acknowledge that the DNA must have survived for hundreds of millions of years so now they have to come up with a reason why they are present!

You might think that this debate over viable fossil DNA will persist for some time since there is yet no answer to the problem; However, this same kind of debate has occurred before. In the past, the fact that fossils still had identifiable amino acids after millions of years of being buried, and it had created quite a stir in the 1950s and 1960s. But since a reasonable answer that allows amino acids to still exist, after millions of years, was not forth coming, all research on the problem eventually stopped.

Greyclouds

March 27th, 2009, 6:06 pm

How did we Evolve,if the DNA strands are still fully intact ?

How do you mean? Are you expressing incredulity over the age of the DNA strands? If so, I explained that dessication could preserve DNA for extremely long periods of time. In the spore, dessication could preserve DNA INDEFINITELY due to the copy number of genomes and the chemical content of the spore itself.

I really would like you to read what i post and i will read what you post.

I really have, and I don't understand why you believe that I have not.

This guy has a phd in your field,i think i will invite him to the debate.

source http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm

Another interesting article: "Prehistoric bacteria revived from buried salt" by J. Travis in Science News Volume 155, June 12, 1999, p. 373. In this article, J. Travis has interviewed such men as William D. Rosenzweig and Russell H. Vreeland of Penn. University who have now announced to have isolated and revived bacteria from salt deposits that is 250 million years old. Also in the paper, a researcher is mentioned, who is said to have been ahead of his time claimed, back in the 1960s, to have revived bacillus and other bacteria from salt deposits more than 500 million years old.

So now we have bacterial spores lasting for 250 million years and maybe as long as 500 million years. Is that possible?

I especially like what Melanie R. Mormile from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. said: (I must tell you that Melanie has herself reported salt-derived microbes of at least 97 million years old in age) "Whenever anyone claims they have revived organisms that are millions of years old, she says, you've got to sit back and go, 'Wow, that's incredible. How can that be?' "

I think this is amazing! Because the long ages supported by the evolutionary process is not questioned, researchers are forced to try to come up with unlikely possibilities. They are forced to acknowledge that the DNA must have survived for hundreds of millions of years so now they have to come up with a reason why they are present!

You might think that this debate over viable fossil DNA will persist for some time since there is yet no answer to the problem; However, this same kind of debate has occurred before. In the past, the fact that fossils still had identifiable amino acids after millions of years of being buried, and it had created quite a stir in the 1950s and 1960s. But since a reasonable answer that allows amino acids to still exist, after millions of years, was not forth coming, all research on the problem eventually stopped.

And, this has been addressed in more recent articles (that this author does not mention):

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118904405/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Again, note that WATER is the critical thing here! Estimates of DNA preservation that run the gamut from 2000, to 10,000 years for sequence fidelity assume that the DNA is ALWAYS PRESENT IN WATER.

In a fossilization situation, the DNA could, presumably, be in conditions completely devoid of water. In the bacterial spore, this is PRECISELY the case!

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 6:08 pm

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 6:11 pm

This paper fails to support ANY of its claims...for example

Who are the many doing the pointing? A scientist could never get away with such unsupported claims. You should have taken the advice Greyclouds offered earlier

Though the term 'creation-science' makes no sense, I read this one as well...

Again, you should have taken Greyclouds advice

Are you serious ?

So far i see no answers to the questions.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 6:13 pm

I have, and I did. The sources are, again, old. 1990's.

Here's a newer one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321502?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Prior estimates to the degradation of DNA dealt with inhibitors to PCR, not the actual fidelity of the DNA strand. Big difference, there. It was only through refined demineralization of the sample that allowed for amplification of ancient DNA strands.

Please see above. Dessication is a friend to fossilization AND DNA/peptide preservation. Minerals, however, inhibit PCR and therefore make us believe that the DNA is simply not there.

No, try again, it was last updated Jan 01 2009.

I hope the author takes me up on the invite.

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 6:14 pm

how do you mean? Are you expressing incredulity over the age of the dna strands? If so, i explained that dessication could preserve dna for extremely long periods of time. In the spore, dessication could preserve dna indefinitely due to the copy number of genomes and the chemical content of the spore itself.

I really have, and i don't understand why you believe that i have not.

And, this has been addressed in more recent articles (that this author does not mention):

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118904405/abstract?cretry=1&sretry=0

again, note that water is the critical thing here! Estimates of dna preservation that run the gamut from 2000, to 10,000 years for sequence fidelity assume that the dna is always present in water.

In a fossilization situation, the dna could, presumably, be in conditions completely devoid of water. In the bacterial spore, this is precisely the case!

500 million years!!!

Angryamerican

March 27th, 2009, 6:16 pm

How do you mean? Are you expressing incredulity over the age of the DNA strands? If so, I explained that dessication could preserve DNA for extremely long periods of time. In the spore, dessication could preserve DNA INDEFINITELY due to the copy number of genomes and the chemical content of the spore itself.

I really have, and I don't understand why you believe that I have not.

And, this has been addressed in more recent articles (that this author does not mention):

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118904405/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Again, note that WATER is the critical thing here! Estimates of DNA preservation that run the gamut from 2000, to 10,000 years for sequence fidelity assume that the DNA is ALWAYS PRESENT IN WATER.

In a fossilization situation, the DNA could, presumably, be in conditions completely devoid of water. In the bacterial spore, this is PRECISELY the case!

No,because if you read what i posted this DNA was pulled from a salt mine and from the ground NOT WATER!!