Jump to content


Photo

Darwins Evidence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:31 AM

http://genetics.thet...al_news/news124
Here's a confirmed example of a healthy human with a reduced chromosome count due to fusion events (44 instead of normal 46). The mechanism for this is balanced translocations (different numbers/arrangement of chromosomes without loss of genes) coupled with small breeding population.


Interesting, though you forgot to mention this

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history."

I'd question the comment about passing it on being possible, perhaps the writer is referring to this guy participating in incest.... (which comes with its own problems of detrimental mutations and the moral implications of such )

For this method to occur the exact same joining of the same chromosomes must occur to a male and a female of the same species, in the same locality within the same timeframe.... and this occurs thousands of times to justify the different chromosome count...... Yes that doesn't take any measure of faith to believe Posted Image

Additionally it requires the existence of multiple chromosomes for there to be chromosomes to fuse. Therefore the lions share of the problem is found in how a one chromosome species (single celled organism) became a multi-chromosome organism. This method has not been found, furthermore it defies all observations we have seen in reality about additional chromosome number in animals and humans.

Another point to consider is that since there is no fitness benefit then there is no reason for the different chromosome number to be fixed within the population. Therefore if this was the method of how different chromosome numbers came to be then we would predict each species having members with different chromosome numbers since 100% of a uniform number would be impossible... However this is not what is observed.

Therefore it is as I have said somewhere earlier, the evolutionist sees something and immediately assumes it as evidence of their position without first being critical of it.

#22 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:34 AM

...." I'd question the comment about passing it on being possible, perhaps the writer is referring to this guy participating in incest.... (which comes with its own problems of detrimental mutations and the moral implications of such ) For this method to occur the exact same joining of the same chromosomes must occur to a male and a female of the same species, in the same locality within the same timeframe.... ....

Inbreeding only get's a problem, if these detrimental mutations are already present. They won't be in an Adam+Eve situation. And it has been used as an argument around the animals on Noah's Ark. Obviously siblings would have mated during the first generations.

Anyway, accumulation of genetic defects would also be a problem with non-s*xually reproducing species.

The Neo-Darwinian stance I've read was that a population would split away and then "change over time" into new species, subsequently becoming new geni, families, etc. The population hypothesis has it's own problems of course.

#23 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 23 July 2012 - 01:07 PM

Interesting, though you forgot to mention this

"His chromosomes are arranged in a stable way that could be passed on if he met a nice girl who had 44 chromosomes too. And this would certainly be possible in the future given his family history."

I'd question the comment about passing it on being possible, perhaps the writer is referring to this guy participating in incest.... (which comes with its own problems of detrimental mutations and the moral implications of such )

For this method to occur the exact same joining of the same chromosomes must occur to a male and a female of the same species, in the same locality within the same timeframe.... and this occurs thousands of times to justify the different chromosome count...... Yes that doesn't take any measure of faith to believe Posted Image

The 44 chromosome woman would only be needed to guarantee that all offspring had 44 chromosomes. The man could have kids with a 45 chromosome individual and the kids would have a chance at either having 44 or 45 chromosomes. The man could also have kids with a 46 chromosome individual and all his children would have 45 chromosomes.

From the article:
Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation.

Read further down in that article for a explanation of how a chromosome change can fix in a population.

There are a couple of obvious ways that 46 chromosomes might take over. One is if there was some sort of advantage to having this number of chromosomes.
...
An alternative is that dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win. Perhaps people with 46 chromosomes were in an isolated community somewhere and the rest of humanity was wiped out. Certainly humanity has had near death experiences before. The most recent one was probably 75,000 or so years ago.
If by chance 46 chromosome humans were spared, then we have our current number of chromosomes by chance. And if something similar were to happen in the near future and only descendants of the 44 chromosome man survived, then humans would end up with 44 chromosomes.

Additionally it requires the existence of multiple chromosomes for there to be chromosomes to fuse. Therefore the lions share of the problem is found in how a one chromosome species (single celled organism) became a multi-chromosome organism. This method has not been found, furthermore it defies all observations we have seen in reality about additional chromosome number in animals and humans.

There's plenty of examples of plants and animals having higher than normal chromosome numbers. This can occur by fission (splitting a single chromosome into two parts) or duplication (copy of existing chromosome). Plants are well known for duplicating their entire genome. Certain fish are known to have multiple copies of chromosomes as well.

Here's a overview of how chromosomes can increase or decrease in number via fission or fusion. Note that chromosomes are just how genes are arranged and that the number of chromosomes is largely meaningless for anything other than reproduction. An organisms health is tied to what genes are present and how they are expressed, not how many groups they are divided up in.
http://scienceblogs....hromosome-numb/

Here's an example of a fission in a human resulting in 47 chromosomes. Notice that the only reason this was found was that fertility was reduced. There were no other health problems and she was eventually able to have a normal child.
http://synapse.korea...jkms-22-146.pdf

Another point to consider is that since there is no fitness benefit then there is no reason for the different chromosome number to be fixed within the population. Therefore if this was the method of how different chromosome numbers came to be then we would predict each species having members with different chromosome numbers since 100% of a uniform number would be impossible... However this is not what is observed.

Therefore it is as I have said somewhere earlier, the evolutionist sees something and immediately assumes it as evidence of their position without first being critical of it.

It is not necessary for a trait to be beneficial in order to fix in a population. Founder effects and genetic drift are mechanisms that allow non-beneficial traits to fix.

#24 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:31 PM

1. Yes he did, what I am asking for is the experimental verification of the hypothesis of evolution from these observations, (the observations are not enough as per the scientific method as well as the example of the sun and stars going around the Earth example)


Experimentation is not essential to scientific method. Some Sciences including astronomy are more amenable to observation and prediction. However Darwin himself did numerous experiments and reported on them in The Origen of the Species". For example in chapter 12 he did numerous experiments on the survival rate of seeds in sea water to counter critics who claimed that ocean islands could not be populated by plants and animals crossing from continents. In his first experiment he discovered that 64 out of 87 different species of seed germinated after immersion for 28 days. In chapter 14, he reports on his experiments in breeding barnacles and shows that contrary to previous assertions by Cuvier, barnacles are crustaceans. In chapter 10, he predicts that more intermediate fossils will be found - since borne out in spades. Since the invention of antibiotics in the 1940s, a huge experiment has beren carried out by the medical community. The presence of Golden Staph demonstrates natural selecrtion at work. More closely controlled in the laboratory Lenski has been able to demonstrate that bacteria can develope new metabolic pathways. On the prediction side the discovery of Titaalik as an intermediate between lobe finned fish and tetrapods was predicted to be in late Devonian rocks and specifically searched for on Ellesmere Island. The search was dramatically successful.

2. And? Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Darwin spent 20 years observing and experimenting before he felt confidant enough to publish. His evidence and his experiments are very readably reported in his books. Read them and learn.

3. Yes, however from this all we can realistically derive is that animals can be varied from generation to generation, (since that is all there is evidence for), this was already known so...... However none of this supports the molecules to man evolution that is claimed..

No, from this we can see that changes in plants and animals could arise naturally, in a similar manner to changes brought about by deliberate selection by humans. Darwin did not claim that his theory explained the origin of life from non living molecules - it is "The Origin of Species" - not "The Origin of Life".

4. Yes he did, yet in his book he claimed this hypothesis to be a theory..... As if it was already empirically verified..


I am not sure what point you are making here. In Origin of Species Darwin discusses "Miscellaneous Objections to my Theory" at great length, and is very frank about observations and discoveries which would invalidate his theory. None of the potential fatal observations have ever been found. What observation would invalidate your theory of divine creation of the species?


5. Yes, however you need to realize that evolution is merely assumed from this.. There is no way to directly demonstrate that evolution was the only cause. Therefore this is not evidence to support the hypothesis it is merely more observations on which the hypothesis is based on. Again, I am asking for the experimental data that was done..

See my response to 1. The observations and experiments are there.

6. The same can be said for cellular structures by which there are no conceptual or physical precursors, with which to identify possible evolution. Yet again as I have said before, assuming evolution is the cause is the same as claiming "evolution did it", how are these similarities verified as being products of evolution?

The evidence for cellular structures in eukaryotes being derived from incorporated symbiotic prokaryote cells is actually quite strong and has been discussed in thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, like http://www.ncbi.nlm....?tool=pmcentrez .

7. I cannot claim whether the Bible covers this or not.

Why not? Don't you read your Bible? One of the most surprising facts to come out of the fossil record is the estimate that more than 99% of species are extinct. When did they go extinct? Why doesn't the Bible cover this amazing fact? Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

If you wish to contend this point then please demonstrate an empirical test by which the cause of the similarities in fossils can be verified.

The point here is that we have two theories - common descent and individual creation. The fact of the morphological similarities and the intermediate fossils supports the common descent theory over the individual creation theory. Yes its circumstantial evidence rather than the direct proof that you are pushing for, but there are many people in jail on a lesser standard of proof.

10. Mendel demonstrated that recessive traits can be expressed in future generations. This would be a hinderance to evolution since it means that the "old" trait will never be fully repressed therefore if we are to believe that man "evolved" from chimps we should be able to find a group of humans who have some of these recessed traits- simian appearance etc. As far as I know there is no such thing.

Additionally Mendel's laws lead to more problems for the evolutionist.

The First Law infers that an organism would normally have the same amount of DNA as its parents. Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur? And how does this not defy the first law?

The Second Law demonstrates that even if a trait were advantageous there is no absolute necessity for it to be expressed within the organism's offspring since the assortment of alleles is independent. This adds more problems for the fixation for an advantageous trait. This also leads to the regressed traits I mentioned before.

You are quite simply wrong in your assertions on this point. Sir Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics has replaced Mendel's Laws. Fisher was able to mathematically prove that if a gene is harmful when present in both allelles, but otherwise recessive, then it will eventually be eliminated from the gene pool. Examples of apparent exceptions, like the gene for sickle cell anaemia are found to have some favourable property - resistance to malaria in the case of the sickle cell anaemia gene. Different numbers of chromosomes between parents and offspring is quite common in plants. Rarer in animals - but it still occurs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:21 AM

1. The 44 chromosome woman would only be needed to guarantee that all offspring had 44 chromosomes. The man could have kids with a 45 chromosome individual and the kids would have a chance at either having 44 or 45 chromosomes. The man could also have kids with a 46 chromosome individual and all his children would have 45 chromosomes.

From the article:
Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation.


2. Read further down in that article for a explanation of how a chromosome change can fix in a population.

There are a couple of obvious ways that 46 chromosomes might take over. One is if there was some sort of advantage to having this number of chromosomes.
...
An alternative is that dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win. Perhaps people with 46 chromosomes were in an isolated community somewhere and the rest of humanity was wiped out. Certainly humanity has had near death experiences before. The most recent one was probably 75,000 or so years ago.
If by chance 46 chromosome humans were spared, then we have our current number of chromosomes by chance. And if something similar were to happen in the near future and only descendants of the 44 chromosome man survived, then humans would end up with 44 chromosomes.


3. There's plenty of examples of plants and animals having higher than normal chromosome numbers. This can occur by fission (splitting a single chromosome into two parts) or duplication (copy of existing chromosome). Plants are well known for duplicating their entire genome. Certain fish are known to have multiple copies of chromosomes as well.

4. Here's a overview of how chromosomes can increase or decrease in number via fission or fusion. Note that chromosomes are just how genes are arranged and that the number of chromosomes is largely meaningless for anything other than reproduction. An organisms health is tied to what genes are present and how they are expressed, not how many groups they are divided up in.
http://scienceblogs....hromosome-numb/

5. Here's an example of a fission in a human resulting in 47 chromosomes. Notice that the only reason this was found was that fertility was reduced. There were no other health problems and she was eventually able to have a normal child.
http://synapse.korea...jkms-22-146.pdf


It is not necessary for a trait to be beneficial in order to fix in a population. Founder effects and genetic drift are mechanisms that allow non-beneficial traits to fix.

The 44 chromosome woman would only be needed to guarantee that all offspring had 44 chromosomes. The man could have kids with a 45 chromosome individual and the kids would have a chance at either having 44 or 45 chromosomes. The man could also have kids with a 46 chromosome individual and all his children would have 45 chromosomes.

From the article:
Theoretically the 44 chromosome man should have fewer problems having children than his parents did. As this figure shows, there are no unpaired chromosomes when he and a woman with 46 chromosomes have children. But all of their kids would have a balanced translocation.

Read further down in that article for a explanation of how a chromosome change can fix in a population.

There are a couple of obvious ways that 46 chromosomes might take over. One is if there was some sort of advantage to having this number of chromosomes.
...
An alternative is that dumb luck allowed the 46 chromosome humans to win. Perhaps people with 46 chromosomes were in an isolated community somewhere and the rest of humanity was wiped out. Certainly humanity has had near death experiences before. The most recent one was probably 75,000 or so years ago.
If by chance 46 chromosome humans were spared, then we have our current number of chromosomes by chance. And if something similar were to happen in the near future and only descendants of the 44 chromosome man survived, then humans would end up with 44 chromosomes.


There's plenty of examples of plants and animals having higher than normal chromosome numbers. This can occur by fission (splitting a single chromosome into two parts) or duplication (copy of existing chromosome). Plants are well known for duplicating their entire genome. Certain fish are known to have multiple copies of chromosomes as well.

Here's a overview of how chromosomes can increase or decrease in number via fission or fusion. Note that chromosomes are just how genes are arranged and that the number of chromosomes is largely meaningless for anything other than reproduction. An organisms health is tied to what genes are present and how they are expressed, not how many groups they are divided up in.
http://scienceblogs....hromosome-numb/

Here's an example of a fission in a human resulting in 47 chromosomes. Notice that the only reason this was found was that fertility was reduced. There were no other health problems and she was eventually able to have a normal child.
http://synapse.korea...jkms-22-146.pdf


It is not necessary for a trait to be beneficial in order to fix in a population. Founder effects and genetic drift are mechanisms that allow non-beneficial traits to fix.


1. Clearly you didn't get what I am talking about. The odds of this occurring to a male and a female in the same species, in the same locality at the same time and then having those specific two mate, with no other detriment occurring to the offspring is far too incredulous.... and then for this to be the cause (as you claim) then it will need to occur thousands of times over.... You do see why statisticians do not like evolution...

2. Dumb luck is the proposed method of fixation.... Yes, very scientific..... Of course with a hypothesis like that how can you ever be proven wrong, ergo evolution is unfalsifiable.

3. Plants yes, animals no unless you want to have detrimental affliction / infertility... A bit ironic for a model that proposes that things get better via reproduction.

4. Shakes head.... Claiming something as it doesn't matter, means that you do not want to tackle the problem. As you said it is a problem for reproduction which is the entire point. The problem with this answer is that if this really did occur we would expect chromosomes to be relatively similar with expression of the same genes since they are merely duplicates, however this is not what is observed, each chromosome is unique, meaning that claims that chromosomes came about via duplication and then splitting off is not represented within reality. Furthermore there is nothing to demonstrate how a centromere came to be within the duplicates that break off to become new chromosomes.... Would you claim that the centromere is also duplicated? You do realise that this would lead to problems with how the chromosomes split at replication.

5. You said it yourself, fertility was reduced. Hence a decrease in fitness, (whereby fitness is defined by evolutionists as the potential to spread their genome, in otherwords have babies / reproduce). Do you realise that this defies the evolutionary claims about natural selection? Thanks for proving your own claim wrong :D

Even so, she had a normal 46 chromosome baby... hence no additional chromosome was conferred to the next generation. Though from the paper it sounds like as if the deceased fetuses had the 47 chromosomes, (as the cause of the natural abortion) rather than the mother.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2012 - 03:09 AM

1. Experimentation is not essential to scientific method.

2. Some Sciences including astronomy are more amenable to observation and prediction.

3. However Darwin himself did numerous experiments and reported on them in The Origen of the Species". For example in chapter 12 he did numerous experiments on the survival rate of seeds in sea water to counter critics who claimed that ocean islands could not be populated by plants and animals crossing from continents.

4. In chapter 14, he reports on his experiments in breeding barnacles and shows that contrary to previous assertions by Cuvier, barnacles are crustaceans.

5. In chapter 10, he predicts that more intermediate fossils will be found - since borne out in spades.

6. Since the invention of antibiotics in the 1940s, a huge experiment has beren carried out by the medical community. The presence of Golden Staph demonstrates natural selecrtion at work.

7. More closely controlled in the laboratory Lenski has been able to demonstrate that bacteria can develope new metabolic pathways.

8. On the prediction side the discovery of Titaalik as an intermediate between lobe finned fish and tetrapods was predicted to be in late Devonian rocks and specifically searched for on Ellesmere Island. The search was dramatically successful.


9. Darwin spent 20 years observing and experimenting before he felt confidant enough to publish. His evidence and his experiments are very readably reported in his books. Read them and learn.


10. No, from this we can see that changes in plants and animals could arise naturally, in a similar manner to changes brought about by deliberate selection by humans. Darwin did not claim that his theory explained the origin of life from non living molecules - it is "The Origin of Species" - not "The Origin of Life".



11. I am not sure what point you are making here. In Origin of Species Darwin discusses "Miscellaneous Objections to my Theory" at great length, and is very frank about observations and discoveries which would invalidate his theory. None of the potential fatal observations have ever been found. What observation would invalidate your theory of divine creation of the species?


12. my response to 1. The observations and experiments are there.

13. The evidence for cellular structures in eukaryotes being derived from incorporated symbiotic prokaryote cells is actually quite strong and has been discussed in thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, like http://www.ncbi.nlm....?tool=pmcentrez .

14. Why not? Don't you read your Bible? One of the most surprising facts to come out of the fossil record is the estimate that more than 99% of species are extinct. When did they go extinct? Why doesn't the Bible cover this amazing fact? Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

15. The point here is that we have two theories - common descent and individual creation. The fact of the morphological similarities and the intermediate fossils supports the common descent theory over the individual creation theory. Yes its circumstantial evidence rather than the direct proof that you are pushing for, but there are many people in jail on a lesser standard of proof.


16. You are quite simply wrong in your assertions on this point. Sir Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics has replaced Mendel's Laws. Fisher was able to mathematically prove that if a gene is harmful when present in both allelles, but otherwise recessive, then it will eventually be eliminated from the gene pool. Examples of apparent exceptions, like the gene for sickle cell anaemia are found to have some favourable property - resistance to malaria in the case of the sickle cell anaemia gene. Different numbers of chromosomes between parents and offspring is quite common in plants. Rarer in animals - but it still occurs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid


1. Do you actually know what the scientific method is? Since it seems from your claims here that you do not have an inkling.

Posted Image

Now as I have been saying over and over what are the experiments Darwin used to support his hypothesis of evolution?


2. We are discussing Biology here, this is a red herring.

3. And? Does this support molecules to man evolution?

The only thing we can conclude is that species mixing between the mainland and islands may occur.

4. Again does this support molecules to man evolution?

5. Arbitrarily claiming something as an ancestor and an intermediate fossil is non-nonsensical. Consider for a moment that ALL of the fossils claimed to be intermediaries are whole distinct organisms. What is required as verification of these as intermediaries is a progression of fossils showing most (if not all) the minute changes to get from one to the other. Until this is found then all you and any others are doing is arbitrarily claiming something without actual verification.

6. Selection of bacterial resistances that were already present within bacterial communities, meaning like fur colour / hair colour the frequency can change yet no NEW information is derived meaning that all what has been demonstrated is fluctuations in allele type, not the progressional change that leads a bacteria to become something other than a bacteria.

7. http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=4674

8. Obviously you don't get out much... Tiktaalik has been debunked for 3 and a half years. Foot prints in Poland were dated older than Tiktaalik furthermore the prints themselves demonstrated amphibian / reptile qualities... What does this mean?

Well for one it means you should do more research, (outside pro-evo sites perhaps). It also means that the entire timeline progression for fish to amphibian is out of date with the evidence.

Of course you can say... "Well maybe it lived before then" (which is what one of my lecturers said), yet is such scientific? Does it follow the current evidence? Or is it merely a faith statement.

http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik



9. I could spend 50 years believing that I can fly like superman does this mean that its right? Time is irrelevant to the viability of something.

10. The word ORIGIN implies origins, please don't equivocate this lest I need to refer to the dictonary. Darwin could may well have written The Diversity / Diversification of Life... However that was not my point, my point was that what you wrote was useless.

11. I just stated that the complexity of cellular systems prokaryote or otherwise cannot be accounted for by Darwinism. You've failed to demonstrate how it is accounted for, so arbitrarily stating that no evidence to the contrary has been found is just being stubborn.

12. You're response to 1 doesn't solve this problem. As I have stated, please show an experiment that can empirically demonstrate the cause for similarity in fossils. If you cannot then you must admit that evolution has more in common with History then it does with the science of Biology.

13. Ha ha, nice try. I wasn't talking about Eukaryotes from Prokarotes I was talking about cellular systems in general, thus including prokaryotes themselves. Would you propose that the cellular systems in prokaryotes derived from prokaryotes?

This goes hand-in-hand with point 11 since you've failed to demonstrate by what Darwinian mechanism the complexity of cellular systems could have come about.

14. Did I ever say I do read the Bible? This is yet another red herring.

15. At least you admit that its circumstantial. Now I ask you where does such things fit within the scientific method?...... Perhaps evolution isn't science...

16. Really... I am wrong in my assertion, yet you provide evidence in reality that I am correct :D Additionally I can call on every single genetic disease and ask why do they persist. Perhaps in the fantastical world of maths things can be derived, yet in reality only one thing actually matters and the the is evidence you derive from reality itself. I have reality on my side here.

#27 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 July 2012 - 07:05 AM

...I am not sure what point you are making here. In Origin of Species Darwin discusses "Miscellaneous Objections to my Theory" at great length, and is very frank about observations and discoveries which would invalidate his theory. None of the potential fatal observations have ever been found. What observation would invalidate your theory of divine creation of the species?
....

That's right, he postulated several possibilities of falsifying his model. Your claim that they've never been found is however untrue. There are numerous examples that falsify his postulated theory. If you post Darwin's falsification models, we could discuss this in more detail.

Not been proven false, doesn't mean that it's true either. Divine creation can not be invalidated, as it would be a unique event and could have "Just happened" at a point of time. However one could postulate valid alternatives, which then would be something reproducible.

#28 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:25 PM

1. Clearly you didn't get what I am talking about. The odds of this occurring to a male and a female in the same species, in the same locality at the same time and then having those specific two mate, with no other detriment occurring to the offspring is far too incredulous.... and then for this to be the cause (as you claim) then it will need to occur thousands of times over.... You do see why statisticians do not like evolution...

Chromosomal fusions are heritable and fairly common (about 1 in 1000 people have one). They don't need to arise via mutation twice in close proximity. For small populations there will be a higher level of relatedness where heterozygous individuals carrying the same inherited fusion can breed together to produce homozygous offspring. This is how most of the cases of 44 chromosomes occur in humans, parents are typically cousins and both carry the same fusion.

From article mentioned in the first link I posted:
A family containing three homozygous carriers for a Robertsonian (13q14q) translocation, 44, XX or XY, t(13q14q), t(13q14q), is reported. Their parents are first cousins, and both are heterozygous carriers of the same (13q14q) translocation. The fertility of both the heterozygous and homozygous carriers is discussed.

All of the children of these three 44 chromosome carriers will either have 45 (if paired with a 45 or 46 chromosome individual) or 44 (if paired with a 44 or 45 chromosome individual). As long as the family line continues the fused chromosome trait has a chance of continuing and spreading/fixing.

2. Dumb luck is the proposed method of fixation.... Yes, very scientific..... Of course with a hypothesis like that how can you ever be proven wrong, ergo evolution is unfalsifiable.

Random events plays a role in many real world scenarios, especially with small sample sizes. What's unscientific about pointing this fact out? If you wanted to disprove it as an option all you'd need to do is show that our understanding of founder effects and genetics is incorrect.

3. Plants yes, animals no unless you want to have detrimental affliction / infertility... A bit ironic for a model that proposes that things get better via reproduction.

You were given an example of a human who had a chromosomal fission while still being healthy and able to have children. You have also been given examples of humans with fewer chromosomes while still being healthy and able to have children. Your original request was "Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur?" You've been given a mechanism for how humans can have their chromosome number reduced via fusion (balanced translocations and small populations).

4. Shakes head.... Claiming something as it doesn't matter, means that you do not want to tackle the problem. As you said it is a problem for reproduction which is the entire point. The problem with this answer is that if this really did occur we would expect chromosomes to be relatively similar with expression of the same genes since they are merely duplicates, however this is not what is observed, each chromosome is unique, meaning that claims that chromosomes came about via duplication and then splitting off is not represented within reality. Furthermore there is nothing to demonstrate how a centromere came to be within the duplicates that break off to become new chromosomes.... Would you claim that the centromere is also duplicated? You do realise that this would lead to problems with how the chromosomes split at replication.

In order to claim that chromosomes should still be similar to each other you'd need to know which one were duplicates of each other and how long ago they were duplicated to determine how much divergence is expected. Can you tell me where you got this information?
The link I posted explained that centromeres can be duplicated and cause fission of chromosomes during replication. As long as genes aren't damaged it's a similar effect as a fusion event.

5. You said it yourself, fertility was reduced. Hence a decrease in fitness, (whereby fitness is defined by evolutionists as the potential to spread their genome, in otherwords have babies / reproduce). Do you realise that this defies the evolutionary claims about natural selection? Thanks for proving your own claim wrong Posted Image

Even so, she had a normal 46 chromosome baby... hence no additional chromosome was conferred to the next generation. Though from the paper it sounds like as if the deceased fetuses had the 47 chromosomes, (as the cause of the natural abortion) rather than the mother.

Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution. There's no conflict in pointing out that other mechanisms can affect the spread of genetic traits in a population. For human evolution from an ape ancestor, the issue is a reduction in chromosome number not an increase, the example of fission I gave you was intended to emphasize that different numbers of chromosomes is not necessarily a problem.

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2012 - 11:44 PM

1. Chromosomal fusions are heritable and fairly common (about 1 in 1000 people have one). They don't need to arise via mutation twice in close proximity. For small populations there will be a higher level of relatedness where heterozygous individuals carrying the same inherited fusion can breed together to produce homozygous offspring. This is how most of the cases of 44 chromosomes occur in humans, parents are typically cousins and both carry the same fusion.

From article mentioned in the first link I posted:
A family containing three homozygous carriers for a Robertsonian (13q14q) translocation, 44, XX or XY, t(13q14q), t(13q14q), is reported. Their parents are first cousins, and both are heterozygous carriers of the same (13q14q) translocation. The fertility of both the heterozygous and homozygous carriers is discussed.

All of the children of these three 44 chromosome carriers will either have 45 (if paired with a 45 or 46 chromosome individual) or 44 (if paired with a 44 or 45 chromosome individual). As long as the family line continues the fused chromosome trait has a chance of continuing and spreading/fixing.


2. Random events plays a role in many real world scenarios, especially with small sample sizes. What's unscientific about pointing this fact out? If you wanted to disprove it as an option all you'd need to do is show that our understanding of founder effects and genetics is incorrect.


3. You were given an example of a human who had a chromosomal fission while still being healthy and able to have children.

4. You have also been given examples of humans with fewer chromosomes while still being healthy and able to have children.

5. Your original request was "Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur?" You've been given a mechanism for how humans can have their chromosome number reduced via fusion (balanced translocations and small populations).


6. In order to claim that chromosomes should still be similar to each other you'd need to know which one were duplicates of each other and how long ago they were duplicated to determine how much divergence is expected. Can you tell me where you got this information?

7. The link I posted explained that centromeres can be duplicated and cause fission of chromosomes during replication. As long as genes aren't damaged it's a similar effect as a fusion event.


8. Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution. There's no conflict in pointing out that other mechanisms can affect the spread of genetic traits in a population. For human evolution from an ape ancestor, the issue is a reduction in chromosome number not an increase, the example of fission I gave you was intended to emphasize that different numbers of chromosomes is not necessarily a problem.



1. Yes the y do occur, I wasn't doubting it, however what you need to understand is that when they do occur, they confer a detrimental effect, (as you said a decrease in fertility). This is a decrease in fitness therefore defies natural selection- see point 8

Therefore according to evolution dogma such things will not be selected for, therefore the fact you are using this as a mechanism despite that it defies the central tenet of evolution says to me that the rules of evolution are arbitrary, they can be broken when one wants to claim something despite it defying it.


2. Again you don't actually know what science is. Arbitrarily stating something that "seems logical" is not scientific, you need to do experimentation to corroborate your claims. There is no way to disprove evolution when you can claim that random change "did it", since randomness cannot be quantified therefore can be expressed in any possible conceivable way. Therefore the evolutionist has a one size fits all excuse whereby they can claim "random change did it" (like you have here) and not be pressed for evidence of such.

Back to the point of fixation, is there any evidence to propose the fixation of a change that has no increase in fitness?

Additionally do you realise that claiming such goes against the claims of "Survival of the Fittest" whereby only the changes with increased fitness values will stay.

You seem to be confused about genetic drift, genetic drift causes a decrease in gene pool variation, thus it deletes changes... especially the rare ones (of which a 1/1000 change would be rare)



3. I am pretty sure the paper was stating that the children that had premature abortions had the extra chromosome, perhaps you can show where it states specifically that the mother had the change.

4. Which was?

5. If you bothered to read the paper the child that was healthy had the normal number... meaning that no net change occured.... Therefore your point is moot. If the children had a different number and they had children with different numbers etc THEN you would have evidence.

6. I don't need that information when evolutionists state that new chromosome formation was via copies, (refer to your link)... You do not need to know which was the original since they are all claimed to be copies..copies are the same you know.... If they claim them to be copies of the original then they should (by logic) be quite similar even with random changes... This is not the case. Therefore reality defies what we would predict if chromosomes were formed via copies.

I'd also like to ask if these were copies how then do new gene functions arise? (Dawkins doesn't know the answer to this so I doubt you do)

Furthermore since they would be copies they would contain the same signaling systems (promoters etc) as the original, now considering that we observe signal systems intrinsically linked to the function of the gene product. Care to tell me how this signal system changed and became more in tune with the function of what it is signaling for?

7. And I said that such duplication would interfere with how the cell replicates. Care to post information rather than a link, I prefer to hear the info from you, so you cannot back out of it.

8. Yet in doing so you demonstrated how it defies the central premise of evolution... good job Posted Image

Arbitrarily claiming that there are other mechanisms to evolution without actually stating them is a very very poor argument. You are asking me to believe you without any substance for your claims. Or will you state like Dawkins that "science is working on it"

#30 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 July 2012 - 06:12 PM

1. Yes the y do occur, I wasn't doubting it, however what you need to understand is that when they do occur, they confer a detrimental effect, (as you said a decrease in fertility). This is a decrease in fitness therefore defies natural selection- see point 8

Therefore according to evolution dogma such things will not be selected for, therefore the fact you are using this as a mechanism despite that it defies the central tenet of evolution says to me that the rules of evolution are arbitrary, they can be broken when one wants to claim something despite it defying it.

2. Again you don't actually know what science is. Arbitrarily stating something that "seems logical" is not scientific, you need to do experimentation to corroborate your claims. There is no way to disprove evolution when you can claim that random change "did it", since randomness cannot be quantified therefore can be expressed in any possible conceivable way. Therefore the evolutionist has a one size fits all excuse whereby they can claim "random change did it" (like you have here) and not be pressed for evidence of such.

Back to the point of fixation, is there any evidence to propose the fixation of a change that has no increase in fitness?

Of course there's evidence of non-beneficial fixation. The idea of genetic drift has been around for more than 80 years.
http://darwin.eeb.uc...rift/node3.html (formula determining chance of fixation for detrimental effects)
http://www.biology.d...er/lec9_05.html (summary of fruit fly experiment showing fixation of non-selected traits)


Additionally do you realise that claiming such goes against the claims of "Survival of the Fittest" whereby only the changes with increased fitness values will stay.

You seem to be confused about genetic drift, genetic drift causes a decrease in gene pool variation, thus it deletes changes... especially the rare ones (of which a 1/1000 change would be rare)

Natural selection is based on probability of events. "The house always wins" is another 4 word summary of the probability of events that is true in the long run but not necessarily true in individual cases. Just like a casino, natural selection can indicate that over the long term something should happen but it doesn't guarantee something will happen in the short term.

For a small population founder effects can skew the distribution of otherwise rare traits which increases the likelyhood of fixation of those traits (if a group of 50 people start a village and this group contains a family with a chromosome fusion then it's prevalence in that village will be much higher than 1/1000). The odds that a trait will fix in a neutral setting is equal to it's frequency in a population. i.e. if 99 people have a certain neutral allelle and 1 person has a different neutral mutation, the odds of the minority allelle fixing is .5%. Selection changes the likelihood but does not guarantee fixation, especially for small populations. Let's say that there was a population where a new allelle had a small beneficial effect. Surely you'd agree that it's possible for that rare allelle to die out before fixing in a population, despite being beneficial? The same random chance can cause a neutral or minor detrimental allelle to increase within in a population.

3. I am pretty sure the paper was stating that the children that had premature abortions had the extra chromosome, perhaps you can show where it states specifically that the mother had the change.

5. If you bothered to read the paper the child that was healthy had the normal number... meaning that no net change occured.... Therefore your point is moot. If the children had a different number and they had children with different numbers etc THEN you would have evidence.

"We report on a de novo centric fission of chromosome 11 in a healthy female"
I'm not sure how anyone can read this as anything other than a fission in the woman, not her children.

So you are saying that you want evidence where a parent (generation 1) with a different number of chromosomes has a child (gen. 2) with a different number of chromosomes who in turn has a child (gen. 3) with a different number of chromosmes. If you go back to the first link this is exactly the example that has already been provided.

"In this case, both parents are first cousins and they share the same translocation"
Cousins with the same inherited trait means that they are at least the 3rd generation to have 45 chromosomes. The cousins had a child with 44 chromosomes which would be a 4th generation to have a different number.

If you want a example that meets this condition for fission then here's the second sentence in the paper about the woman. Stable fission chromosomes in human were first described by Sinha et al. (1) and have subsequently been observed in several pedigrees (2, 3), in a few individuals (4-8), and in amniotic fluid cultures (7, 9)

Scrolling down to those references gives this paper. http://www.springerl...n616m0j66476r5/
Centric fission of chromosome no. 7 in three generations
The same abnormality was found in a further five family members (three females, two males) and had been transmitted over three generations.
That fulfills your request for children with a different number having children with a different number, both for an increase and a decrease in chromosome number.

4. Which was?

The first paper I linked, the parents of the 44 chromosome individual had 1 fewer chromosome than normal.

6. I don't need that information when evolutionists state that new chromosome formation was via copies, (refer to your link)... You do not need to know which was the original since they are all claimed to be copies..copies are the same you know.... If they claim them to be copies of the original then they should (by logic) be quite similar even with random changes... This is not the case. Therefore reality defies what we would predict if chromosomes were formed via copies.

You do need that information if the duplications occurred a long time ago and some or all of the rest of the new chromosomes were produced by fissions.
http://genome.cshlp....10/12/1890.long
Comparative analysis suggests that an excess of chromosome fissions in the tetrapod lineage may account for chromosome numbers and provides histories for several human chromosomes.
.....
If the tetrapod fission model is correct, then the last common ancestor of zebrafish and humans may have had something in the range of 12 or 13 chromosomes in the haploid set. These would then have doubled to the 24 or so present in most teleosts and would have broken apart into the 20–30 present in many Eutherian mammals. Independent support for this model comes from the ancestral Metatherian (marsupial) karyotype, which consisted of ∼7 chromosomes (DeLeo et al. 1999), consistent with the suggestion that the last common ancestor of marsupial and placental mammals may have had fewer chromosomes than most of today's Eutherian mammals.

I'd also like to ask if these were copies how then do new gene functions arise? (Dawkins doesn't know the answer to this so I doubt you do)

Furthermore since they would be copies they would contain the same signaling systems (promoters etc) as the original, now considering that we observe signal systems intrinsically linked to the function of the gene product. Care to tell me how this signal system changed and became more in tune with the function of what it is signaling for?

I don't know anything about signal system evolution, google is probably your friend here. Please stick to your original question about how chromosome numbers change.

7. And I said that such duplication would interfere with how the cell replicates. Care to post information rather than a link, I prefer to hear the info from you, so you cannot back out of it.

Fissions (splitting of single chromosomes) that are passed down in humans and other animals have been documented (see above links for 3 generation human example).

8. Yet in doing so you demonstrated how it defies the central premise of evolution... good job

Arbitrarily claiming that there are other mechanisms to evolution without actually stating them is a very very poor argument. You are asking me to believe you without any substance for your claims. Or will you state like Dawkins that "science is working on it"

I already told you about genetic drift, that's the alternative mechanism that would most likely be in play for non-beneficial traits. There's nothing new or controversial about the idea that beneficial traits don't necessarily win out in all circumstances.

#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:02 AM

What is the evolutionary answer to the question of the duality of the eye and the limbs of animals . Did both eyes evolve seperateky or is there some evolutuinary mechanism that i sometime causes duplication.and duplicate /opposites (left & right sides)?

#32 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:16 AM

What is the evolutionary answer to the question of the duality of the eye and the limbs of animals . Did both eyes evolve seperateky or is there some evolutuinary mechanism that i sometime causes duplication.and duplicate /opposites (left & right sides)?


I'll take that one step further. What is the evolutionary explanation for the homology between the fore and hind limbs of a tetrapod vertebrate? Did they evolve from a common limb? I've never found a satisfactory answer (I'm being honest, not rhetorical).

#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:10 PM

What is the evolutionary answer to the question of the duality of the eye and the limbs of animals . Did both eyes evolve seperateky or is there some evolutuinary mechanism that i sometime causes duplication.and duplicate /opposites (left & right sides)?

It's beasically a symetric blue print. Just how that should have arisen with single advantageous steps remains a mystery of course.

#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:41 PM

It's beasically a symetric blue print. Just how that should have arisen with single advantageous steps remains a mystery of course.


Thanks!

#35 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:18 PM

1. Yes he did, what I am asking for is the experimental verification of the hypothesis of evolution from these observations, (the observations are not enough as per the scientific method as well as the example of the sun and stars going around the Earth example)



Observation is a legitimate means of gaining evidence – scientific or not. Some sciences are entirely the result of observations – for example astronomy. In any case Darwin did numerous experiments which he reported in Origins and other publications. For example in chapter 12 he reported on experiments on the survival of seeds in sea water after several critics had questioned his assertions that islands are populated with vegetation from nearby continents. I am not sure of the meaning of your reference to sun and moon. Do you think that the Sun goes around the earth on the basis of Joshua 10:13?

2. And? Not sure what this has to do with anything.

His book is crammed full of evidence, including numerous experiments. You should read it first before making assertions that have no anchor in reality.

3. Yes, however from this all we can realistically derive is that animals can be varied from generation to generation, (since that is all there is evidence for), this was already known so...... However none of this supports the molecules to man evolution that is claimed.



Darwin never claimed Molecules to Man evolution. His book is about the origin of species – not the origin of Life.



4. Yes he did, yet in his book he claimed this hypothesis to be a theory..... As if it was already empirically verified



The dictionary at chemistry.about.com defines a theory as “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.”

You haven’t presented any evidence to dispute any of Darwin’s theories, which are accepted not only by the vast majority of biologists but also by the Pope.



5. Yes, however you need to realize that evolution is merely assumed from this.. There is no way to directly demonstrate that evolution was the only cause. Therefore this is not evidence to support the hypothesis it is merely more observations on which the hypothesis is based on. Again, I am asking for the experimental data that was done



I would really like to hear a Creationist explanation for how the marsupials got to Australia without leaving any traces on their way from Mt Ararat.

6. The same can be said for cellular structures by which there are no conceptual or physical precursors, with which to identify possible evolution. Yet again as I have said before, assuming evolution is the cause is the same as claiming "evolution did it", how are these similarities verified as being products of evolution?



The theories that eukaryote cell structures are derived from incorporated prokaryote organisms is supported by thousands of scientific papers with numerous lines of evidence including genetic code differences.

7. I cannot claim whether the Bible covers this or not, however even if it isn't it doesn't matter since it should be self evident. (If it was put in then you could complain about the Bible treating us like little kids). Not everything in life needs to be spelt out. To answer your question, within Christian theology the fall of man was the cause of death and suffering.



Some estimates say that more than 99% of species are extinct. This seems like a huge fact to leave out of a creation story – self evident or not. I prefer to think that a meteorite or planet wide volcanism caused the extinction of the dinosaurs rather than Eve’s temerity in eating an apple.

Yet this is not evidence of evolution.

Yes it is

8. I already tackled this in that fossils do not and can not demonstrate via experimentation how their similarities came to be. Evolution is assumed as the conclusion, such is not science.
If you wish to contend this point then please demonstrate an empirical test by which the cause of the similarities in fossils can be verified.


9. Despite the lack of empirical evidence it seems....

Common descent was accepted by biologists because it was self evident. The cause of the similarities has been explained by the advent our ability to read the genetic code. Related species are similar because their DNA is similar. Empirical evidence abounds.

10. Mendel demonstrated that recessive traits can be expressed in future generations. This would be a hinderance to evolution since it means that the "old" trait will never be fully repressed therefore if we are to believe that man "evolved" from chimps we should be able to find a group of humans who have some of these recessed traits- simian appearance etc. As far as I know there is no such thing.



No one says that humans evolved from chimps. The claim is that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. To see the similarities look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/67018913@N04/6180149108/ .

Additionally Mendel's laws lead to more problems for the evolutionist.

The First Law infers that an organism would normally have the same amount of DNA as its parents. Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur? And how does this not defy the first law?

The Second Law demonstrates that even if a trait were advantageous there is no absolute necessity for it to be expressed within the organism's offspring since the assortment of alleles is independent. This adds more problems for the fixation for an advantageous trait. This also leads to the regressed traits I mentioned before.





You are quite wrong here. Variations in numbers of chromosomes between parent and offspring is very common in plants and not that rare in animals. For example Down's syndrome is caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21. The various wheat varieties so widely grown in agriculture are due to multiple copies of the chromosomes in the original wild precursor. A recessive gene will be expressed if offspring inherit a copy from both parents. Genes can have complex effects. For example the gene for sickle cell anaemia is fatal if inherited from both parents. But if inherited from one, it confers partial immunity to malaria.




#36 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:34 AM

Holy triple post batman!

#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:36 PM


No one says that humans evolved from chimps. The claim is that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. To see the similarities look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/67018913@N04/6180149108/ .



From my understanding there was an alleged common ancestor to chimps and human apes or whatever now extinct... However Isn't the argument that genetic code in everything alive had its ultimate origin in the first cell. All life animal and plants iare decendant in an unbroken chain from the original first replicating molecule and cell?

Allegedly we are 4% different than chimps I am using them because they are yet alive and their genome can be mapped. Have they found our alleged common ancestor? An interesting aside. Nevertheless 4% of 3,5 billion genes would mean that there are 140 million genes more in us humans than chimps. It would seem to me that is quite a lot of difference. I think the real comparison betwee us and chims should be the output of our minds--there there is little similarity!

#38 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 28 July 2012 - 03:57 PM

1. Yes he did, what I am asking for is the experimental verification of the hypothesis of evolution from these observations, (the observations are not enough as per the scientific method as well as the example of the sun and stars going around the Earth example)



Observation is a legitimate means of gaining evidence – scientific or not. Some sciences are entirely the result of observations – for example astronomy. In any case Darwin did numerous experiments which he reported in Origins and other publications. For example in chapter 12 he reported on experiments on the survival of seeds in sea water after several critics had questioned his assertions that islands are populated with vegetation from nearby continents. I am not sure of the meaning of your reference to sun and moon. Do you think that the Sun goes around the earth on the basis of Joshua 10:13?

2. And? Not sure what this has to do with anything.

His book is crammed full of evidence, including numerous experiments. You should read it first before making assertions that have no anchor in reality.

3. Yes, however from this all we can realistically derive is that animals can be varied from generation to generation, (since that is all there is evidence for), this was already known so...... However none of this supports the molecules to man evolution that is claimed.



Darwin never claimed Molecules to Man evolution. His book is about the origin of species – not the origin of Life.



4. Yes he did, yet in his book he claimed this hypothesis to be a theory..... As if it was already empirically verified



The dictionary at chemistry.about.com defines a theory as “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.”

You haven’t presented any evidence to dispute any of Darwin’s theories, which are accepted not only by the vast majority of biologists but also by the Pope.



5. Yes, however you need to realize that evolution is merely assumed from this.. There is no way to directly demonstrate that evolution was the only cause. Therefore this is not evidence to support the hypothesis it is merely more observations on which the hypothesis is based on. Again, I am asking for the experimental data that was done



I would really like to hear a Creationist explanation for how the marsupials got to Australia without leaving any traces on their from Mt Ararat.

6. The same can be said for cellular structures by which there are no conceptual or physical precursors, with which to identify possible evolution. Yet again as I have said before, assuming evolution is the cause is the same as claiming "evolution did it", how are these similarities verified as being products of evolution?



The theories that eukaryote cell structures are derived from incorporated prokaryote organisms is supported by thousands of scientific papers with numerous lines of evidence including genetic code differences.

7. I cannot claim whether the Bible covers this or not, however even if it isn't it doesn't matter since it should be self evident. (If it was put in then you could complain about the Bible treating us like little kids). Not everything in life needs to be spelt out. To answer your question, within Christian theology the fall of man was the cause of death and suffering.



Some estimates say that more than 99% of species are extinct. This seems like a huge fact to leave out of a creation story – self evident or not. I prefer to think that a meteorite or planet wide volcanism caused the extinction of the dinosaurs rather than Eve’s temerity in eating an apple.

Yet this is not evidence of evolution.

Yes it is

8. I already tackled this in that fossils do not and can not demonstrate via experimentation how their similarities came to be. Evolution is assumed as the conclusion, such is not science.
If you wish to contend this point then please demonstrate an empirical test by which the cause of the similarities in fossils can be verified.


9. Despite the lack of empirical evidence it seems....

Common descent was accepted by biologists because it was self evident. The cause of the similarities has been explained by the advent our ability to read the genetic code. Related species are similar because their DNA is similar. Empirical evidence abounds.

10. Mendel demonstrated that recessive traits can be expressed in future generations. This would be a hinderance to evolution since it means that the "old" trait will never be fully repressed therefore if we are to believe that man "evolved" from chimps we should be able to find a group of humans who have some of these recessed traits- simian appearance etc. As far as I know there is no such thing.



No one says that humans evolved from chimps. The claim is that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. To see the similarities look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/67018913@N04/6180149108/ . Or for your recessed trait http://evolutionfun.com/tails.htm

Additionally Mendel's laws lead to more problems for the evolutionist.

The First Law infers that an organism would normally have the same amount of DNA as its parents. Therefore by what mechanism does differing chromosome amounts in organisms occur? And how does this not defy the first law?

The Second Law demonstrates that even if a trait were advantageous there is no absolute necessity for it to be expressed within the organism's offspring since the assortment of alleles is independent. This adds more problems for the fixation for an advantageous trait. This also leads to the regressed traits I mentioned before.




You are quite wrong here. Variations in numbers of chromosomes between parent and offspring is very common in plants and not that rare in animals. For example Down's syndrome is caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome 21. The various wheat varieties so widely grown in agriculture are due to multiple copies of the chromosomes in the original wild precursor. A recessive gene will be expressed if offspring inherit a copy from both parents. Genes can have complex effects. For example the gene for sickle cell anaemia is fatal if inherited from both parents. But if inherited from one, it confers partial immunity to malaria.

#39 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:22 PM

His book is crammed full of evidence, including numerous experiments. You should read it first before making assertions that have no anchor in reality.



No. By his own admission, he didn't have a single shred of it.


"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species)




You haven’t presented any evidence to dispute any of Darwin’s theories, which are accepted not only by the vast majority of biologists but also by the Pope.


Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis was falsified by Mendel's law of heredity 150 years ago.

http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm




I would really like to hear a Creationist explanation for how the marsupials got to Australia without leaving any traces on their from Mt Ararat.


I would like to understand the logic in believing a dead kangaroo should be lying around for 5,000 years. Fossilization requires rapid burial.



The theories that eukaryote cell structures are derived from incorporated prokaryote organisms is supported by thousands of scientific papers with numerous lines of evidence including genetic code differences.


Which proves that they are different, and does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor.



Some estimates say that more than 99% of species are extinct. This seems like a huge fact to leave out of a creation story – self evident or not. I prefer to think that a meteorite or planet wide volcanism caused the extinction of the dinosaurs rather than Eve’s temerity in eating an apple.



The empirical measure of the fossil record is an exact match for the predictions of creation.

http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=71983

Estimates without regard for numerical quantification are psuedoscientific.



Common descent was accepted by biologists because it was self evident. The cause of the similarities has been explained by the advent our ability to read the genetic code. Related species are similar because their DNA is similar. Empirical evidence abounds.


Quite contrary, common descent is assumed even though experimental data has resulted in no new advantageous alleles.

" We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."

http://www.nature.co...ature09352.html

#40 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 July 2012 - 05:22 AM

[/color]

No. By his own admission, he didn't have a single shred of it.


"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species)


...

From the debates I noticed that they just shifted the emphasis from one bloodline changing, to whole populations changing (after they got separated.) Of course this has got his own problems.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users