Jump to content


Photo

Soft Option Kill & The Neo-Darwinian Tactic


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

#21 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:47 AM

So because something does not have a known explanation then we can assume it is design? Just because something is uncommon does not make it less likely to be formed naturalistically. I would also not call a snowflake a mundane observation. Snowflakes are remarkable. Snow does have a purpose. It helps keep water on the ground for longer so that humans can use it. Just because you can't quantify things doesn't mean that they were created by intelligence.

It also protects animals, seeds and other living things from the harsher temperatures of winter in places where it gets really cold.

#22 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:24 AM

The rules? Who made those rules? "For example, snowflakes are a perfect example of objects far more complex than any monolith that follow constrained proportions but are produced naturalistically" Who says? But there is your prejudice and also shallow thinking: You don't even consider what the snowflake is made of or where that moisture originated in the first place. Whether you like it or not cause & effect is a reality and one must consider that all things in the physical world have a cause. Nature does not create life. All life generates from previously living organisms. Now...take it back to the origins cause; you should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem here!"

That's often forgotten, when invoking the snowflake. water, as any matter, does follow physical laws. When snowflakes freeze they do, so do other crystals.
The forming of crystals is even prescriptive from the rules. That's a difference from the materials found in organisms.

#23 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:52 AM

So because something does not have a known explanation then we can assume it is design?

Nope.

Just because something is uncommon does not make it less likely to be formed naturalistically.

Probablities have nothing to do with this.

I would also not call a snowflake a mundane observation.

You think snowflakes are magic?

Snow does have a purpose.

Snow is not snowflakes and confessing purpose is confessing a designer.

Just because you can't quantify things doesn't mean that they were created by intelligence.

Well done.

But when we have enough understanding about an object's qualities, we can be fairly certain whether or not it was designed. Which was the point actually being made.

#24 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 03 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

They don't imply intelligence if evolution is also a possibility. To show that these systems must have been designed, you must show that they could not have come about naturalistically. And this is something you have not done.


Just been waiting for you to ask thats all :D

Though you must admit that the evolutionist haven't been able to demonstrate the mechanisms by which evolution could cause such... Its merely assumed (an "evolution did it" claim).

DNA code / Information:

Now one thing that people do not realise is that its not just the code that is important here its also the recognition of the code and the ability to actually relate it to something. in other words you can say something to me in German however whilst that may contain information since I lack the facilities to comprehend that information it gets missed. The same would apply to DNA whereby unless you have the mechanisms and system in place to recognise the information within DNA then there can be no relation to what the code is coding for.


Now such a thing would require simultaneous recognition of what is being "said" and what it translates to regarding meaning. Therefore the problem is two-fold.

First you have the signal cascade which turns on a specific gene, how does it "know" which gene is the one to sort out the problem befitting the cause of the signal cascade.

Second the relationship with tRNA and ribosomes with the code itself, how does the tRNA "know" which is which?

Now consider that this system needs to "evolve" simultaneously since if one part is incorrect or not there it doesn't function, thus doesn't get selected for via natural selection.


However put simply I could have just said that from what we know in science code only ever comes from intelligence, meaning its the evolutionists who have the burden of proof if they wish to claim otherwise.

Yet this is not counting in the fact that proteins are required by DNA to upkeep and replicate the code yet the proteins require DNA to code for them, leading to a chicken and the egg conundrum.


Systems:

This is my favourite :D I prefer to use cellular respiration since it hasn't been done to death and its misfunction or non-existence results in a more severe penalty (that being death).

Now I assume you know basic Biochem, but here is a refresher. Cellular respiration has 3 parts, glycolysis, the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain, (ETC). Now glycolysis starts things off spliting glucose into two molecules of pyruvate, this results in two molecules of ATP (the mode of quantifying energy within the cell), NADH and FADH2 are created as well. The citric acid cycle then uses the pyruvate in creation of more ATP as well as NADH. Now the ETC uses NADH and FADH2 to create the bulk of the ATP created in this process, this rejuvinates the store of NAD and FAD to be reused.

Now if one assumes that this "evolved" then it would need to come about in small changes (thats what Darwin said). However such a system cannot since the cell would die long before it could reproduce let alone for its decendants to await the next installment of the process.

If you start off with just gylcolysis then the levels of pyruvate would build up to toxic levels and kill the cell, (since the avenue of its recycling hasn't "evolved" yet), now we had one guy state that perhaps there was some other system, and there could well be, however that is moot since the point I am making here is system interconnectivity, if systems rely on each other in order to function then you need all the systems in place before a fitness benefit could be concieved. Anyway I'll continue. If you kick out glycolysis and just have the other two the process would never start. If you kick out the ETC and just have glycolysis and the citric acid cycle then NAD and FAD would not be replenished and the cycle stops.

Therefore this implies that all three of these systems are required to have been built at the same time, and in perfect working order for life to survive. There can be no half-built system since there is no reason for it to be selected for via natural selection.

Now this doesn't take into account the systems of protein repair required as well as regulatory proteins needed as well so in effect its much more interconnected than what I have said here. However these three do the job regardless.

#25 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

Glycolysis cannot occur in the absence of the citric acid cycle or pyruvate would build up to toxic levels ? Tell that to anaerobic bacteria. (and in fact according to the theory of evolution the first steps in the evolution of cellular respiration would have been anaerobic)

#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 03 December 2012 - 04:03 PM

Glycolysis cannot occur in the absence of the citric acid cycle or pyruvate would build up to toxic levels ? Tell that to anaerobic bacteria. (and in fact according to the theory of evolution the first steps in the evolution of cellular respiration would have been anaerobic)



You should read my post

If you start off with just gylcolysis then the levels of pyruvate would build up to toxic levels and kill the cell, (since the avenue of its recycling hasn't "evolved" yet), now we had one guy state that perhaps there was some other system, and there could well be, however that is moot since the point I am making here is system interconnectivity, if systems rely on each other in order to function then you need all the systems in place before a fitness benefit could be concieved..... Therefore this implies that all three of these systems are required to have been built at the same time, and in perfect working order for life to survive. There can be no half-built system since there is no reason for it to be selected for via natural selection.


I've already had this out whereby anaerobic respiration is yet another example I could have used. However the main point I am making, and one one you would do well to comprehend, is that when you have a system that requires multiple parts to function at all then all those parts are required to have come about at the same time in order to produce the effect to allow for a fitness benefit.

Anaerobic bacteria can use glycolysis without the citric acid cycle however they have a different system in place to deal with the waste pyruvate which I already mentioned in my post. Unless you seek to demonstrate that pyruvate can build up over time with no dire consequences then a different system is required to deal with the build up, which only seeks to reinforce my point, since its another demonstration of another interlinked system which requires all the parts to function. Its simply a fly-weight objection, and one which you refuse to let go of.

Additionally I discussed this with my Molecular Biology lecturer and she had no objections to it.

However I'd like to see the actual evidence for the "evoluton" of respiration as per its origins... Or did it simply poof out of thin air as a fully fledged system, (did someone say magic?...).



#27 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:56 PM

And you are missing the point that evolution is a step-by-step gradual process that involves the system as a whole, not adding or substracting entire complex sub-components. Nobody proposes aerobic respiration developed from fully modern cells that didn't have a Krebs cycle suddenly adding a Krebs cycle out of nowhere, so looking at how modern cells would work if you took out a third of their metabolism is besides the point. The question is whether a theoretical primitive cell could have worked with simpler, more primitive versions of some or all of those components... And here the answer is clearly "yes".

I'll note by the way that one of the pathways some anaerobic cells have for pyruvate is having them react with NADH to get lactate and NAD+ back... and that's something our cells do too, it's just a secondary mechanism that takes over in oxygen-deprived conditions (such as during strenuous exercise). Can we survive by using only that metabolism ? No, but that's irrelevant because we evolved a long time after aerobic respiration was in place and we're evolved to rely on that kind of respiration; the question is whether the organisms that were around at the time aerobic respiration was first evolving could have survived using only that anaerobic metabolism. Given those would have been small single-celled organisms, and we see small single-celled organisms today surviving fine that way, the answer is "yes". Could such anaerobic cells have developed a secondary process of respiration that used oxygen ? Sure, it could even not have started out as being for respiration, it could just have been a process to get rid of oxygen which is a poison. That process could have been very simple and totally non-vital. And as the oxygen in the atmosphere increased and that process became more efficient at reducing oxygen and producing ATP it could have eventually eclipsed fermentation in importance, until the resulting organism could no longer live without it.

And now you're going to challenge me to give proof that any of this actually happened, and I'm going to remind you you've been claiming something is impossible. To refute that claim one need only give a possible scenario. Now your turn to show that scenario is actually impossible or provably didn't happen.

#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:32 PM

And you are missing the point that evolution is a step-by-step gradual process that involves the system as a whole, not adding or substracting entire complex sub-components. Nobody proposes aerobic respiration developed from fully modern cells that didn't have a Krebs cycle suddenly adding a Krebs cycle out of nowhere, so looking at how modern cells would work if you took out a third of their metabolism is besides the point. The question is whether a theoretical primitive cell could have worked with simpler, more primitive versions of some or all of those components... And here the answer is clearly "yes". I'll note by the way that one of the pathways some anaerobic cells have for pyruvate is having them react with NADH to get lactate and NAD+ back... and that's something our cells do too, it's just a secondary mechanism that takes over in oxygen-deprived conditions (such as during strenuous exercise). Can we survive by using only that metabolism ? No, but that's irrelevant because we evolved a long time after aerobic respiration was in place and we're evolved to rely on that kind of respiration; the question is whether the organisms that were around at the time aerobic respiration was first evolving could have survived using only that anaerobic metabolism. Given those would have been small single-celled organisms, and we see small single-celled organisms today surviving fine that way, the answer is "yes". Could such anaerobic cells have developed a secondary process of respiration that used oxygen ? Sure, it could even not have started out as being for respiration, it could just have been a process to get rid of oxygen which is a poison. That process could have been very simple and totally non-vital. And as the oxygen in the atmosphere increased and that process became more efficient at reducing oxygen and producing ATP it could have eventually eclipsed fermentation in importance, until the resulting organism could no longer live without it. And now you're going to challenge me to give proof that any of this actually happened, and I'm going to remind you you've been claiming something is impossible. To refute that claim one need only give a possible scenario. Now your turn to show that scenario is actually impossible or provably didn't happen.

Show us an example of an a.b.c.d.e.f.g. step-by-step change from a non-aerobic organims to an aerobic system. One that is observable...or at least has been observed in empirical experimentation in modern human histotry. You keep saying 'it could have"..."that process could have been"...etc. We want to see the real deal.

#29 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:43 PM

Nope, Gilbo argued that something was impossible, which is a very strong claim and the only thing required to refute it is to propose a way it could be possible. Any request for more than that is moving the goalposts. An appropriate response would be, for example, to show how said proposed way it could be possible wouldn't actually work.

#30 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 03 December 2012 - 06:49 PM

And you are missing the point that evolution is a step-by-step gradual process that involves the system as a whole, not adding or substracting entire complex sub-components. Nobody proposes aerobic respiration developed from fully modern cells that didn't have a Krebs cycle suddenly adding a Krebs cycle out of nowhere, so looking at how modern cells would work if you took out a third of their metabolism is besides the point. The question is whether a theoretical primitive cell could have worked with simpler, more primitive versions of some or all of those components... And here the answer is clearly "yes". I'll note by the way that one of the pathways some anaerobic cells have for pyruvate is having them react with NADH to get lactate and NAD+ back... and that's something our cells do too, it's just a secondary mechanism that takes over in oxygen-deprived conditions (such as during strenuous exercise). Can we survive by using only that metabolism ? No, but that's irrelevant because we evolved a long time after aerobic respiration was in place and we're evolved to rely on that kind of respiration; the question is whether the organisms that were around at the time aerobic respiration was first evolving could have survived using only that anaerobic metabolism. Given those would have been small single-celled organisms, and we see small single-celled organisms today surviving fine that way, the answer is "yes". Could such anaerobic cells have developed a secondary process of respiration that used oxygen ? Sure, it could even not have started out as being for respiration, it could just have been a process to get rid of oxygen which is a poison. That process could have been very simple and totally non-vital. And as the oxygen in the atmosphere increased and that process became more efficient at reducing oxygen and producing ATP it could have eventually eclipsed fermentation in importance, until the resulting organism could no longer live without it. And now you're going to challenge me to give proof that any of this actually happened, and I'm going to remind you you've been claiming something is impossible. To refute that claim one need only give a possible scenario. Now your turn to show that scenario is actually impossible or provably didn't happen.


Sigh... I've just demonstrated that a step by step gradual process does not cut it. .. You state that it involves the system as a whole which is not what I am talking about I am talking about the ORIGINS of the system, before there was a full system for evolution to play with how did such a thing "evolve" from nothing? I've shown how since this process is essential to life it neccessarily follows that its required to be fully operational from the word "go" meaning the entire system needs to be in place, ergo there was no time for a "step by step gradual process" to formulate the system.

Additionally the system can't have arisen via small changes over time since the small changes wouldn't be selected for as until the system is fully operational there is no fitness benefit to select for the small changes over time. Meaning to claim that this arose via an evolutionary process is to defy the rules regarding evolution and natural selection, (which evolutionists made). Its not good when you have to disregard your own rules.

The only logical conclusion was that the system was created in its entirety, which is consistant with the Creationist perspective.

#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:53 PM

Nope, Gilbo argued that something was impossible, which is a very strong claim and the only thing required to refute it is to propose a way it could be possible. Any request for more than that is moving the goalposts. An appropriate response would be, for example, to show how said proposed way it could be possible wouldn't actually work.

You didn't post this to Gilbo, you're talking to me. Now give an example of an a.b.c.d.e.f....observation of a transitional change from a non-aerobic to an aerobic organism or else you raise the white flag and admit that you have no empirical evidence that evolution has ever take place...at least not on that level.

#32 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:26 PM

You didn't post this to Gilbo, you're talking to me. Now give an example of an a.b.c.d.e.f....observation of a transitional change from a non-aerobic to an aerobic organism or else you raise the white flag and admit that you have no empirical evidence that evolution has ever take place...at least not on that level.

The post you responded to was responding to a point Gilbo made, and your request was completely irrelevant to that.

Sigh... I've just demonstrated that a step by step gradual process does not cut it.

You asserted a step by step gradual process didn't cut it, but you didn't demonstrate it. You showed how the system wouldn't work if glycolysis, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain were taken out of it, but none of those changes have anything "gradual" or "step-by-step" about them. (unless you're stepping with seven-league boots...)

.. You state that it involves the system as a whole which is not what I am talking about I am talking about the ORIGINS of the system, before there was a full system for evolution to play with how did such a thing "evolve" from nothing? I've shown how since this process is essential to life it neccessarily follows that its required to be fully operational from the word "go" meaning the entire system needs to be in place, ergo there was no time for a "step by step gradual process" to formulate the system. Additionally the system can't have arisen via small changes over time since the small changes wouldn't be selected for as until the system is fully operational there is no fitness benefit to select for the small changes over time. Meaning to claim that this arose via an evolutionary process is to defy the rules regarding evolution and natural selection, (which evolutionists made). Its not good when you have to disregard your own rules. The only logical conclusion was that the system was created in its entirety, which is consistant with the Creationist perspective.

The process I've proposed does exactly that. There absolutely is a fitness benefit for an anaerobic single-cell organism in a low-but-not-nil oxygen environment to develop chemical pathways that get rid of oxygen, there is also a fitness benefit for such an organism to develop reactions that generate more ATP than glycolysis and fermentation do on their own especially when there is no aerobic competition. There is also a fitness benefit for a facultative anaerobic organism in a moderate-oxygen environment with no obligate aerobic competition to increase the efficiency of and its reliance on the aerobic pathway, as it generates more energy.

#33 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 03 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

1. You asserted a step by step gradual process didn't cut it, but you didn't demonstrate it.

2. You showed how the system wouldn't work if glycolysis, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain were taken out of it, but none of those changes have anything "gradual" or "step-by-step" about them. (unless you're stepping with seven-league boots...)

3. The process I've proposed does exactly that. There absolutely is a fitness benefit for an anaerobic single-cell organism in a low-but-not-nil oxygen environment to develop chemical pathways that get rid of oxygen,

4. there is also a fitness benefit for such an organism to develop reactions that generate more ATP than glycolysis and fermentation do on their own especially when there is no aerobic competition.

5. There is also a fitness benefit for a facultative anaerobic organism in a moderate-oxygen environment with no obligate aerobic competition to increase the efficiency of and its reliance on the aerobic pathway, as it generates more energy.


1. If you read and comprehend my post then you would see that I did.

2. Again you have failed to read what I have written, I have demonstrated that in order for the system to work then it needs ALL the parts from the word go. That is my point, in that you cannot start with glycolysis and then have the citric acid cycle "evolve" from small changes over time as the cell would be dead then.

3. Do you read my posts? I have already said that the anaerobic system is another interconnected system which entails that it too must have been fully formed in order to function, meaning you've explained nothing and still have the same problem I have said here. This is exactly the same as we discussed before, meaning you cannot read my posts nor can you remember what I have already explained to you.

Do you really think its logical to try and justify an interconnected system with another interconnected system?

4. That is assuming that its a single change that produces the fitness benefit... If its multple changes over time then each small change will not see selection until ALL have occured, meaning the method you describe here is not consistent with what you are saying.

5. Again the same as 4. You've totally misunderstood what I am meaning with the fitness benefit. IF you can re-read my post you will recall that I am discussing the fitness benefit for the selection of all the small changes preceding the result. Meaning under your example the benefit would STILL only be seen AFTER all the changes are in place, however since its over "millions of years" (or whatever length of time) then the changes beforehand would never be selected for and fixated into the population, UNTIL the result has occured, however to get the result you need all the changes, thus leading to the conclusion that it is impossible.

Understand now?

#34 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:15 AM

1. If you read and comprehend my post then you would see that I did. 2. Again you have failed to read what I have written, I have demonstrated that in order for the system to work then it needs ALL the parts from the word go. That is my point, in that you cannot start with glycolysis and then have the citric acid cycle "evolve" from small changes over time as the cell would be dead then.

Let me rephrase. You've demonstrated that the system cannot evolve one parts while all other part are kept identical to their modern forms. Again, that's not how evolution proposes things evolve.

3. Do you read my posts? I have already said that the anaerobic system is another interconnected system which entails that it too must have been fully formed in order to function, meaning you've explained nothing and still have the same problem I have said here. This is exactly the same as we discussed before, meaning you cannot read my posts nor can you remember what I have already explained to you. Do you really think its logical to try and justify an interconnected system with another interconnected system?

Obviously, it would hardly be gradual otherwise.
You are not without being aware that evolution says living things evolve from previously-existing living things, all of them, except for the very first one and that one didn't use the Krebs cycle so it's irrelevant to the question of how aerobic respiration evolved. As far as answering that specific question goes we could just as well posit that anaerobic organisms were divinely created. You are also not without knowing that all living things are interconnected systems. Therefore, all evolutionary scenarios will involve interconnected systems evolving from older, often simpler, but still interconnected systems. Arguing against any other scenario is arguing against a strawman.

4. That is assuming that its a single change that produces the fitness benefit... If its multple changes over time then each small change will not see selection until ALL have occured, meaning the method you describe here is not consistent with what you are saying.
5. Again the same as 4. You've totally misunderstood what I am meaning with the fitness benefit. IF you can re-read my post you will recall that I am discussing the fitness benefit for the selection of all the small changes preceding the result. Meaning under your example the benefit would STILL only be seen AFTER all the changes are in place, however since its over "millions of years" (or whatever length of time) then the changes beforehand would never be selected for and fixated into the population, UNTIL the result has occured, however to get the result you need all the changes, thus leading to the conclusion that it is impossible. Understand now?

Nonsense. You do not need to have a whole respiratory process for example to see benefit from a system that oxidizes extra oxygen to keep it from harming the cell. Nor are repiratory pathways like electron transport chains immutable systems that can only work one way; bacteria have tons of different kinds involving different electron donors and acceptors.

#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:04 AM

aelyn

The post you responded to was responding to a point Gilbo made, and your request was completely irrelevant to that.

You need to stop wasting our time here and give your evidence for evolution on that level.

You asserted a step by step gradual process didn't cut it, but you didn't demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate it. You do....that is if you want us to believe your theory that evolution of non-aerobic to aeorobic evolution has ever occurred on earth...or even COULD occur.

You showed how the system wouldn't work if glycolysis, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain were taken out of it, but none of those changes have anything "gradual" or "step-by-step" about them.


No, I didn't show you anything. I gave you a direct challenge. I am still waiting to see the answer to that challenge.

The process I've proposed does exactly that.

Then what? Where? I see your written opinion above (wishful thinking? guess? hope?). When has any organism revealed a change via non-aerobic to aerobic evolution? Name the organism....and after you do so I will put your name in for the next Nobel prize. You would undoubtedly win the prize with such a discovery.

#36 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:17 AM

Gilbo: "...meaning you've explained nothing and still have the same problem I have said here. This is exactly the same as we discussed before, meaning you cannot read my posts nor can you remember what I have already explained to you."

Right. Why is it, Gilbo, that every time we broach this subject with skeptics like this they seem to develop a mental functional breakdown and miss the point of what we ask of them?

By analogy, however, expecting them to come up with the evidence that evolution (i.e. the idea that non-aerobic to aerobic organisms) occurred in nature can be likened to proving that dominoes evolved into playing cards.
Posted Image

#37 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:43 AM

I'm sorry Calypsis, I only responded to you because I thought you were trying to participate in the conversation I was having with Gilbo. I couldn't care less whether you believe in my theory or not, I'm just pointing out bad arguments. "X is impossible because I've come up with a scenario for it that makes no sense" is a bad argument.

I am intrigued however by your analogy, are you making it with full knowledge of what we know of the history of playing cards and dominoes and you're just claiming that their step-by-step evolution is evidence of design because humans were involved (in which case they're completely irrelevant as an analogy; evolution doesn't claim that things that arise through gradual step-by-step modifications of a previous version can't be designed, only that those that did so through natural selection+mutation don't need to have been), or do you actually not know that both dominoes and playing cards are thought to have originated from the same Chinese tile-based games ?

#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

aelyn

I'm sorry Calypsis, I only responded to you because I thought you were trying to participate in the conversation I was having with Gilbo. I couldn't care less whether you believe in my theory or not, I'm just pointing out bad arguments.


Forget Gilbo for a moment and answer the question. This is my thread in case you have forgotten.

If you aren't willing to answer me then we will consider it fact that you hijacked this thread. Now it's one or the other, skeptic. See to it.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#39 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 04 December 2012 - 12:25 PM

A better analogy would be trying to convert a petrol powered car to one that runs on gas.... while its still running...

Since these are also modes of power conversion like the cellular systems mentioned and for one to "evolve" to another then it must change whilst the cell is living (running). Therefore this analogy captures one of the problems at hand, how can such changes occur to a system that already functions to bring it to a "half-system"... (since evolution is small changes over time, then gradual change would result in a "half system" being formed. How would such a thing be benefiticial compared to the already working system? Since in order for it to be selected for and thus fixated into the population EACH and every minor change is required to have a benefitial effect, otherwise it won't be passed on and will be most certainly lost via genetic drift.

1. Let me rephrase.

2. You've demonstrated that the system cannot evolve one parts while all other part are kept identical to their modern forms.

3. Again, that's not how evolution proposes things evolve.

4. Obviously, it would hardly be gradual otherwise.

5. You are not without being aware that evolution says living things evolve from previously-existing living things, all of them, except for the very first one and that one didn't use the Krebs cycle so it's irrelevant to the question of how aerobic respiration evolved.

6. As far as answering that specific question goes we could just as well posit that anaerobic organisms were divinely created.

7. You are also not without knowing that all living things are interconnected systems.

8. Therefore, all evolutionary scenarios will involve interconnected systems evolving from older, often simpler, but still interconnected systems.

9. Arguing against any other scenario is arguing against a strawman.

10. Nonsense. You do not need to have a whole respiratory process for example to see benefit from a system that oxidizes extra oxygen to keep it from harming the cell. Nor are repiratory pathways like electron transport chains immutable systems that can only work one way; bacteria have tons of different kinds involving different electron donors and acceptors.


1. Sure, only if you don't equivocate me again.

2. Oops you've done it again. I stated it in black and white, there is no need for you to keep on trying to redefine what I have said and then try and debate your own equivocation. "I have demonstrated that in order for the system to work then it needs ALL the parts from the word go. That is my point, in that you cannot start with glycolysis and then have the citric acid cycle "evolve" from small changes over time as the cell would be dead then."

3. Evolution proposes small changes, I have shown a system which requires all its parts in order to function... meaning it cannot have come about via small changes since the small changes cannot equate to the entire system at once. Its as simple as that, you do not need to keep putting in your own interpretation.

4. Umm did you not say this?

"And you are missing the point that evolution is a step-by-step gradual process"

5. I am aware of that, I am just demonstrating that your attempt at claiming well it could have evolved from anaerobic systems fails, it does so on two levels.

i) there are no known mechanisms which could be attributed to such change therefore to claim that such a change did occur is at this point in time completely imaginary and outside what the EVIDENCE tells us. IF you wish to state that its possible feel free to however be prepared to admit that you do so on 100% blind faith.

ii) anaerobic respiration is another inter-linked system, meaning you've done nothing to actually solve the problem of these interlinked systems. I could just as easily have used DNA replication or DNA translation or DNA transcription or any other cellular process since they are ALL interlinked with multiple parts that are required for function, (this doesn't include the secondary "parts" such as regulartory proteins and micro RNA which are required to create the proper form of proteins. The only reason why I choose cellular respiration is because its simple to write about here, and most people have a grasp on the basics behind its operation. However if you like I can use DNA replication, (since that is even harder for the evolutionist as it also contains information systems as well).

Therefore its as I said the interlinking of systems still stands as a serious problem, why? Because Darwin said that if it could be concieved that something didn't come about via gradual change then his "theory" would fall apart.

6. You'd have to posit that the first cell of life was divinely created, however considering that you are an atheist I doubt you'd accept that conclusion. Therefore I'd like to hear of the atheistic hypothesis for these systems... or is the biochemical details ignored for data that is easier to reconcile with evolution?

7. I do know that, ergo my claim... duh....

8. I am asking how did such systems "evolve" in the first place, (as I asked before, which you "forget" to read).

9. How can I be arguing a strawman when I am the one asking the question? It is YOU who is attempting to use strawman arguments since you haven't dealt with what I have been asking, rather you twist it to something you feel more comfortable with, see points 2, 3 and 8.

Additionally as I mentioned earlier there is no mechanism by which such changes can be postulated therefore you're merely claiming the possibility of evolution based squarely on blind faith.

10. Ok care to demonstrate in terms of biochemical processes, (like I have)? This will be interesting :D/>

#40 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

Gilbo: "A better analogy would be trying to convert a petrol powered car to one that runs on gas.... while its still running..." I agree. That is a much better analogy. But in either case it is impossible in the physical realm.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users