Jump to content


Silk


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

#21 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2006 - 04:51 PM

How many time must I make this point, yes the mutations are random, but the selection of those mutations is anything but random, the environment selects.  Thus two independent species can resemble one another because they live is a similar environment (a look at the gnome, however will dispel any recent common ancestor).


How many times must we make the point, its still a random process.... In fact, its a function of 2 RANDOM variables, one the mutations, and two the environmental factors at the time, which is realy a function of about who know how many random variables.

But not impossability!


Only in the mind of a true beliver.....

Terry

#22 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:31 PM


Two concepts:

Yes mutations are random, but evolution is directional in the sense the that the environment ‘decides’ who survives. 

When one speaks of non-directional evolution it is usually in response to the old tree of life concept (like a ladder) showing man on top, i.e. evolution is non-directional in that it did not have an aim to produce man on the top.


So we are back to original argument. The great difficulty in the random process of evolution producing the many separate species capable of silk and the many variations, even within a specie, of the silk produced and its uses.

Logically unlikely but not impossible.  And this must be modified by how many mutational steps one has to make between arachnid and hexapod silk from what ever was the precursor.  Although we cant answer this question right now, it will in the not to distant future with gene sequencing.  With this technology you will be able to see the differences and similarities between the silk producing genetics, and I would speculate that they will be very similar in a way demonstrating common ancestry.


This is the only place I am aware to find evidence of evolution, the future. Assumption and speculation are not scientific answers. They are reasons for study, but nothing more.

Hold it right there, the best info I could find is that the silks are similar, do you have a source that compares the two silks?  This needs to be sorted before we go any further.
Do you have some specific information showing the silk gland evolved twice from scratch, or are you proposing this as an example?


Just one page of many found. Spider, silkworm, scorpion, mites, flies. There are many specie which produce silk. The preponderance of improbability argues against ToE, regarding silk. Not only are there many specie, but some (only spiders noted) species produce wide varieties for differing purposes.

oh come now, this really is a absurd way of portraying evolution. :)

View Post

http://www.bme.colum...review-2003.pdf

Chance, I realize the ToE does not give the spider a "choice". However, I look at the assumptions, suppositions, forecasts of evidence and mechanisms uknown or understandable today, and see ToE as just this absurd. No matter how much time is allowed, that which cannot happen, won't.

#23 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 January 2006 - 07:30 PM

How many time must I make this point, yes the mutations are random, but the selection of those mutations is anything but random, the environment selects.  Thus two independent species can resemble one another because they live is a similar environment (a look at the gnome, however will dispel any recent common ancestor).


How many times must we make the point, its still a random process.... In fact, its a function of 2 RANDOM variables, one the mutations, and two the environmental factors at the time, which is realy a function of about who know how many random variables.


I don’t understand how you can say that the environment is a random factor. If the environment changed and made it cooler, wetter, hotter, dryer (large or small scale), that’s not random that’s a specific directional change, all life would suffer and only those that could adapt would reproduce. Specific and directional selection.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 January 2006 - 07:46 PM

Two concepts:

Yes mutations are random, but evolution is directional in the sense the that the environment ‘decides’ who survives. 

When one speaks of non-directional evolution it is usually in response to the old tree of life concept (like a ladder) showing man on top, i.e. evolution is non-directional in that it did not have an aim to produce man on the top.



So we are back to original argument. The great difficulty in the random process of evolution producing the many separate species capable of silk and the many variations, even within a specie, of the silk produced and its uses.


So where is the problem? If silk or near silk capability existed in the common ancestor, that would neatly explain what we see today in accordance with the ToE. Where is this great difficulty?


Logically unlikely but not impossible.  And this must be modified by how many mutational steps one has to make between arachnid and hexapod silk from what ever was the precursor.  Although we cant answer this question right now, it will in the not to distant future with gene sequencing.  With this technology you will be able to see the differences and similarities between the silk producing genetics, and I would speculate that they will be very similar in a way demonstrating common ancestry.



This is the only place I am aware to find evidence of evolution, the future. Assumption and speculation are not scientific answers. They are reasons for study, but nothing more.


No one has yet stated the they know the precise evolutionary pathway that lead to silk production. Your expecting way to much from the ToE if you require such specific explinations.


Hold it right there, the best info I could find is that the silks are similar, do you have a source that compares the two silks?  This needs to be sorted before we go any further.
Do you have some specific information showing the silk gland evolved twice from scratch, or are you proposing this as an example?


Just one page of many found. Spider, silkworm, scorpion, mites, flies. There are many specie which produce silk. The preponderance of improbability argues against ToE, regarding silk. Not only are there many specie, but some (only spiders noted) species produce wide varieties for differing purposes.


So what? all these creature you mentioned are reasonably closely related, is it such a great step to suppose that they then have inherited characteristics.

To put your problem in perspective, answer this - How come, Horses, snakes, frogs, birds, bacteriuria, fish, squid cannot produce silk? Could it be they don’t have a closely related common ancestor to the spider?


oh come now, this really is a absurd way of portraying evolution.


http://www.bme.colum...review-2003.pdf

Chance, I realize the ToE does not give the spider a "choice". However, I look at the assumptions, suppositions, forecasts of evidence and mechanisms uknown or understandable today, and see ToE as just this absurd. No matter how much time is allowed, that which cannot happen, won't.


Nice link to the silk article.

Unfortunately the remainder of your argument is saying you don’t believe it possible. Many things seem absurd, and counter intuitive when first examined, sometimes to have to dig really deep to discover the underlying driving force.

#25 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 January 2006 - 07:52 AM

quote=chance,Jan 12 2006, 07:46 PM

Many things seem absurd, and counter intuitive when first examined, sometimes to have to dig really deep to discover the underlying driving force.


They seem absurd because they are absurd. Chance, you've been asked to dig deep and you won't. You just assume that evolution took care of all the details and find no problem with accepting it.

#26 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 January 2006 - 02:25 PM

Many things seem absurd, and counter intuitive when first examined, sometimes to have to dig really deep to discover the underlying driving force.


They seem absurd because they are absurd. Chance, you've been asked to dig deep and you won't. You just assume that evolution took care of all the details and find no problem with accepting it.


I see nothing absurd in the fact that inherited traits are common in closely related species, and that’s basically all the silk example is. By way of demonstrating I posted this counter argument

How come, Horses, snakes, frogs, birds, bacteriuria, fish, squid cannot produce silk? Could it be they don’t have a closely related common ancestor to the spider?



#27 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2006 - 07:55 AM

I don’t understand how you can say that the environment is a random factor.  If the environment changed and made it cooler, wetter, hotter, dryer (large or small scale), that’s not random that’s a specific directional change, all life would suffer and only those that could adapt would reproduce.


The environment at any given point it time is a random variable. "If" means its a conditional statement. If means it may or may not. The "may" or "may not" have associated probabilities with them

In the end, this is all blather. According to NDT, the environment cannot cause mutations that produce the information needed to produce:

1) The biochemical means to produce silk
2) The biochemical machinery to produce silk.
3) and most importantly, the mental process to know how to use all of the above.

It certainly would never happen more than once, if it happened once at all.

Just how man successive miracles are you willing to accept as rational? One miralce is bad enough, but NDT assumes that thousands of miracles happened in series for a given trait, and that is not rational thinking, maybe materialistic, but not logical or rational.

Terry

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2006 - 02:16 PM

I don’t understand how you can say that the environment is a random factor.  If the environment changed and made it cooler, wetter, hotter, dryer (large or small scale), that’s not random that’s a specific directional change, all life would suffer and only those that could adapt would reproduce.


The environment at any given point it time is a random variable. "If" means its a conditional statement. If means it may or may not. The "may" or "may not" have associated probabilities with them


What’s random about a desert or a jungle, or an ocean? These environments have specific properties that does not make them random, (i.e. jungle today, a desert tomorrow)





In the end, this is all blather. According to NDT, the environment cannot cause mutations that produce the information needed to produce:

1) The biochemical means to produce silk
2) The biochemical machinery to produce silk.
3) and most importantly, the mental process to know how to use all of the above.


The environment is the filter that selects favourable mutations, the environment is not the cause of the mutations.


It certainly would never happen more than once, if it happened once at all.

Just how man successive miracles are you willing to accept as rational? One miralce is bad enough, but NDT assumes that thousands of miracles happened in series for a given trait, and that is not rational thinking, maybe materialistic, but not logical or rational.


Not when you factor in populations, time and selective pressure.

Successive miracle = mutation rate *population * time / environment :)

#29 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 16 January 2006 - 03:21 PM


So where is the problem? If silk or near silk capability existed in the common ancestor, that would neatly explain what we see today in accordance with the ToE.  Where is this great difficulty?


If there is some link established, the problem is lessened. If there is no evidence of a link, the facts of probability make evolution less likely. I believe you will agree, there will be no "smoking gun" on either side of this debate, only a compilling of compelling facts.

No one has yet stated the they know the precise evolutionary pathway that lead to silk production.  Your expecting way to much from the ToE if you require such specific explinations.
So what?  all these creature you mentioned are reasonably closely related, is it such a great step to suppose that they then have inherited characteristics.


If ToE is taught in school as the answer to origin. For ToE to have this status it should be unrefutable. Many silk producers increases the argument against ToE by increasing the probablility against ToE. Many silk specie pushes the available date of origin of the silk ancestor further back (granted great age) and makes it far more difficult to evolve silk before the several species can mutate apart.
Please don't answer with something like, " they do, so they must have evolved and one day we may find out how".

To put your problem in perspective, answer this - How come, Horses, snakes, frogs, birds, bacteriuria, fish, squid cannot produce silk? Could it be they don’t have a closely related common ancestor to the spider?


In a biblical view they don't. As for ToE vs creation; either has the possibility to produce silk and non-silk specie. Creation has no problem producing any number of silk species.


Unfortunately the remainder of your argument is saying you don’t believe it possible.  Many things seem absurd, and counter intuitive when first examined, sometimes to have to dig really deep to discover the underlying driving force.

View Post


It is possible to dig very deep find nothing more than dirt. My belief is irrelevant. But as long as the laws of nature and science and known facts do not present the evidence required for ToE, I have no reason to believe it.

#30 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2006 - 03:56 PM

Not when you factor in populations, time and selective pressure.


This is just wishful thinking. At some point, the information to produce silk did not exist, and the mental ability of a silk producing creature did not exist. You cannot claim any scientific evidence that NDT produced all of the features necessary to create and use silk.

The odds of even the mechanisms to produce silk being created by chance are absurd, and to develop the mental characteristics along the way is just as absurd.

How many creatures posses physical features that they are in the process of developing the mental ability to use, or vise versa?

How could such a feature be beneficial until the ability to use it developed? In most, if not all cases, it would be detrimental, and eliminated, unless the mental ability to use it was already present.

Time is an illusion, and is cut way down by observational science, and recorded history.

Terry

#31 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2006 - 07:22 PM

So where is the problem? If silk or near silk capability existed in the common ancestor, that would neatly explain what we see today in accordance with the ToE.  Where is this great difficulty?


If there is some link established, the problem is lessened. If there is no evidence of a link, the facts of probability make evolution less likely. I believe you will agree, there will be no "smoking gun" on either side of this debate, only a compilling of compelling facts.


Which make the picking of silk just one of many examples where the compleat history is unknown, science is full of unknowns. More importantly is the underlying principle that related traits are in related species.


No one has yet stated the they know the precise evolutionary pathway that lead to silk production.  Your expecting way to much from the ToE if you require such specific explinations.
So what?  all these creature you mentioned are reasonably closely related, is it such a great step to suppose that they then have inherited characteristics. 


If ToE is taught in school as the answer to origin. For ToE to have this status it should be unrefutable. Many silk producers increases the argument against ToE by increasing the probablility against ToE. Many silk specie pushes the available date of origin of the silk ancestor further back (granted great age) and makes it far more difficult to evolve silk before the several species can mutate apart.
Please don't answer with something like, " they do, so they must have evolved and one day we may find out how".


This is still not a convincing argument, all you have done is pick a very specific trait, said aha, you can’t explain it 100%, thus the entire theory is wrong.


To put your problem in perspective, answer this - How come, Horses, snakes, frogs, birds, bacteriuria, fish, squid cannot produce silk? Could it be they don’t have a closely related common ancestor to the spider?


In a biblical view they don't. As for ToE vs creation; either has the possibility to produce silk and non-silk specie. Creation has no problem producing any number of silk species.


Yet we don’t find such things in nature (i.e. a horse producing silk), yet there should be no problem for such a situation in a created universe. Do you know of any such examples that would bolster the creation POV.



Unfortunately the remainder of your argument is saying you don’t believe it possible.  Many things seem absurd, and counter intuitive when first examined, sometimes to have to dig really deep to discover the underlying driving force.


It is possible to dig very deep find nothing more than dirt. My belief is irrelevant. But as long as the laws of nature and science and known facts do not present the evidence required for ToE, I have no reason to believe it.


If you are not versed in the science of biology, evolution etc, on what do you base your dismissal of the experts. Realistically you cannot have the same understanding of biology as someone who makes it their career.

#32 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2006 - 07:30 PM

Not when you factor in populations, time and selective pressure.


This is just wishful thinking. At some point, the information to produce silk did not exist, and the mental ability of a silk producing creature did not exist. You cannot claim any scientific evidence that NDT produced all of the features necessary to create and use silk.
The odds of even the mechanisms to produce silk being created by chance are absurd, and to develop the mental characteristics along the way is just as absurd.


Silk is no different than any other feature, all are derived from mutation.

How do you know what the odds are if you do not know the mechanism or path to be taken?


How many creatures posses physical features that they are in the process of developing the mental ability to use, or vise versa?


A creature that jumps from branch to branch, could be seen to be pre adapted to gliding, and gliding to flying.

How could such a feature be beneficial until the ability to use it developed? In most, if not all cases, it would be detrimental, and eliminated, unless the mental ability to use it was already present.


Your assuming a gigantic leap to a fully developed feature, if the feature develops in small increments, so will the means of using it.

Time is an illusion, and is cut way down by observational science, and recorded history.

Time is an illusion! :) how so?

#33 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2006 - 02:24 PM

Silk is no different than any other feature, all are derived from mutation.


Bald assertion......

How do you know what the odds are if you do not know the mechanism or path to be taken?


You make claims all the time that you don't know if are true or not, so I think this is a silly question on your part.

But, anyway, the odds from getting from one functional protein to another has been demonstrated, and its exceedingly high. Essentially, ZERO....

A creature that jumps from branch to branch, could be seen to be pre adapted to gliding, and gliding to flying.


:P :P :o :o :o :o

If that's the best you can do, then I rest my case.

Your assuming a gigantic leap to a fully developed feature, if the feature develops in small increments, so will the means of using it.


Really!!! You don't know how any of this could really happen, but your so postive that the means to use such complicated functions would also be produced by chance.

Keep the faith brother... You are certainly a true beliver....

Time is an illusion!  :rolleyes: how so?


Implicit in the claim that evolution has taken place over hundredes of millions of years, is the result that at any point in time we should be able to see these ongoing changs. At any point in time, we should be able to see new genetic informaiton being generated, and new functions coming into existance, and use.

None are evident in nature, and none have ever been witnesses in all of human history, that ~7000 years. So, the time is actually cut down by at least a factor of 7000.

Its an illusion because emperical relality demonstrates your claim, not to mention your belief system, is false.

Terry

#34 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 21 January 2006 - 05:30 PM


Which make the picking of silk just one of many examples where the compleat history is unknown, science is full of unknowns.  More importantly is the underlying principle that related traits are in related species.


These species are only claimed as related. There is no evidence of there common ancestor, or transitional lineage. It is assumed that they are related because they must be, according to ToE. The evidence is placed in order of necesity for ToE, which is logical but not evidence.

This is still not a convincing argument, all you have done is pick a very specific trait, said aha, you can’t explain it 100%, thus the entire theory is wrong.


Unconvincing alone. It is the compiling of many "minor points" which place logical doubt on ToE.

Yet we don’t find such things in nature (i.e. a horse producing silk), yet there should be no problem for such a situation in a created universe.  Do you know of any such examples that would bolster the creation POV.


I do not claim there is a horse producing silk. I do claim that biblical creation allows for any number of silk producers while evolution is limited by lineage.

If you are not versed in the science of biology, evolution etc, on what do you base your dismissal of the experts.  Realistically you cannot have the same understanding of biology as someone who makes it their career.

View Post


Regardless of my understaning of biology, the laws of the universe remain intact. I know they are inflexible. If a "scientist" chooses to ignore them and believe against them (ie. abiogenesis) I will argue against that scienctist. When automobiles were developed to exceed a certain mph, scientists proved that human skin would detatch from the body at that speed. The laws of the universe held and so did our skin. Scientists = Science is an invalid statement.

#35 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:41 PM

Keep the faith brother... You are certainly a true beliver....

You do realise I am stating the scientific consensus on these issues, and these issue are determined by evidence, yes?


Time is an illusion! how so?


Implicit in the claim that evolution has taken place over hundredes of millions of years, is the result that at any point in time we should be able to see these ongoing changs. At any point in time, we should be able to see new genetic informaiton being generated, and new functions coming into existance, and use.


Well we can see the result of such change in the fossil record, and the fossil record has been dated by various means.

None are evident in nature, and none have ever been witnesses in all of human history, that ~7000 years. So, the time is actually cut down by at least a factor of 7000.


I dispute that non is evident. To have a witness is not a prerequisite, you can still do science without having a witness to the event.

Its an illusion because emperical relality demonstrates your claim, not to mention your belief system, is false.

To substantiate this claim you will need to demonstrate why you feel the need to have a witness for events in history, I don’t see the need.

#36 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:42 PM

Which make the picking of silk just one of many examples where the compleat history is unknown, science is full of unknowns.  More importantly is the underlying principle that related traits are in related species.


These species are only claimed as related. There is no evidence of there common ancestor, or transitional lineage. It is assumed that they are related because they must be, according to ToE. The evidence is placed in order of necesity for ToE, which is logical but not evidence.


What?, are you denying that a spider is not more related to an insect than it is to a horse? I think you can give a bit more credit to classification of related species than what you have.


This is still not a convincing argument, all you have done is pick a very specific trait, said aha, you can’t explain it 100%, thus the entire theory is wrong.


Unconvincing alone. It is the compiling of many "minor points" which place logical doubt on ToE.

I put it to you that all your describing is doubt about specific things, and these don’t translate to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Yet we don’t find such things in nature (i.e. a horse producing silk), yet there should be no problem for such a situation in a created universe.  Do you know of any such examples that would bolster the creation POV.


I do not claim there is a horse producing silk. I do claim that biblical creation allows for any number of silk producers while evolution is limited by lineage.


I think I can agree with that rational. But I ask again do you have any examples?


If you are not versed in the science of biology, evolution etc, on what do you base your dismissal of the experts.  Realistically you cannot have the same understanding of biology as someone who makes it their career.


Regardless of my understaning of biology, the laws of the universe remain intact. I know they are inflexible. If a "scientist" chooses to ignore them and believe against them (ie. abiogenesis) I will argue against that scienctist. When automobiles were developed to exceed a certain mph, scientists proved that human skin would detatch from the body at that speed. The laws of the universe held and so did our skin. Scientists = Science is an invalid statement.


I don’t remember the skin detaching argument, but I do recall the not being able to breath if you stuck your head out of a fast moving train argument. Yet what we have here is an example of the scientific method trumping a personal opinion, individuals (scientists or not) can be in error, but that is not the strength of the science, it’s strength is the method. Go on the evidence and consensus, not the early individual opinion (i.e. you can’t breath in a moving train was put forward without any evidence).

#37 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 January 2006 - 07:28 PM

You do realise I am stating the scientific consensus on these issues, and these issue are determined by evidence, yes?


Scientific consensus is not scientific evidence of anything. That fact that you quote scientific concensus is testimony that no scientic evidence exists.

You do realize that since there is no operational scientific evidence, and that the scientific community operates on faith, right?????

Well we can see the result of such change in the fossil record, and the fossil record has been dated by various means.


The fossil record shows anything but that, and is evidence against such transitional changes.

I dispute that non is evident.  To have a witness is not a prerequisite, you can still do science without having a witness to the event.


Operational science,.... yes,.... origins science,....., no...... There has to be some historical evidence, and there is none as far as human testimony is concerned, only circular reasoning about the fossil record that can be interpreted better to fit creationist theory.

In any case, the Word of God is testimony to how the universe was created, and the word of God is superior to the fallacies of men.

JOB 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users