Jump to content


Photo

Creationists, What Do You Define As A Kind?


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

#181 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:36 AM

Evolution does not care.

View Post


Evolution doesn't care because evolution isn’t sentient, and therefore evolution is incapable of caring.

#182 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 16 January 2010 - 12:38 AM

Evolution does not require "upward movement".

It most certainly does, or how do you explain fins to legs. Upward means new mechanisms that were never there before.

I believe you to mean a horizontal speciation does not require upward evolution, or a variation in related organisms. But evolution as whole, that is if you define a man as a HIGHER species than a mollusk, requires upward evolution.


Otto,

Even if evolution did'nt require new information to go from molecules to man,it's still in trouble because most anatomical features are the most advanced as soon as they appear. (e.g. the trilobite eye).

"...trilobites may have been superior to current living animals. They had, in principle, perfect vision: They possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature. ...look like they were designed by a physicist." Science News, Vol.105, 2/2, 1974

Additionally, trilobites represent some of the most sophisticated arthropods known to man.  The trilobite eye, for example has been heralded as a structure far too complex to evolve over time by random variations in the genesof trilobite populations (Armstrong 1973 and 1976; Bergman 1992; DeYoung 2002; Wise 1989).  Not only is the trilobite eye made of pure calcite (optically transparent calcium carbonate) which has a precisely aligned optical axis to eliminate any double image that would have formed (Armstrong 1973; DeYoung 2002), it is also a “doublet” of two lenses affixed together in order to eliminate spherical aberrations, commonly found in ground glass lenses (Armstrong 1976)!  Trilobite eyes are massively arrayed in semicircular banks (See Figures 1–3) and even almost circular banks of up to 30-60 lenses per row, each with its own individual retina (McCormick and Fortey 1998; Gal et al. 2000).

Figure 2. Light micrograph, schizochroal lens assembly.  Individual lenses marked by black arrows.  Scale bar = 300 microns.

Recent work on trilobite eyes has shown them to be even more complex than originally thought.


http://www.trueorigi...obites_eyes.asp

And also,apes have a baculum.How did they end up with more genetic information than us ? And where are the vestigal genes in humans ? Birds have kept the vestigal genes for teeth for 70 million years,how did humans loose the vestigal baculum genes in only 7 million years ?




Enjoy.

#183 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 16 January 2010 - 11:26 AM

Otto,


And also,apes have a baculum.How did they end up with more genetic information than us ? And where are the vestigal genes in humans ? Birds have kept the vestigal genes for teeth for 70 million years,how did humans loose the vestigal baculum genes in only 7 million years ?
Enjoy.

View Post


I don't know, sounds like something a creation scientist ought to be able to investigate.

#184 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 16 January 2010 - 01:35 PM

And also,apes have a baculum.How did they end up with more genetic information than us ? And where are the vestigal genes in humans ? Birds have kept the vestigal genes for teeth for 70 million years,how did humans loose the vestigal baculum genes in only 7 million years ?
Enjoy.

View Post



Well this was fast... wiki.

this explains it very well, as well as providing information of a boy who had one, that was surgically removed. If it was in that boy, then humans obviously have that gene...its just very dormant.

Also the boy was suffering from other birth defects...so it was probably related in someway.

#185 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 31 January 2010 - 02:41 AM

You imply that there is a semantic prototype for the qualititive characteristic "evolved".  In biology, "evolved" designates genetic population change over generations.  It's not a comparative quality like "complex" (and obviously evolution has no predetermined outcome).

View Post

I did not imply, I stated.

ToE assumes that starting with "A" and adding time, chance, environmental stressors, etc. you will get "AB" and eventually an entire alphabet of genetic code. The only problem is that it can't happen. Biology has been trying for decades and no path has been found to force evolution without intervention and addition form external sources.

#186 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 31 January 2010 - 06:49 AM

I did not imply, I stated. 

ToE assumes that starting with "A" and adding time, chance, environmental stressors, etc. you will get "AB" and eventually an entire alphabet of genetic code.  The only problem is that it can't happen.  Biology has been trying for decades and no path has been found to force evolution without intervention and addition form external sources.

View Post


What is it that "biology hs been trying for decades"?

#187 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 January 2010 - 09:20 AM

I don't know, sounds like something a creation scientist ought to be able to investigate.

View Post


Sounds like something any "scientist" should be able to investigate.

#188 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 31 January 2010 - 10:35 AM

Would duplicate copying of a gene and one copy mutating count as an increase in gene info?

"Good genes" tend to get fixed in a population so won't mutate out of existance whilst "bad genes" tend to merely hinder their recipient so won't get fixed.

Sure, evolution leads to extinction as well as survival.  I know that insufficient variety or new genetic material can be destructive for a population under selective pressure.  However, due to selective bias we don't see a lot of this in the extant life around us.

View Post


Hi Tommy,

I missed this post.

Sure gene duplication followed by a mutation could be an increase information. If the series of mutation does something beneficial. A change of information has to be coordinated with the whole system. The ribosomes have to be able to fold the protein properly and the new change has to be integrated into the biological system.

It is like changing a computer code. Sure you can change letters or add a new word. But does it the added words add something new? Does the computer understand the new word and can process it? Even if the computer can process it does the new code integrate into the existing code? Evolutionist stop the analysis after the code has been changed. Rather you have to look at the code as part of an integrated system. That changing the code is not enough.

#189 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 31 January 2010 - 10:38 AM

No ? Dont you think to start with a self-replicating molecule and terminate with all the diversity of life today is  an upward movement ?

View Post



Nope

View Post


Think Otto.

If evolution doesn't explain an upward movement and diversity of life it explains nothing of any importance: It is a worthless theory.

#190 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 31 January 2010 - 10:41 AM

Which is more advanced? A lion or a tree?

View Post


Which is more advanced: a dinosaur or a gecko?

Evolution predict that it should be based on time, mutation and natural selection?

#191 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 February 2010 - 11:30 AM

Think Otto.

If evolution doesn't explain an upward movement and diversity of life it explains nothing of any importance:  It is a worthless theory.

View Post


How are you defining "upward movement"? Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant? Only becasue you are a human being.

#192 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 01 February 2010 - 12:39 PM

Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant?


You dug yourself into a hole again,Otto. According to the theory,ants evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. You need to explain the need for them to evolve upward into reptiles,mammals,etc.



Enjoy.

#193 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 February 2010 - 12:59 PM

Sure gene duplication followed by a mutation could be an increase information.  If the series of mutation does something beneficial. A change of information has to be coordinated with the whole system.  The ribosomes have to be able to fold the protein properly and the new change has to be integrated into the biological system.

View Post


It's the anarchic quality of mutations that allow them to throw up new traits and variety in a gene pool - variety would be highly restricted were a mutation bound to integrate. Sure, many mutations will be neutral or detrimental, but by definition "bad" traits limit their host's ability to pass them on and thus do not spread. The emergence of "good" new traits is improbable (like abiogenesis) but need only happen once to begin proliferatiing through the pool.

I think you were asking about the impetus toward complexity in life. Aside from Gould's observation that most lineages remain very simple (in the absence of selective pressure oil-degrading bacteria do not appear to have changed over hundreds of millions of years) I would add that there may be a selective preference for more complex gene pools. In a competitive environment a lack of variey and new traits can be lead to the extinction of a gene pool. More complex organisms are more likely to throw up new traits by mutation and increase variety in the pool and thus its capacity to survive a range of pressures. (Of course, this needs to be offset by the tendency of increased complexity to throw up more malfunction - the advantages of increased variety will not be selcted if it kills sufficient numbers of the population to be ultimately detrimental).

#194 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 February 2010 - 01:00 PM

Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant?


You dug yourself into a hole again,Otto. According to the theory,ants evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. You need to explain the need for them to evolve upward into reptiles,mammals,etc.
Enjoy.

View Post


Well for starters, an ant cannot evolve into a mammal.

Second, it seems lost on creationists that evolution doesn't go from worse to better based on criteria they select.

#195 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 February 2010 - 01:26 PM

How are you defining "upward movement"?  Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant?  Only becasue you are a human being.

View Post


Nope, is for the same reason the human being is superior to the chimpanzee... Because that's the way we were designed.

#196 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 February 2010 - 02:24 PM

Nope, is for the same reason the human being is superior to the chimpanzee... Because that's the way we were designed.

View Post

but if you had to live in the jungle, you might be better off as a chimp!

Oh, and we were not "designed".

#197 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 February 2010 - 03:46 PM

but if you had to live in the jungle, you might be better off as a chimp!

Oh, and we were not "designed".

View Post


If you are a theistic evolutionist then by default you believe we were designed... unless your being untruthful that is.

#198 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 February 2010 - 05:18 PM

but if you had to live in the jungle, you might be better off as a chimp!

Oh, and we were not "designed".

View Post


I have lived and trained in the jungle Otto... Oh, and we were designed...

#199 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:02 AM

If you are a theistic evolutionist then by default you believe we were designed... unless your being untruthful that is.

View Post


You may be onto something here Scott :lol:

#200 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:49 AM

Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant?


You dug yourself into a hole again,Otto. According to the theory,ants evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. You need to explain the need for them to evolve upward into reptiles,mammals,etc.
Enjoy.

View Post

Eh nope. Basic misunderstanding here. There is no need to evolve, there is only change, leading to evolution. Possibility, not necessity.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users