Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Ibex Pop

Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ibex Pop

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Louisiana, USA
  1. You have a tendency to misrepresent me, and you provide yet another example. You actually agree with much of what I said about gravity; you appear to be willing to discard what is necessary for it to be what we observe operating on large scales. Can you assert that I'm misrepresenting creationists harder? Your post would have been better had it informed how I was misrepresenting you. The micro/macro arguments and argument from expectation/assumption seem pretty spot on as analogy to me, so maybe you'd care to actually put me in my place. As to I do not argue that the relationship of your nose should be a basis for evolutionary theory, nor that there was even visible difference in your nose as compared to your father's (it hasn't been the subject of scientific inquiry, in any event), nor do I argue for only one physical attribute to be taken as a uniform (your early growth rate) when it known that there were chemical effects on your body. What is uniform is the applicability of physics and chemistry to your body, not any single event described by them. I have presented my "evolutionist beliefs" in various threads, but, unfortunately, they're not typically topic-appropriate, but then neither is this reply, or your reply to my reply, or ryyker's post, or percy's post before that, so I trust you'll excuse me if I again observe this customary decorum. I'm not challenging anyone with anything except what I hope is relevant to the post I'm replying to, and I have no doubt any post I make on this board will be challenged, eventually, no matter what, unless I get myself banned. Though I do like your victimization of whoever I "target" as a "random passerby" with the immediate assertion that whatever I say to any given person is false. It would be nice to see something more from you than rhetoric, but I understand that it's a lot easier to blackball whatever and whoever you don't like.
  2. Ibex Pop

    Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

    Well, a gas cloud will inevitably fall together if its cooling capacity and density aren't overtaken by the expansion of space between them, and if there are no objects that gravitationally overcome the cloud (since all the molecules and atoms in the cloud are otherwise bound to each other), and if it is not in stasis (where it is constantly heated to a level beyond collapse but below gravitational disassociation). For making a star, however, the cloud must just have enough fuseable mass in a density capable of collapse. As it falls together it will generate heat preventing more immediate compression, but the density will eventually generate a runaway gravitational collapse in the less-dense surroundings, greatly heating the core as it also becomes opaque. What you said is a pretty accurate summary and it could be modeled and is modeled in Jean's Mass, which will tell you accurately, though not precisely, what clouds can and cannot collapse. Now, since CTD responded, I'll go ahead and address his post: Gravity is not calculated as proceeding from an infinitely dense point, he's trying to confuse the issue. The direction of attraction is always to the center of mass of an object(s), and other matter will fall toward this, without approximation. Gas pressure is not an explicit variable in the case of Jean's Mass because it accounts for gas temperature and density (mass and volume), which makes it capable of deriving the pressure of the system, anyway, but is not used because it would have to be split back down into the variables that are actually used: what is relevant on the molecular level is whether gravity would cause a molecule to fall further than it had energy to rebound in the same time it took to fall. This is literally what it means for gravity to overcome pressure. As to rotation, it is only relevant to rotating systems but it can be accounted for with an additional variable, and is largely irrelevant to whether stars can form in the first place but is important in having an accurate model (and scientists have created far more detailed models, like this and this). Finally, magnetism actually serves a breaking effect against the rotational forces of a collapse (moving charges generate magnetic fields that reduce speed, as it is the actual kinetic energy being converted into the magnetic field), and I couldn't find anymore "hidden" variables that CTD alludes to. If there is anything else, I daresay it is insignificant to the possibility of star formation and only relevant to an exacting model. Oh, and new stars, which are new according to spectrum analysis, absolute magnitude, and solar mass, always appear in nebulae. And dense gas bubbles (gravitationally contracted) appear in nebulae. And many new stars can be seen with halos of dust around them. Go figure. It's because stellar synthesis happens.
  3. I'm going to do you a disservice by admitting I did not watch the "Living Fossils" video, because I think I grasp what it would have been about. It is probably about things that have apparently not evolved while others have. But since punctuated equilibrium address that directly, and since indirectly it is addressed by there being no selective pressure that favors more beneficial mutations (which is completely reasonable for an organism is a biological niche), I'm going to count it as addressed unless there is some reason living fossils circumvent my account. I may go back and take another look at this thread but I can't promise anything.
  4. Since I have a tendency to use physics for biological analogies, I'll do that here. Creationist: "Show me that all objects that aren't already very close gravitate together! You haven't proven macrogravity!" Ibex: *points at picture of galaxies colliding* Creationist: "Those are already like that, you don't know how they got that way, you haven't observed them actually colliding." Ibex: "But it looks like they're colliding under the force of gravity, doesn't it? I mean it seems reasonable . . ." Creationist: "Maybe, but if it's the sole assumption then it isn't reasonable to say there is macrogravity." Ibex: "Well, OK, how about because we see the restraining effect on the expansion of the universe by what we can only assume is macrogravity." Creationist: "Aha! It's an assumption! See, you're just looking at how things are and then imagining whatever you need to make them that way, without ever proving that the mechanic you imagine actually exists. You know, like scientists do with the fossil record." Ibex: "Uhhh, I guess you're right, something else might be holding them in place or might even have made them specifically with the appearance of being restrained. It might even explain the dark matter that scientists just posit and haven't been able to observe with any electromagnetic energy. The galaxies obviously owe to something that isn't gravity if we cannot find mass to generate it! Scientists ARE just attached to their macrogravity! Thanks for opening my eyes!" Creationist: "And remember to ask them to show you the method next time a scientist tells you something." Ibex: *tips hat* You know the method for evolution. Descent through inheritance with modification via mutation under pressure of natural selection. You should know that each individual item, as well as all these items in tandem, have been observed. I can only surmise that by "showing you the method" you mean that scientists should show you a microbe's progeny eventually evolving into a man. I can only surmise that you think that evolution is something that can only work on a small scale, being microevolution. I can only surmise this is the same attitude held by creationists who want scientists to show them stars forming, where that means they must show the formation from gas cloud to main sequence with direct observation -- just outlining, with many individual images, all stages of stellar formation is no better than evo scientists using transitional forms, right? There is no proof that every image is not something static and completely unrelated, despite it being just what scientists predict. But then, they saw much of that stuff in advance and made up the details of their pet mechanic to fit the bill, so it ought to predict it! It's circular reasoning!! It's no better than crime scene investigation or tectonics! Preposterous that scientists can just look at the evidence and make up anything that fits the bill. Why don't we all listen to the Bible? It says that God made everything and everything is here, so why don't evolutionists believe that? Evolutionists just hate God.
  5. It sounds like realism (the philosophy) to me. That we do not have, in any case, the truth, but a good approximation of the truth. Or rather, reality isn't exactly as we describe it, and that truth is a measure of how close our description fits reality; an arbitrarily selected limit at which an approximation of reality can be said to be true. Of course, this leads to a debate of what is real, which is really more apt for another thread.
  6. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    Evolution is a process. You cannot lay your hands on gravitational attraction or photosynthesis, either; it must be observed, the mechanism described. So much the worse that evolution is a generational mechanism, a byproduct of the environment in both mutation and selection. While I have no doubt you want to see the future at large, you have no interest in any bits challenging your faith (but then, you won't let it, because it is taken as granted the challenge is not Truth). While I have no doubt you would like to understand things as God made them, you would consider it heretical to ever suggest we were learning how God made them. You have no problem inquiring as to how nature made something (in accordance with God's intent), where you don't presume God's supernatural influence, but if it is suggested that those supposedly supernatural domains of history were naturally governed as much as anything else, you'd likely kick up a cloud of skepticism that you would never apply to the creation mythos. I get that you're human, and you still have a need to understand the world you live in, but I also realize that, because your belief in a six day creation is entirely dependent on your one interpretation of the Bible, you are giving a non-answer. Your "answer" for the origin of the universe and life is only given as defacto while stemming from an unverifiable belief. This is obviously the case, you and I would agree, with Hindus and Zoroastrians, the Greek and Egyptian pantheons, and the various minor and disparate religions now or previously peppering the Earth, but when you think Yahweh just did something, that makes it different. Worthy of being an answer, even, so that we might proceed to investigate something else with no reservations or puzzlement. Yahweh creating the Earth in six days is not remotely bared out by the evidence, no more so than Brahma. Finally, what is my faith? That I can properly assess that ERVs are indicative of a shared ancestor or a deceptive creator? That I can properly assess that atavisms are displayed in a hereditary pattern or as unnecessary structures allowed for only in a pattern of what would otherwise indicate heredity by a deceptive creator? That I can properly assess that similarities in morphology indicate either shared development or a deceptive or unimaginative creator? That I can properly assess that the absence and appearance, as well as the great differences in variety of species throughout the fossil record indicates either continuous alteration by a creator or biological divergence? That I can properly assess that bacteria becoming able to digest nylon in a lab either indicates an adaptation which takes hundreds of generations to unlock (and which is then only inherited . . .) or a proper mutation which was then selected for? Look, if someone is lying to me about what the evidence is, I want to know, but I'm pretty sure I'm understanding what it means, as surely as a man holding a smoking gun nearby a dead body shot with the same caliber bullet indicates that he was the killer. I try to limit my faith to trust in people, never letting it be hope for what I cannot perceive, if I can help it. You may play evolution as faith, or say that faith in minor things is necessary and constant, but you do yourself a disservice because you are so critical of the so-called faith of evolution, indicating that faith is not to be trusted as truthful information, when it is surely far better to take as faith evolution than it is to take as faith the identity of the god, especially when faced with the question that if evolution is poorly backed, how much more so is the Bible? I'm done sidetracking a thread made about Ken Miller. No matter the reply, I'm still letting this thread alone (and much later than I should have). Hopefully it's been educational, at least into what makes me tick, because is definitely hasn't been relevant.
  7. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    Science is seeking the truth, but will never find all of it. Religion claims to already have it, and no longer seeks it. What would convince you the Bible is wrong? You're willing to believe that animals talked, that the world was created in 6 days, and that God made thorns on the spot to punish people, all in the face of what is naturally possible in this universe, because you can satisfy the dissonance by saying "God did it." What aren't you willing to believe miraculously happened so that the Bible is still literally true wherever you prefer it? Believers in Allah and Joseph Smith and Krishna all do no better, invoking miracles to cover the impossible. Your truth is proclaimed as being out of the reach of society -- it cannot be gathered by man but through the self-proclaimed holy book -- which conveniently explains why it is free to be at odds with the knowledge of society. It is not evident. It is a dogma. Even if it is completely true, I cannot rationally expect it to be. It was written by men who had no large amount of knowledge about the world, and even less access to it. It doesn't read like a book a super-being would dictate. It exhibits no special knowledge of reality except where it is reputed to be 100% accurate. It offers nothing that isn't claimed by dozens of other religions (all of their members are having supernatural experiences, or so they would have me believe). And finally, I've been there before. I was so sure God was real, but I realized that I had nothing backing that up. Just faith. Faith is not the truth, and it could not fill my desire for it. I stopped having faith and started seeking the truth. When the evidence did not make it apparent to me that there was an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god watching over me, I stopped taking it for granted that there is one. If I see evolution dismantled, I'll move along. What this forum has attempted to wield is nothing more than information we do not yet have. In any situation where I cannot provide information, it is implicitly taken as supporting you when all it actually does is indicate my own ignorance or that of mankind. Maybe you're right, but I'm not willing to take it on just faith when it's far, far more likely you're wrong. The problem for me is not the Bible, per se, but that, for it to be true, it would require gross apologies for breaking so much of what I regard as established. I do not consider the stars high in the firmament, for example, because there is no firmament (I think that is established) and the stars are not at uniform distance, and it is physically impossible for Sisera to have fought with stars because of what they actually are (this too), but the authors clearly thought he did, meaning they didn't know what or where a star was. What concessions do you make for the non-manifest foundations of Earth and the the foundations of the non-existent firmament? These things might be read as metaphor now, but they certainly weren't always. You can always believe them as much as anything else. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Of course, anyone that values their image as a reasonable person will default to saying it was just speaking in metaphors and that science has enriched us with the knowledge of what God meant as metaphorical, which he never intended to be taken any other way. Well, now it looks like the biblical creation was a metaphor or even an allegory. Ignoring pre-acceptance of the Bible for a moment, and supposing I wish to approach it for answers science has not yet given, I do not desire to say the physical mechanics of the universe were broken so that I can explain the otherwise (and still) unexplained, and then to posit the existence of an unobservable god responsible for breaking them, and then that this god is Yahweh. There is no "how" to be found for anything God supposedly did or does, only that it is or was done, and all incidents of supernatural interaction are handily fleeting so that they cannot be observed, or are said to be unobservable in the first place. There are no answers in the Bible, unless you wanted to know whether the Biblical God exists. It can't even prove that, but if you're willing to trust it, you can say that God exists and then you can move on to establish just what it did, does, doesn't, and didn't. Not with evidence, but via interpretation of text written about not just what we cannot observe now, but about what is actually supposed to be unobservable to anything, minus a few choice individuals. So take humanity's ignorance on the origin of Aves and bask in it. Throw your criticism for how gullible I am for taking the word of scientists, and slam me for not taking your even less-evidenced concept as my own. Do you really mean I should be persuaded to your view by the fossilized tracks? Just that? What if birds did originate in the Triassic, as much as we doubt it now? Is it reasonable to assume they have always existed because of the fossilized tracks? If birds have existed since the dawn of time, science will keep finding evidence supporting you and I'll eventually be persuaded to a different point of view. Sorry for going off topic (by a huge amount), but I would not simply endure an attempt to vex me for my willingness to see what the future brings.
  8. Ibex Pop

    Thunderfoot Versus Comfort

    Thunderf00t does focus on minor issues, but it's a lot of minor arguments that make a case. Whether a one kilometer thick sheet of ice can serve as a firmament, whether evolution makes things "better" at anything other than being suited to their environment, and (among many more) whether random probability calculations are useful in describing the likelihood of life developing on Earth is very relevant to the case these creationists try to make. While there is no denying that Thunderf00t does a lot of nitpicking, he also soundly debunks many arguments that might otherwise be taken to favor creation. Anyway, AronRa's series on the foundational falsehoods of creationism actually gives a far more thorough view of evolution while mainly tackling what you might consider "larger" issues than physical impossibilities (but AronRa is heavy-handed and extremely critical of religion, which, since it is an examination of personal beliefs that people use to define themselves, sounds insulting to religious viewers -- I know by experience -- when he is actually making an attempt to reach them), CDK007's origins series in combination with many of his other videos actually aims directly at explaining evolution, and DonExodus2's series on how evolution works, as well as transitional fossils are all more apt at making a case for evolution. I'd personally recommend some of CDK007's stuff first. I respect that you'd hardly want to invest so much time in something you wholly believe is false, but seriously, Thunderf00t is not really explaining evolution, just telling you exactly why specific creationist arguments are wrong. Sometimes that demands a little evolutionary background, most of the time, it does not, and all in all, he does not remotely offer the most substantial argument for evolution. If you're interested, I'd start with and . They're not introductions to evolution, but are hopefully ponderous enough to inspire further investigation. Further evidence can be found in these, and a debunk on same-genes-same-creator can be found . If you think that is valid supporting evidence for common descent, I'm sure you can take it further on your own. I considered putting an actual introduction to evolution as a link, as that would be the most relevant in an explanatory sense, but I felt that it might be discarded at once. If you do not know what evolution would predict, then you've already been rejecting it out of hand. If you hold a misconception about it but have the general idea, then you'd probably not watch it anyway (because it would seem superfluous), so the above videos are all about supporting evolution rather than explaining it as a theory in detail. Hopefully you find the links a bit better than Thunderf00t.
  9. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    My bad on the feathers. And I modify my comment to "most fossil evidence supports the theropod origin of birds". I don't know what to make of the bird tracks. These anomalies are very peculiar. I'll just have to wait for the scientists to sort it out. I'm neither a geologist nor a paleontologist, nor even an ornithologist so I have to sit on the sidelines and shrug my shoulders until something changes. I don't think there's anymore evidence that I can bring to the table for now. The rest of my previous post, minus any implication of universal fossil support, stands.
  10. Ibex Pop

    The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    Notions of what you perceive as order aside, the body would be heated and gain the capacity for thermodynamic work. Now, what that work would amount to would be precious little, seeing as how the support system for all the cells and the complex molecular pathways would have been destroyed, the cells long since having destroyed themselves. Early life does not require a complex support system, but asking whether a body will decay in sunlight, which that body cannot do much work with (it couldn't do much with it while it was alive, either), while it is surrounded and covered in functional micro-organisms hardly demonstrates a problem with the second law of thermodynamics, but a lack of understanding on the part of the person asking the question. Our notions of order aren't even valid when placed up against the actual law, as a body at 9000 degrees has a very high work potential but it does not function as a human. We consist of many areas of lesser and greater energy (and it is not all thermal energy, and thermal energy applied directly back to our body will not regenerate the electrical or chemical activity) and entropy, it is how we function, consuming food for energy, burning phosphorous to keep warm, using oxygen to catalyze sugar into adenosine triphosphate, and a billion other small details. Just heating a human body isn't going to regenerate cell walls or immune systems, the body would not come alive again even if its order increased. Hypothetically, we could turn it into a diamond, which possesses a great deal of order, but it would not be a living human being again. We could turn a diamond into a human, at the cost of order but at a massive gain in complexity. Popular notions of order and entropy are best left to simple domains where complexity is not required. Trying to apply your impression of what an ordered human is against a dead simulacrum possessing a high heat gradient is just silly.
  11. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    No where does it say "These people believe the evidence falsifies evolution and no longer believe in evolution as a result". No one denies they are evolutionists and no one denies they still believe in evolution.The quotes say they either have no evidence for believing in it,or the evidence contradicts their current models. Thanks. 36107[/snapback] I'm going to gripe again and say that your reply is ambiguous. I'm not sure what the pronoun "it" is supposed to stand in for, as the quotes most definitely do not say that they have no reason for accepting evolution, but rather that they don't think the evidence establishes that birds evolved from theropods (what's more, I believe I posted a few links to more relevant, recent information that dismantles a few of those quotes: birds almost certainly did evolve from theropods, we've found a fossil with a digitary trait that cannot be accounted for by tree reptiles). This would be akin to me taking quotes from calvinists that state that universalism isn't substantiated by the evidence, and claiming they are therefore saying there is no evidence for Christianity (not that I'm saying there's convincing evidence for either, but your claim, as I read it, is a massive non-sequitur). Likewise, the evidence from when most of these quotes were made was not solidly contradicting anyone's evolutionary model for birds (which is why there were alternate models), and the speakers certainly weren't contradicting themselves (implied by you with the pronoun "their"), there just wasn't yet enough evidence to establish the ancestry of birds. Make no mistake, the evolutionary theory is not "birds evolved from theropods" but "birds evolved from something", and scientists want to figure out what. If birds could not have evolved (if their fossils dated back to the Hadean, or they reproduced via spreading spores, or they had irreducibly complex components, or they had no anatomical relationship with other life) then they'd be trying figure out where they came from, as assuming the supernatural is just a handy way to say that anything could have happened (no birds, a miracle happens, birds). You can bet they'd move on to another naturalist hypothesis, but I have no idea what. It's a good thing birds appear in the fossil record right around where they ought to for being divergent from dinos, and it's good that we've found feathered dinos and even protofeathered dinos, a digitary link from I-2-3 to 2-3-4 with 1-2-3-4 (which also had feathers and a toothless jaw) and I haven't even brushed the anatomical similarities (mainly because I don't know many of them off the top of my head). There are problems yet to be worked out with exactly how birds evolved, but if they didn't, someone's really throwing us for a loop. The evidence is not better explained with a 6 day creation, as there is no reason God should have made so many diverse forms and (given the number of fossils) made the world wall-to-wall creatures. There is no reason for the fossils to present themselves in any particular order, under creationism, you would expect sea bass and swordfish and whales to be mixed in with trilobites and super crocodiles and plesiosaurs. Nevermind that there is no investigation that can be done into the mechanism God used, versus us actually being able to examine abiogenesis hypothesis. That mechanism is far more likely to yield information on exactly how life came to be, whereas we're left with supernatural, instantaneous "poof" for each step in God's creation (and heck, we don't even know why he supposedly made the universe in stages: he apparently made stars and planets and people and all other animals in situ, so why not make the whole universe in situ at once?). I'll leave it to any unbiased reader what seems more like myth. Maybe it's the naturalist's view.
  12. Ibex Pop

    Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

    Not at all. Although we can get into statistical mechanics, advanced thermodynamics and all kinds of stuff beyond my comprehension, the important part is simple enough. As a gas cools, it exerts less pressure. All objects down to atoms are gravitationally attracted to each other, and gravity will collapse these objects until a repulsive force doesn't permit further collapse The gravitational force in a vacuum will equal out with repulsive pressure, keeping a gaseous object at the same size so long as it is kept at the same temperature. All that is required of a cloud to become a star is that it have great enough density to become opaque and the frictional forces in the cloud core not be able to heat the whole cloud into transparent dissipation but still be able to heat to core to the point of fusion. Given the size of stellar nurseries, this isn't a problem. In fact, Jupiter is a fine example despite being a planet. It is still emitting twice as much heat as it receives, due to its thermal opacity and the fact its gravitational collapse far exceeded its ability to heat up to a uniform repulsive pressure on its outer bounds (its core was raging but its gravity was still piling on more than it could possibly force off, as a result it is still cooling). This is in line with what would be required of a forming star (thermal retention, inability to uniformly heat and thus expand to a density of less significance -- Jupiter's core may still be 43,000 degrees). Now, combine this with the fact that there are apparently younger stars (which consist mostly of interstellar medium instead of fused materials) and older stars (the difference in each revealed by spectrum analysis), and it's a safe bet for any naturalist that stars have been forming since the universe came to exist. Additionally, we've observed what looks like protoplanetary disks and stellar clouds in nebulae that nebular hypothesis fits very well. You want to know the problems with nebular hypothesis? How planetesimals form, how gas giants form, where the angular momentum from the protoplanetary disk is passed to, and just how planets migrate into stable orbits. Stellar formation is understood, and none of the popular creationist websites are willing to suggest that stars cannot form, so this reads like a "yeah, I know this one law that you didn't think of!" where in the case of electrons, the Abraham-Lorentz force would cause an electron to rapidly lose speed and fall into the nucleus. "So how do electrons supposedly orbit a nucleus without all of that funny unproven quantum evolutionist trash?" I'm wondering how much longer this topic will remain, or how much more will be called into doubt because it is science. I have a hard time believing creationists apply the same skepticism to the Bible as they do anything that disagrees with it. "How do you know that? Show me one observation that isn't biased!"
  13. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    Jason did not, whoever he quoted that list from without attribution did. The quotes given were not made in support of evolution not being the case, their intent exists in demonstrating what path evolution occurred in, and certainly not in undermining evolutionary theory or giving the impression that evolutionary theory demands descent from theropods, ergo evolutionary theory is wrong. If this was not the case being made, I apologize for my poor reading comprehension. By my reading, the only way one could more blatantly use quotes to undermine a concept that they actually support would be to quote sarcasm. I had thought my detailing the context of the original quotes would highlight their less-than-intended, selective use here, but it appears I did not make my case. You're the admin, so I'm resigned to your judgement. Oh, and apologies for my absence, I was going to write up a large reply for Jason but I haven't found the time. Suffice it to say, until I get on to a more detailed post, that the first article he linked is detailing the catalytic cleft changes that must take place to enable the break down of nylon (and it even posits, but itself provides no evidence for an ancestral frameshift and a mechanism for for keeping the reading frame (from stop codon to stop codon) open for mutation. The second is actually replied to by the first to some extent, where the scientists want to investigate the mechanisms overcoming the author's constant objection via odds and chance. The author even goes to the length of calculating the odds of the necessary mutations happening in the same plasmid, while leaving it out that it was far less likely to occur anywhere that the basal estrase digesting protein wasn't already coded for, so that if the mutations to allow for nylon digestion were to happen at all, they would likely be located as they are versus demanding even more mutations elsewhere. The author is essentially stating the mutation rate and saying that it's unbelievable that anything useful should ever mutate. The number of generations and the size of the bacterial culture where this mutation was observed, which would mitigate the odds, seem to be left out of the calculation. A more honest calculation would have been the likelihood of the necessary mutation taking place over X time with Y population subject to the mutation. Finally, the author posits that transposase is having a recombinative effect on the plamids unlocking this adaptation. As to why the transposase cannot react in the first generation, we don't know. In any event, why this adaptation does not occur by the second or third generation, as might be expected for an adaptation such as neoteny , there is no good answer. If the author requires mutations to "fix" bad but original functionality, then he's likely fighting at least the same odds, but since no mechanism is given at all, the possibility remains that he is fighting substantially greater ones. Now, I wasn't able to find an article detailing transposase gene mutation in either species, and it strikes me that this should have shown up in the same tests used to determine the mutation site in other articles, but maybe scientists are ignoring the possibility? At best, the author is a little more in the dark and has a little less physical evidence to offer, and at worst, there is no mention of the transposing mechanism favoring him because it doesn't exist (to the extent of allowing this "adaptation to occur). As to why you have reason to trust the creationist article over the scientists? I don't know. It should be noted, before I go, that this does not overtake the fact that insertions, frameshifts and duplications all happen, as well as deletions and reversals. Any claim otherwise is fighting elementary genetics, much like a creationist claiming geologists don't know the difference between layering and hydraulic sorting (and even I can tell that). I lack the knowledge to prove to you that X-ray crystallography, southern blots, and any other test method works, so let it be said I take it on faith, but someone out there understands far more than me and anyone else on this board does. And in that light, I'm not sure I see the point of trying to argue out of my own ignorance against people arguing out of theirs. I'll stick with the work that can be tested for errors, even if it cannot be tested by me, rather than the appeals to forces that refuse to manifest, if they even exist. Sorry about the meandering topic, but I think I'm pretty much caught up now.
  14. Ibex Pop

    Ken Miller

    Actually, the mechanism is known, and it is detailed here and here (warning: PDFs). The new gene is the result of a duplication and frameshift, which is by all means an increase in information and the addition of a novel trait, rather than a change. Indeed, a duplication on its own would constitute a new trait (the ability to mutate a novel feature without the loss of an existing one), and would constitute an increase in information all on its own, but in this case we also have novel information, with the development of a novel trait which only is manifest since advent of nylon. Oh, and just for the record, even creationists aren't bold enough to claim gene duplication doesn't happen, as evidenced here, nevermind trying to discount frameshifts and viral insertions. Now that you know, you can adopt the "Well, I'm sure it's not enough for an organism to evolve, it can only develop additional traits" while ignoring the fact that an organism's lineage can gain and lose traits over time until it looks vastly different from its progenitors. "I don't feel like it should be enough." What is there to guard such a creationist belief? Incredulity. You're just not familiar with all this information (but hey, neither is the average "evolutionist"). If you take an honest interest, and assess evolution once you know the facts, I think you'll accept it.
  15. Ibex Pop

    Icons Of Evolution...

    Are you saying that because cellular slimes exist, evidence of evolution from a purely single-celled organism which never exhibits this behavior to one that does cannot exist? I'm not even sure where a goal post moved, because I wasn't asking for anyone to meet a criterion which I then changed. I want to know the reason CTD brought them up. My criteria for a single celled organism evolving into a multicellular one is the same. Only 30-odd percent of Americans accepting evolution is a relic of massive media efforts by religious fundamentalists to make it appear as though evolution is in dispute in the scientific community. Slogans like "teach the controversy" and the desperate attempts at getting what even you must admit is blatantly religion (which you chastise evolution for supposedly being) into the classroom has done little but to undermine the scientific community and the education system. As a result, not even half the American public thinks the scientific community deserves to be heard (and a large subset of those aren't willing to listen). I've seen the contempt, I know a guy who thinks stars are a lot closer and aren't the size of the sun. He considers his knowledge expansive enough to make a valid assessment. Laws regarding the dimming behavior of light over a distance, as well as parallax measurement, which are math do not interest them, because he's convinced they're just supporting an unprovable doctrine. Do you know how radiometric dating works, or just that it doesn't because some creationists said it doesn't (because they went and sampled xenoliths)? Do you understand how evolution works, or are you just certain it is a fantasy? You live in a world where every lay person holds enough knowledge to rationally dissent to anything that doesn't strike them as possible, but this is not the case. A man who only knows to parrot "there are no transitional forms" and "they've never found the missing link" doesn't know squat about science or the research scientists have done. It may as well all be conjecture to him, and since he envisions his adversaries as sharing his education in all the places where it matters, the problem is with them. I live in middle-of-nowhere Louisiana, and this sort of thing is the prevailing attitude of the community. Ugh.

Important Information

Our Terms