Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution

Recommended Posts

dan4reason,

 

I am curious as to why you have to use ready made arguments from anti-creationist sites? We try to be original here, that is why you see stuff being addressed here you won't see anywhere else. Maybe that's why you don't respond to my posts, you cannot find the subject on these sites?

71059[/snapback]

I was coming to the same conclusion myself Ikester.

 

I just want to also add. When we are talking about "Beneficial" mutations it's like saying that removing the rubber off the rims of a car is beneficial to a car driving on railroad tracks. But put that same car with only rims on the road and it's deficient NOT improved.

 

Personally I don't like the term "beneficial" in describing examples like sickle cell and other such examples because in reality they are NOT beneficial within the purpose they were meant and designed for. Cars with rubber on the rims were designed that way for the purpose of driving on surfaces not for driving on railroad tracks. So calling a car without rubber on their rims "beneficial" just makes no sense to me. As a Creationist I just don't follow along that evolutionist line of thinking. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to do so I just don't like giving them ANY wiggle room for their fantasy. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will warn you that this post is rather lengthy but here goes...

 

3. You are invoking natural selection as if it is already correct under your own perceptions. However does this "natural selection" directly show what you believe it does...

 

Does "natural selection" directly demonstrate the speciation alledgedly occuring over millions of years? How does it directly demonstrate this? Or are you postiting your pre-based assumptions as the evidence for this?

Of course we have not directly witnessed evolution using natural selection over millions of years because we have not even been around for millions of years.

 

While we don't have evidence of a lot of evolution, a good example of evolution in action is the variation we see in dogs. Lets say that you were a scientist who was exploring a new region and came across these two animals.

Posted Image

Would you have classified them as different species?

 

5. How does population and isolation directly show evolution or are you using your assumptions to claim these things as evidence?

Darwin showed that with an example in which different finches on the Islands of the Galapagos off of South America evolved from finches in South America. They all have different diets, and different beaks. Isolation makes the creation of new species possible by keeping them from interbreeding until they can't interbreed for genetic or sociological reasons because of the divergence that natural selection have caused to each of them in isolation.

 

4. As I already demonstrated, (and I wish to make this point clear), good mutations are very rare, the vast majority of mutations are detrimental. (Hence why we have a DNA self-repair protien in every cell, this protein has its own design implications that have been discussed on another thread)

As a species, you don't want no mutations because that would mean genetic stagnation of a war for survival, but you also don't want too many. These would cause far more damage than potential benefit working which the very slow force of natural selection. These mutation fixers keep too many mutations from happening but that doesn't mean mutations are always harmful.

 

6. Where has this been observed? in the case of new structures.....

 

 

7. Again where has this been observed, furthermore how do the above go about creating these primitive structures? (I am assuming that you mean the initial primitive structures). Since none of the above can be utilised until an initial structure has been formed.

71024[/snapback]

Lets draw a few lines here. There are several basic lines of evidence for evolution.

 

1. A theoretical framework by which evolution can happen. This includes showing in theory how "irreducably complex" structures could evolve and finding counterexamples in already existing species. Also this includes giving a theorietical framework for how natural selection, genes, population isolation, mutations, switching genes on and off, etc, could have brought on evolution. Notice that there is very little direct evidence for this because we have not been around long enough to see significent evolution in most cases. Knowing that the earth is billions of years old also permits the theoretical possibility that life could have evolved from a common ancestor.

 

2. Seeing evolution in action with the little time we have backs up some element of this theoretical element and makes the claim of common descent feasable. For example, seeing mutations and natural selection create new information and change an animal's structures, back sup evolution as does observing instances of speciation.

 

3. Once we have a theoretical framework for how evolution could happen and have observed a little bit of it happening, now we need evidence to strongly confirm common descent. We have evidence in our own genes that we are related to other animals. By looking at the features of modern species (like non-functioning eyes in cave dwellers) we can see evidence for evolution. Most importantly, transitional fossils and the general structure of the fossil record, from simpler animals at the bottom slowly getting more complex as we go higher, prevoe evolution. The best example of evolution is the fossil evidence for human evolution.

 

This post is rather lengthy but it gives you my general reason for believing in the theory of evolution. i hope you can see that while we do not have direct evidence of a significant amount of evidence using the mechanisms and forces I have outlined, the fossil record provides evidence of this happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I will warn you that this post is rather lengthy but here goes...

 

2. Of course we have not directly witnessed evolution using natural selection over millions of years because we have not even been around for millions of years.

 

3. While we don't have evidence of a lot of evolution, a good example of evolution in action is the variation we see in dogs.  Lets say that you were a scientist who was exploring a new region and came across these two animals.

Posted Image

Would you have classified them as different species? 

 

4. Darwin showed that with an example in which different finches on the Islands of the Galapagos off of South America evolved from finches in South America.  They all have different diets, and different beaks.  Isolation makes the creation of new species possible by keeping them from interbreeding until they can't interbreed for genetic or sociological reasons because of the divergence that natural selection have caused to each of them in isolation.

 

5. As a species, you don't want no mutations because that would mean genetic stagnation of a war for survival, but you also don't want too many.  These would cause far more damage than potential benefit working which the very slow force of natural selection.  These mutation fixers keep too many mutations from happening but that doesn't mean mutations are always harmful.

 

 

Lets draw a few lines here.  There are several basic lines of evidence for evolution.

 

1. A theoretical framework by which evolution can happen.  This includes showing in theory how "irreducably complex" structures could evolve and finding counterexamples in already existing species.  Also this includes giving a theorietical framework for how natural selection, genes, population isolation, mutations, switching genes on and off, etc, could have brought on evolution.  Notice that there is very little direct evidence for this because we have not been around long enough to see significent evolution in most cases.  Knowing that the earth is billions of years old also permits the theoretical possibility that life could have evolved from a common ancestor.

 

2. Seeing evolution in action with the little time we have backs up some element of this theoretical element and makes the claim of common descent feasable.  For example, seeing mutations and natural selection create new information and change an animal's structures, back sup evolution as does observing instances of speciation.

 

3.  Once we have a theoretical framework for how evolution could happen and have observed a little bit of it happening, now we need evidence to strongly confirm common descent.  We have evidence in our own genes that we are related to other animals.  By looking at the features of modern species (like non-functioning eyes in cave dwellers) we can see evidence for evolution.  Most importantly, transitional fossils and the general structure of the fossil record, from simpler animals at the bottom slowly getting more complex as we go higher, prevoe evolution.  The best example of evolution is the fossil evidence for human evolution. 

 

This post is rather lengthy but it gives you my general reason for believing in the theory of evolution.  i hope you can see that while we do not have direct evidence of a significant amount of evidence using the mechanisms and forces I have outlined, the fossil record provides evidence of this happening.

71074[/snapback]

1. Length is not a problem, quality of content is the deciding factor.

 

2. Then it is not empirical.. and if it isn't empirical evidence then it isn't proven nor does it pertain to the scientific method, (empirical viability) hence it is not scientific.

 

3. As has been said by others on here, (as well as myself I believe), variation is not evolution! Do you have evidence of whereby variations over time can lead to the large changes perceived to be the differences between species? If not then you cannot make this claim, as it is based on your own assumptions that variations could add up to a novel inter-dependant system... Lungs for fish?... (Despite logic saying that in order to create such a thing, multiple mutation events must have occurred and (somehow) co-ordinated with each other to bring it about. Which in itself defies the randomness of the "random" mutations of evolution.

 

If these two dogs were found as fossils, they would probably be considered different species... HOWEVER we know that they are the same species.. This is evidence showing one of the flaws of the classification system.

 

4. :) How did he show this? Or was Darwin making an assumption himself? You do realise that "darwin's" finches can all inter-breed leading to the conclusion that they are all the ONE species. Furthermore, when beak size % changed during a drought this is used as "evidence" of evolution.. However what is "forgotten" about is the fact that after the drought the beak % reverted back to their original states.... Hence in the end no net change, no net evolution... Just oscillating features

 

 

Then again, I see many people with different diets and different "beaks" does that mean there are many different human "species"? :P

 

5. How is this evidence of evolution? Mutations are real we can observe their effects.. No-one is debating that... However I will continue to ask you to read page 9... I never said all mutations are bad, just the vast majority... (Considering that most will unzip the DNA resulting in death of the cell... I am assuming you agree that this is detrimental to that cell's health)

 

 

 

1. What is this "theoretical" framework? I get told that theories are explainations that have much evidence to support it... However nowdays I see it being used as a term to help support metaphysical / non-empirical claims....

 

The facts of the matter are that there is no framework of what you speak of... Many of the undeniably complex functions in a cell is barely understood by scientists even now, hence I find it hard to believe that these same scientists can make claims as to how they came to be, despite barely knowing how they work...

 

ATP synthase is one, the repair protein (forgot its name, there is a great thread on it on here)

 

All I see is guesses... Guesses are not scientific.

 

2. Speciation has NEVER been observed... If you are making claims about Lenski bacteria experiments... Firstly he should know better to make such claims...

 

bacteria = bacteria = bacteria = bacteria = bacteria

Let me know when a frog suddenly appears on his agar plate

 

Furthermore, due to plasmids and "jumping genes" I personally think it is futile to classify any bacteria within a set bound of "species", since plasmids can transfer different information to other bacteria, (like resistance etc... Plasmids are not mutations remember!! as they are regulated via proteins), the "jumping genes" does just that jumps genes around, may cut and paste them, or copy and paste them around the DNA even with parts of the plasmid....

 

Such changes would make classification based on genomic sequencing / gene expression impossible... I am just a student, (this is basic microbiology)...

 

3. Do fossils tell you it was evolution that made them came to be? Do they talk to you?

 

Fossils are not DIRECT evidence of evolution, evolution is assumed from it.. Since looking at fossils do not tell you the mechanism of how they came to be? The only data you can get from them is that this organism existed and its size.. that it..

 

 

(I am skeptical of radiometric dating techniques, considering that there is no initial amount of radioactive substance with which to correlate the current amount and rate of decay to.... This initial amount is assumed, and is one of the reasons why it is not used very often now...

 

Instead we use the geolithic column.. Where the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils... Circular reasoning much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you check out this thread.. (Apologies to Calypsis as it was he / she who created it)

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=4202&st=0

 

It isn't just one fossil... Crocodiles, fish, sea-stars, sharks, lizards, dragonflys, crabs, lobsters and the Coelacanth

 

It's pretty hard to argue against these fossils which defy evolutionary predictions, (and are found across a range of different types of animals)...

No apologies necessary, friend. Glad my illustrations did some good.

 

Best wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this was already brought up or needs to be discussed sepately. Here is a list of standard arguments by Evolutionists.

 

1 If Humans Came From Apes, Why Aren’t Apes Evolving Into Humans?

 

Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.†We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us to share the planet with a handful of other primates.

 

2 There Are Too Many Gaps in the Fossil Record for Evolution to Be True

 

In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them

 

3 If Evolution Happened Gradually Over Millions of Years Why Doesn’t the Fossil Record Show Gradual Change?

 

Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder†group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

 

4 No One Has Ever Seen Evolution Happen

 

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form†that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happenâ€â€Âespecially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

 

5 Science Claims That Evolution Happens by Random Chance

 

Natural selection is not “random†nor does it operate by “chance.†Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 (to the 13th power) number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe†can be “selected for†in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.†It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. any of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

 

6 Only an Intelligent Designer Could Have Made Something as Complex as an Eye

 

The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.†It is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light sensitive rods and cones that convert the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards? This “design†only makes sense if natural selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design.

 

7 Evolution is Only A Theory

 

All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other non-testable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:

• It is guided by natural law.

• It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.

• It is testable against the empirical world.

• Its conclusions are tentative.

• It is testable and falsifiable.

If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.

 

8 Evidence for Human Evolution Has Turned Out to Be Fake, Frauds, or Fanciful

 

Eager to discredit evolution, creationists ignore hominid fossil discoveries and cherry pick examples of hoaxes and mistakes in the belief that mistakes in science are a sign of weakness. This is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which constantly advances by using both its mistakes and the successes. Its ability to build cumulatively on the past is how science progresses. The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hespero-pithecus, are, in time, corrected. In fact, it wasn’t creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposé of these errors, and then duplicitously claimed them as their own.

 

9 The Second Law of Thermodynamics Proves That Evolution is Impossible

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sunâ€â€Âit is an open-dissipative systemâ€â€Âentropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

 

10 Evolution Can’t Account For Morality

 

As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.

 

http://www.atheismresource.com/2011/top-10...ownloadable-pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apologies necessary, friend. Glad my illustrations did some good.

 

Best wishes.

71106[/snapback]

Thanks, yeah the thread was a real eye-opener for me since I never knew that modern forms of animals, (like the frog), were found as fossils. This directly defies evolutionist claims... (probably why it hasn't been addressed by Dawkins or anyone else ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You do realise that this is a faith statement? REAL SCIENCE is based on the facts that you gather from observation and experimentation. You do not make conclusions based on assumptions that this may (or may not) occur in the future... What you have claimed here shows that a measure of faith is needed to believe in evolution and as such it is not scientific.

No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution). On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

 

2. No.. Evolutionary "science" is imperfect... REAL science is fine.

Science by its nature is imperfect. A theory is by definition is imperfect. So what are some examples of "real" science?

 

4. If you had bothered to read my post, (post 9), then you would know that most mutations are in fact detrimental, (bad)... Please stop saying that most are neutral

That is incorrect although an understandable mistake. The average human has 50-100 mutations only about 3 of which actually changes a protein. If most of the mutations were had were harmful, the human race would degenerate very quickly.

 

5. There are a possibility for good mutations.. However what they have been observed to do is JUST a variant of the old process... Can you give an example of a TOTALLY NOVEL function arising from just mutations?

 

6. More often than not the resistance to an antibiotic for a bacteria can come in the form of a plasmid... Furthermore. resistance to antibiotics is NOT an example of macroevolutionary change, if you feel it is then answer this... If resistance were to improve over millions of years what new function would the bacteria evolve? WHat new species would it become?

The transfer of plasmids which is one kind of horizontal gene transfer is one source for bacterial adaptation to antibiotic, however mutations are another major reason bacteria become resistant and this is well documented in detail. Often there are many ways that a specific mutation becomes resistant to a specific drug. In the case of fluoroquinolone resistance, we use quinolones to attack the DNA gyrase of invading bacteria. DNA gyrase aid the bacteria's DNA structure. There are three ways a bacteria can become resistant: Some bacteria can use pumps to pump out this quinolones, and when the ones that cannot pump this out die, the pumping bacteria are the only ones left and dominate. Another way is that adaptations can come from plasmids producing proteins that bind to the DNA gyrase protecting them from the quinolones. The last way is that mutations at the key sites in DNA gyrace can decrease their propensity to bind with quinolones.

 

This was a very technical example and is one that is a little confusing to me but I think it is necessary to provide of a detailed technical example of good mutations. Here are some sources of my information.

DNA gyrase and quinolones

Bacterial Resistance (under the mechanisms section).

Also googling this information will give you a lot of medical abstracts about these processes.

 

 

At the end of the day a resistant bacteria is STILL a bacteria

71025[/snapback]

Do you really exact a group of animals to evolve out of its taxonomical domain in a few decades? A domain is the highest taxonomical group you can get and is a step above a kingdom.

Domain (biology)

 

The evidence for major evolution comes from the fossil record, analysis of characteristics of modern animals, and keys of evolution in their DNA. The evidence for human evolution is a great example of evolution in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution).  On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

71144[/snapback]

I'm not following you, to see an "imperfect" record and to still accept universal common descent does take a degree of faith. I'm not sure why you guys are so insistent that nothing you believe in takes faith.

 

The fossil record lends more support to Creation than evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true ...

71144[/snapback]

Independent evidence ... what on earth is that?!?!?

 

Untouched by human hands?.. What? ... I don't get it..

 

Please explain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No it is not a faith statement because we already have independent evidence that the theory of evolution is true (e.g. human evolution).  On the other hand it is a faith statement to say that an imperfect fossil record disproves evolution.

 

2. Science by its nature is imperfect.  A theory is by definition is imperfect.  So what are some examples of "real" science?

 

3. The average human has 50-100 mutations only about 3 of which actually changes a protein.  If most of the mutations were had were harmful, the human race would degenerate very quickly.

 

 

4. Often there are many ways that a specific mutation becomes resistant to a specific drug.  In the case of fluoroquinolone resistance, we use quinolones to attack the DNA gyrase of invading bacteria.  DNA gyrase aid the bacteria's DNA structure.  There are three ways a bacteria can become resistant:  Some bacteria can use pumps to pump out this quinolones, and when the ones that cannot pump this out die, the pumping bacteria are the only ones left and dominate.  Another way is that adaptations can come from plasmids producing proteins that bind to the DNA gyrase protecting them from the quinolones.  The last way is that mutations at the key sites in DNA gyrace can decrease their propensity to bind with quinolones.

 

This was a very technical example and is one that is a little confusing to me but I think it is necessary to provide of a detailed technical example of good mutations.  Here are some sources of my information.

DNA gyrase and quinolones

Bacterial Resistance (under the mechanisms section).

Also googling this information will give you a lot of medical abstracts about these processes.

 

5. Do you really exact a group of animals to evolve out of its taxonomical domain in a few decades?  A domain is the highest taxonomical group you can get and is a step above a kingdom.

Domain (biology)

 

The evidence for major evolution comes from the fossil record, analysis of characteristics of modern animals, and keys of evolution in their DNA.  The evidence for human evolution is a great example of evolution in action.

71144[/snapback]

1. Actually it is faith based, since you have no empirical evidence to substantiate your claim... (if you do then please post it).. Your response here demonstrates that you've failed to critically assess your own response. Something I feel is lacking in modern times.

 

2. If that is so, then why do evos claim that the theory of evolution is a "fact"? You have just contradicted most of the evo community. REAL science is science that is based on EMPIRICAL evidence, like chemistry- add two reagents, observe a reaction, (colour change fizzing etc) can test to see resultng products.. 100% empirical experiemental and observable... Yet with evolution we have abigious meanings, data that can be succeptable to bias or perception, no defined terms of proof / refutation... In reality evolution is smoke and mirrors.

 

3. :angry: Where did you get that data? 50 to 100 mutations only!? You do realise that there are BILLIONS of different mutations that can occur. A base change at the 450th base on the right strand. A base change at the 450th base on the left strand, a base pair switch at the 1000457th base...etc etc etc... I'd like to read this data where you got this false information, was it an actual scientific site?

 

4. 2 of those 3 mechanisms of resistance come from a design perspective!! Yet the other, (junk on binding site), may also be regulated via a protein? If so then it is designed too... You do not know that it is caused via random mutations, hence you cannot make the claim

 

5. Considering the rate of reproduction of bacteria, (about 30 minutes), I'd have thought it would have been necessary to have "evolution" occuring in a shorter amount of time that is claimed for other organsisms.. Furthermore, the fossil evidence shows that multicellular organisms appeared suddenly, (Cambrian explosion), thus indicating a small window of time for the "evolution" of these organisms from bacteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller. Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range. These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.

A single population of neanderthal has been found with a cranial capacity exceeding modern human and as small as H. erectus.

 

These remains have so much variation within one contemporaneous population that it demonstrates that all that "muddle in the middle," all those European fossil individuals that appeared to be so different, belong to one population-the Neanderthals. For instance, one of the Sima de los Huesos adult skulls is one of the smallest ever recovered from that time period, while another one is one of the largest. The physical variation found in this one assemblage of fossils encompasses all the other European archaic Homo Sapien fossils...

 

...The Sima de los Huesos fossil assemblage has powerful and profound implications for Creationists. Because of the relative isolation of the various areas of the ancient world and the slow means of transportation, this extreme variation within populations, such as what is seen at Sima de los Huesos, is exactly what one would expect.

 

Further, thanks to the extreme variation seen in the Sima de los Huesos fossil collection, the distinctions made by evolutionists between Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, Neandertal, and anatomically modern Homo sapiens now fade into insignificance. (M. Lubenow - Bones of Contention / p.200-201)

So we find that cranial capacity as a species determination is meaningless. When DNA is employed, then we find that Neanderthal is 99.9 - 99.5% identical to modern human. There is no evidence to contradict H. erectus as being Homo Sapiens as well.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homo Erectus are about as tall as modern humans but their brains are much smaller. Adult homo erectus skulls average a 930 cc brain size in a 750 to 1250 cc brain size range. These sizes are much too small to be human and homo erectus is by far a different species.

A single population of neanderthal has been found with a cranial capacity exceeding modern human and as small as H. erectus.

So we find that cranial capacity as a species determination is meaningless. When DNA is employed, then we find that Neanderthal is 99.9 - 99.5% identical to modern human. There is no evidence to contradict H. erectus as being Homo Sapiens as well.

Enjoy.

71161[/snapback]

If man makes a new classification it becomes "empirical" without regards to the idea that humans, including Scientists are wrong on a regular basis. The transitional whale fossils are a perfect example at how horrible our scientists are at guessing about fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the same with the "ancient" versions of modern animals. They are given different names despite that they are (according to the fossils) the same.. Take "ancient australia", some of the animals then were the same as they are now except they were much larger. This is the only distinguishing feature between these "ancient ancestors" and their modern equivalents, is size a new feaure? or system?, yet they are classified with a different name etc

 

THe clssification system already pre-supposes evolution, hence why it can't be used as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Actually in the Lenski experiment, it is shown that bacteria remain bacteria...

 

4. Yes, but this is a variant of the original function... the ability of the bacteria to process materials.. Hence this is not a novel function, rather a variant of the original function of bacteria. Bacteria are natures recyclers..

It is not COMPLETELY novel, yes, but it does contain a little novelty. Keep this process going a few million years and the amount of novelty will increase.

 

5. Yes it will be tough since no scientist I know of has bothered to do what I have asked... Some just invoke, "natural selection", and do not worry about the actual mechanisms that must have occured.

 

6. Yes the original function of the flagellum will be lost if you remove one of the parts owing to its function... Yes I do know that ONE part may still be used as a transport protein, but where did the other 249 parts evolve?

I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now. It would be very technical. I will try to provide as much info as I can. In fact we have a system that has 40 parts removed from the flagellum that acts like a motor without the paddly thingy.

 

No, you assume we see this in the fossil record.

Wrong, we have many fossils which provide evidence for the predictions that evolution makes. One is Homo Erectus which I presented before. This species went extinct just before we started seeing humans, and had a brain size much smaller than ours. They were very much like us from the neck down but had very ape-like features in the face like a protruding eye-ridge.

 

Many parts of their brains for intelligence were not very well developed, and from artifacts that we have dug up, homo erectus did not have quite as much culture and technology as humans did. We have found dozens of fossils and many many skulls of specimens of all age groups. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together. This is strong evidence of evolution.

 

 

8. The fossil record IS a record of bones... That is what fossils are!!!!!!!

Very astute observation:D. That was a typo. I meant to say that the fossil record is a record of bones not genes (although we have found neanderthal DNA, and fossilized feathers in the ancestors of birds).

 

9. I think you are confused with what I am asking for...

 

I am asking for the failed designs, since you said,

 

"The evolution of a structure is not perfect from the getgo.  It often takes time and gradual steps for it to be most efficent. "

 

Hence where are the fossils of multiple designs of legged fish, where are the designs of multiple attempts at getting fish in the first place.... (Let alone the illusive transitional forms, and how a single celled organism "evolved" into a muticellular one).

Here is the evolutionary process: Random mutations creates a diversity and natural selection selects for the best characteristics. Over time this usually brings about a lot of change. Mutations in the wrong direction will be struck out by natural selection quickly so these mistakes are not likely to get far.

 

We do see a variation in transitional fossils; evolution is not a strait path but a wandering tree. Those failed transitions did not have outright bad structures contrary to what you might think but merely had structures that could not compete with others. Does that answer your question?

 

10. Can you show these? Are they failed design attempts of a design that was implimented or is it just a species that died...

I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.

 

 

11. Do you think that the air exposure of these fish is sufficient to make such a system neccessary... Considering not all fish come up to the surface, since they have no reason to.

 

Furthermore, such a system will ONLY ever give an increase in fitness if the oxygen levels in the oceans were low... Are you implying this occured?

 

Another point is where will this redundant system be housed, since the gill system will be taking up the "prime real estate" for such a system.

 

12. yes amphibians exist... But that doesn't explain the process that they came about... All I see evolutionists doing is

 

Fish = mud skipper (half fish) = amphibian (quater fish) = reptile

From what I have read about tetrapod evolution, oxygen levels were indeed low, although I am not sure low levels were necessary for the evolution of the lung. As you can see, I am not an expert on tetrapod evolution but I will try to answer your question the best I can.

 

Around the devonian era, we were seeing trees which were dropping leaves into the water and that aided the evolution of fish that lived near the shore. Sometimes however, if you were a shore living fish, your lake may temporarily dry up if you live in certain parts of the world and it would be beneficial to be able to hop to another lake using a primitive form of lung. In the lives of fish, they do sometimes come in contact with air just like we humans come in contact with water. My brother had a fish and I noticed that the fish would sometimes come in contact with air often accidentally.

 

Also, because of low oxygen levels, having a second source of oxygen (from the air) would have been very useful for survival and that "redudancy" would have given you an advantage.

 

We have some knowledge of the process by which lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians from the fossil record in the late devonian era. I will list these transitions from most fish-like to most amphibian-like:

Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega.

Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a cross between fish and amphibian.

Ichthyostega is a good example of a very fishy creature with a vertebrate positioned back bone.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Such observations are based on assumptions and do not show the process by which they came to be. You must admit that evolutionary science is upheld on faith / assumption based research.

71028[/snapback]

A belief in a theory is somewhat analogous to faith. In science, you see patterns in nature and give an unproven hypothesis and tentatively assume that hypothesis is true(with a lot of skepticism). You try to see if the facts that are later uncovered fit the predictions of the hypothesis.

 

If these predictions are validated, then we start having more faith in it, and with even more validations our trust may become almost absolute and it may even become a theory. If future discoveried contradict its predictions or there is nothing to fit its predictions, then we lose faith in the theory, and look for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

Which came in what order?

 

1) Oxygen.

2) Plants.

3) Rain.

 

Plants make the oxygen.

You need rain for the plants.

And you need oxygen for the rain.

 

And how did plants survive if there was not enough oxygen for the ozone layer?

 

Plants make oxygen.

Oxygen is needed for ozone layer.

Plants cannot survive without ozone layer.

 

So if you have oxygen first, you have to have a source. If you have plants first, they die before they make enough oxygen (a whole atmosphere worth) for what they need.

 

Also a newly forming atmosphere is going to have low barometric pressure. Low pressure means that water boiling point is going to be low a well.

 

Example: Mars barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of the earth. That puts the boiling point of water at 50 F. The temps around the equator is about 70 degrees. Which means any water around that area would have boiled and went into the atmosphere. Problem is, the evidence for water evaporating does not exist. The mars atmosphere is over 98% CO2. No hydrogen gas means no water. And what about the ice caps on the poles? Mar's poles get very cold. The high concentration of CO2 freezes and falls like snow. Giving the appearance of ice. There is no water on mars.

 

You can google this and research it yourself: "Mars atmosphere" and "CO2 freezes mars". Now why would science lie like this? Money to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.

 

My main question would be: Why did earth end up with so much water and no other planet in the solar system did? Also, how did our barometric pressure get just right for the temps and seasons so water works on this planet in all 3 phases (solid liquid gas)? If these phase transition did not happen, there would be major problems for life. Which brings me back to early earth.

 

Early earth was hot, the barometric pressure was low because the atmosphere was forming. So with the boiling point of water low, how did water evaporate (turn into gas) and phase back to liquid when the conditions favored it being gas only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It is not COMPLETELY novel, yes, but it does contain a little novelty.  Keep this process going a few million years and the amount of novelty will increase.

I am sure that some models have been made but I just don't have that information available right now. 

 

2.  In fact we have a system that has 40 parts removed from the flagellum that acts like a motor without the paddly thingy.

 

3. Wrong, we have many fossils which provide evidence for the predictions that evolution makes.  One is Homo Erectus which I presented before.  This species went extinct just before we started seeing humans, and had a brain size much smaller than ours.  They were very much like us from the neck down but had very ape-like features in the face like a protruding eye-ridge.  Many parts of their brains for intelligence were not very well developed, and from artifacts that we have dug up, homo erectus did not have quite as much culture and technology as humans did.  We have found dozens of fossils and many many skulls of specimens of all age groups. 

 

3a. We have found small groups of hHomo Erectus fossilized together.  This is strong evidence of evolution.

 

4. Very astute observation.  That was a typo.  I meant to say that the fossil record is a record of bones not genes (although we have found neanderthal DNA, and fossilized feathers in the ancestors of birds). Here is the evolutionary process:  Random mutations creates a diversity and natural selection selects for the best characteristics.  Over time this usually brings about a lot of change.  Mutations in the wrong direction will be struck out by natural selection quickly so these mistakes are not likely to get far. 

 

5. We do see a variation in transitional fossils; evolution is not a strait path but a wandering tree.  Those failed transitions did not have outright bad structures contrary to what you might think but merely had structures that could not compete with others.  Does that answer your question?

 

I mean, mutations like down syndrome; you know, bad ones.

From what I have read about tetrapod evolution, oxygen levels were indeed low, although I am not sure low levels were necessary for the evolution of the lung.  As you can see, I am not an expert on tetrapod evolution but I will try to answer your question the best I can. 

 

6. Sometimes however, if you were a shore living fish, your lake may temporarily dry up if you live in certain parts of the world and it would be beneficial to be able to hop to another lake using a primitive form of lung.  In the lives of fish, they do sometimes come in contact with air just like we humans come in contact with water.  My brother had a fish and I noticed that the fish would sometimes come in contact with air often accidentally.

 

7. Also, because of low oxygen levels, having a second source of oxygen (from the air) would have been very useful for survival and that "redudancy" would have given you an advantage. 

 

8. We have some knowledge of the process by which lobe-finned fish evolved into amphibians from the fossil record in the late devonian era.  I will list these transitions from most fish-like to most amphibian-like:

Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Ichthyostega, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega. 

Tiktaalik is a perfect example of a cross between fish and amphibian.

Ichthyostega is a good example of a very fishy creature with a vertebrate positioned back bone.

 

9. A belief in a theory is somewhat analogous to faith.  In science, you see patterns in nature and give an unproven hypothesis and tentatively assume that hypothesis is true(with a lot of skepticism).  You try to see if the facts that are later uncovered fit the predictions of the hypothesis. 

 

10. If these predictions are validated, then we start having more faith in it, and with even more validations our trust may become almost absolute and it may even become a theory.  If future discoveried contradict its predictions or there is nothing to fit its predictions, then we lose faith in the theory, and look for something else.

71242[/snapback]

Firstly I'll suggest that you check out the entire thread, since some of what you have said has already been covered

 

1. It would be interesting to see a scientific model of this, since there are none given that I know of, (despite studying evolution at Uni last year :D ).

 

So you believe that many changes can equal into a large one over time? Despite that there is no actual scientifically proven mechanism for that.. No evidence means that the null hypothesis automatically says no, (science says no). People can make models till the cows come home, if they are not supported via empirical evidence all they are is someones personal opinion / idea.

 

2. Yep, thats great another machine.... But saying that doesn't demonstrate that mechanisms that show it "evolved" over many small changes.. All is shown is that part of the flagellum, (if 50 parts are taken away) can be used as a pump.... Yet how did those other 50 proteins come to be to form the flagellum... Let alone how did the pump come about by itself too...

 

Also how the pump "evolved" straight after the first cell "evolved" since a pump will be required for the cell to live, (get in good nutrients, expel waste, etc)

 

3. Just one fossil is not enough. Furthermore the "brain size" issue was already refuted earlier, (I think), also I believe that Homo Erectus is being debated, since to some it is TOO similar to a human and thus could just be a variant of a human.

 

How do they know that there was ape like features? what fossils demonstrate this, (please no artist renderings).

 

3a. How? How does groupings of homo erectus fossils demonstrate evolution?

 

4. Not a problem :)

 

Yes that is the usual evo-fare. Considering that most mutations are detrimental, and the fact that there has never been any observed evidence that variations can lead to larger changes... All we see is changes within the species, and to assume that over millions of years they can add up is an argumentum ad futuris..

 

5. Actually no you haven't answered my question.. I never said evolution was a straight path, and my question actually is based on evolution NOT having a linear path... Since you already admit that there was other competing structures, I ask you where are they... ie- the runner up and third prize attempts at fish legs... etc etc... Or how about the fossils of half legged fish / quarter legged fish etc etc

 

By transitional forms, not just one or two with imagination filling the gaps between, (evolution of the gaps? :lol: )... a steady transition from one to the other, since claiming evolution with just a handful of independant organisms is based solely on assumption.

 

6. As asked previously, do you think these chance encounters assisted in the evolution of the lung... Yet considering this, it an arguement for Lamarkism.. As the fish needs to be BORN with the mutation not stick its head out of the water x times so it can "evolve" lungs... (Just like how I can rub my hands x times to make a millions dollars)... Do you think that the mutant fish was born with fully developed lungs? If not then how were the advantageous to be selected for, (since they are not fully developed and do not work)..

 

7. How do they know that the oxygen levels on earth was low? (Logically I'd have assumed they would be high due to the plethora of photosyntesising bacteria etc that lived "millions" of years before hand creating oxygen... IMO it doesn't fit logically.. Please provide evidence of this claim.

 

8. No, we have no knowledge of the PROCESS... Just the assumption that somehow, (by "natural selection"??), this independant organism changed into that independant organism... Tiktaalik has already been debunked due to fossil Tetrapod footprints found in Poland that out date Tiktaalik by about 18 million years :)

 

http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footpr...ample-tiktaalik

 

9. I am glad that you admit that belief in evolution is faith based :) Not many people do,

 

10. Then considering the tetrapod footprints and the tiktaalik / fish to beast transition, do you think that this sequence requires a serious overhaul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

Which came in what order?

 

1) Oxygen.

2) Plants.

3) Rain.

 

 

Oxygen is produced from hydrogen by stars

Then water is produced by hydrogen combining with oxygen

Then rain occurs whenever enough water vapor accumulates in the air.

Then plants developed

 

Plants make the oxygen.

You need rain for the plants.

And you need oxygen for the rain.

 

Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O. Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.

 

And how did plants survive if there was not enough oxygen for the ozone layer?

 

Plants make oxygen.

Oxygen is needed for ozone layer.

Plants cannot survive without ozone layer.

 

So if you have oxygen first, you have to have a source. If you have plants first, they die before they make enough oxygen (a whole atmosphere worth) for what they need.

 

All the elements in the universe heavier than hydrogen and helium were produced by fusion in stars.

Water is capable of shielding from UV which means photosynthetic bacteria can survive underwater without an ozone layer.

Photosynthetic bacteria converted enough CO2 into O2 for Ozone to accumulate in the upper atmosphere.

 

Also a newly forming atmosphere is going to have low barometric pressure. Low pressure means that water boiling point is going to be low a well.

 

Life didn't exist when the earth's atmosphere was forming so this is not a problem.

 

Example: Mars barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of the earth. That puts the boiling point of water at 50 F. The temps around the equator is about 70 degrees. Which means any water around that area would have boiled and went into the atmosphere. Problem is, the evidence for water evaporating does not exist. The mars atmosphere is over 98% CO2. No hydrogen gas means now water. And what about the ice caps on the poles? Mar's poles get very cold. The high concentration of CO2 freezes and falls like snow. Giving the appearance of ice. There is no water on mars.

You can google this and research it yourself: "Mars atmosphere" and "CO2 freezes mars". Now why would science lie like this? Money to the tune of 1 trillion dollars.

 

Water ice is still water. Liquid water can't exist on the surface of mars for long but that is not the same thing as saying water doesn't exist on mars in solid form. If you are trying to find out about water on mars you should probably search for "water on mars" rather than "CO2 freezes mars".

 

Researching on google seems to contradict your claim that there is no water on mars. Could you provide your source for the idea that there is no water ice on mars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_mars

Data obtained by the Mars Express satellite, made it possible in 2004 to confirm that the southern polar cap has an average of 3 kilometres (1.9 mi)[citation needed]thick slab of ice with varying contents of frozen water, depending on its latitude; the polar cap is a mixture of 85% CO2 ice and 15% water ice. The second part comprises steep slopes known as 'scarps', made almost entirely of water ice, that fall away from the polar cap to the surrounding plains. The third part encompasses the vast permafrost fields that stretch for tens of kilometres away from the scarps. NASA scientists calculate that the volume of water ice in the south polar ice cap, if melted, would be sufficient to cover the entire planetary surface to a depth of 11 metres

 

 

 

My main question would be: Why did earth end up with so much water and no other planet in the solar system did? Also, how did our barometric pressure get just right for the temps and seasons so water works on this planet in all 3 phases (solid liquid gas)? If these phase transition did not happen, there would be major problems for life. Which brings me back to early earth.

 

The other planets are either too hot for water ice and vapor (mercury, Venus) or cold enough for ice but too small (mars) to hold onto water vapor. Colder planets and moons do have varying amounts of water ice and vapor but the gas giants don't have a surface for bodies of water/ice to exist on.

 

From wikipedia for ganymede and the outer planets:

Ganymede is composed of approximately equal amounts of silicate rock and water ice

Uranus's atmosphere .....contains more "ices" such as water, ammonia and methane, along with traces of hydrocarbons

[Neptune's] mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 Earth masses and is rich in water, ammonia and methane

[Jupiter's] atmosphere contains trace amounts of methane, water vapor, ammonia, and silicon-based compounds

 

Why is the existence of ice (solid phase) on earth important for life? Life seems to flourish most in the tropical regions of earth where ice never occurs. If earth were completely ice free why would there be major problems for life? (Here's a hint, global warming is mostly an economic and logistical problem not a biological problem.)

 

Early earth was hot, the barometric pressure was low because the atmosphere was forming. So with the boiling point of water low, how did water evaporate (turn into gas) and phase back to liquid when the conditions favored it being gas only?

71244[/snapback]

The atmosphere thickened and the earth cooled to the point where water could accumulate as a liquid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Oxygen is produced from hydrogen by stars

 

2. Then water is produced by hydrogen combining with oxygen

Then rain occurs whenever enough water vapor accumulates in the air.

Then plants developed

 

3. Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O.  Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.

 

 

4. All the elements in the universe heavier than hydrogen and helium were produced by fusion in stars.

 

5. Water is capable of shielding from UV which means photosynthetic bacteria can survive underwater without an ozone layer.

 

6. Photosynthetic bacteria converted enough CO2 into O2 for Ozone to accumulate in the upper atmosphere.... ....Life didn't exist when the earth's atmosphere was forming so this is not a problem.

 

71252[/snapback]

1. By what process? AllI know is that stars undergo fusion of two hydrogens to form a helium.. Never heard of stars creating oxygen in chemistry, (nor of the process or chemical reaction to do so).

 

2. Yep.. Except it was photosyntetic bacteria that developed before plants did.

 

3. I believe that your entire post hinges on the assumption that stars can create a myriad of elements, (and that somehow these elements defy the stars gravity and fly to Earth... :D )

 

4. How do you know this? Or is this an assumption-based "fact"? Can you or any scientist recreate the process and experiment it.

 

5. But how deep will the organism need to be to gain such protection?

 

6. I hope you see how contradictory your two sentences are here.... How does a photosynthetic bacteria survive without an ozone layer in the first place?? hmmm :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stars make oxygen atoms which is what is in H2O and CO2. Plants make Oxygen gas (O2) from CO2 and H2O.  Plants are completely unnecessary for the existence of water, as evidenced by water being found in places where plants have never existed like the moon, mars, ganymede, interstellar space etc.

For whoever is wondering, he is talking about nucleosynthesis. This does not resolve the problem that Ike presented however. I'll come back later to explain the problems with his hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is this a scientific fact? Or are you just saying "this may have occured"... If it is a "fact" then please state evidence for it.

A good example is the blood clotting system we have. This system evolved in sea creatures. In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have. For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales. The puffer fish is missing the entire contact phase system. So different animals and environments, can indeed miss some of parts of our systems.

 

2. Really? What is your evidence? Evolved into what? Considering the plethora of examples that did not evolve over these millions of years then according to what you said these SHOULD be extinct... But they are not.

There are a few examples, but there are many more of species that have disappeared in the fossil record to be replaced with simmilar looking organisms, or with nothing at all. There have been 5 mass extinctions in which around 44-95% of earths species have gone extinct, the most famous being the extinction of the dinosaurs which killed off 85% of all species on earth. In fact, 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.

 

We only find most of the species that are alive today in the upper rocks (with several exceptions). You will not find rabbits, lions, humans, or whales in the precambrian or devonian rocks.

Species Diversity and Extinction

 

3. Actually it does, since they defy evolutionary predictions, thus it is new evidence that argues against evolution.. Saying it does nothing is ignoring the evidence, (A common tactic with evolutionists). REAL science follows the evidence whereever it leads, it has no pre-concieved ideas about the conclusion.

 

I suggest you check out this thread.. (Apologies to Calypsis as it was he / she who created it)

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=4202&st=0

 

It isn't just one fossil... Crocodiles, fish, sea-stars, sharks, lizards, dragonflys, crabs, lobsters and the Coelacanth

 

Its pretty hard to argue against these fossils which defy evolutionary predictions, (and are found across a range of different types of animals)...

These species were adapted to their ecological niches so they stayed pretty much the same. If they were to move to new niches, they would face competition from those who were already well adapted to these. Evolution is not an unlimited process and has some real limits imposed by genetics, the environment, and natural selection. Sometimes it takes some time to find the right combination of genes natural selection would approve of to evolve.

 

 

4. Really? Can you show your evidence of this... Just saying it will not make it true.

Easy. Humans have evolved much more than chimpanzees from their common ancestor. Hominids first evolved their ability to walk and then sort of stayed the same for a while. Then they started evolving bigger brains starting with homo habilis to homo erectus and finally to modern humans.

 

5. It seems this is a re-vamp of punctuated equilibrium.... At least this guy admits that there are problems with the gradualistic evolution approach...

 

"Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record. "

Did you know that these TE's require a protein called transposase... How did transposase "evolve"? How did these organisms survive without it initially?

71030[/snapback]

I agree with Dr. Green. Although the structure of the fossil record shows a progression from simpler to complex forms proving common descent, the method by which things become complex is not even and constant at all. In fact many species go into evolutionary stasis until picking up their evolution again.

 

This is why I believe that while a constant evolution happens in some cases, this is not always the case. This is why a punctuated equilibrium view of evolution is far more accurate than a dogmatic rule of constant evolution which is too disconnected from what we see in the real world and does not factor in the nitty gritty of the environmental and genetic conditions of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is this a scientific fact? Or are you just saying "this may have occured"... If it is a "fact" then please state evidence for it.

A good example is the blood clotting system we have. This system evolved in sea creatures. In fact, there are elements in their blood clotting system which are different from our system in that they are missing some elements we have. For example, one element of the human clotting system, factor 12 does not exist in dolphins and whales.

71257[/snapback]

Here's the thing Dan; You have absolutely NO evidence that any of this isn’t how it's always been. Therefore you aren’t providing evidence/facts (as was asked for), you are merely providing “opinionsâ€ÂÂ, and “a priori†opinions at that.

 

Your statements like “This system evolved in sea creaturesâ€ÂÂ, is nothing more than a “faith statementâ€ÂÂ. So, unless you are going to provide “facts/evidence†as asked, don’t submit answers as if they were. If you ARE going to submit your opinions (or the mere opinions of others), admit such.

 

These dishonest postings will cease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural selection removes genetic and morphological diversity within a population not the complexity of the physical components of each individual member.  So natural selection will not remove the liver any time soon, it will simply shrink the quantity of different types of human livers we see, removing those that function poorly.

70973[/snapback]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464174

Check out Wilson's disease, Alpha-1-AT Deficiency, and Progressive Familial Intrahepatic Cholestasis. These are liver mutations that are late onset, obviously after S@xual maturity. Second, they cause breakdowns in needed functions, obviously decreasing fitness. Third, there are no beneficial functions occurring in it's place. Fourth, this is a decrease in information, the mutations are bringing about a change, but it is not beneficial, so it is not an increase in information--it is a decrease. A prime example of most non-silent, or as you say 'neutral' mutations.

 

That being said natural selection is not 'removing' liver disease out of the population as you would claim. Please give better evidence, since you seem to believe this process was resposible for the evolution of life. I don't see anything that closely resembles this in your example.

 

Actually, most mutations are neutral but out of the ones that have an effect on an organism, most are negative.  However, a few are positive and those will be naturally selected, and those with bad mutations will be less likely to pass on their genes.

70973[/snapback]

Genetic diseases are passed on at given percentages. However, we have no new organs forming in our population. Can you give us an allele frequency in the current human population of a forming organ, like I can give you a percentage of sickle cell anemia--a break down of a more efficient blood cell. The beneficiality of sickle cell in malarial areas has been called environmental specialization, but has no overall fitness increase. And it is selected for in both non-malarial and malarial areas. The beneficiality of this disease is thus subjectively rated.

 

Sometimes evolution has to happen in leaps and bound.  For example, sometimes a combination of two mutations is required to change the body in the way that natural selection will select.  Many times it just takes one mutation at a time.  Remember that the evolution of any given structure such as the flagellum does not happen in one single generation, but over a long period of time with transitional forms being somewhat beneficial so they are selected.

70973[/snapback]

You are speaking a hypothetical prediction, as though it is fact. No one saw the flagellum form, yet you speak in a manner of complete conclusion. This is not science at all--but dogmatic hypothetical conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. By what process? AllI know is that stars undergo fusion of two hydrogens to form a helium.. Never heard of stars creating oxygen in chemistry, (nor of the process or chemical reaction to do so).

 

2. Yep.. Except it was photosyntetic bacteria that developed before plants did.

 

3. I believe that your entire post hinges on the assumption that stars can create a myriad of elements, (and that somehow these elements defy the stars gravity and fly to Earth...  :) )

 

4. How do you know this? Or is this an assumption-based "fact"? Can you or any scientist recreate the process and experiment it.

 

5. But how deep will the organism need to be to gain such protection?

 

6. I hope you see how contradictory your two sentences are here.... How does a photosynthetic bacteria survive without an ozone layer in the first place?? hmmm ;)

71253[/snapback]

1) There are various processes where atoms are fused into oxygen in start. For a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

C + He → O + γ (+7.162 MeV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

N + H → O + γ + 7.35 MeV

 

2) Yes, and water existed prior to and independently of either plants or bacteria. That's the whole point where Ikesters argument fails. Water does not require oxygen from photosynthesis in order to exist. I was providing Ikester the order in which things happened, which was what he asked.

 

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis. All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion. They get scattered when the star dies and explodes. One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

 

5) That depends on the clarity of the water and the level of shielding considered necessary.

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/es15...sorp_water.html

Notice that the the penetration depth of UV (the region to the left of the yellow line) is smaller than the penetration of the visible spectrum (the region used for photosynthesis) and that the smaller the wavelength (small wavelength=more damaging) the greater the absorption factor.

From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/..._radiation3.php

it appears that at least 90% of UVB is absorbed within the first 10-20 meters of ocean water. Photosynthesis can occur in the ocean at depths of up to 200 meters down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_zone

 

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2. Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change. Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm back to explain why nucleosynthesis does not resolve the dilemma that Ike presents. Astronomy and astrophysics are my favorite parts of Science.

 

Nucleosynthesis is a nuclear reaction. In nuclear reactions and also nuclear synthesis, sub atomic particles are conserved, but atoms are not.

 

Numbers, what you are advocating is nothing more than a dream, a fairy tale. Atheists have this tendency to pretend that we have everything figured out. If you have had an education in Science at all or have read anything but talkorigins or other atheist organizations, you would know that the kinks of all the theories have not been anywhere near worked out. It's time to take a long due trip to reality. Let's take a look at a webpage from Idaho State University:

 

"Although humans do not have any final idea of how the simplest subatomic particles of matter are actually created"

 

That is right, from a naturalistic standpoint, we don't know how sub atomic particles are created. So, we really should stop pretending that we do, shouldn't we? What does this mean? Any theory regarding how sub atomic particles are created are not empirical as you are advocating it to be. From now on, you have no excuse for this charade. Stop reading atheist propaganda and start getting an education in Science if you want to be an expert in any field in Science.

 

So what do schools teach about star formation? I'll go ahead and finish the quote:

 

"Although humans do not have any final idea of how the simplest subatomic particles of matter are actually created, we do know that matter and energy are interchangeable."

 

Right, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed but is interchangeable.

 

"We also know that matter is transformed in stars, thus we consider all matter in the universe to be created in stars or to have gone into the formation of stars. "

 

This is an assumption, but there is nothing wrong with this statement because at the very beginning of the paragraph they admitted that they don't know how subatomic particles are created.(But you pretend that it is fact?) Also note that we have never observed a star form.

 

"We also know that matter is transformed in stars, thus we consider all matter in the universe to be created in stars or to have gone into the formation of stars. Most scientists studying the big bang generally believe that nuclei of only hydrogen and helium were created in the big bang. These two elements were the dominant components of the earliest stars. Elements heavier than He were synthesized later inside stars by nuclear fusion."

 

This is a far different tone than the one that atheist evangelists are implying. I'll cover an issue with the big bang nucleosynthesis model later referencing secular peer reviewed literature so that you can't accuse me of posting "creationist propaganda."

 

"Most scientists studying the big bang generally believe that nuclei of only hydrogen and helium were created in the big bang. These two elements were the dominant components of the earliest stars. Elements heavier than He were synthesized later inside stars by nuclear fusion."

 

Now, this is stated as a belief. It isn't stated as fact as you and your atheist evangelists are implying. There is a sharp contrast in what you guys are saying and what real scientists(not atheist evangelists) are saying.

 

This is a general statement to all evo evangelists who like to flood Creationist pages and argue with Creationists pretending that they are the ignorant masses:

 

Anyone who is educated in Science and is intellectually honest knows that stellar evolution is not taught as empirical fact. But rather this sort of ideology that you are presenting is a result of suppressing the truth that there is a God and that you will be held accountable. You take ideas from Science and then insert it into your pseudo-religion of naturalism and then pretend that you are the ones who are educated and that everyone else is ignorant or is an idiot. This is not the case. I would like to be the first to welcome you to reality.

 

Reference:

 

http://wapi.isu.edu/geo_pgt/Mod02_SolarSys/mod2.htm

 

I'm going to address some of the issues with some of the claims made by ISU.

 

Before we talk about nucleosynthesis in stars in detail, we should look at the first supposed case of nucleosynthesis in a naturalistic world view. The Big Bang.(As is covered by the site to an extent as well.) Some of the observations of the composition of stars aren't quite kosher with any of The Big Bang models. For starters, an abundance of lithium isotopes in metal poor stars. This isn't kosher with The Big Bang theory's models. There are however, ideas to fix this issue but none are considered to be factual yet.

 

The standard big bang model predicts 6Li/7Li ~ 10–5. However, the 7Li abundance is a factor of three lower than predicted by theories of nucleosynthesis in the big bang.

 

Scientists do offer a possible solution to the problem. They summarize that decaying supersymmetric particles may have affected the synthesis of light elements in the Big Bang. However, while the idea may sound convincing, it is based on unproven physics.

 

In summary, you really aren't even in a position to challenge the issues that Ike has listed because we don't have an accurate model of nucleosynthesis when pertaining to the big bang.

 

As far as your idea of nuclear synthesis from stars such as the sun goes, our sun will NEVER be able to produce any element past carbon, from a secular standpoint. Scientists don't really fully understand the process of nucleosynthesis in stars. So to make these grandiose claims about stars forming all of these elements as if it is fact is a rather silly charade.

 

 

 

References:

 

http://wapi.isu.edu/geo_pgt/Mod02_SolarSys/mod2.htm

 

http://www.eso.org/sci/publications/messen...no122-32-35.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) There are various processes where atoms are fused into oxygen in start.  For a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

C + He → O + γ (+7.162 MeV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

N + H → O + γ      + 7.35 MeV

 

2) Yes, and water existed prior to and independently of either plants or bacteria.  That's the whole point where Ikesters argument fails.  Water does not require oxygen from photosynthesis in order to exist.  I was providing Ikester the order in which things happened, which was what he asked.

 

3 and 4) Look up nucleosynthesis.  All elements heavier than hydrogen and helium were at one point created in a star via fusion.  They get scattered when the star dies and explodes.  One of the pieces of evidence for this is that the distribution of elements in the universe matches the distribution of elements that is produced in stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

And yes, we can perform fusion in particle accelerators or research reactors.

 

5) That depends on the clarity of the water and the level of shielding considered necessary. 

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/es15...sorp_water.html

Notice that the the penetration depth of UV (the region to the left of the yellow line) is smaller than the penetration of the visible spectrum (the region used for photosynthesis) and that the smaller the wavelength (small wavelength=more damaging) the greater the absorption factor.

From http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/..._radiation3.php

it appears that at least 90% of UVB is absorbed within the first 10-20 meters of ocean water.  Photosynthesis can occur in the ocean at depths of up to 200 meters down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_zone

 

6) There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that the earth's atmosphere formed prior to life, and that the abundance of oxygen in the current atmosphere is due to photosynthesis converting CO2 in the atmosphere into O2.  Changing the composition of an atmosphere doesn't mean that an atmosphere didn't exist before the change.  Bacteria survived by living deep enough for UV not to kill them (see 5).

71263[/snapback]

1. Actually that cycle requires there already be existing carbon in the star.... Where did this carbon initially come from? Furthermore, since it is a cycle then there will be no excess oxygen to send to the Earth since it is used up in more revolutions of the cycle.

 

2. And for water to form there needs to be oxygen yes? Which defies the logic that was used for the Miller-Urey experiment whereby NO oxygen was present for life to begin... (evos go on to state that the oxygen is created via plants and photosynthesising bacteria, this is what my lecturers said)

 

3 +4. I asked for evidence not a wikipedia article.. Furthermore you have not attempted to answer how these elements get from the sun to the Earth... Considering that gravity is in effect and that since space doesn't have random gases floating about it is a fair call to say that there is no way that your hypotheis could work in reality.

 

5. So how do these early cells remain at the proper depth? Did they employ a system of ballasts, (which indicates complexity in an assumed to be "simple" organism).

 

6. and that was a faith statement. Just because something could happen, doesn't necessary mean that it did... Until it is proven, the null hypothesis says no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms