Upside-down Day

Okay. Thanks for that clarification.In Message 20 you wrote: But why would it have to die out with the first generation. If it took 10 generations to die out, it still died out. You seem to be saying that if it doesn't die out in the first generation, then it must be beneficial.

No, I am asking for clarity. Can such a mutation be beneficial or not?

I think you need to take that to the comment thread. In this thread you either have to assert that it can be beneficial, or you have to concede the point.You could also challenge those arguing the creationist position for evidence that such a mutation must be detrimental.

That's exactly what I am doing. The "creationist" made the claim so I am insisting on data and clarity, if the "creationist" means no mutation can be beneficial.There is no need to challenge the data until the data is offered up.Your other comments are not suppossed to be on this thread.This message has been edited by randman, 08-23-2005 12:57 PM

I will admit that I cannot prove that such a mutation would be detrimental. It would be useful if you can provide a known example where it is not detrimental.

I am going to stick here for the time being, and may add some data later though, to asking for evidence of Percy's claim that all such mutations are not beneficial and therefore chromosomes could not have evolved. I think that's the heart of the creationist claim he was getting at and ignoring some obvious gaffes, we should first see if that is still something maintained by your side of the debate, or as you suggest, this point has been conceded, and you cannot provide strong support for the idea that only detrimental mutations occur in this area.Once that is settled, I will return to the issue of the evolution of chromosomes.

Why is it always the evolutionists who need to be reminded of the Forum Guidelines?

​

randman writes:

​

Well, keep in mind that in this discussion I'm only pointing out how macroevolution based upon changing numbers of chromosomes is impossible.

​

Saying it's impossible doesn't make it so.

​

Uh, that's why that wasn't the last sentence of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph elaborated around the theme introduced in the opening sentence.

​

What you need is a way for 24 chromosomes to gradually become 23. It's sort of like a city trying to gradually change from driving on the left to driving on the right without causing chaos and disaster.

​

Self-contradictory since it cannot have an infinite number of changes and have natural boundaries,..

​

You needn't be so literal. You raise a good point about the supposed limits to change within a fixed-chromosome context, but that wasn't the point I was addressing. Perhaps we can come back to that another time. My point was that gradual evolution cannot accomodate sudden jumps in chromosome number. How does one gradually add or subtract the number "1"? You can't do it.

​

I could continue to address some other obvious gaffes, but let's focus a little on the "natural boundaries" first, and some documentation on chromosomal mutations.

​

No one has ever observed a mutation causing an inheritable change in the number of chromosomes, so you'll have a bit of difficulty focusing on documentation for them.

​

--Percy

Could I once again bring to your attention your tendency to attribute things to people that they never said? Must the need to constantly remind you of what was actually said follow you into your dalliance with evolutionism? Perhaps you could include an imitation of reading for comprehension along with your imitation of an evolutionist stance.--Percy

quote:

---

If so, I submit the bridge analogy which creationists use as examples of something that cannot evolve because the steps to the bridge serve no useful purpose. A half-way bridge is not useful. However, we see clear examples in nature of natural bridges that have formed as a result of erosion. So the form did have a useful purpose in a prior state or form, but became a different form due to changes around it.

​

In a similar manner, seemingly irreducibly complex systems could just be the result of prior functions being hidden. Creationists cannot substantiate that such prior functions did not exist.

---

There's so much wrong with this analogy. The bridge isn't irreducibly complex. It didn't evolve. And it's only the material left after the rest of it was removed. There was always a way to get across - the "natural bridge" didn't develop to help anything get across. It's just what's left. The development of the bridge only makes it harder to get from poitn a to point b.And of course you never find one of these natural bridges with neatly carved natural steps leading up to it. And even the finest carving would be simple compared to the intricacies of biochemistry. Obviously the sort of bridge you are talking about is hugely improbable and the living cell is even more improbable.

Well, you give a good try in articulating your position, but no data is given. Well, we observe such things already, such as with plant speciation and breeding. It appears your post is more based on a lack of knowledge of the issue than a substantive point, and a lack of knowledge of a mountain of evidence concerning research involving human chromosomes.For example, what is to stop chromosomes from fusing? Let's say we find 2 ape chromosomes strongly related to one human chromosome. Are you claiming the 2 ape chromosomes could not fuse?Plus, you seem to be unaware of the fact that some species have different chromosomal counts, such as with mice.

The bridge argument has been used by creationists as an irreducibly complex system which is why I chose it.You are asserting irreducible complexity as a general rule, and I have shown you something that appears to be irreducibly complex can appear by natural means.But irregardless, it is up to you to actually demonstrate an irreducibly complex system exists somewhere. You assert complexity as evidence, but would you not admit that complexity can be the result of natural means, or are you claiming all complexity is evidence of an irreducible structure?I assume you would concede that complexity can arise via natural means, but maybe not? If you do, then arguing complexity is a dead-end and means nothing.As far as some sort of irreducible system, can you provide an example of such that could not arise via natural means?Moreover, can you provide a mechanism by which they did arise?

Let me throw out a little of the massive amount of evidence for the most successful theory in science to date. I am speaking of the Theory of Evolution, of course.First off, we have observed speciation, and in turn have thus observed evolution. The claim evolution has not been observed is thus false.Secondly, we observe that the fossil and geologic record indicates life did not spring up all at once a 6000-10,000 years ago, but that more primitive or simple forms emerged first which evolved to more complexity, totally contrary to creationism.So not only do we evolution occuring, but we have evidence that it did happen via simpler life forms to more advanced.Third, we have offered and demonstrated a viable mechanism acting upon species to cause evolution, namely natural selection for specific traits that arise via genetic drift and random mutation.Fourth, genetic research has shown genetic relatedness to all species, and species considered by evolutionists to be more closely related via common ancestry, are likewise more closely related genetically, thus confirming ToE claims, as predicted.

You mean as if chromosomes 2a and 2b of a chimp/human predecessor had fused to become the single chromosome 2 of human beings? Gee, that sounds pretty reasonable! And in the reverse fashion, an increase in chromosomes could occur when a chromosome breaks into two or more pieces.Unfortunately, this doesn't help you. The problem for you evolutionists is that you have to put all the pieces to together. Simply having a mutation that produces one extra or one lesser chromosome is not enough because you still have the insurmountable problem of reproduction. While it is a lesser problem in plants, in sexual fauna you need a mate. Who is a creature with the wrong number of chromosomes going to mate with? The likelihood of two creatures with compatible chromosomal mutations being born at the time in close enough geographical proximity to mate is extremely low, and so, as I said earlier, the mutation will die out in the 1st generation. Yes, there are a few species with some variation in chromosomal number, but the vast majority of species have fixed chromosomal numbers, and so unlikely a mechanism cannot be the foundation for the chromosomal variety we see today.Concerning human evolution from apes and going beyond the chromosome number problem, we know this never happened because it would have required the creation of new information, and information can only come from intelligence.--Percy

How many parts has your natural bridge ? Unless it has multiple interacting parts it can't be called irreducibly complex or even a system. And which creationists say that a bridge is irreducibly complexProfessor Behe has several examples of irreducible complexity in biology - the bacterial flagellum is the usual one. It has three parts, the whip, the motor and the hook connecting the other two. If any of the three parts are removed the flagellum will no longer work to move the bacterium. Read his book, Darwin's Black Box.And yes we do have an observed mechanism - design.

All observed evolution is microevolution - evolution within kinds. Macroevolution has never been observed.The geological record is nothing like that expected by evolution. There are no transitional fossils - the famous evolutionist Steven Jay Gould admitted as much. Fossils are evidence of the Flood - how else could you get sea shells on top of mountains.And the genetic similarities are just the result of similar design - the genes code for the creature so of course similar creatures have similar genes. And the similarities in design are explained by common design.