NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

quote:

---

You DO realize that by "abrupt, Gould is talking about several million years, don't you?

​

Have you ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium? The Modern Synthesis?

---

I have heard all of them. Yet none of them stand to the test. The only purpose of these models was to provide an explanation of the gaps in the fossil-record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain. However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds, for instance, with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg", because by the evolutionists' own admission, the evolution of a species to another species requires a great and advantageous change in genetic information.

quote:

---

Tell me, have you ever read any complete work by Dawkins or Gould, or any other Evolutionist? Have you read The Blind Watchmaker in it's entirety??

---

I have read the Blind Watchmaker... little about Gould's books. Say, have you read Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism" or Wilder Smith's "Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory"?? Interesting books.

quote:

---

What we have been telling you is that you are arguing from ignorance . We have heard your arguments MANY TIMES before. They are all new and exciting and convincing to you, but they are OLD AND WEARY to us because we have refuted them over and over.

---

Could be because your responses are not adequate or does not fit the scientific criterias. Science is progressive.. so the arguments may be incessant

quote:

---

We DO have more education in Biology and Evolution than you do. We have all probably read a great deal more Creationist literature that you have, which is why your arguments are so familiar to us.

---

Hmm..

quote:

---

Go and read through TalkOrigins. Read Gould and Dawkins. Go and learn WHY we say your arguments are bunk and our evidence is better, even if you do not believe it. Do it for thsake of knowing what you are up against. This is why we read Creationist literature.

---

Tell me one person who hasn't read evolutionist literature!! Its literally dominant in every biology books.

quote:

---

Do the study and work to really write intelligently and show that you do understand, for example, a little bit about the second law of thermodynamics, instead of parroting what somebody else has told you is true without checking for yourself.

---

I have checked.... thats why am here Regards,
Ahmad

Good to see a Zhimbo post every so often.

Ahmed,Perhaps at this stage it would be pertinent to bring us back to my original contention; that there is no positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC. Do you have any?Your original cite does not provide any positive evidence either way, but does provide a plausible explanation of the evolvability of IC systems.

quote:

---

No one has positive empirical evidence that IC systems could have evolved. Note Behe's argument:
"To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors, we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. . . . Darwinian evolution requires physical precursors."

---

Again, Behe provides no POSITIVE evidence for IC (T&U’s def), that is falsifiable, that is. You are making the assertion that IC is un-evolvable. You seem to require empirical evidence of everything else, so I’m going top ask you to meet your own standards.

quote:

---

Can you give me an HTML version of that paper? I don't have Acrobat reader. I would appreciate that.

---

Hopefully you should have received some links from me by now that will allow you to read the full article.

quote:

---

The results of molecular comparisons do not work in favor of the theory of evolution at all. There are huge molecular differences between creatures that appear to be very similar and related. For instance, the structure of Cytochrome-C, one of the proteins vital to respiration, is incredibly different in living beings of the same class. According to research carried out on this matter, the difference between two different reptile species is greater than the difference between a bird and a fish or a fish and a mammal.

---

You are joking, right?Give examples where chromosome c amino acid sequence are incredibly different in living beings of the same class, & that is the rule, not the exception, relative to other classes.This will be fun!Again you are misled. Phylogenetic analyses relies upon the principles that; 1/ mutations are heritable, & 2/ those inherited SNPs (for want of a better descriptor) can determine the nature of the relationships. Of course, it’s not always that simple. For example, trying to determine relatively recent phylogenies from extremely slowly evolving molecules, like the histones will result in a paucity of informative data, since most sequences will differ little. Similarly, a rapidly evolving molecule will be equally useless for determining the relationships of phyla, because those sequences may have been overwritten many times in at least the last half a billion years.Regardless, there is excellent congruence between morphological phylogenies & molecular ones. How the DEVIL did that happen, you ask? Cytochrome c, as you correctly observe, is vital in Krebs cycle, it has no morphological function, however. So why does it, & other molecular data support the same phylogenies? The odds against just two 10 taxa phylogenies being fully congruent is 1,190,250,000,000,000 : 1. Even having them 50% congruent is 289,000,000,000,000 : 1! Why are the phylogenies not 100% congruent at all times? Because point mutations occur randomly, & it is entirely possible that two distantly related molecules can become similar enough for a phylogenetic program to place a bird in the reptile clade, for example. But, this should be, & IS observed as the exception, not the rule. See my challenge higher up the post, if you think I’m wrong.You could of course be bemoaning the accuracy of the molecular clock placing the divergences at circa 1 bn years ago-ish. Actually, I think the criticisms levelled at the molecular clock are valid, but doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be used as a tool for measuring a rough timing.

quote:

---

Mark:
See above. Best molecular estimate of the earliest multicellular animal? About 1 bn years ago, this is congruent with the trace fossil estimate.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Then why are trace fossils (fossil tracks, trails, and burrows) so rare before the base of the Cambrian, if these animals existed for that 1 billion years?

---

Surely, the salient question should be; why are they there at all?

quote:

---

One of the earliest metazoans in the Cambrian era, the trilobites are an enigma of complexity. How can evolution explain its sudden origin? If trilobites descended from spriggina, then are there any transitional links between them??

---

We call this the Gish number. If (Gish) wants to see a transitional between A & E, he expects to see ONE transitional, C. Of course, he now wants to see transitionals B & D!. No matter how many you show Gish, he needs to see more. Beyond that, this is pretty much the only valid question creationists bring regarding the Cambrian explosion, see below.

quote:

---

Actually, Walcotts work was first published and made know to the general audience by Whittington in Rediscription of Marrella splendens, from the Burgess Shale in 1971

---

He published in 1912, you have the cite. Ignoring & simply reasserting yourself without refutation won’t help you’re argument. This is only the earliest I could find. Even if you're right, so what? The Cambrian explosion has been known of since before Walcott was born, hardly an evilutionist conspriracy!

quote:

---

There is no know, valid ancestor of the trilobites. Only assumptions. Recent scientific findings even diminish the intermediate form hypothesis. An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 reports that DNA analyses have displaced taxa that used to be considered "intermediate forms" in the past:
"DNA sequence analysis dictates new interpretation of phylogenic trees. Taxa that were once thought to represent successive grades of complexity at the base of the metazoan tree are being displaced to much higher positions inside the tree. This leaves no evolutionary ''intermediates'' and forces us to rethink the genesis of bilaterian complexity"
Link: Just a moment...

---

How does this refute evolution? It is essentially a question, not a conclusion.

quote:

---

POSSIBLY!!! As has been noted, there are a lot of soft bodied arthropod-a-like organisms in the Precambrian. Another hypothesis is that arthropods were descended from SSF’s. In fact there is debate as to whether the arthropods are a monophyletic clade or in fact polyphyletic.

---

quote:

---

Presence of "arthropod-a-like" organisms does not mean arthropods descended from organisms in the precambrian. Thats sheer observation not backed up by empirical evidence.

---

Ah, yes, sheer observation. How is this NOT empirical? I think you will find that the OBSERVATION of "arthropod-a-like" observations makes the said observations EMPIRICAL, by definition. The CONCLUSION is tentative, I agree, & I am not convinced myself that Spriggina actually IS an arthropod/trilobite ancestor. But the observation that Spriggina is "arthropod-a-like" is an empirical observation.Spriggina is a candidate for a trilobite ancestor. You maintain there are NO candidates. You are wrong. You tell me what a trilobite transitional SHOULD look like.

quote:

---

It has been established that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era. Regarding logic, lets just wait and see who prediction comes true. I apologize for the inconsistency. I try to remain consistent but sometimes get carried away. Once again, my apologies.

---

No, no, no, no, NO! The fossil evidence shows an abrupt appearance, but no palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist thinks that the phyla actually appeared abruptly. The molecular evidence suggests otherwise. You can only make the claim that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era IF you ignore non-fossil evidence. It most certainly HASN’T been established that this is true. But so what if it is? This is a watered down statement when compared to ALL metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, without exception. How would this refute evolution even if it were true, which it demonstrably isn’t?I have asked this several times now; what implication does the appearance of major classifications of organisms at different times have on your belief system? You have used the fossil record to support your claim that ALL metazoans appear at the same time (& you admit this is an incorrect assumption), so it stands to reason that you use the same evidence to support your own hypothesis. Can you make the same observations fit your belief system?
What prediction are you making, what prediction am I making?

quote:

---

Mark:
I know, but what implications does the abrupt appearance of other major taxa of other kingdoms have on your creation myth/hypothesis?

---

quote:

---

Oh you mean the Plant Kingdom? I am quite weak in botany . I do know about the Carboniferous age (360-286 my) which has many fossils dating to it. There is no difference between species of plants from this period and plants living today.

---

Au contraire! If you went to a garden centre, where would you get a seed fern? They have been extinct since the Jurassic! The problem creationists exhibit is they think animal life = all life. Therefore the abrupt appearance of animal phyla = the abrupt appearance of all life. Not so. As I have explained, prokaryotes precede eukaryotes, which in turn precedes multicellular life. All of this occurred BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. Most animal phyla appear in a short time, but demonstrably not all; certainly not other Kingdoms phyla, orders, & classes.

quote:

---

The diversity suddenly revealed in the fossil record put evolutionists into another difficulty. Because, all of a sudden, species of plants emerged, all of which possessed perfect systems. This is also something like the Cambrian explosion ... except that evolutionists call it the "Evolutionary Explosion."

---

Again, au contraire, ever heard of the progymnosperms, of which the seed ferns are members? Just like animals, plants have intermediates too.

quote:

---

Mark:
Of course it doesn’t. I’m not refuting the Cambrian explosion. I AM pointing out to you that, if you remove your compartmentalised thinking head for one moment, the earliest fossils are single celled prokaryotes, then single celled eukaryotes, then multicellular organisms of-dubious-metazoa-ness, then true triploblastic metazoans.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
So? Whats "compartmentalised" about that? Did I deny it? No! Did they evolve? No! Were they created? Yes!!

---

In my discussions with you I have been careful not to make any unbacked assertions. Care to support the quote above with anything more than faith alone? That is, positive, testable, falsifiable evidence?

quote:

---

All phyla of animal kingdom appearing "at once" refers to an extremely narrow window of geologic time (~5-10 million years) according to Richard Kerr.

---

As you have learned, Richard Kerr is wrong, Bryozoans were late in turning up for Gods creationfest, to the tune of 50 million years. Why would Dick make such an error of omission, do you think? Also, the earliest unargued multicellular animal body fossils date fom 900 million years ago (to my knowledge)(see a previous post), giving a 450 million year window of opportunity for the earliest metazoans taxa to the last phyla to appear.

quote:

---

The problem, you ask? Correct me if I am wrong but the most widely accepted idea among naturalistic biologists has been that chordates arose from echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, etc.) and that chordates in turn gave rise to vertebrates. Echinoderms are also believed to have spawned hemichordates as an evolutionary side branch. Remember the Dipleuruloid theory you have been reiterating?

​

This scenario predicts that echinoderms, hemichordates, chordates, and vertebrates will appear sequentially in the fossil recordand that the sequence will cover a long time span, given the extensive anatomical and physiological differences among these phyla. Naturalism or Evolution would not anticipate hemichordates, chordates, or vertebrates appearing together in the early Cambrian fauna. But in recent years, researchers have found hemichordates and chordates together in the Cambrian event!! These discoveries, in and of themselves, create an insurmountable problem for the naturalistic model of evolution.

​

Most recently, however, paleontologists have discovered craniate chordates (animals with a stiff rod-like structure along their back and a hardened or mineralized brain case) and vertebrates in early Cambrian layers. I would say this poses a lot of problems and raises arguments that questions the credibility of evolution in the light of modern scientific data.

---

What of the above refute evolution? Nothing. You rely on negative evidence & incredulity. As with IC, you have presented nothing but this is missing type arguments, rather than positive, falsifiable evidence to support your argument. As I am growing tired of saying, everything is in its predicted place. The mystery of the Cambrian explosion is how did so many bodyplans appear in such a short space of time, nothing more.Finally, a comment on "transitional" fossils in the Precambrian. What would a soft bodied protoarthropod with no jointed legs look like? What would a chordate transitional look like before it got a notochord? What would an echinoderm/chordate ancestor look like? You see the problem, it's all very easy to say no transitionals exist, but how can we positively identify something as a transitional that is essentially a blob? It would be nice to be able to do so, & would certainly lend support to the argument, but isn't necessary. As explained previously, candidates for some of those transitionals exist.Creationist assertions shown to be in error:1/ All animal phyla appeared at the same time.2/ No animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion.3/ No animal phyla appeared before the Cambrian explosion.4/ There are no possible intermediate fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian.Remaining problems:1/ Why did so many body plans of metazoan fossils appear at roughly the same time?2/ Why is there such a paucity of fossil multicellular life in the Precambrian?Do you agree? If so, we can move on.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Thanks for pointing that out. But I don't think I have been misled.

---

Of course you were misled! Without the complete sentence, it appears Gould is saying something other than he intended! Is this really the sort of tactic you approve of?

quote:

---

However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds, for instance, with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg"

---

Of course, this bears no relation whatsoever to punctuated equilibrium or the modern synthesis, so I assume you use this example because, while you may have "heard" of these terms, you have no understanding of them.Here's a summary, perhaps not the easiest, on P.E.Punctuated EquilibriaYou may want to start with the ending...Punctuated Equilibria

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Good to see a Zhimbo post every so often.

---

GeneI assume you wrote this BEFORE reading my post in the coffee shop

(An Aside)Yes but I harbor no ill feelings toward you or Moose or Mammuthus or Blitz or Schraf or any of the other people I spout off at, even the ones I do so towards on a regular basis. As for Moose's comments I know he meant it very casually and probably had no idea it could be construed as offensive - that just isn't like him. That he never replied despite my incessant baiting speaks well of his character.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Patience my friend. Its not that I am avoiding your responses.. but tossing student life with chores at home, final year exams and then here is Ramadan.. hardly leaves my any time to go online and issue my responses. I will respond to yours Insha Allah

​

Regards,
Ahmad

---

Thanks, I look forward to it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ahmad:
[B]

quote:

---

You DO realize that by "abrupt, Gould is talking about several million years, don't you?

---

Um, so, do you understand that what Gould means when he says "abrupt" is not what you mean when you say "abrupt"?

quote:

---

Have you ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium? The Modern Synthesis?

---

quote:

---

I have heard all of them.

---

But do you understand them? Why not explain them in your own words here?

quote:

---

Yet none of them stand to the test. The only purpose of these models was to provide an explanation of the gaps in the fossil-record that the neo-Darwinist model could not explain.

---

No, see below. PE explains the rate of the apparent appearence of fossils.

quote:

---

However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds, for instance, with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg",

---

Ah, as I suspected. You do not understand PE at all.Here is a good explanation of the basics. Please read it and show where it suggests anything remotely like the "bird out of a reptile egg" scenario is predicted.Punctuated EquilibriaAlso, you are incorrect that PE was developed to explain gaps in the fossil record:Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism."But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994"

quote:

---

because by the evolutionists' own admission, the evolution of a species to another species requires a great and advantageous change in genetic information.

---

Really? Care to back this up? Cites from the literature, or at least from Biologists' work, not Creationists or Creationist sites.

quote:

---

Tell me, have you ever read any complete work by Dawkins or Gould, or any other Evolutionist? Have you read The Blind Watchmaker in it's entirety??

---

quote:

---

I have read the Blind Watchmaker...

---

Wow. I am surprised that you could misunderstand it so profoundly and/or be so unmoved by the amazingly detailed logic and evidence that he provides.

quote:

---

little about Gould's books.

---

I strongly suggest picking some up. "The Panda's Thumb" is a good one to start with.

quote:

---

Say, have you read Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism"

---

Yup.

quote:

---

or Wilder Smith's "Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory"?? Interesting books.

---

Not read this one.

quote:

---

What we have been telling you is that you are arguing from ignorance . We have heard your arguments MANY TIMES before. They are all new and exciting and convincing to you, but they are OLD AND WEARY to us because we have refuted them over and over.

---

quote:

---

Could be because your responses are not adequate or does not fit the scientific criterias.

---

Um, considering that you don't even know what a peer-reviewed science journal is, misrepresent evolutionary theory, physics, and the scientific method, and think that posting out of context, dishonestly-altered quotes instead of arguing from an informed position is legitimate debate, I don't really think you are in a position to judge if our responses are adequate or not.That's my whole point. In your arrogance and ignorance, you have decided we are wrong, yet you don't have the barest understanding of what you are attempting to deny.

quote:

---

Science is progressive.. so the arguments may be incessant

---

The problem is, you have yet to use anything resembling science as an argument.

quote:

---

We DO have more education in Biology and Evolution than you do. We have all probably read a great deal more Creationist literature that you have, which is why your arguments are so familiar to us.

---

Hmm..

quote:

---

Go and read through TalkOrigins. Read Gould and Dawkins. Go and learn WHY we say your arguments are bunk and our evidence is better, even if you do not believe it. Do it for the sake of knowing what you are up against. This is why we read Creationist literature.

---

quote:

---

Tell me one person who hasn't read evolutionist literature!!

---

Apparently, you haven't because you do not seem to have an understanding of Evolutionary Theory, nor of the nature of scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

Its literally dominant in every biology books.

---

As it should be. I suggest you take a college-level bioligy course.

quote:

---

Do the study and work to really write intelligently and show that you do understand, for example, a little bit about the second law of thermodynamics, instead of parroting what somebody else has told you is true without checking for yourself.

---

quote:

---

I have checked.... thats why am here

---

But you spout decades-old, long-refuted Creationist arguments at every turn!Only people who have a profound ignorance of Evolutionary theory, and worse, a profound ignorance of the history of the Creationist movement, would ever make the arguments you have repeatedly made, or use the debate tactics and logical fallacies you have.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-19-2002]

Thanks for emailing me the d/l site. It would have been better if I got an HTML version, but nonetheless, thanks

quote:

---

Perhaps at this stage it would be pertinent to bring us back to my original contention; that there is no positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC. Do you have any?

---

I think I have reiterated the impossibility of IC systems evolving many times. I will try to clarify once more. If a system is IC, it CANNOT EVOLVE. Evolution states that systems start out in a simple form, and then, driven by natural selection, gradually get better and better. In contrast, irreducible complexity says that the system is useless until all the components of the system is present. Thus, natural selection could not drive evolution "from scratch." I think Cahrles Colson sums it up pretty good.Charles Colson: "The Darwinian theory states that all living structures evolve in small, gradual steps from simpler structures - feathers from scales, wings from forelegs, blossoms from leaves and so on. But anything that is irreducibly complex cannot evolve in gradual steps, and thus is very existence refutes the Darwinian theory.Furthermore, evolution has a lot of things to explain about IC systems. The origin of the cilia for example,and numerous other biochemical systems like the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.Thornhill and Ussery attempted to explain the possibility of darwinian pathways in IC systems by the four aforementioned principles. Mike Gene has clearly outlined and summarised their arguments and clarified what indeed Behe said.

quote:

---

Again, Behe provides no POSITIVE evidence for IC (T&U’s def), that is falsifiable, that is. You are making the assertion that IC is un-evolvable. You seem to require empirical evidence of everything else, so I’m going top ask you to meet your own standards.

---

There is empirical evidence. And this empirical evidence is evident. IC as defined by Behe, poses a system to be functionally indivisible such that even the removal of one of the components will render the entire system useless. Now you explain me, How can such functionally indivisible irreducibly complex systems like the cilia, and other examples I gace above, can evolve??

quote:

---

You are joking, right?

---

Gee, what makes you say that?

quote:

---

Give examples where chromosome c amino acid sequence are incredibly different in living beings of the same class, & that is the rule, not the exception, relative to other classes.

---

Who mentioned anything about "chromosome c"? I was talking about Cytochrome - C and their difference in lving beings of the same class. Are you denying that? This Cytochrome - C shows the turtle is more closely related to the birds that to its fellow reptile, the snake. Furthermore, the chicken is grouped with the penguin rather than the duck, and man and ape separate from the main mammalian branch before the supposedly less advanced marsupial mammal, the kangaroo (Note: they are the same class - Mammalia)[Ayala, F., "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3,1978, p. 56.]A study conducted on molcular homology also shows that that molecular differences between some birds are greater than the differences between those same birds and mammals. It has also been discovered that the molecular difference between bacteria that appear to be very similar is greater than the difference between mammals and amphibians or insects. (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville: 1991, pp. 98-99; Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, Haughton Publishing Co., 1990, pp. 35-38.)

quote:

---

Again you are misled. Phylogenetic analyses relies upon the principles that; 1/ mutations are heritable,

---

Mutations are hereditary only if they take place at the reproductive cells of an organism. A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. Regarding Phylogeny, Carl Woese, reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, has this to say:"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." (Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854.)

quote:

---

Regardless, there is excellent congruence between morphological phylogenies & molecular ones. How the DEVIL did that happen, you ask? Cytochrome c, as you correctly observe, is vital in Krebs cycle, it has no morphological function, however. So why does it, & other molecular data support the same phylogenies? The odds against just two 10 taxa phylogenies being fully congruent is 1,190,250,000,000,000 : 1. Even having them 50% congruent is 289,000,000,000,000 : 1! Why are the phylogenies not 100% congruent at all times? Because point mutations occur randomly, & it is entirely possible that two distantly related molecules can become similar enough for a phylogenetic program to place a bird in the reptile clade, for example. But, this should be, & IS observed as the exception, not the rule. See my challenge higher up the post, if you think I’m wrong.

---

So who has observed the popping out of a bird from a reptile egg?? I certinaly haven't. If point mutations are to be hereditary, they need to take place at reproductive cells of organism, as I said before. Otherwise, they will not be expressed in the phenotype of offsprings. What are the odds of this kind of "point" and "beneficial" mutations to occur in an organism?? I would say huge. And the odds of this to happen multiple times to create an entirely different species among all is extremely huge. Say 10^100000000000000000..... and can extend up trillions depending on the number of species.Furthermore, I don't think the congruence in morphological and molecular phylogenies are "excellent" as you describe it. A research carried out to make comparisons between "ribosomal RNA" (rRNA) and protein phylogenies proves my point. According to French biologists Herv Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "with more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein pyhlogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA tree."(Herv Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life is Not Reliable", Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol 49, 1999, p. 510.)I would like to hear some examples from you regarding the "excellence" you attribute to the congruence of morhological and molecular phylogenies.

quote:

---

You could of course be bemoaning the accuracy of the molecular clock placing the divergences at circa 1 bn years ago-ish. Actually, I think the criticisms levelled at the molecular clock are valid, but doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be used as a tool for measuring a rough timing.

---

You could say that but I do doubt the scientific accuracy of the "molecular clock" concept, to be honest with you.

quote:

---

Surely, the salient question should be; why are they there at all?

---

Thats not an answer. There should be fossils.. in fact many fossils that surpass the cambrian era, if indeed myriad of mutli-cellular organisms existed pre-cambrian. I am not denying they didn't exist at that time, but what proof is there that complex multi-cellular invertebrates (and chordates as recently doscovered)in the cambrian could have descended or evolved from organisms at the pre-cambrian??

quote:

---

We call this the Gish number. If (Gish) wants to see a transitional between A & E, he expects to see ONE transitional, C. Of course, he now wants to see transitionals B & D!. No matter how many you show Gish, he needs to see more. Beyond that, this is pretty much the only valid question creationists bring regarding the Cambrian explosion, see below.

---

Call it anything, but the absence of transitional fossils has shook the theory of evolution and you can't deny that

quote:

---

He published in 1912, you have the cite. Ignoring & simply reasserting yourself without refutation won’t help you’re argument. This is only the earliest I could find. Even if you're right, so what? The Cambrian explosion has been known of since before Walcott was born, hardly an evilutionist conspriracy!

---

The cambrian explosion has been known even before walcott was born, and I agree with that. Regarding that, I am not saying otherwise. My argument is based on the late (not less than 70 years) publication og the Burghess Shale fauna. Walcott did notpublish anything in 1912. In fact, from 1910 to 1917, he was working on the quarry of Burghess shale.

quote:

---

How does this refute evolution? It is essentially a question, not a conclusion.

---

Oh its a conclusion alright. If you read the article, you would find evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores can no longer be considered as such because of new genetic findings, and that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees:The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages"

quote:

---

Ah, yes, sheer observation. How is this NOT empirical? I think you will find that the OBSERVATION of "arthropod-a-like" observations makes the said observations EMPIRICAL, by definition. The CONCLUSION is tentative, I agree, & I am not convinced myself that Spriggina actually IS an arthropod/trilobite ancestor. But the observation that Spriggina is "arthropod-a-like" is an empirical observation.

---

Where is the "empirical evidence"?? How could the exoskeleton of the arthropods (trilobites) evolve from the annelids (spriggina)??

quote:

---

Spriggina is a candidate for a trilobite ancestor. You maintain there are NO candidates. You are wrong. You tell me what a trilobite transitional SHOULD look like.

---

If there indeed is a trilobite transitional, the organism should have a half exoskeleton and half-endoskeleton, half-jointed appendages, a body cavity with half-haemocoel etc. Everything should be hlaf-way since it's a transitional organism. At least, thats how I look at it.Furthermore, trilobites are more complex than spriggina. If natural selection and point mutations (taking in consideration the odds of it producing a benefician change as I outlined above) caused the spriggina to evolve in to a trilobite, then you have to base the reason (apart from empirical evidence) as to why did this occur? Mutations, on the majority, are harmful as it deranges the nucleotide sequence; so the majority if mutations occuring may even devolve the spriggina to relatively simpler organism. Are there any transitional fossils for that? Why only evolution has to occur, and not devolution since the possibility of the latter is more than the former?

quote:

---

No, no, no, no, NO! The fossil evidence shows an abrupt appearance, but no palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist thinks that the phyla actually appeared abruptly. The molecular evidence suggests otherwise. You can only make the claim that major metazoan phyla has appeared abruptly in the Cambrian era IF you ignore non-fossil evidence. It most certainly HASN’T been established that this is true. But so what if it is? This is a watered down statement when compared to ALL metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, without exception. How would this refute evolution even if it were true, which it demonstrably isn’t?

---

Firstly, the "at once" appearance of living organisms refers to an extremely narrow geological time (~5-10 million mya) when all the animals phylas, except bryozoans, made their appearance. Now this does refute evolution.. which states that given NS and random mutations occuring over a long period of time, the organism gradually evolves from simple to complex. How was this evolution gradual during the cambrian explosion? Modern evolutionists propose different hypothesis to explain this like Punctuated Equilibria, plate tectonics etc. But what they can't explain is the wide variety of organisms making their appearance within an extremely short time. Note, these organisms varied from each other distinctly by possessing features complex and has no known evolutionary origin.

quote:

---

I have asked this several times now; what implication does the appearance of major classifications of organisms at different times have on your belief system? You have used the fossil record to support your claim that ALL metazoans appear at the same time (& you admit this is an incorrect assumption), so it stands to reason that you use the same evidence to support your own hypothesis. Can you make the same observations fit your belief system?
What prediction are you making, what prediction am I making?

---

There is a difference between "belief systems" and "creation science". Belief systems are particular instances of faith and ritual-based. Creation science is an attempt to explain the origin of wide diversity of life pointing towards a Creator. Creation theory offers reasonable explanations for both the Cambrian Explosion and the origin and ubiquity of the genetic code. The taxonomic diversity seen in the Cambrian Explosion may be simply the result of preservation of various communities of marine organisms living on or near the floor of the sea. The basis for the association of the fossils is ecological rather than genealogical. The absence of ancestors in the underlying strata is not due to a faulty fossil record, but reflects separate origins of the various groups. This proposition applies whether one reads the fossil record as extended history or as complex catastrophe.

quote:

---

Au contraire! If you went to a garden centre, where would you get a seed fern? They have been extinct since the Jurassic! The problem creationists exhibit is they think animal life = all life. Therefore the abrupt appearance of animal phyla = the abrupt appearance of all life. Not so.

---

And each of them complies with Creation theory. So what if the seed ferns went extinct? Similar explanations regarding the origin of plants can also be given. Have you heard of the "evolutionary explosion" (as evolutionists call it) that took place some time during the carboniferous period?

quote:

---

As I have explained, prokaryotes precede eukaryotes, which in turn precedes multicellular life. All of this occurred BEFORE the Cambrian explosion.

---

If I am not wrong, is this the endosymbiont theory of Margulis that you are referring to?

quote:

---

Most animal phyla appear in a short time, but demonstrably not all; certainly not other Kingdoms phyla, orders, & classes.

---

Agreed, but how can evolution explain this sudden origin of the "most animal phylas"??

quote:

---

Again, au contraire, ever heard of the progymnosperms, of which the seed ferns are members? Just like animals, plants have intermediates too.

---

So far, you haven't shown me any valid intermediate of animals. And what are the ‘progymnosperms’? Imaginary evolutionary ancestorsthere is no evidence that they ever even existed!

quote:

---

In my discussions with you I have been careful not to make any unbacked assertions. Care to support the quote above with anything more than faith alone? That is, positive, testable, falsifiable evidence?

---

IC and CE are my bets.

quote:

---

As you have learned, Richard Kerr is wrong, Bryozoans were late in turning up for Gods creationfest, to the tune of 50 million years. Why would Dick make such an error of omission, do you think?

---

I have been delving upon this subject in detail, lately. Bryozoans appeared just after the Cambrian period, in the Ordovician Period (495 mya) that is part of the same Palezoic era that cambrian period is part of too. Hmm.. does that ring a bell?

quote:

---

Also, the earliest unargued multicellular animal body fossils date fom 900 million years ago (to my knowledge)(see a previous post), giving a 450 million year window of opportunity for the earliest metazoans taxa to the last phyla to appear.

---

Interesting. Can you back up your claim?

quote:

---

What of the above refute evolution?

---

If all the animal phyla, save the bryozoans, including complex invertebrates as well as vertebrates, hemichordates and chordates all appeared in span of ~5-10 mya, how do you think evolution can explain this?

quote:

---

You rely on negative evidence & incredulity. As with IC, you have presented nothing but this is missing type arguments, rather than positive, falsifiable evidence to support your argument. As I am growing tired of saying, everything is in its predicted place. The mystery of the Cambrian explosion is how did so many bodyplans appear in such a short space of time, nothing more.

---

So how does evolution explain this appearance of highly complex bodyplans in such a "shot period of time"?? Concerning IC, what of my arguments regarding IC deal with "this is missing"?? I have given several examples of IC. How do they classify as "this is missing" argument since in IC every component is needed to make the system effectively function.

quote:

---

Finally, a comment on "transitional" fossils in the Precambrian. What would a soft bodied protoarthropod with no jointed legs look like? What would a chordate transitional look like before it got a notochord? What would an echinoderm/chordate ancestor look like?

---

What would a fish with half human female body look like? How do we identify a horse with features that are half-human? The answers lie within the question itself. A soft bodied protoarthropod with no jointed legs, WILL LOOK LIKE ONE. It will have no jointed appeandages but will be a cross between its ancestors and its own "future" species.All chordates have notochords. So if there exists a chordate transitional, it should be a cross between its ancestor species and the future specie. For example, if there is a transition between an echinoderm and chordates, the resulting species is bound to have everything in half. It should have half an exoskeleton and half an endoskeleton. Half from each species, especially the characteristic features.Ofcourse, then again, it is not for me to decide the transitionals but Nature herself, IF evolution indeed took place. Legends of Mermaids, Centaurs throughout the centuries were believed until this century... which has rendered all of them as myths and used as fairy tales for children. Who knows? Evolution might have the same fate in the near future.

quote:

---

Creationist assertions shown to be in error:

​

1/ All animal phyla appeared at the same time.

---

With the exception of bryozoans, what are your bets?

quote:

---

2/ No animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion.

---

What are the animal phylas that appeared first after the cambrian explosion, save the bryozoans?

quote:

---

No animal phyla appeared before the Cambrian explosion.

---

Metazoans and traces of multicellular organisms can be traced before the cambrian era. But what phylas had their go before the cambrian explosion and appeared in a complete state?

quote:

---

There are no possible intermediate fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian.

---

No intermediate fossils of any species during any era has been shown yet.

quote:

---

Remaining problems:

​

1/ Why did so many body plans of metazoan fossils appear at roughly the same time?

​

2/ Why is there such a paucity of fossil multicellular life in the Precambrian?

---

Taking in account the high level of complexity involved in the body plans of metazoans. The second question appears to be correct. Here are some additional questions I infer:Regarding Cambrian Explosion:1. How does evolution explain the appearance of mosiac living organisms including recently discovered chordates, highly complex trilobites and opabinia and virtually all the animal phyla (except bryozoans) that made their entry in ~5-10 mya during the cambrian era?2. I'll raise the same set of questions, Darwin raised regarding lack transitional fossils at this time:"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.)Regarding IC:1. How does evolution explain irreducible complexity in organlles and systems that are functionally indivisible? (Thornhill and Ussery could not explain that)Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Um, so, do you understand that what Gould means when he says "abrupt" is not what you mean when you say "abrupt"?

---

Hmm... what does he exactly mean?

quote:

---

But do you understand them? Why not explain them in your own words here?

---

I did.

quote:

---

Ah, as I suspected. You do not understand PE at all.

​

Here is a good explanation of the basics. Please read it and show where it suggests anything remotely like the "bird out of a reptile egg" scenario is predicted.

​

Punctuated Equilibria

---

What else can you expect from a pro-evolutionist site? But PE does fit in the "bird out of a reptile" scenario.

quote:

---

No, see below. PE explains the rate of the apparent appearence of fossils.

---

And why was PE proposed? They claimed that this theory arose out of biology, but there is no empirical biological basis for such speciation events. It seems that the 'mechanism' was adopted because it 'explained' their observation of the fossils.

quote:

---

Also, you are incorrect that PE was developed to explain gaps in the fossil record:

​

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

​

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

---

The basic 'mechanism' of speciation proposed by Eldredge and Gould was borrowed from others. The concept of allopatric (geographic) speciation had been recognized as a mechanism of evolutionary change, albeit in a gradualistic manner. Mayr in particular had elaborated on this. Eldredge acknowledged that allopatric speciation can be traced even to pre-Darwinian biology. Eldredge and Gould made one controversial addition, that:"Most evolutionary changes in morphology occur in a short period of time relative to the total duration of a species" (Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J., 1972. 'Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism', Time Frames: the Rethinking of Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, page 204)and argued that it was a logical deduction from the peripheral isolate theory of allopatric speciation. Although they acknowledged that: [b]"No new theory of evolutionary mechanisms can be generated from paleontological data'"(same book, page 202)one suspects that the concept of rapid speciation came from their reading of the fossil record rather than from any new understanding of allopatric speciation. Even this concept of rapid speciation was not really new. Other than Goldschmidt, Soviet workers had proposed in the 1960s that change tends to be concentrated in rapid speciation events and that species remain remarkably stable after becoming established.(Stanley, S. M., 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 72(2):646- 650.)Kurt Wise, a creationist palaeontologist, suggested an alternative explanation for the fossil evidence of abrupt appearance of species and stasis. Read his article, PUNC EQ CREATION STYLE >> Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

quote:

---

Really? Care to back this up? Cites from the literature, or at least from Biologists' work, not Creationists or Creationist sites.

---

Huh? So you're telling me (correct me if I am wrong) that a change from one species to another does not require a great advantageous change in the genetic information?

quote:

---

Wow. I am surprised that you could misunderstand it so profoundly and/or be so unmoved by the amazingly detailed logic and evidence that he provides.

---

Yeah right! His logic ends with his fallacious claim when he states that some of the parts in our eyes have been wired backwards and suggests it to be a wrong way.

quote:

---

I strongly suggest picking some up. "The Panda's Thumb" is a good one to start with.

---

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to get that.

quote:

---

Yup.

---

What do you think about it?

quote:

---

Um, considering that you don't even know what a peer-reviewed science journal is

---

Standard norm where the theories of scientists get evaluated by their peers. What about it?

quote:

---

misrepresent evolutionary theory

---

The theory misrepresents itself

quote:

---

physics, and the scientific method

---

Just what according to you is the scientific method?

quote:

---

and think that posting out of context, dishonestly-altered quotes instead of arguing from an informed position is legitimate debate

---

I apologise for the "out-of-context" quote of S.J Gould. Henceforth, I'll try my best to quote evolutionists in their proper context. However, I quote them to prove my point, not as an alternative to a legitimate debate.

quote:

---

I don't really think you are in a position to judge if our responses are adequate or not.

---

I am a science student and I think I have every right and position to question the adequacy and veracity of claims of anyone I wish to. And I do exercise my right.

quote:

---

That's my whole point. In your arrogance and ignorance, you have decided we are wrong, yet you don't have the barest understanding of what you are attempting to deny.

---

Firstly, I respect your opinion about me as arrogant and ignorant and take that as an ad hominem. Secondly, I don't think I have decided about anyone being erroneous. There are people triple times more intelligent and thoughtful than me in this forum, I bet. There is certain amount of truth in everyone. How do supposedly impose your own decision about me deciding that you guys are wrong is bizarre, since I don't recall making such an accusation. Lastly, enlighten me as to what indeed am I attempting to deny that I don't have the "barest understanding" of what I am talking about.

quote:

---

The problem is, you have yet to use anything resembling science as an argument.

---

Haven't I?

quote:

---

Apparently, you haven't because you do not seem to have an understanding of Evolutionary Theory, nor of the nature of scientific inquiry.

---

Well, my biology Professor (evolutionist) didn't have that impression about me when I got an A+ for elaborating the ToE in my science papers Regarding the nature of scientific enquiry, you tell me about it. What are the physics of this nature?

quote:

---

As it should be. I suggest you take a college-level bioligy course.

---

As a final year student, I have done numerous reports and conducted group researches concerning evolutionary theory and its basis.

quote:

---

But you spout decades-old, long-refuted Creationist arguments at every turn!

---

Thats one way of looking at it. Another way would be the consistent counter-responses and counter-rebuttals given by creationists to their critics. Look both ways. The argument is progressive and that is exactly why specially designated forums like this one have been built.

quote:

---

Only people who have a profound ignorance of Evolutionary theory, and worse, a profound ignorance of the history of the Creationist movement, would ever make the arguments you have repeatedly made, or use the debate tactics and logical fallacies you have.

---

Really? So you tell me... what kind of "debate tactics" should I use? What "logical fllacies" have I made? Correct me. I am willing to accept correction. But it seems that you're only good at pointing faults (although I do appreciate that) that correcting and providing your evidence. I suggest you re-think your allegations about me and before pointing one finger at me, do take in consideration the four fingers that point at YOU.Regards,
Ahmad[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 11-19-2002]

quote:

---

Of course you were misled! Without the complete sentence, it appears Gould is saying something other than he intended! Is this really the sort of tactic you approve of?

---

I do stand corrected on this matter.Regards,
Ahmad

Perhaps you would like to read Kurt Wise (creationist paleontologist)article "Punc Eq Creation Style here >> Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...

quote:

---

Wise: 'The rarity of exceptions to PE sensu stricto [that is, stasis and abrupt appearance of species] indicates that a model of catastrophic deposition of the earth's rocks could be invoked as a mechanism to account for the paleontological observation of PE theory.'

---

Interesting article.Regards,
Ahmad

quote:

---

Call it anything, but the absence of transitional fossils has shook the theory of evolution and you can't deny that

---

Would you like to talk about the transitional sequence of horses? Birds? Whales? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to mammals? All of these are wonderful examples of multi-step transitional progressions for which we have many intermediate fossils.It is quite understood that the main reason we do not find more transitional sequences is because not everything that dies becomes a fossil. Most things get eaten, rot completely away, are broken up and otherwise destroyed. Fossilization is a rare event. Also, only a small portion of the earth's surface has even been excavated for fossils.Also, there is PE, for which I have already provided a link.

quote:

---

You tell me what a trilobite ?transitional? SHOULD look like.

---

quote:

---

If there indeed is a trilobite transitional, the organism should have a half exoskeleton and half-endoskeleton, half-jointed appendages, a body cavity with half-haemocoel etc. Everything should be hlaf-way since it's a transitional organism. At least, thats how I look at it.

---

That is not even close to what the ToE predicts a transitional to look like. You have made yet another strawman in your ignorance.Take a look at these transitional species in the evolution of horses, along with a nice bit about horse hoof/toe evolution and the evolutionary family "bush" of horses. This is what transitionals actually look like; they don't look like "half" of anything. The ToE never predicts that they would, and you would know this if you had bothered to do any research yourself into what actual scientists say instead of letting yourself be misled by someone with a anti-science agenda.Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry

quote:

---

Creation science is an attempt to explain the origin of wide diversity of life pointing towards a Creator.

---

...and this is exactly why it isn't science at all.

quote:

---

Creation theory offers reasonable explanations for both the Cambrian Explosion and the origin and ubiquity of the genetic code.

---

No, it ignores evidence in order to make an a priori assumption true.

quote:

---

Ofcourse, then again, it is not for me to decide the transitionals but Nature herself, IF evolution indeed took place. Legends of Mermaids, Centaurs throughout the centuries were believed until this century... which has rendered all of them as myths and used as fairy tales for children. Who knows? Evolution might have the same fate in the near future.

---

Blah blah blah.Fairy tales don't cure disease.

quote:

---

Regarding IC:

​

1. How does evolution explain irreducible complexity in organlles and systems that are functionally indivisible? (Thornhill and Ussery could not explain that)

---

I will repeat my question from a whil ago that you don't seem to have gotten to yet;how can we tell the difference between an IC system and a natural one which we;1) don't understand yet, or2) one that we do not have the intelligence to understand?Bot of these possibilities must be somehow ruled out in each case for you to ever claim that anything is IC/ID.How do we tell?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-19-2002]

Ahmad,Apologies for the length of this post, it turned into a bit of a monster.

quote:

---

Mark:
Perhaps at this stage it would be pertinent to bring us back to my original contention; that there is no positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC. Do you have any?

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
I think I have reiterated the impossibility of IC systems evolving many times. I will try to clarify once more. If a system is IC, it CANNOT EVOLVE.

​

Charles Colson: "The Darwinian theory states that all living structures evolve in small, gradual steps from simpler structures - feathers from scales, wings from forelegs, blossoms from leaves and so on. But anything that is irreducibly complex cannot evolve in gradual steps, and thus is very existence refutes the Darwinian theory.

---

Ahmad, this is an argument from definition. No one has shown that IC systems cannot evolve. You have been asked multiple times to produce positive evidence of IC non-evolvability (as creationists define it), & have repeatedly failed to produce any. IC is simply a system that fails if you remove one part. The clotting cascades HAVE been shown to have a plausible evolutionary pathway. If you remove a single molecule from the cascade, clotting will not occur, it is IC. So why can a plausible pathway be presented? Such a thing is impossible according to you.IC is NOT unevolvable by definition, as you seem to think.
You are making the claim of impossibility. Back it up with positive evidence. [quote][b]
There is empirical evidence. And this empirical evidence is evident. [/quote][/b]Like what? Does it POSITIVELY show that IC couldn’t have of evolved? I guess not. [/quote][/b]IC as defined by Behe, poses a system to be functionally indivisible such that even the removal of one of the components will render the entire system useless. Now you explain me, How can such functionally indivisible irreducibly complex systems like the cilia, and other examples I gace above, can evolve?? [/quote][/b]Nope. YOU provide positive evidence that they CAN’T. It is your claim, not mine.This has gone on long enough. Provide POSITIVE, testable, falsifiable evidence that IC cannot evolve, or I’m claiming victory. It’s not unreasonable, since my only point is that you have none of the above.

quote:

---

Mark:
Give examples where chromosome c amino acid sequence are incredibly different in living beings of the same class, & that is the rule, not the exception, relative to other classes.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Who mentioned anything about "chromosome c"? I was talking about Cytochrome - C and their difference in lving beings of the same class.

---

Oop, my boob, I meant cytochrome c.

quote:

---

Are you denying that? This Cytochrome - C shows the turtle is more closely related to the birds that to its fellow reptile, the snake. Furthermore, the chicken is grouped with the penguin rather than the duck, and man and ape separate from the main mammalian branch before the supposedly less advanced marsupial mammal, the kangaroo (Note: they are the same class - Mammalia)[Ayala, F., "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3,1978, p. 56.]

---

Yes I do deny that turtle cytochrome c is more closely related to birds than reptiles. The sequence may be more SIMILAR, however.You didn’t answer the question. I maintain that the similarities of cytochrome c are MORE similar within classes than of sequences outside it, & that is the rule, not the exception. I explained both the how & why of the exceptions, & I asked you to give examples where cytochrome c (you knew very well what I was talking about) amino acid sequence are incredibly different in living beings of the same class, & that is the rule, not the exception, relative to other classes. You haven’t done this. I ask you to accept what I say, or provide an example that contradicts me. Now, it was a rhetorical question, where you were supposed to see the obvious error in your argument; that you are claiming exceptions are the rule. Since I cannot prove a negative, the only way to demonstrate my argument to be incorrect is to provide an example of what I assert doesn’t exist, does. I now have to ask you to either:1/ Provide a class in which over 50% of the organisms contained therein have cytochrome c amino acid sequences that are more similar to organisms in other classes than organisms of the same class. Or;2/ Accept that the premise that cytochrome c similarities do not closely correlate to class, is wrong.

quote:

---

Mark:
Again you are misled. Phylogenetic analyses relies upon the principles that; 1/ mutations are heritable,

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Mutations are hereditary only if they take place at the reproductive cells of an organism. A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation.

---

Yup, it’s implicit.

quote:

---

Regarding Phylogeny, Carl Woese, reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, has this to say:

​

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various (groups) to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." (Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854.)

---

Either, this is a misquote, or just plain wrong.If, by no consistent organismal phylogeny, Woese means no 100% congruent phylogenies, he’d be right. If he meant that there was no consensus using molecular data, then he would be demonstrably wrong.See below.

quote:

---

Mark:
Regardless, there is excellent congruence between morphological phylogenies & molecular ones. How the DEVIL did that happen, you ask? Cytochrome c, as you correctly observe, is vital in Krebs cycle, it has no morphological function, however. So why does it, & other molecular data support the same phylogenies? The odds against just two 10 taxa phylogenies being fully congruent is 1,190,250,000,000,000 : 1. Even having them 50% congruent is 289,000,000,000,000 : 1! Why are the phylogenies not 100% congruent at all times? Because point mutations occur randomly, & it is entirely possible that two distantly related molecules can become similar enough for a phylogenetic program to place a bird in the reptile clade, for example. But, this should be, & IS observed as the exception, not the rule. See my challenge higher up the post, if you think I’m wrong.

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
So who has observed the popping out of a bird from a reptile egg?? I certinaly haven't.

---

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with the points raised.

quote:

---

Ahmed:
If point mutations are to be hereditary, they need to take place at reproductive cells of organism, as I said before. Otherwise, they will not be expressed in the phenotype of offsprings.

---

Actually, the genotypes. A mutation may be expressed in the phenotype. You seem to think you have stumbled on to something by pointing out that somatic mutations aren’t inherited. Of course they’re not!! Only mutations that end up in the gametes can affect evolution. No one is saying anything to the contrary. Phylogenetic analyses can only work with these mutations, what's the problem?

quote:

---

What are the odds of this kind of "point" and "beneficial" mutations to occur in an organism?? I would say huge. And the odds of this to happen multiple times to create an entirely different species among all is extremely huge. Say 10^100000000000000000..... and can extend up trillions depending on the number of species.

---

Seriously flawed logic, Ahmad.Hypothetical argument; you have a computer that randomly picks a 20 figure number. If the computer picks another 20 figure number, what are the odds that;1/ It will pick a 20 figure number? (Answer- Evens 1:1)2/ It will pick the SAME 20 figure number? (Answer- 99,999,999,999,999,999,999:1)See the difference?It’s the same thing with organisms. You may not end up with the SAME organism if you rerun evolution, but you WOULD end up with AN organism. The chance ofd getting the same genome would be astronomically against.Perhaps a better example would be; what are the chances of your parents getting an EXACT copy of Ahmad with their next child? Almost zero. But they GOT YOU, didn’t they? They WILL get a child, but the chances of getting EXACTLY the same as the last one is so small as to not even consider. So, statistically speaking, by your logic, you can’t exist, because the odds of having everything exactly the way you are is astronomically against!These odds you present are a strawman.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I don't think the congruence in morphological and molecular phylogenies are "excellent" as you describe it.

---

If odds of trillions to one plus are considered poor, then you have a point.

quote:

---

Ahmed:
I would like to hear some examples from you regarding the "excellence" you attribute to the congruence of morhological and molecular phylogenies.

---

http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1985/0205/6temp.pdf"The Phylogeny of the Hominoid Primates: A Statistical
Analysis of the DNA-DNA Hybridization Data"http://reviews.bmn.com/medline/search/record?uid=MDLN.872..."A molecular phylogeny of the hominoid primates as indicated by two-dimensional protein electrophoresis."Page Not Found | University of Chicago"Molecular Evolution of Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit IV: Evidence for
Positive Selection in Simian Primates"http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1988/0506/2haya.pdf"Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Primate
Mitochondrial DNA"The phylogenies contained in the above for cytochrome c (complete sequence), cytochrome c (non-coding intron), mtDNA, fibroblast polypeptides, & 2 from DNA hybridisation show an extremely high congruence.The organisms common to all phylogenies were humans, chimps, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, & representatives of the cercopithecids (macaques , OWM etc). In all but one case, they showed the same order of divergence & phylogeny (in one the human & gorilla divergences were transposed).That’s six, six organism phylogenies that are congruent in all but one divergence. For a six sequence tree there are 945 possible trees, for a 5 sequence tree, 105 (to account for the one incongruence). So, (945^5) * 105 = 79,131,307,483,265,625 : 1 of the phylogenies being as congruent as they are by chance. 79 THOUSAND TRILLION to one !!!!! I would call this an excellent congruence, wouldn’t you?

quote:

---

Mark:
Surely, the salient question should be; why are they there at all?

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Thats not an answer. There should be fossils.. in fact many fossils that surpass the cambrian era, if indeed myriad of mutli-cellular organisms existed pre-cambrian. I am not denying they didn't exist at that time, but what proof is there that complex multi-cellular invertebrates (and chordates as recently doscovered)in the cambrian could have descended or evolved from organisms at the pre-cambrian??

---

And if you check my last post, you will see that I list the paucity of Precambrian fossils as one of the problems. I want us to reach agreement on other issues before we ponder on what we agree.BUT, the point surely was; THERE ARE FOSSILS THERE!!!

quote:

---

Ahmad:
The cambrian explosion has been known even before walcott was born, and I agree with that. Regarding that, I am not saying otherwise. My argument is based on the late (not less than 70 years) publication og the Burghess Shale fauna. Walcott did notpublish anything in 1912. In fact, from 1910 to 1917, he was working on the quarry of Burghess shale.

---

I’m dumbfounded that I can cite a publication you say doesn’t exist, & you STILL claim it doesn’t exist. Are you wearing sunglasses?http://www.si.edu/archives/archives/findingaids/faru7004.htmDespite his many administrative responsibilities as Secretary, Walcott was able to find time to continue his research and collecting of fossils from the Cambrian and Ordovician periods, with primary focus on the Canadian Rockies. In 1909 he located Cambrian fossils near Burgess Pass above Field, British Columbia. The following season he discovered the Burgess shale fauna, which proved to be his greatest paleontological discovery. Most of this research was published in various volumes of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections from 1908-1931His one major publication during this period was Cambrian Brachiopoda, published in 1912.. Walcott continued to return to the Canadian Rockies for most seasons through 1925, when he made his last field expedition. As one of the foremost scientific figures in Washington, Walcott helped to establish several organizations with international reknown and restructure existing national organizations. In 1902, Walcott, along with several other prominent individuals, met with Andrew Carnegie to establish the Carnegie Institution of Washington as a center for advanced research and training in the sciences. Walcott served the Institution in several administrative capacities. He was also instrumental in convincing Carnegie that the Institution should have laboratories built for scientists rather than use his gift solely for research grants.The major publication was 1912 field work in Alberta and British Columbia published Cambrian Brachiopoda (USGS Monograph 51). Unless you know of other Cambrian lagerstatten that Walcott kept hidden up his sleeve in British Colombia, your claim is falsified.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Oh its a conclusion alright. If you read the article, you would find evolutionist writers note that some taxa which were considered "intermediate" between groups such as sponges, cnidarians and ctenophores can no longer be considered as such because of new genetic findings, and that they have "lost hope" of constructing such evolutionary family trees

---

Er, you don’t accept molecular data, do you? Typical creationist double standards. Accept ANY evidence that supports your position, & reject the same when it doesn’t. You cant have it both ways, mate.Nor do they say they have lost hope of constructing family trees. You’re as guilty of misquotes as the rest of the creationists. Shame on you! What they DO say is; A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages"There was NOTHING that refuted evolution in the paragraphs in question, or the article in question, why did you think there was? What was in question was the actual nature of relationships of the major metazoan phyla. In fact, you’ve rather shot yourself in the foot with this; If you study the new molecular data that you apparently accept, there are fewer potential transitionals to find! Meaning, another reason that there is a paucity of transitionals is because there are fewer than expected!In truth, the transitional taxa exist, the team themselves don’t deny it, yet they limit their conclusions to the resolution of the data set. That is to say, the data doesn’t show a clear enough definition to reliably determine branching order, so they don’t pretend to show one that cannot be reliably inferred with this rRNA phylogeny.Just a moment...

quote:

---

The Lack of Resolution Within each of the Two Great Protostome Clades.
An observation repeatedly made when using rRNA data is of the extreme difficulty in resolving the branching order of phyla within the lophotrochozoans and the ecdysozoans. This is so much the case that even groups that are strongly believed to be monophyletic on the basis of morphological data, such as molluscs, emerge as polyphyletic in these trees (33). We have argued elsewhere that, within both branches, the phyla have emerged in a relatively rapid historical succession, thus leading to a case in which rRNA reaches its limits of resolution (34).

​

We would like to stress that, if this view is correct, it leads to a profound reappraisal of the Cambrian explosion: Instead of corresponding to the rapid diversification of all of the bilaterian phyla, the explosion would have occurred simultaneously in three already well separated and poorly diversified lineages (the lophotrochozoan stem line, the ecdysozoan one, and the deuterostome one), implying that such an explosion would have been caused not by a single "internal" genetic innovation but, more likely, by an "external" (i.e., ecological) set of events.

​

And;

​

Metazoan phylogenies. (A) The traditional phylogeny based on morphology and embryology, adapted from Hyman (11). (B) The new molecule-based phylogeny. A conservative approach was taken in B: i.e., some datasets provide resolution within some of the unresolved multifurcations displayed, but we have limited the extent of resolution displayed to that solidly provided by rRNA only.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages"

---

So? Why then do they go on to propose other methods of getting to the Urbilitaria? What’s your point? Read what they are saying in context.

quote:

---

Indeed, the demise of the gradist interpretation of early bilaterian evolution does not mean, of course, that the last common ancestor has not itself been the result of a progressive construction, possibly through an extended period. It means that we do not have extant representatives of these stages.

---

Secondly, no one is saying that chordates evolved from an echinoderm, but that they evolved from a common ancestor. Both trees support this contention.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Where is the "empirical evidence"?? How could the exoskeleton of the arthropods (trilobites) evolve from the annelids (spriggina)??

---

See your own cite for evidence that such evolution happened. I don’t pretend to know how it happened, but that doesn’t invalidate the evidence that points to it having happened.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
If there indeed is a trilobite transitional, the organism should have a half exoskeleton and half-endoskeleton, half-jointed appendages, a body cavity with half-haemocoel etc. Everything should be hlaf-way since it's a transitional organism. At least, thats how I look at it.

---

It’s a common misconception that something must be halfway for it to be a transitional. Does Archaeopteryx have half a wing?

quote:

---

Furthermore, trilobites are more complex than spriggina. If natural selection and point mutations (taking in consideration the odds of it producing a benefician change as I outlined above) caused the spriggina to evolve in to a trilobite, then you have to base the reason (apart from empirical evidence) as to why did this occur? Mutations, on the majority, are harmful as it deranges the nucleotide sequence; so the majority if mutations occuring may even devolve the spriggina to relatively simpler organism. Are there any transitional fossils for that? Why only evolution has to occur, and not devolution since the possibility of the latter is more than the former?

---

Good grief! What are you talking about? How can you possibly criticise evolution with such a poor understanding of it?Firstly, the evidence suggests that the majority of mutations are neutral, a significant minority are harmful, & a small minority beneficial. Harmful mutations are removed from the genome (of the population) by natural selection, the frequency of beneficial mutations is increased by the same process. Hence multiple good adaptive mutations accumulate, resulting in a gradual change over time.There is absolutely nothing that says complexity cannot be lost by an evolutionary process. This isn’t devolution however, it is still evolution. Why? Because it is an adaptive change.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Firstly, the "at once" appearance of living organisms refers to an extremely narrow geological time (~5-10 million mya) when all the animals phylas, except bryozoans, made their appearance.

---

This is becoming tedious. There is strong evidence of major phyla appearing in the Precambrian. I’ve been here before, if you’re not going to read what I write, I see no reason in repeating myself.

quote:

---

Now this does refute evolution.. which states that given NS and random mutations occuring over a long period of time, the organism gradually evolves from simple to complex.

---

Incorrect.You mean long periods of time meaning anything over 10 million years, evolution makes no such stipulation. Secondly, there’s those irritating Precambrian animal fossils found in 900 million year old rocks. Thirdly, evolution does not state that an organism HAS to evolve from simple to complex. Fourthly, there's the divergences of the various clades shown by your own molecular data cite, which by definition occur before the cambrian explosion.

quote:

---

Modern evolutionists propose different hypothesis to explain this like Punctuated Equilibria, plate tectonics etc. But what they can't explain is the wide variety of organisms making their appearance within an extremely short time. Note, these organisms varied from each other distinctly by possessing features complex and has no known evolutionary origin.

---

Precambrian origins aside. Provide POSITIVE evidence that this cannot happen. Tell me where evolution contradicts itself with actual measurable specifics. This is YOUR claim, not mine. Back up your own hypothesis, attacking other hypotheses doesn't make your own favoured one any more true without positive, evidence in its support.

quote:

---

Mark:
I have asked this several times now; what implication does the appearance of major classifications of organisms at different times have on your belief system? You have used the fossil record to support your claim that ALL metazoans appear at the same time (& you admit this is an incorrect assumption), so it stands to reason that you use the same evidence to support your own hypothesis. Can you make the same observations fit your belief system?

---

This time please answer the question. I know what a belief system is, & I know what creation science is. In order to answer this question you will have to state how you believe life got here, &, if in more than one event, in what order? Please give as much relevant information as possible.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
And each of them complies with Creation theory. So what if the seed ferns went extinct? Similar explanations regarding the origin of plants can also be given. Have you heard of the "evolutionary explosion" (as evolutionists call it) that took place some time during the carboniferous period?

---

Hey, YOU said there were no plant intermediates, not me.

quote:

---

And what are the ‘progymnosperms’? Imaginary evolutionary ancestorsthere is no evidence that they ever even existed!

---

LOL! Without going into too much detail, a proof that they DO exist should suffice.XReferProgymnospermopsida (progymnosperms)"The ancestors of the gymnosperms, which arose in the Devonian and dwindled to extinction in the latter part of the Carboniferous. They had trunks with wood resembling that of gymnosperms, but their fertile branches or leaves bore sporangia (see Spore), and their foliage was often fern like. Probably seeds evolved in various different progymnosperms. See Archaeopteris."Imaginary-ancestors-no-evidence-they-even-existed, indeed!

quote:

---

Mark:
As I have explained, prokaryotes precede eukaryotes, which in turn precedes multicellular life. All of this occurred BEFORE the Cambrian explosion.

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
If I am not wrong, is this the endosymbiont theory of Margulis that you are referring to?

---

You are wrong. I am talking about basic increases of complexity seen in the Precambrian.

quote:

---

So far, you haven't shown me any valid intermediate of animals. And what are the ‘progymnosperms’? Imaginary evolutionary ancestorsthere is no evidence that they ever even existed!

---

I HAVE shown you valid Precambrian intermediates. You don’t accept them, what can I do? I don’t pretend to show you DEFINATE transitionals, but they are valid!

quote:

---

Mark:
In my discussions with you I have been careful not to make any unbacked assertions. Care to support the quote above with anything more than faith alone? That is, positive, testable, falsifiable evidence?

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
IC and CE are my bets.

---

Like I said, unbacked assertions. There is no POSITIVE, TESTABLE, FALSIFIABLE evidence of creation.

quote:

---

Ahmed:
I have been delving upon this subject in detail, lately. Bryozoans appeared just after the Cambrian period, in the Ordovician Period (495 mya) that is part of the same Palezoic era that cambrian period is part of too. Hmm.. does that ring a bell?

---

Bryozoans don’t appear in the Cambrian, they appear in the Ordovician. Ergo not all Phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. Simple. Was I not clear on this?

quote:

---

Mark:
Also, the earliest unargued multicellular animal body fossils date fom 900 million years ago (to my knowledge)(see a previous post), giving a 450 million year window of opportunity for the earliest metazoans taxa to the last phyla to appear.

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
Interesting. Can you back up your claim?

---

Yup. Pararenicola, Protoarenicola were found in 900 million year old rocks (for the second time of telling). They have been allied with annelids (themselves Cnidarians) (Sun 1986, Sun 1994, Cloud 1986)

quote:

---

Mark:
What of the above refute evolution?

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
If all the animal phyla, save the bryozoans, including complex invertebrates as well as vertebrates, hemichordates and chordates all appeared in span of ~5-10 mya, how do you think evolution can explain this?

---

Because the ancestors lived deep in the Precambrian, were generally small, soft bodied, & not numerous? What a crazy whacked out explanation that was!

quote:

---

Ahmed:
A soft bodied protoarthropod with no jointed legs, WILL LOOK LIKE ONE.
It will have no jointed appeandages but will be a cross between its ancestors and its own "future" species.

---

Excellent. You agree that Spriggina is a potential intermediate annelid-arthropod, then? By your own definition, you should do.

quote:

---

Ahmed:
All chordates have notochords. So if there exists a chordate transitional, it should be a cross between its ancestor species and the future specie. For example, if there is a transition between an echinoderm and chordates, the resulting species is bound to have everything in half. It should have half an exoskeleton and half an endoskeleton. Half from each species, especially the characteristic features.

---

Incorrect.If an intermediate proto-echinoderm/chordate intermediate fossil is discovered before it got a notochord, it doesn’t invalidate the fossil as a potential intermediate. It doesn't have to have half of everything. Creationist strawman.

quote:

---

Mark:
Creationist assertions shown to be in error:

​

1/ All animal phyla appeared at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
With the exception of bryozoans, what are your bets?

---

My bet is that the creationists assertion is wrong BECAUSE bryozoans appeared when creationists say they didn’t. Also, see cnidarians, above.

quote:

---

Mark:
2/ No animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
What are the animal phylas that appeared first after the cambrian explosion, save the bryozoans?

---

None. So what? Bryozoans appear after the Ce. Period. Creationist assertion 2/ blown out of the water.

quote:

---

Mark:
3/ No animal phyla appeared before the Cambrian explosion.

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
Metazoans and traces of multicellular organisms can be traced before the cambrian era. But what phylas had their go before the cambrian explosion and appeared in a complete state?

---

Cnidarians (annelids), see above. The Ediacarans too, if you don’t want them to be ancestors of the Cambrian phyla, you choose.Regardless, even if the metazoans in the Precambrian didn’t belong to an extant phyla, they’d belong to an as yet un-named one by definition, unless you know of any metazoans that DON’T belong to a phylum? I know you don’t WANT them to exist, but they do. Creationist assertion 3/ blown out of the water.

quote:

---

Mark:
4/ There are no possible intermediate fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian.

---

quote:

---

Ahmed:
No intermediate fossils of any species during any era has been shown yet.

---

Except Spriggina, of course, see above, Also:Present in dinosaurs, but not in birds; pubic peduncle, long bony tail, & abdominal ribs. Present in birds but not dinosaurs; pygostyle, a bony sternum, a furcula,, a hypotarsus, & feathers. What do you think Archeopteryx possessed? Yup, all of them. By your own definition, a transitional.I stand by the seven points I made, & when we can agree on them, we can move forward. You didn’t provide a single refutation of the points, so I’ll state them again:Creationist assertions shown to be in error:

​

1/ All animal phyla appeared at the same time.

​

2/ No animal phyla appeared after the Cambrian explosion.

​

3/ No animal phyla appeared before the Cambrian explosion.

​

4/ There are no possible intermediate fossils of metazoans in the Precambrian.

​

Remaining problems:

​

1/ Why did so many body plans of metazoan fossils appear at roughly the same time?

​

2/ Why is there such a paucity of fossil multicellular life in the Precambrian?

​

Do you agree? If so, we can move on. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2002]