|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: questions evolutionists can't or won't answer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I can only infer from what is written. As I already wrote, none of the books on the topic that I have cite Kerkut. I have to wonder - which creationist web site had that quote-mined gem?Alternatives? What alternatives? Magic? Space-men? Superbeings? quote: if you can't see how embryology has a DIRECT impact on the adult form, AND can provide a great deal of information about evolution, then I suspect taht you are a typical creationist. Unlike undereducated creationists, or those with educations in totally irrelevant fields like computer science, students that major in biology typically can make the necessary connections between ontogeny, phylogeny, and anatomy.
quote: Some of it is on that page. It is called the fossil record. And, of course, what you just tried to muddle your way through (or out of) - embryology. It is a shame that you have as usual abandoned any substantive issues and are trying to pull the same crap you usually do and did recently at BB - run off on irrelevant tangents, prattle on about 'assumptions', and such, rather than actually support your contentions. I have to assume that you have capitulated on the phylogeny issue, at least I hope you have. You were really out of the ballpark - you weren't even in the parking lot - in your "overwhelm them with minutiae" attempt to deal with it above.This is really getting old. Unless you have something of substance to offer, I don't see much point in going on. Your personal distaste for the names of bones, the workings of the scientific method, etc., can never be dealt with in a way that would satisfy you. And in an important way, who the f*** cares what some creationist engineer 'personally' accepts or not on the issue of biological evolution? The BB censotrs cut some of my best lines to you (of course!) - such as my request that you contact all anatomists and zoologists and inform them that you, Joe Gallien, creationist engineer, demand that the bones in modern whales that are homologous to pelvi and hind limbs be called something else because you personally don't like the implications... bye bye joey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry to butt-in, but ....
quote: It's not tricky. Mutations are heritable, you agreed. Girls are rarely colour blind, since the gene that causes it is onthe X chromosome, and is recessive. The same location doesn't exist in Y, so boys only need one colour-blind X to be colour blind. (Probably a simplification I think that was how it was taught to me in 'O' level biology) Your sisters have a fifty-fifty chance of carrying colour blindnessso they have inhereted the trait/mutation. Whether something IS passed on has no bearing on whether it isheritable. They are two separate issues. quote: Like I say, not relevent to whether something is heritable,only to whether it is actually inherited ... so irrelevent to the question asked. quote: Agreed ... the question is not how the mutations come about, buthow they are fixed in a population. Natural selection seems to spring to mind here. You have hit upon an interesting idea... evolution is mutation (by some mechanism) + selection (by some mechanism).
quote: Down's syndrome (as I understand it) is a kind of first-generationmutation. That is, the mutation occurs at the particular gammete rather than being passed on. Wonder if downs syndrome individuals produce Down's offspring? Don't know. Isn't sickle cell anaemia restricted to certain ethnicities?Doesn't that suggest common ancestry in recent times for the trait? I think the suggestion is that if the conditions exist which tendto promote mutation, that large numbers of the population will have affected gametes ... in that case any modern trait may be traced back to a group/population rather than an individual (I guess). quote: Which is why 1) isn't tricky at all.
quote: I think techniques and results coming out of genetic engineeringwork may provide a means of testing such hypotheses. Look at that crustacean leg inhibition for a start. OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, butisn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
OK I know that's 'loss of a trait' if you look at it one way, but
isn't it the gain of a trait if it happened the other? 1. It's a "loss" of a trait if something disappears.2. It's "no new information" if something repeats.. as repeating something is just the same thing again. 3. It's "directed mutation" if it changes slightly. The information was already in the genome, or if it wasn't, the genome was created just so that such a mutation could occur when needed. So creationists have all the bases covered. Even each step of evolution occur right before their eyes, they can insist that nothing at all is happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^Of course it's 'the gain of a trait if you look at it the other way'!! But that is the ludicrousness that can be evolutionary thinking. 'Who cares which way we go: from no heart to heart or the other way - it's the same! Utter folly. I know that is not how a carefully thinking evoltuionist works but the thought patterns can err on that side.
The simple mistake made is that in going from a heart to no heart you need one DNA-base mutaiton in a master gene. To get a heart from no heart it's just a tad harder: you need dozens to hundreds of new genes and enzymatic and developmental pathways. Many of these genes bear no resemblance to pre-existing genes in the genome. So, yes whenever there's a fact of evolution it can be readily interpreted as loss or mutation of existing genes. Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven. So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds! [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whenever it's evoltuionary fairtales it can't be proven. So what's the take home message? You guys may have jumped the gun after watching the diversification of created kinds! [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002][/B][/QUOTE] Fairytales... Jumping the gun... Well, TB, maybe you can explain to us all - with scientific evidence in support, of course - how it is that killing pigeons cures leprosy? Or, more on topic, what the 'created kinds' were. How many there were. How it was that we got what we have today from them since 'the flood' . Start a new thread if you want - I mean, you must have all sorts of verifiable documentation supportive of this belief... this fairytale, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
Based on Creationists acceptance of the "Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced by thier constant mentioning of it...
1) Prokayrote2) Eukayrote 3) Cyanobacteria 4) Cindarian 5) Gastropod 6) Arthropod 7) Worm 8) Chordate 9) Bivalve 10) Bryzoa 11) Brachiopods Everything else diversified from these original "kinds".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
You forget plants, algae & fungi. Oh, and also all sorts of things that didn't fit anywhere, like the five-eyed something Opabinia or the living blobs of Ediacara...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
So what say you Tranquility, are these listed species the "Original Kinds"?
They are the only things we find in the cambrian layers, and even up into the Sil/Ord Devonian and Carboniferous layers. They must be the original "kinds" as we don't find any others in all the strata. In other words, the original primitive gastropods, trilobites, etc. were the original creatures created on creation week. The "Tree of Life" was actually probably some sort of a simple valved polyp, as fronded ferns and other primitive treelke plants don't appear until the devonian, and angiosperms until the Jurassic. My guess would be that God created some of the kinds (like jellyfish, pikia, bryzoa, crinoids) during creation week, then waited for the flood to create the rest. Then as the flood was raging, he created the rest of the kinds in mid air, and dropped them in the water on the first, second, third, day etc. so they would drown and settle to the bottom in just the proper order. He also made sure that each of the new species he created during the flood were just different enough from those the day before that they could be put together in some sort of treelike relationship later on to fool the scientists (godless heathens that they are). Anyhow.. that's my own personal theory of kinds and how they managed somehow to get in the layers they are in now in the order they are in. It almost makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
I also have another theory. This theory I'll call my FUD theory. My other theory goes something like this:
We just don't know enough about water and how it moves, and about fossils, or things like bones and fossilization to say for sure. For instance, there could be things like currents and waves of some sort that make things look like they are in a particular order, but were really created. For instance, sometimes things sink and other things don't. If we only knew enough about how that worked maybe we could understand more about the flood. So until we understand how different things can wash around in a flood the likes of which we have never seen, it is too soon to say what could or coudn't have happened. I'm sure in the future as we learn more about how the dynamics of water in global floods we will eventually learn precisely how all the fossils were laid down in what seems like a perfect evoutionary sequence, but actually isn't. [This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I love the sound of crickets chirping....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bart007 Inactive Member |
Rationalist writes:
"Based on Creationists acceptance of the "Cambrian Explosion" as evidenced by thier constant mentioning of it...1) Prokayrote 2) Eukayrote 3) Cyanobacteria 4) Cindarian 5) Gastropod 6) Arthropod 7) Worm 8) Chordate 9) Bivalve 10) Bryzoa 11) Brachiopods" Isn't evolution suppose to flow the other way. You do not start out with phyla that evolve all creatures according to their phylum, that sounds a bit creationist. Evolution demands it start out with a single self-replicating somehing or other, that speciates over and over into many new species, which evolve into new genesus, which evolve into new groupings known as families, etc., etc., all the way up to new phyla. By the Cambrian period, these thirty something phyla existed with all the necessary evolution that must have preceded them totally missing from the fossil record. And there exist no rational reason for this evolutionary history to be missing, if evolution be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]And there exist no rational reason for this evolutionary history to be missing, if evolution be true.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Actually there are rational reasons. You can't get many fossils without hard parts for one. For another the Cambrian has had lots of time to be modified by metamorphism. The first part of your post wasn't clear, perhaps you could elaborate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Bart:
quote: Not really. This is a relatively common misunderstanding of linnean classification and "phyla" in particular. A critter is assigned to a phylum based on a shared body plan. All phyla were described within the last couple hundred years - using modern organisms. One of the key fallacies here is that means that all extinct organisms - whether they really share a body plan or not - are shoehorned into one of the 33 identified phyla alive today! Needless to say, this means that some of the really weird pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils are listed in one of the modern phyla - whether they share a common body plan or not - leading to serious misconceptions that all phyla magically appeared 580 million years ago. In point of fact, only about 13 actually show up in the fossil record during the Vendian and around the Paleozoic-Cambrian boundary (the so-called "explosion"). Here's a listing: Era Phyla Recent 13Eocene 2 Cretaceous 2 Jurassic 1 Triassic 3 Carboniferous 5 Devonian 4 Silurian 1 Ordovician 1 Cambrian 9 Vendian 4 As you can see, only 13 phyla show up during/prior to the Cambrian. 20 phyla appear later. There IS, therefore, evidence of inter-phyla evolution. Why? Because "phylum" is simply a convenient term, not an intrinsic entity defining a discontinuity or barrier. Even then, stuffing organisms into existing phyla leads to problems: look up Asbestopluma or the Cladorhizidae - classified under phylum Porifera, but sharing none (or almost none) of the Porifera bodyplans. The whole thing is very arbitrary - and substantially more complex than a cursory examination of the issue would lead one to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bart007 Inactive Member |
quote: You are correct that Linnean classification provided the 33 or so Phyla based upon observation of the different basic bauplanes (i.e. body planes) of extant animals. Unfortunately, you abandon science to pursue the special pleading type arguments of a dogmatic evolutionists who are also rabid anti-creationists. I see you seek to persuade me with the great works of Glenn R. Morton, a dogmatic evolutionist and anti-creationists. Where does he get his information on Phyla? He says it is from Berkeley University. Glen writes: "Berkeley has posted an interesting display of when the various phyla appear. It can be found at First Appearances of Metazoans" But when we go to that web page, we discover it is not an official document from Berkeley, rather, it is a web page of a student attending Berkeley, Ben Waggoner. Even so, Glenn misrepresents Ben's web page, for Ben writes of his own chart: "The chart above shows the oldest undoubted fossil occurences of each of the living major groups of animals. Note how many of the animal groups have fossil records that date back to the Cambrian period, over 500 million years ago. Those groups which do not date back to the Cambrian, with the single exception of the Bryozoa, do not possess mineralized skeletons. It is likely that all major animal groups, even those which have not left us fossils, originated in the Cambrian. This sudden appearance of many major groups of animals is often referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion"." BTW, Glenn readily admits that the experts, the scientists who have obtained, examined, discussed and published in their peer reviewed journals, the scientific data of on Cambrian Phyla, that 32 of 33 Linnean classifications of Phyla of extant metazoans are found in the Cambrian explosion. He amazingly chooses to ignore them and even his primary source, Ben Waggoner, who ultimately agrees with the Paleontologists. There have been estimates of up to 84 Phyla that appear in the Vendian/Cambrian period. Many have become extinct. Since the Cambrian era, not one new bauplane (i.e. Phyla) has arose. It is not I who misunderstands. In fact, I understand all too well. YSome evolutionists prefer the special pleadings of a dogmatic evolutionists like Glenn Morton, who happened to be engaged in a crusade against creationists, over accepting the actual scientific findings. Here is an article posted by PBS on their evolution web site. They are squarely in the evolutionist camp with their strong bias in favor of Evolutionism. They speak of the Cambrian Explosion: "530 mya: The Cambrian explosion "The basic body plans of the major animal phyla are established over a relatively short period of roughly 10 million years. All the major animal phyla that exist today -- about three dozen -- evolve from these Cambrian faunas. "The Cambrian explosion (530-520 mya) "While scientists now know that animal life existed prior to the Cambrian explosion, the diversity of life that evolves during its 10 million years remains significant. While the soft-bodied Ediacaran animals had no protective coverings, many Cambrian animals evolved skeletons, such as shells or other brittle coatings. Among the more familiar groups to appear include sponges, brachiopods (lamp shells), spiny-skinned echinoderms, early gastropods (snails), cone-shelled cephalopods, and primitive arthropods called trilobites. Several other creatures that are unrelated to any currently living form also appear, but they die off after a short time. "A combination of environmental factors probably contributes to this evolutionary burst. Oxygen, which is plentiful in both the atmosphere and in the oceans, allows physically larger animals to evolve. Warm, free-flowing ocean currents probably carry these animals to new marine niches, where they adapt to new settings and evolve different characteristics. "Environmental factors alone, however, cannot explain why major animal phyla have not evolved in the 500 million years or so since the Cambrian explosion. Studies comparing fossilized embryos and a wide range of contemporary specimens suggest that homeobox genes -- genes that control whether certain cells specialize to form muscles, nerves, or glands, for example -- are remarkably similar in all species. The mutations that give rise to these control genes may be advantageous only in the earliest, simplest animals." Evolution: Change: Deep Time Postscript. It is ludicrous that PBS writes loaded sentences to browbeat unwary readers into accepting the materialistic evolutionary worldview. Here is such a typical browbeating statement by PBS: "The mutations that give rise to these control genes...". Neither PBS nor Science know anything about any mutations giving rise to control genes. PBS can only justify such a statement because they "KNOW" evolution is a "FACT". This is teaching (of science) at its' worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Wow - Bart sounds like a rabid anti-evolutionist creationist with a supernaturalistic philosophy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024