You wrote:"ROTFLMAO--nice dodge. And you are doing a good job of providing such stories. Do you care to deal with any evidence? Gene and I will accept human fossils found in the Cambrian as falsification. Is there such evidence? Yes or no?"
But Larry, the reason for my science fiction scenario and the hoax scenario is that science has strongly established that no homosapiens were alive during PreCambrian or Cambrian. Thus, if human fossils in the Cambrian is a falsification. Yet, we know except for my fantastic scenario this could not possible happen. Then, the fossil record is not falsifiable. QED [/QUOTE]
LOL--you have many potential falsifications available, but you were offered one. Stomping your feet is not adequate. How about mammals showing up before reptiles? Do you have evidence of that? Or reptiles before amphibians? Do you want me to continue?
[QUOTE][b] But more importantly, Dodge Dodge. You have failed to explain how a known mechanism of mutation in a genome can make the transition from Prokaryote to Eukaryote. Or unicellular to multicellular organisms. Or the entire family of proteins that separate Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for pointing out you were dodging some more.
I maintain it is possible under known mechanisms. Since you are implying that it is impossible under known mechanisms please demonstrate it--you implied that such a thing is impossible--why?
[QUOTE][b] My argument is like being pregnant. Either you have a placenta or you don't. The ancestor of creatures, using descent with modification, that had a placenta did not have one. So it is a series of proteins with a novel function and regulating hormones which determine when the mother develops it. What mechanism can produce such change in one generation. [/QUOTE]
Why one generation? Who makes such an absurd claim? Cite it please and no Duane Gish cites.
You completely avoid the issue of why the genetic nested hierarchy is so close to the morphological nested hierarchy. Besides common descent what other explanations are there?
[QUOTE][b] Are you getting my argument or not? [/QUOTE]
Yes, you aren't getting mine. You say that anything can be put in a nested hierarchy. That is incorrect.
Where your argument falls apart is at the genetic evidence level. Are the same genes used for the placental development in fish and mammals? And if not then it appears that we have something that doesn't resemble a car at all where the "air conditioners" are not the same if you will. For someone who likes to talk genetics you sure seem to be missing the point--if the morphological nested hierarchy closely resembles the genetic nested hierarchy--your argument is reduced to silliness. Development of similar body plans to meet similar environmental pressures is quite expected given common descent--however, different genetic pathways to such adaptations is only consistent with common descent as far as I am aware. Or do you have another explanation?
BTW--is there something radically different about invertebrate genetics and vertebrate genetics? Or invertebrate with fossilizing part genetics and invertebrate without fossilizing parts genetics?
[QUOTE][b] When you look at lower levels of taxonomical difference you do not get any problems. You avoid any of these problems. The scientific evidence does not support the extrapolate higher levels of taxa using descent with modification. [/QUOTE]
Then how do you explain already introduced evidence that you have refused to address? In the 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution you have not addressed any of the evidence involving pseudogenes, molecular vestigal characteristics, molecular paralogy--also interesting in light of your claims regarding new genes, molecular convergence, molecular suboptimal function, etc. What else is such evidence consistent with?
[QUOTE][b] But let's go back for a second.
Using descent with modification, What mechanism changes a prokaryote to a Eukaryote?
Does your side have an answer? [/QUOTE]
Does it have a final answer no? As I mentioned competing theories this is obvious. However, you have yet to introduce anything about the process that would make it impossible for evolution to produce such results. You are implying that such a process is impossible--what is the evidence why it is impossible?
[QUOTE][b] If the theory is not simply a partial theory like I argue, it must work in all cases. [/QUOTE]
Given our understanding of genetics why would such a process be impossible? Could it be different--yes. What good reason do you have to say it MUST be different? Why couldn't the known mechanisms of evolution end up with such a result?
[QUOTE][b] You have briefly referred to some theories on how this happened, but do those theories actually support descent with modification or do they utilize a different mechanism to explain this evolution. [/QUOTE]
Nothing that I'm aware of---are you claiming they do? I keep asking and you keep ignoring.
[QUOTE][b] Does your side spend so much time debating with young earth creationist about speciation that you have not bothered to deal with the issue of whether descent with modification can be extrapolated? [/QUOTE]
I provide 29 lines of evidence that you have refused to address. Why?
[QUOTE][b] And please stop referring to that genus/species transitional fossil link. I have examined it about three times now and still do not see how it directly addresses my extrapolation argument. I am arguing higher taxa and it arguing lower taxa. But I agree with lower taxa. It's a red herring. [/QUOTE]
Finely you clarify. Thank you. If you noticed I provided you with three options of clarifying and you didn't even do it then. You apparently like to avoid dealing in substance sich it might lead to less confusion.
[QUOTE][b] The force of gravity and electromagnetism are the forces that determine the behaviour of matter until you get to the nuclear level. They are merely partial explanations of the forces that govern matter. [/QUOTE]
So, are you claiming that a new genetic mechanism is required? Or are you arguing something bigger? It MUST be the second because the first wouldn't change the essential finding that small genetic changes lead to big genetic diversity now would it.
Since you must be arguing the second, you have yet to demonstrate a barrier. You claim there is one by setting up a rather bizarre claim of how much change one mutation must undergo, however, you refuse to deal with the argument that such a claim is a strawman. The creation of a new gene that is vastly different from anything previous in one mutation is never asserted in biological evolution. What you must show is that the rate of genetic change is insufficient--meaning falsify one of the 29 lines of evidence or demonstrate that there is some sort of natural barrier.
[QUOTE][b] Similary, Scientist are observing organisms using genetics. Descent with modification explains the origin of genus, species, and individual variation. But these mechanism do not produce new genes with entirely new functions. Organisms with higher taxanomical differences have distinct functions and genomic arrangements. Extrapolation has not been demonstrated to provide a scientific explanation. [/QUOTE]
You have never explained why small changes do not lead to large changes after repeated changes. Why not? Why are you avoiding this issue and arguing for something that is not necessary--specifically a one time dramatic mutation.
[QUOTE][b] Show that descent with modification is the only mechanism. [/QUOTE]
Who claims it is a mechanism? What theory are you talking about? Descent with modification is a result of the other mechanisms. If you are this confused I'd suggest starting with some preliminary work on evolution. Talkorigins.org might be a good place for you.
quote: Thus, making it a complete theory. Thus, show that descent with modification, can produce the difference between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. Given that the theory argues that Prokaryotes came first.
Why is such a process inconsistent? If you are arguing we don't have the final answer so the theory is incomplete that isn't much of a challenge. It simply says we don't know the particular path. Do you have evidence that any proposed hypothesis would invalidate evolution based on the different hypotheses? Please share.
I basically answered this in my long series of replies to gene and nibelung in one post in the other board. In my section of responses to Gene's post 67, 68, 69.
You have a habit of referring to the great oracle 29 lines of information for macromutation. It simply does not counter my argument. If you think it does. Could you please show me how? and include the link. I can't seem to find it.
And descent with modification, is the theory that all life on this planet originated from a common living ancestor. The organism evolved by genetic mutations within its genome. Speciation, Genu,... kingdom level events occur as organisms adapt as some of these mutation are favored by their changing environment or different genetic populations of the organisms are isolated by this ever changing environment or the formentioned adaptation cause some of the organisms to sexually isolate themselves. and etc.
Your side has the habit of mentioning aspects of Neutral theory, macromutation (not to be confused with macroevolution), endosymbiont hypothesis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc.
If you are accepting of these theories, then you agree with my argument. The modern synthesis is a partial theory.
It's like you are attacking my argument that Modern Synthesis is a partial theory by using elements of different theories that if they were correct would infact make Modern Synthesis a partial theory.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry: [b]I basically answered this in my long series of replies to gene and nibelung in one post in the other board. In my section of responses to Gene's post 67, 68, 69. [/QUOTE]
No, you didn't even approach an answer. And you certainly didn't answer many of the questions I asked you. And you demonstrated that you are using a strawman in regards to what the Modern Synthesis actually states.
[QUOTE][b] You have a habit of referring to the great oracle 29 lines of information for macromutation. [/QUOTE]
Yes, I developed that habit after your habit of ignoring them developed.
[QUOTE][b] It simply does not counter my argument. [/QUOTE]
Why not? You've read them haven't you? Why not address just the ones based on molecular evidence?
[QUOTE][b] If you think it does. Could you please show me how? and include the link. I can't seem to find it. [/QUOTE]
I've already stated I'm not providing you with links after I have done so before. I provided the link more than twice. The point of my refusal is that you have not responded substantively to any of the points and in fact, have said things that if you had read posts 2 & 3 you would not have said. And it is amusing for me to watch you avoid addressing what you claim to have read. Since you are clearly not interested in a serious discussion I might as well be amused. Of course, the link is still available in this thread if you chose to look it up. Given the new search capability it would be trivial--now wouldn't it?
[QUOTE][b] And descent with modification, is the theory that all life on this planet originated from a common living ancestor. The organism evolved by genetic mutations within its genome. Speciation, Genu,... kingdom level events occur as organisms adapt as some of these mutation are favored by their changing environment or different genetic populations of the organisms are isolated by this ever changing environment or the formentioned adaptation cause some of the organisms to sexually isolate themselves. and etc.
Your side has the habit of mentioning aspects of Neutral theory, macromutation (not to be confused with macroevolution), endosymbiont hypothesis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc. [/QUOTE]
I already covered this in the other thread, but this is an example of what amuses me. If you disagreed with Futuyama when I first cited the page why didn't you bring it up then?
[QUOTE][b] If you are accepting of these theories, then you agree with my argument. The modern synthesis is a partial theory. [/QUOTE]
LOL. You have no shame.
[QUOTE][b] It's like you are attacking my argument that Modern Synthesis is a partial theory by using elements of different theories that if they were correct would infact make Modern Synthesis a partial theory. [/QUOTE]
So why are you right about what the Modern Synthesis is and Futuyama wrong?
I'm also starting a new thread concerning how you explain that the morphological nested hierarchy is very similar to the genetic nested hierarchy.
Debate in this thread appears to have concluded. I'll allow a few days for anyone to resume discussion here or state they need more time, and then I'll close the thread and have the outcome judged. Volunteers are needed to do the judging.