My overall view from this boards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Luis

​

Most of the proof of evoltuion turns out to be for the part of evolution that we agree with. We love Galapogos, mutating viruses, bacteria generating antibiotic resistance, peppered moths - it's all OK with us.

---

So long as it is never taken to its logical conclusion. Or, so long as there is a line magically seperating 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable' variation.

quote:

---

Then you guys jump to homology both anatomical and molecular shouting in triumph as if God couldn't create animals that used the same underlying biochemistry or sampled anatomical space completely!

---

But why should God create as you describe?Why modify a boat to drive on land, when you could just make a car to start with? And no, I am not talking about evolution. Why modify a car to fly when you can just build a proper airplane from the get-go? This is the kind of thing you see in the fossil record-- old parts modified for different functions. It makes sense if you have to use old parts, as does natural selection, but not if you can build from scratch every single needed part. Why use parts that function only marginally, when you could use brand new parts that work at 100%? It doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

Your proclamation that your side has won, when none of you ever even agree 'that's a good point' as I often have for your side, betrays your sides' extreme bias.

---

Give me something to agree with you about.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt:
Hey. Look. I am talking about transformations from one kind of animal into the next. Not about variations within a kind.

---

Until you can tell us what a 'kind' actually is, you have no case.

quote:

---

I am talking about the big picture here.

---

Actually, no. You are talking about a very small picture-- one based on mythology.

quote:

---

You're the one making bold assertations. Have you ever SEEN a Dog produce a non-Dog? How about a bacterium turning into a mosquito?

---

Ridiculous questions demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter. If you are going to attack evolution, at least attack EVOLUTION, and not some incorrect representation of it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
But the 'new' genes in the 'most primitive' organism with an immune system aren't recognizable as having come from elsewhere.

---

Did you put those words in quotes to indicate that you can't tell us with any precision exactly what you are talking about?

quote:

---

They came out of thin air.

---

Only in your straw man.

quote:

---

Of course you can propose that hemoglobin in humans is related to hemoglobin in frogs - but that does not work for the 'first' hemoglobin. It does not work for the first insulin.

---

TB, I am getting so very tired of your double-talk. What exactly is a 'first' hemoglobin? I dare you to define it.

quote:

---

Genomes are orderable into protein families.

---

Ok, lets have it. What are those families and how do they relate to kinds?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am very happy to define the 'first' hemoglobin. From your point of view it is the hemoglobin in the first organism in the evoltuionary progression that has hemoglobin.

---

Do you realize how meaningless this statement is? Congratulations!!! You've made a bunch of words say nothing at all.

quote:

---

From our point of view it would be the hemoglobin in the organism with the least complexity. Much the same actually.

---

Hang on, now. You've just equated 'evolutionary progression' with 'complexity'Does this also mean that you know how to calculate complexity?

quote:

---

But in your scenario the hemoglobin requires a natural explanation.

---

Oh wow, imagine that!In your scenario, you get to make things up when you don't know the answer.

quote:

---

It is in one organism and not in the previous (extant) anscestor or ansecestral relative and yet the rest of the genomic sequence nicely lines up between these similar kinds (eg man and ape).

---

I think you know that you'd have to sequence the ancestral species prior to the split to come up with hard evidence.This is double-talk, TB. It sounds reasonable, but it misrepresents the nature of nature.Do you realize that you spell poorly when you are scrambling to protect your myth? [quote][b]But what we ask is where did the first member of each family come from - eg the first insulin, or the first globin?[/quote][/b]Good question, but it didn't just pop up from nowhere. It is just chemistry. Wait!!! You think it did pop up from nowhere. Might as well shut down the labs.

quote:

---

You can't find the hints of where these genes came from in the genomic sequence databases. I'm not kidding. If you could there would be no creationists who were also scientists.

---

Right, because creationists have to stay one step ahead of hard data.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 09-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Why not just give your scientific reason (that the hints have drifted away) rather than be so shirty John?

---

Because I have been round and round with you about this, and becasue I am a very very bad boy. Mammuthus has posted some specific questions for you. These are much the same questions I have asked on several occasions. Lets just go from there.Where have the hints gone? Its called time, TB. Millions of years of it, hundreds of millions. On top of that, one mutation can radically alter a molecule. Tracing that change could be a formidable task, but difficult does not make it impossible, or false.

quote:

---

Many of your comments are plain rude and illogical.

---

Rude, yes. But not illogical. For example....

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with my definition of the 'first' hemoglobin for example.

---

Your definition is tautalogical-- the definition says no more than the phrase defined. Hence, meaningless.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com