Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 298 (341062)
08-18-2006 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by MangyTiger
08-17-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
According to the timer that video is over two hours long. Care to point us at the times for any particular bits that illustrate your point rather than us having to sit through it (or rather not bother to
I would paraphrase their responses but so much of it was non-sensical that I can't. Hovind was clear and concise, but then again, he memorizes each slide of his and even uses some of the same catch phrases. This is why I'm a little surprised that no one has figured out his debate style. Just watch it, you'll see what I mean. Its a good debate. A little one-sided but, good nonetheless. Lots of laughs from the audience.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by MangyTiger, posted 08-17-2006 10:06 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 298 (341094)
08-18-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 8:51 AM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Evolution is a theory of biology; in fact, it's the central organizing principle in biology. It's like the biological theory of relativity.
Biology was around before Darwin and it will be around after Darwin.
Contrary to their statement on the website, the ICR is not accredited by the California Department of Education. Rather, their accrediation is from an accrediting body for which Henry Morris, the founder of the ICR graduate school, serves on the board of directors.
You are confusing being on the Board of Trustees within ICR for being on the Board of Trustees for the California Dept. of Ed. This is a TalkOrigin distortion.
California Department of Education
Aside from which, your claim was that most proponents of ID and creationism have bogus, papermill degrees from unaccredited institutions. That's simply an unfounded claim.
That conflict of interest, as well as their little web-site shell game, essentially invalidates the ICR's accredation. Their accrediting body has been suspended several times due to such conflicts of interest, and their accredations cannot be held to be legitimate.
"Web-site shell game?" And please substantiate your claim that they've been suspended many times.
I don't have time to go through these all right now, so could you narrow it down for me? Which of these individuals do you assert holds a Ph.D. in biology? Or biochemistry, perhaps?
Quite alot. Why I should go through the lists when the burden of proof is on you, is beyond me. But to settle the matter quickly, I will oblige... not that the ToE begins and ends with biology, but many interdisciplinary fields, such as biochemistry, as you pointed out).
1. Stephen Meyer
2. Michael Behe
3. David Berlisnki
4. Paul Chien
5. Michael Newton
6. Jonathan Wells
7. Ray Bohlin
8. Walter Bradley
9. Cornelius Hunter
10. Dean Kenyon
11. Forrest Mims
12. Scott Minnich
13. J.P. Moreland
14. Henry Schaefer
15. Charles Thaxton
16. Kenneth Cumming
17. Robert Franks
18. Duane Gish
19. Fazale Rana
20. James Allen
21. Don Batten
22. David Catchpoole
23. Andrew Bosanquet
24. Kinberly Berrine
25. Vladamir Betina
26. Donald Chittick
27. David DeWitt
28. Geoff Downes
29. Andre Eggen
30. Dudley Eirich
31. Carl Fliermans
32. Dwain Ford
33. Maciej Giertych
34. D.B Gower
35. Kelly Hollowell
36. Bob Hosken
37. George Howe
38. Neil Huber
39. George Javor
40. Pierre Jerlstrom
41. Arthur Jones
42. John Kramer
43. Lane Lester
44. Ian Macreadie
45. John Marcus
46. John McEwan
47. Sally McEwan
48. David Menton
49. Angela Meyer
50. Albert Mills
51. Arlton Murray
52. Gary Parker
53. Georgia Purdom
54. Ariel Roth
55. Jonathan Safarti
56. Joachim Scheven
57. Timothy Standish
58. Esther Su
59. Royal Truman
60. Walter Veith
61. A.J. White
62. John Whitmore
63. Kurt Wise
64. Patrick Young
65. Henry Zuill
I did. The scientific method does not arrive at ID starting from the evidence we have. That's why it's impossible. It doesn't go there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this...? Please explain.
He gets tripped up all the time. Most of the time he's lecturing to screened audiences. And he's renouned for being presented with rebuttals to his points and never having a response.
Screened audiences at predominantly secular universitites? Doesn't present rebuttals? I've seen at least four debates where he participates and have heard his radio show. There was only one time when someone asked him a specific question and he could not answer it. Please substantiate your claim. Not that it really matters. I'm not a big fan of Hovind either way. But he is a good debator.
People kick this guy's ass all the time - most recently the US Government for failure to obtain building permits - it's just that you're never allowed to see. Or never bother to find out. If you're trying to hold this guy up as some kind of paragon of creationist intelligence let me prepare you for some significant disappointment.
Why wouldn't we be allowed to see them when the hosts of the debate are university students and faculty that invite him to a debate. There's nothing more they would love than to have him look like an idiot. For instance, the videolink I posted was hosted by Emery-Riddle, hardly the pro-creationist university. Furthermore, I already stated that it would be fairly easy to beat him in a debate. I've just never seen it happen.
quote:
Sorry, but I've been to college and have seen the worlds illuminous people pass through with ease.
You've seen glow-in-the-dark people? Sorry but what you've written here makes no sense.
A luminary is someone that has achieved a high level of social status, particularly in an academic way. So, if someone is illuminous, they lack that genius. That's where the word 'bright' derives from. It doesn't mean they physically glow. It means they are intelligent. Illuminous would be the opposite.
quote:
Therefore, by your argument, no one that doesn't have a law degree must never challenge Coulter because they couldn't possibly know a thing or two about law without having a degree in it.
Right. Which one of us challenged Coulter on the law? Specific thread and post, please.
I'm saying as a future referrence, by your logic, no one without a law degree should ever be able to question her jurisprudence. I'm not saying that you couldn't challenge on her on evolution or even on the law. I'm saying that your logic doesn't make sense. Just because someone doesn't have a degree in biology does not mean that they couldn't possibly know anything about evolution, nor does it mean that if someone doesn't have a law degree that couldn't possibly know a thing or two about the law.
That has nothing to do with Coulter, it has to do with Jerry Coyne. If there was a better theory than evolution, people like Coyne - biologists - would be the first lining up to prove it. Overturning the Darwinian model would be the coup of the century. The kind of thing that they give out Nobel prizes for.
Unless of course Coyne and others have personal reasons for hanging on to it. I guess it can go both ways. Many eminent scholars have abandoned evolution because it lacks the explanatory power to keep it in the forefront. I'm convinced that Gould, knowing very much about the field, had to invent reasons within his own mind in order to continue to believe in the theory he fought so hard for. His writings are littered with such tacit sentiments.
Coyne and the rest of the biological community don't have a vested interest in defending evolution. Quite the opposite - there is considerable fame and money to be had for the person or group that can prove evolution wrong. If evolution were obviously wrong, people like Coyne would be the first to say so.
There are only three options from which to choose from for how life originated: Spontaneous generation, panspermia, or special creation. There are only two options for how we arrive at taxonomy: Macroevolution or special creation. There are no other options. So, if Coyne believes in evolution it very may well have to do with some personal beliefs. I don't know Coyne, so I cannot say. But lets not rule out that possibility, especialy when any other reason is lacking.
The medical community is not the scientific community. They don't employ the same standards of evidence.
Well, lts look at this pragmatically. Neither ID nor evolution can offer any philanthropic principles in the way medicine can. ID and evolution offer the answer to philosophical questions. I can't see any value that either of them have in practical matters.
I doubt it. The fact that you appeared completely ignorant of the basic point I made above is essentially proof of that. Further, your consistent misunderstandings about what the ToE basically is, and the evidence that props it up, are even more evidence that you actually know pretty considerably less about science than most people here.
Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps its your misunderstanding? Anytime science goes undermines evolution, its psuedo-science? Is that your criteria? I haven't come to some flippant decision on evolution. I was once a very pro-evolutionist. That was before I knew much on the debate. And sadly, that's how it goes for most of the world. Its a snowball effect. One professor teaches 100 students. Those students grow up under the assumption that it was correct. Out of those 100 students, 10 grow to become professors of their own. And so and so on. Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 8:51 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 08-18-2006 2:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 244 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 4:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 252 by nator, posted 08-18-2006 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 290 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2006 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 298 (341181)
08-18-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by kuresu
08-18-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
before darwin's theory, birds were colorful so that we could enjoy God's masterpiece known as creation.
Everyone understood well before Darwin ever came along that certain attributes were bestowed on any given creature for its survival or for its defense. They just simply gave God the credit and the glory, amen, instead of one happenstance building off of another. And everyone understood the basics of heredity long before Darwin ever came along. To paraphrase Coulter, {not verbatim}, "Everyone knew long before Darwin came along that Timmy looked alot like his father. It never took a geneticist to understand the fact that Elephants birthed elephants and Alligators birthed alligators.
after darwin's theory, birds are coloful so that they can attract mates to have offspring.
There were naturalists, particularly Darwin's own grandfather, that knew of such things before Charlie ever came onto the scene. All their efforts were just swallowed up by his fame.
now then, which is the crackpot answer?
Neither. Both are good answers.
oh, and ToE does not provide the answer to any philosophical questions, and has practicality.
Evolution was the fuel for quite a bit of philospohies that spiralled into some horrific atrocities. Hitler, Marx, Fuerbach, Sanger, Huxley, just to name a few, all their crackpot ideologies are directly linked to Darwin's theory. I don't blame Charlie for all of this. I don't think he could have ever imagined what his proclivities would give rise to.
Ever heard of vaccines? What about antibiotics.
Yes, I have. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the theory of evolution. In fact, the first person to figure out vaccination was Louis Pasteur who, incidentally, was a creationist and ardently opposed to the ToE. Go figure.
If we didn't know how evolution worked, we wouldn't be able to predict that if we use one antibiotic long enough the bacteria will be resistant to it. We might notice that, but have no clue why that was so.
That's absurd because we knew all about that through Gregor Mendel, also not a Darwininiac, but rather a creationist who wrote his thesis years before Origins was being written. Aside from which, the bacteria resistance is not an argument for evolution. I don;t know why anyone would even use this argument anymore. Case in point: If you have a million microbes submitted to extermination by a new drug, suppose that 10 have survived through a resistance. Now, those microbes, continue to proliferate and each successive strain is now resistant. What just happened? Was it evolution? Absolutely not! Was that a prime example of natural selection? Yes, indeed. Natural selection does not encompass evolution, nor do mutations. Both are legitimate aspects of science. The microbes that survived were stronger and passed on this feature that was already present within the organism. No new genetic material produced, there was no evolution that took place, whatsoever. The stronger microbes simply survived and the weaker forms perished. That is not evolution. If you say that it is evolution, then you'd have to believe that the organism 'evolved' upon exposure to the new drug. That's absurd. It was natural selection that so happened to favor those 10 stronger microbes.
As I said before, evolution has made no philanthropic contribution to science, medicine, or any of its derivatives. It has only served to justify rogue eugenics and all of the overtones that go along with it. And if I'm here by accident then I can remove you by incident according to the theory, without any moral qualms attached to it. Even Nietzsche understood the societal implications of the theory. I'm wondering when everyone else is going to catch on.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by kuresu, posted 08-18-2006 2:21 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 7:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 257 by Brad McFall, posted 08-18-2006 7:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 260 by Nighttrain, posted 08-18-2006 9:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 298 (341200)
08-18-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 7:39 PM


Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
We know that that's false, however. There is no variation among haploid organisms that isn't the result of genetic differences. And there is no genetic difference in asexual organisms that is not the result of mutation.
There's always going to be a genetic difference in every single organism. There are no carbon copies on the genetic level. This is attributed to shuffling, not the advent of completely new lines of information. Evolution requires the formation of new genetic material within the organism's DNA. How we arrive at the emergence of new strains of bacteria is not evolution because there is no new information at all, just a new order of that already extant info. The changes are attributed to natural selection and mutations, which are losses of genetic information to the overall population, not the gradual perfection. When an antibiotic destorys bacteria and a contingent of that population survive and multiply, thus leading to a new strain of bacteria. This is the normal lifecycle of all bacterium, not an evolutionary process.
Because some of the bacteria were different from the rest, we know that they mutated to do so. And because they survived in an environment where their brethren did not due to those differences, we know that natural selection occured. So, in this case, what you say is absolutely false. Mutation did occur, new genetic sequences did arise - it's the only explanation - and therefore, evolution did occur.
No, you are using misnomers about what the theory of evolution truly entails in order for speciation to occur. If evolution simply meant, "change," nobody would care. But evolution doesn't stop there. If evolution simply meant "natural selection," nobody would care. If evolution simply meant, "mutation," nobody would care. But these aspects are not what defines macroevolution. What defines evolution is the fact that completely new information must appear in order to slowly or quickly to achieve speciation. Since this event has only been seen within the proponents wild vagaries and has not been actualy witnessed, either on the molecular level or in any given population, there is no compelling reason to assume that something of this magnitude could ever occur. I mean, if bacteria are truly evolving all the time, then how is it that bacterium are still alive in the form we find them in today? How is it that one bacterium branched off to be the ultimate progenitor of mammals, while its far distant cousin could withstand time and natural selection without any significant change? It doesn't add up. Naturalistic evolution of life from simple eukaryotes to prokaryotes all the way up to human leaves me wanting without some sort of corroboration. The whole theory stands on an a pro tem, theoretical basis, not hard fact.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 7:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 264 by Omnivorous, posted 08-18-2006 10:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 298 (341204)
08-18-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Brad McFall
08-18-2006 7:50 PM


Re: Ok- what happened...
becuase what had happened philosophically was that Mendel's name was being slipped in under the determination of Darwin's. The realists were placing the secular world on notice that they could argue to an "underdetermination" that was vocally ONLY "overdtermined." That is how the false reality of Mendel in place of Darwin came about and thus why a politcal resolution is no soulution but the breach that no digital divide seals and thus Ann had (use vs time) to discuss.
I'm not sure what you are arriving at here. Are you suggesting that Mendellian contributions aren't nearly as important as Darwin's contribution to heredity?

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Brad McFall, posted 08-18-2006 7:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Brad McFall, posted 08-19-2006 8:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 298 (341260)
08-19-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by crashfrog
08-18-2006 9:56 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
The sort of shuffling you're referring to doesn't occur in haploid organisms. It's a feature only of sexually-reproducing diploid organisms. The bacteria we're talking about are asexual haploids.
Then you actually undermine the evolution of sex and undermine the purpose of natural selection. For instance, what purpose does it serve nature which chooses the stronger over the weaker, chooses the optimal over the suboptimal, to choose the less efficient method of sexual reproduction over the more efficient method of asexual proliferation? Secondly, if shuffling didn't occur in haploids, then how could it ever become a diploid? Where would meiosis and mitosis come in? Aside from which, there are 46 chromosomes per cell, so I'm not sure why you think shuffling cannot occur in haploids. All that is required is for a specific loci where mutations can effects a phenotype. When that happens you get different alleles, not new information, but a new order. Genes with the same or fairly similar traits still differ because their code is not exactly the same. Just like CAT, TAC, ACT, CTA, are similar in some ways, but shuffled enough to make it different. That isn't evolution and it does nothing to explain the gulf between eukaryotes from prokaryotes. Just when and how did the evolution occur?
The only source of genetic variation in these organisms is mutation. The only source.
That isn't true at all. Yes, mutations occur and yes, they can affect a phenotype, but you are undermining shuffling. Aside from which, most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage are deleterious, sometimes very harmful, and in the rarest of circumstances, they can produce a temporal benefit. "Temporal" being the operative word. But its like someone once said, "A good mutation is like riot police handcuffing people within a population. Someone mutates to not have any arms so that the good news is, they can't be handcuffed. This temporarily works out to benefit the armless man. On the flipside, he has no arms. How beneficial is that?" This is the same premise I find with Sickle Cell Anemia being used by evo's to explain beneficial mutations. Evolution needs more than just genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, and luck.
Obviously not all of the bacteriums, because so few of them survived. The source of this resistance is natural selection promoting organisms with a certain mutation and eliminating those without. That change in the population is evolution.
That is a small adaptation which is a far cry from a parapatric speciation, which must be neccesary for Darwinian theory. And that still has never been observed. You are taking well-known effects of nature and begin to apply it to theoretical biology. All of a sudden, a little bit of truth and a little bit of falsehood become a chimera.
That's an old creationist canard, and it's 100% false. There's no confusion about what evolution means on my side - it's all on your side. You simply don't know what we're talking about when we use the word "evolution."
Probably because the meaning of the word 'evolution' has itself evolved into something that was never intended. I wish that someone could come up with a solid definition concerning the theory. But everytime it runs into a conundrum someone just changes the meaning to keep the theory alive.
Speciation happens when populations are seperated, by one of a few different mechanisms, into genetically seperate reproductive communities.
I would agree that subspecies arise, producing dwarfism and recessive qualities in a group that has migrated and is now isolated from the main population, but true speciation is a specious plea because its still never been witnessed, but sounds plausible. We are talking about one specie giving rise to a totally new taxon. That's never been witnessed.
100% wrong. Speciation has been observed thousands of times, within the lab and out in the wild. It's a well-understood process that we've seen happen over and over again.
If you are referring to subspecies or hybrids, of course, just like a breed of dogs or horses or fruitflys or whatever. What speciation means is a new species arising from another. That still has never been witnessed or manipulated in a lab.
Bacteria are in the form we find them today because today, that's the form they're in. The form we find them today, however, is very different, in many ways, from the forms we find them in as fossils from the past.
If bacteria was able to evolve into a completely new taxonomic unit, which ultimately led to higher and higher forms, then what impels its ability to do so while the rest of the population is in a stasis for billions of years?
Do you find it weird that both you and your father could be alive at the same time? No? Then what's weird about two different populations taking two different directions? Your problem is that you need to stop thinking of evolution as a telological process. Evolution is not driven by the future; it's driven by the present. The reason that one group of organisms gave rise to mammals is because that group, unlike others, found itself in environments that promoted those kinds of changes. Other organisms that did not give rise to mammals obviously found themselves in different environments.
If the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors, then we should be able to quantify its probability, right? So how many chance mutations must have concievably occured in order for bacterium to be the progenitor of the human race? How many steps are we talking about here? Too many zero's for me to type out, that's for sure. You know the genome is without any biological function unless it is able to be translated. That means, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is sequenced, its utterly worthless. So, even the very beginning stages of primordial life, we would need enzymes, proteins, molecules, the peptides to bond the chain, all to be self-replicating. That's inconcievable. The word 'improbable' just doesn;t aggrandize the enormity of its implausibility. And it isn;t my looking at it teleologically so much as it is me looking at feasibly. If we can't reproduce these functions under controlled experiments, then what makes you think these anamolous occurances could happen by chance millions of times, especially when the chance of one occurance is so nil to begin with? I don't think you can really appreciate what it must have taken for bacteria to reach that level of complexity. There are so many links we are talking about here, all unaccounted for. And you can call that an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility.
Like, perhaps, a well-organized fossil record that shows exactly that kind of change over time, as captured in static "snapshots" for every epoch of the Earth's history?
That would be nice, yes. Too bad that isn't what we see. And if we did see that, every eminent evolutionist would have no need for punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism. Its been a persistent problem for evolutionists ever since its inception. Fervently asserting that there are hundreds of transitional forms doesn't have the same explanatory power as actually presenting some.
Like, perhaps, a nested hierarchy of decendancy, as inferred from the same genetic tools that are used in courts of law to establish paternity?
All that nested heirarchies provide is a basis for how we know so much about DNA and so little about an actual lineage. Case in point: To the extent that a nested hierarchy of living things exists, evo's presume to know what a Creator would do in asserting that God would not create life according to a nested hierarchy. In other words, they try and rationalize that God wouldn't be so blase. Aside from this, it fails to contemplate that when morphological similarities are juxtaposed by disimilarities, it becomes difficut to establish any rhyme or reason and to decide which feature is the result of a percieved lineage and what is an actual lineage. Its all a matter of interpretation. There are numerous traits that don't follow any discernable path of gradation, but this is seldom considered. And when ever there are huge links missing, evo's simply state that 'not all organisms were fossilized.' Then what makes you think there was a lineage at all? Isn't a guesstimate on a good day? Obviously.
How much more proof of your origin as a prokaryote do you need than the simple fact that the only reason you can even breath oxygen is because simplified prokaryotes indwell within your very cells?
How is that proof that I evolved from a primordial prokaryote? That's like saying I evolved from a rock because we both are composed of atoms.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2006 9:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 2:13 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 270 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 2:22 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 298 (341263)
08-19-2006 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Omnivorous
08-18-2006 10:03 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
If I reorder the letters "dog" to derive "god," I have new information, yes? If I reorder genetic code to produce a new protein, I have new information. If not, why not?
No, you don't have new information, you have a new order. If 'dog' derived 'eog,' then you would have new information. The only reason you don't look exactly like your parents is because of shuffling. You don't have new information that they don't have, you just have a mixture of both their DNA sequenced in a different order.
quote:
When an antibiotic destorys bacteria and a contingent of that population survive and multiply, thus leading to a new strain of bacteria. This is the normal lifecycle of all bacterium, not an evolutionary process.
I'm not sure what that sentence fragment means.
Sorry, I placed an extra preposition in there.
But are you under the impression that antibiotics destroy all targeted bacteria and only resistant bacteria survive?
Yes, the target or aim or goal of the manufacturer is to kill all of the bacteria. Are they realistic about it? Yes. They know they aren't going to be able to kill all of the bacteria.
Really? Why aren't we represented in the fossil record with the dinosaurs? Why are thousands of extant species not represented in the fossil record?
Ever heard of the Love Bone fossil beds of Florida. Its abounding with fossils of creatures that should not in any sense be contemporaneous with one another in a massive graveyard. Its almost like all those creatures were washed into a basin that would become their grave... almost like a flood. Aside from which, perhaps you can tell me why trilobite are sometimes found higher than Coelacanth in the strata layer. That's some impressive subduction and erosion.
If Jews became Christians, why do we still have Jews?
Because atheists need two groups to pick on.
NJ, this is weak stuff. Try again.
I'll do better next time Omnivorous.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Omnivorous, posted 08-18-2006 10:03 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2006 2:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 2:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 298 (341339)
08-19-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by NosyNed
08-19-2006 2:06 AM


Re: New info
This is incorrect. We all carry mutations that did not come from our parents.
Yes, mutations can come from external and internal sources too, such as cancer. But I wasn't referring to mutations, I was referring to the shuffling during meiosis and mitosis.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2006 2:06 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2006 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 274 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 298 (341399)
08-19-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
In organisms with a long generation time, you can't rely on mutation to provide enough phenotypic variation. Chromosome shuffling provides a way to generate phenotypic variation without suffering the downsides of increasing the mutation rate.
That doesn't answer my question. What purpose would nature have for selecting the suboptimal over the optimal; remember, evolutionists routinely posit that natural selection is intentional. What you described is an after thought. How did nature produce eukaryotes from prokaryotes? Lets suppose that the earliest components for life did arrive by chance and that it doesn't explain how they got there in the first place; that is was inconsequential. The first simple organisms proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why, then, would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism? Now, think of it on the individual basis first. The organism that first evolved sex organs must have had those glands in an operable, working order and all its contrivances must have been in place, fully developed, in order to produce offspring. What does that organism also need in order for it to pass on its genetic material? It needs a suitor of the opposite sex as well. So, a host of organisms from a certain population had to basically 'devolve' from asexual reproduction but had to now evolve both a male and a female, virtually simultaneously, with all of their sexual organs intact just to proliferate sexual reproduction, much less, to have the population survive. That's inconcievable. What kind of staggering odds would it be for a population of asexual organisms to evolve two separate, yet compatible sexes, simultaneously, in order to create the sex glands perfectly operable in a male and also simultaneously evolve a female partner for the male with all of her sex organs in perfect operation? We know that the first sex organs had to be fully operational because the proto-male or proto-female would have died out before producing offspring. That goes against evolutions trial and error scenario. And again, why would nature select this over asexual reproduction? Its inconcievable.
No one seems to think about these things. They don't consider the finer aspects of what evolution would had to have entailed in order to have a continuance. It just doesn't add up. And if the numbers don't add up, we also have a serious deficiency in producing physical evidence of such an evolvement. As far as anyone can tell, all organisms appeared abruptly, in full formation within their kind. There is nothing linking this to that other than some arguable appearances. But as the adage says, don't judge a book by its cover. And if you flip that argument around by supposing that there is a Creator, then some organisms are going to, at some point, look more similar than others. Even on the molecular level it does not mean that it spells out a lineage. That's purely circumstancial. It could just as easily mean that we know much about DNA/RNA and how Hox protein sequences will configure the morphology of an organism. The appearnace of such a lineage is specious and its subjective.
Lol! Boy, you've just got no idea what you're talking about, do you? Human cells have 46 chromosomes and are diploid for 23 homologous chromosomes. Other organisms have different numbers. Bacteria don't have chromosomes at all. They have one main nucleic molecule, organized in a ring (instead of in a chain like in eukaryotes), and potentially several smaller genetic rings called "plasmids." And because they only have one copy of every gene in their genome - half as many as you or I have - they're called "haploid."
Thanks for the biology lesson, but yes, bacteria do have chromosomes. Chromosomes are all apart of the basic building blocks of even bacteria.
"Prokaryotes reproduce by binary fission, a process during which bacteria replicate their chromosomes and equally distribute copies between the two daughter cells.
· The chromosome is replicated; each copy remains attached to the plasma membrane at adjacent sites.
· Between the attachment sites, the membrane grows and separates the two copies of the chromosome.
· The bacterium grows to about twice its initial size, and the plasma membrane pinches inward.
· A cell wall forms across the bacterium between the two chromosomes, dividing the original cell into two daughter cells."
Multiple Chromosomes in Bacteria: The Yin and Yang of trp Gene Localization in Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1 | Genetics | Oxford Academic
And once shuffling and mutation occur, we get different strains of bacteria, which is the job of bacteria if you think about it.
This doesn't make any sense. A change in a nucleotide - from A to C, let's say - is not shuffling, it's a mutation. Rearrangement of single base pairs doesn't really happen, it's not a common mutation.
Look, I've stated numerous that mutations occur, particularly quickly in prokaryotes. However, apart of the methodology includes those plasmids and transposons to shuffle and resuffle genetic information. Aside from which, you are neglecting the fact that some bacteria are anaerobic and some are aerobic. Because bacterium don't have a well-establihsed nuclei, perhaps you think I'm confusing them with viruses which do contain strands of DNA. But I'm not. And I will try to locate an unbiased website to show you the difference. Bacteria can acquire their information, or steal it, through a horizontal gene transfer. This aids bacteria in their robustness and their ability to survive in such hostile environments.
Bacteria: reproduces by means of a process called binary fission. In binary fission, the single chromosome is replicated, the bacteria divides into two cells, and each cell receives one chromosome. The two cells are thus genetically identical.
Binary fission does not provide bacteria with a way to acquire genetic diversity. Such diversity is necessary to enable a species to withstand changing environments. Many higher organisms gain genetic diversity through the union of reproductive cells from two parents. Lacking this capability, bacteria shuffle DNA between cells by several processes, including transformation, conjugation, and transduction.
In transformation, bacteria take up fragments of DNA released into the soil or water as dead bacteria are decomposed. Transduction involves the transfer of DNA fragments between bacteria cells by a bacteriophage, a virus that infects bacteria. Through mixing genetic material, bacteria develop new traits, including the ability to withstand changes in acidity and temperature, and resistance to antibiotics.
"
Encuentra aqu informacin de Diferences between bacteria and virus para tu escuela Entra ya! | Rincn del Vago
The definition has never changes. The Theory of Evolution is "the scientific model that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth as changes in allele frequencies due to random mutations and natural selection." That definition covers all changes, from "macro" to "micro", because all those changes are essentially changes in allele frequency.
I wish it were that simple. Unintentional nucleotide alterations that can occur through errors during replication couldn't possibly explain all of the diversity we have. And the shuffling or recombination routinely shows that subspecies arise. this is not a contention of mine. While both mutation and genetic recombination can modify genes, the assertion that mutation is the primary source of variability driving a micro or macroevolutionary process isn't so. Shuffling is the hero here, not mutations. Mutations are a cancer to organisms, literally and figuratively. If you look at the diversity from breeds of dogs, all of them are do to recombination, not mutations.
I'm not referring to hybrids or "subspecies." I'm referring to new species from old ones, which has been observed thousands of times.
The example of a daughter specie that becomes isolated from the parent specie so that once they converge again, they are unable to mate with one another, is not a good example of speciation. In needs to be refined even more in its definition. Speciation could never be so simple the way Dobzhansky descirbes it. Case in point: A female poodle may be physically incapable to mate with a male Great Dane for obvious and graphic reasons. Would you say they are different species? Of course not. If all it takes to cause two species to become one is a reshuffling of genes, then a gene reshuffle presumably caused the original species to split into isolated subspecies in the first place. Since this involves no new information, it cannot legitimately be used as evidence that one can become another, no matter how much time is offered to us in the explanation.
The examples used by TO are evidence of this. For instance, the continued effort to push the drosophila in an alleged example of evolution is pure manipulation of what evidence actually entails.
Example 1: Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating."
Essentially they produced a mule-- a hybrid that is incapable of producing progeny. In other words, an evolutionary dead end. Not an example of speciation.
Example 2: Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970."
In other words, a perfect example of a microadaptive process which no one on earth objects to. Not an example of speciation. The truth is, no significant change has shown speciation, where one specie creates a separate specie. That has not been witnessed. For years, researchers have been trying to mutate the Drosophila with a variety of methods, some that worked brilliantly like bombarding it with radiation. The problem is, all of these mutations act adversely to the morphology of the fruit fly. No bionic fruitfly was ever the bi-product of these experiments, just monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated in the wild. Not even second guessing themselves, natural selection is at odds with evolution as nature tends to weed out aberrations, not propagate them.
Probably more condemning of a testimony is the rate at which fruit fly's mate, and the amount of time that researchers have been studying them. The Drosophila is much simpler on the molecular level than say, a human. What's worse, their lifespan isn't even a thousandth to that to a human. So, surely in the 70 to 80 years of experimentation it should be a prime candidate for a macroevoultionary process. The fruiot fly's genome is simple in relation to a human with a composition of four base pairs iof chromosomes at a rate of 13,000 genes per pair. With more chance of mutation, a higher rate of reproduction, and a shorter lifespan, their generations would reach into the hundreds and thousands in 70 to 80 years of close experimentation, under the hopeful and watchful eye of the experimentors. Compare that figure to human genrerations. How many human generations can come out of 70 to 80 years? Most likely 3, sometimes 4. And yet, no significant changes have occured. They just keep making more fruitfly's and subspecies of them, or bizarre aberrations with wings where its eyes go and eyes where its wings should go. Just like canines have subspecies, just like a rose can produce different color petals or varying shapes in sizes, just like Finches with different color beaks or beaks more slender, some more robust... But as the adage goes, "A rose is still a rose by any other name."
The idea that speciation has never been observed is nonsense. No major creationist organization puts forth that position. I don't know who told you that we've never observed new species from old ones, but whoever did misinformed you. New species are observed all the time.
If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small, peripheral isolates”rather than by slow change in large central populations”then what should the fossil record look like? We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should expect no major change; for we know it only as a successful, central population. It will participate in the process of organic change only when some of its peripheral isolates species to become new branches on the evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear ”suddenly’ in the fossil record and become extinct later with equal speed and little perceptible change in form.” -Stephen J. Gould
In other words, Gould reads like this: 'We have no proof and don't expect to see any proof, just take our word for it that it happens because evolution is the only explanation we will allow for the accumulation of a variety of species. Instead of presenting clear examples of macroevolution, we'll just confuse you by showing nominal adaptations, and call their evolution 'imperceptible.' Read between the lines. He is leery of his own theory. He has a disclaimer for everything. The more I read from eminent evolutionists, the more apparent it becomes that they have to invent new theories to cover up another.
Well, bacteria can generate a new "step" every 40 minutes. How many periods of 40 minutes have existed in 4 billion years? You do the math, you want to know so bad. I don't see it as an important question.
Obviously bacteria would be a much more likely candidate for evolution. But bacteria spawns non-bacteria, all of which is completely mysterious. How many steps must have been required to have a bacilli arrive to a human being? I don't think the figure could be expressed in a mathematical equation. The evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is a missing link far more critical to the theory than whether or not chimpanzees and a humans share a common descent/ascent.
If God created life to look as though it evolved, to act like it had evolved, to expect to be treated like it had evolved, isn't that a pretty big hint that we should damn well do what God clearly wants us to do, and explain life as though it had evolved?
It doesn't look like it evolved at all. That's the problem! It looks like Gould, Smith, Darwin, Dawkins, and Mayr all say it looks like... like organisms appearing abruptly, almost like they were specifically created. If it looked like it evolved we would have links in the chains of life. We have none. None. This is precisely why punk eek had to be invented. The typical Darwinian model failed to produced what Darwin said, that, "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed." Evolution should be unquestionable. But it is. And the evidence of such a polarization can be found in the title of this forum. This is a big debate because there is legitimate reason to seriously question this paradigm.
If you didn't come from prokayotes, why would God build you out of prokaryotes?
He didn't. He made me a eukaryote-- multicellular.
I understand that we're dealing with concepts in genetics that you know absolutely nothing about, and I apologize if my post isn't much clearer. But there's really no simple way to describe these concepts, and your ignorant antagonism certainly doesn't give me much opportunity to correct your misunderstandings. Maybe if you were asking questions in order to learn, instead of making ignorant statements thinking you can win a debate, you'd have an opportunity to learn. Why is that something you're determined to throw back in people's faces?
Teach me, mold me, wise sage.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 2:13 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 3:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 298 (341419)
08-19-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by nator
08-19-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.
That all depends. Without evolution there is no good reason to be an atheist. So, I'm not sure how much celebrity, fortune, and fame would come out of it. I would think that resistence would come out of it. Oh wait, that is what is happening.
You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?
Yes, but none that would be so damaging to an atheist as this. That's why a fight, tooth and nail, is going down. This forum is evidence of such.
You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?
No, I believe that most people, particularly the laymen, do believe in the veracity of the ToE. I know, however, the more that an expert acquanits him or herself with biology, that they understand very well that the theory doesn't add up. By this time, they have to invent meaningful reasons to the 'keep the faith,' so to speak, alive in their hearts. Gould is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The more you read his works, the more evident it becomes that his belief were shaken to the core.
As far as Coulter goes, she is not a scientist, nor does she pretend to be one. However, her research of the debate led her to her inquiry. She allows for expert opinion to guide her, just as you let expert opinion to guide you. The only difference is her experts differ from yours.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 2:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2006 3:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 283 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 5:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 298 (341437)
08-19-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
It's not suboptimal. That's the answer to your question; the explanation about how asexual reproduction is optimal for bacteria. Just as sexual reproduction is optimal in other situations.
It is suboptimal. What makes more sense: The ability to produce your own offspring, or developing two separate sexes, with two separate sex organs, each with many different components, virtually simultaneously, and having that evolution occur in the same locality so that the suitors would find each other and figure out what sex means in order to procreate? What made asexual proliferation for monera good in some situations and bad in others? In other words, what prompted to evolve at all?
quote:
remember, evolutionists routinely posit that natural selection is intentional.
No, they don't.
Uhhh, yes they do. They constantly say that natural selection is the only non-random process within nature -- that NS selects the optimal over the suboptimal.
Everyone's thought of these things, NJ. They're just better at thinking about them than you are. The evolution of sex is not a mystery. It's been studied extensivly, but you've chosen to remain ignorant of those conclusions lest your faith in creationism be challenged.
No, it doesnt make any sense. Its based purely on specualtion, and even that speculation is poorly understood.
No, they don't. Chromosomes are linear lengths of genetic material. Bacteria have loops of genetic material. Typically, they have 1 plus a few plasmids. They do not have "46 chromosomes", as you asserted.
I said that bacteria have chromosomes, which they do. I went on to say that one cell can hold 46 chromosomes. You seemed to be under the misguided notion that chromosomes have cells within them when its the exact opposite. Bacteria have chromosomes.
Which is completely irrelevant. Look, you're not fooling anybody. You've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, I don't???!!! You can't explain any of the processes you allege take place, you make erroneous claims, then when I correct you on those claims, you say that I don't have a clue.
That is, in fact, a perfect example of speciation. Much of the rest of your post is outright false. It's an amazing example of your poor education and reasoning skills. The donkey thing? Please. Did you even know what you were saying when you wrote that part?
Why don't you start explaining your answers instead of simply telling me that its true and then try to shift the blame when its clearly you that has no idea what he's talking about.
That's not what "eukaryote" means. The reason we know that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is because their cellular organelles - the defining character of eukaryotes - are made out of prokaryotes.
You are in need of some serious remediation... How long have you been debating for evolution? You need to stop now because you are just making yourself look so foolish in front of your peers.
* Streptococcus pyogenes, the bacterium that causes strep throat, is an example of prokaryotes.
* Yeast, the organism that makes bread rise and beer ferment, is an example of unicellular eukaryotes.
* Humans, of course, are an example of multicellular eukaryotes.
The major similarities between the two types of cells (prokaryote and eukaryote) are:
1. They both have DNA as their genetic material.
2. They are both membrane bound.
3. They both have ribosomes .
4. They have similar basic metabolism .
5. They are both amazingly diverse in forms.
The major and extremely significant difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles , while prokaryotes do not. The DNA of prokaryotes floats freely around the cell; the DNA of eukaryotes is held within its nucleus. The organelles of eukaryotes allow them to exhibit much higher levels of intracellular division of labor than is possible in prokaryotic cells."
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/plantcell.html
NJ, at this point, I have to say that you're the most ignorant creationist I've ever met. You have absolutely no grasp of the scientific principles at work here.
Yes!!! In your face, Hovind! I'm the worst. You're a wash-up Kent. No one makes more vacuous statements than me!
And this thread, about Ann Coulter's book, is not the place to correct them. If you have specific questions about what you don't understand, then I invite you to ask them in more appropriate threads.
Finally, something we can agree on.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 284 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 5:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 285 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 7:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 298 (341536)
08-19-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 4:45 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
I told you already. Sex is advantageous in species with such long generation times, because it increases phenotypic diversity without the disadvantage of out-of-control mutation rates.
You're not understanding me. This is all fine and good and sounds halfway plausible even though its pure speculation. The begging question is how nature was able to simultaneously, or nearly simulatnaeously, evolve a male with fully operational sex organs, evolve a female counterpart with fully operation sex organs that just so happen to be perfectly compatible, and be placed within the same locality that they could find one another, and for nature to give them the understanding that they must mate in order to create progeny, all in one felled swoop? No, just, no. And if you say that it wasn't really in one felled swoop, then the new proto-male and proto-female would have died out before they could pass on their genes in order to make sexual reproduction the norm. Its insuperable. Its so difficult to reconcile that I can scarcely see why anyone wouldn't be troubled by it.
Those are not the same thing. Show me one quote where evolutionists have posited intent behind natural selection. That's the position of the Intelligent Design camp, not the theory of evolution, which does not speak to the issue of "intent" in the biological world.
How is it not the same thing? If something is random, then it is undirected. If something is non-random then it's directed and in order to direct something, it must be indicative of purpose. Every evolution asserts that natural selection is a non-random event.
No, you said that all living things have 46 chromosomes. This claim is incorrect.
No I didn't. I said that one cell can contain 46 chromosmes, so I'm not sure why shuffling was a problem. You seemed to believe that bacteria couldn't have information to shuffle. That's not true. Binary fission passes all of its genetic material to its self-replicated progeny, as well, bacteria can accumulate new DNA from whatever host it so happens to be hitching a ride on. Obviously, in the beginning stages of life this would have been impossible because there was no new DNA to steal it from which makes it that much more implausible that it could have evolved by binary fission plus mutations.
[quote][i]The major and extremely significant difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles , while prokaryotes do not. The DNA of prokaryotes floats freely around the cell; the DNA of eukaryotes is held within its nucleus[/quote][/i]
That's exactly what I said. What you are ignorant of is the fact that those organelles are actually devolved prokaryotes that, billions of years ago, began to indwell within other cells. That's why things like mitochondria have their own DNA.
You didn;t say anything on the matter, except, "Why did God make you out of prokaryotes?" What you are describing is baseless. Its what they surmise because that's all they've got, but none of this evolving seems to happens to prokaryotes today, oddly enough.
"Approximately 1.5 billion years ago eukaryotic cells started showing up in the fossil records. These cells are filled with organelles that help the cells grow and divide, and are cells that build almost all life forms we can see with the naked eye. No one knows for sure (yet), how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes; a popular theory is that as prokaryotic life was evolving, during the consumption of other prokaryotes for nourishment through a process called phagocytosis, the consumed organism did not get digested but instead began a symbiotic relationship with the attacking host. Perhaps this new, now invading organism became the mitochondria inside the first prokaryotic cell."
You really need to be paying more attention, NJ. You're simply not understanding what I'm communicating to you in plain language because you're not taking the time to read closely and think about it.
That's funny, I thought it was the other way around.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 4:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 293 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 11:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 298 (341600)
08-19-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by anglagard
08-19-2006 10:14 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, my primary source was Answers in Genesis. Evidently from my research someone wanted to pad the list.
BTW, physical chemists are not bioscientist PhDs, nor are PhDs in philosophy, history, math, or materials science.
I only counted those people with PhD's in fields that were directly attributed or applicable to the study of evolution. Those do not include such studies as Astronomy, Law, Mathematics (only), etc. I looked carefully to make sure that I could account for those individuals. It took me a long time look over that list, but if you say that I am in error, I will take your word for it. I really don't care enough to go back and check it out now. It shouldn't have been my burden to begin with. I just did it to resolve a difference of opinion.

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by anglagard, posted 08-19-2006 10:14 PM anglagard has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 298 (341602)
08-19-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by nator
08-19-2006 10:18 PM


Re: 5th time
What does this have to do with Coulter's book?
This thread has seriously derailed. There are only loose affiliations with Coulter at this point. I indict myself in that statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 10:18 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Brad McFall, posted 08-23-2006 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024