Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 16 of 301 (433616)
11-12-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by dwise1
11-12-2007 4:42 PM


He had a lot that I don't remember. He might have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 5:15 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2930 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 17 of 301 (433619)
11-12-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


Hi Aquilegia,
Welcome to EvC, I hope you take the time to learn a little something here. I will tackle your point number 3:
Aquilegia writes:
Snakes and humans. If evolution were correct, then reptiles would be genetically closer to other reptiles than, say, birds. However, when tested, snakes turned out to be closer to humans than any other. So did snakes evolve from some mammal? Or was everything created at the same time with roughly the same code.
This is just simply false. In all genetic taxonomies I have seen snakes fall out with other diapsids and group with lizards as Lepidosauromorpha within the diapsid clade. What I suspect you are referring to is the old 1965 molecular sequence of the cytochrome-c protein that showed that humans and rattlesnakes had very similar aa sequences in this protein. First of all the similarity is not as great as once believed (although still remarkably similar). A 1991 study (Ambler & Daniel, 1991) found a great deal of error in the 1965 work, and they discuss the pitfalls of non-genetic molecular phylogenies. Basically, because of the highly conserved nature and redundancy of some proteins, they do not make good phylogenetic trees because they tend to re-evolve multiple times, exist in several forms in a single species, etc. Think about hemoglobin, it is found in tetrapods but also in some clams, worms, etc. No one would think a valid tree could be drawn using just one protein such as hemoglobin. The authors also discuss the high rate of convergence in cytochrome sequences in widely different taxa again reinforcing how it cannot be used alone for phylogenies.
Ambler RP and Daniel M (1991) Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochemical Journal 274(3):825-831

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:02 PM Lithodid-Man has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 301 (433621)
11-12-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:40 PM


Aquilegia writes:
I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years.
Would you like to be specific? I'm a physicist, so I'm sure I'll be able to follow your technical explanation.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Taz has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 19 of 301 (433629)
11-12-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction. Evolution claims that our ancestors were all once-celled creatures. These reproduced by asexual reproduction. So, somewhere, it had to switch from asexual to bisexual. Two things are possible: a) this did happen within one generation (highly unlikely, due to the usual slow evolution usually taught), or b) both sides of the bisexual reproducing organisms were created at the same time.
I was engaged in a correspodence with a local creation science activist. He asked a similar question, one of many "unanswerable questions" which I did answer, but he worded it horribly:
quote:
Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin of
Meisosis reproduction?
Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are teh ancestors of Meisosis
animals?
If so why, if so explain how they "evolved into meisosis animals.
Much of my response, transcript at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/q_meiosis.html, was trying to make sense of his cryptic question which he just repeated despite my requests for clarification. So, assuming that he actually meant asexual to sexual, I offered him this:
quote:
OK, a couple basic principles to start off with when working with evolution. Evolution rarely creates anything entirely new; it usually takes something preexisting and modifies it. Part of that modification can be, and often does involve, duplication, so that the modification of a feature does not necessitate the loss of that original feature. And, the "final" function of a feature is not necessarily the same as the original function, so there is no need to try to incorporate foresight (ie, there is not need for a future eye to "know" that it is going to become an eye).
So, what would it take for asexual organisms to become sexual organisms? Here is what it looks like to me:
1. Meiosis.
2. Getting the gametes together.
3. Development.
That looks about like it to me. Can you think of anything else?
OK, first some basics. Asexual reproduction can involve a lot more than simple cell division, mitosis. When we deal with multi-cellular organisms, we also deal with development through cell growth (ie, mitosis) and cell differentiation. It also turns out that a log of multi-cellular organisms use asexual reproduction. Some, like hydrae, use budding, in which some of its cells start growing and differentiating into "baby" hydrae. Some plants, like strawberries, send out runners which put down roots and become more strawberry plants. Other plants use cloning, in which twigs (Greek "klon") from the plant will grow new copies of that plant. Mushrooms and ferns reproduce asexually with spores.
Interestingly, in the case of ferns, the spores asexually produce the SEXUAL version of the fern, which then produce seeds for the next fern sexually. In addition, most of the examples given above also use sexual reproduction. Therefore, we have a number of organisms which are not entirely sexual or asexual. Maybe we could call them "bisexual". No, I think that term is already taken .
At any rate, we find through living examples that many organisms can use both sexual and asexual reproduction. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that as a species is developing sexual reproduction, it can continue to reproduce asexually. The transition can work without killing off the species.
Next, thanks to your question, development is already taken care of. It is pre-existing in the asexual organisms and would only need minor modification normally needed in the evolution of a new species. There is nothing new that would need to be developed here.
Next comes the question of meiosis. We already covered this one, so I'll just repeat it here.
Mitosis is the process by which a single cell grows, duplicates its genetic material, then pulls the two sets of chromosomes to either side and finally splits in two, yielding two cells where there had been one. Mitosis consists of seven or nine (the actual number escapes me at present) distinct phases. Mitosis is used by single-celled animals for reproduction. To my knowledge, single-celled organisms and colonies of undifferentiated cells only use mitosis to reproduce and some multi-celled organisms (ie, with bodies consisting of tissues of differentiated cells) effectively use mitosis to reproduce the entire animal through asexual means, though most use sexual reproduction either in addition or in place of asexual reproduction, as covered above.
However, the individual cells of multi-celled animals continue to use mitosis to reproduce themselves. Also, some multi-celled animals capable of regeneration can effective create duplicates of themselves if they are cut in pieces; eg, flatworms and starfish. Therefore, we find mitosis still present and working in animals that reproduce via meiosis.
Meiosis is the process of producing gametes, AKA "germ cells", each of which contain half of the chromosomes of the original cells. Then two gametes from two different individuals combine to form a cell with a complete set of genetic material, which then uses mitosis to produce more cells, which develop into the embryo, then into the fetus. That process is known as development.
Well, it turns out that meiosis is a variation of mitosis, in effect a crippled form, since some steps appear to be missing. First a definition: a "polar body" is a packet of genetic material without the normally-associated cytoplasm. Remembering back to biology class over 20 years ago, the gametes-to-be use mitosis to produce some copies, but then they undergo division before they duplicate any genetic material or cytoplasm. What results in the male are four polar bodies which become sperm and in the female three polar bodies which are discarded and one cell with half its chromosomes, an ovum.
So going from mitosis to meiosis does not appear to be that great of a step. No insurmountable problems here.
Again, I offer the URL of a page which compares mitosis and meiosis:
[http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/...y/mod2/mitosis/meiosis.htm]. A
graphical comparison linked to this page (and displayed on the page in
smaller format) is at [http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/...ogy/mod2/mitosis/mandm.htm]. It is pretty much as I had remembered it, even though I had forgotten some of the details over the past two decades.
Getting the gametes together is the last part. Since our hypothetical
ancestral form would inhabit the sea, we have plenty of examples of how this could be accomplished. Many, if not most, aquatic organisms release either their sperm or their eggs or even both into the water. Simple as that. That would establish a method for gamete delivery that would work until more efficient methods could evolve.
So, Bill. I don't see any show-stoppers here. Do you?
His response was typical, to change the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 301 (433631)
11-12-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:40 PM


I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years.
Or not.
See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) - note that no single creationist has gotten to first base.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 21 of 301 (433633)
11-12-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 4:48 PM


So what about the experiment?
Well? Are you going to point this error out to him? Walter Brown has that book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory. At the very bottom of the page there's a link for sending feedback. Go for it.
A possible lead you could use would be that you tried to use his claim and it got shot down in flames. Well, that's the truth, isn't it?
Let us know what happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:48 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 22 of 301 (433644)
11-12-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


quote:
1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction.
False Dichotomy as already pointed out. In between asexual and sexual is somthing capable of both.
quote:
2) Galaxies
This is one of the very interesting and fascinating active areas of astrophyics right now. But the theory of a universe younger than 10000 years offers many, many, many more problems than a class of matter we have yet to characterize.
quote:
3) Snakes and Humans
Will you believe anything from anyone if it supports your cause? Maybe next you will ask us to refute your friend who personally speaks to god by lighting his chest hair on fire. (Argument 2 really is this ridiculous.)
quote:
4) Carbon-based life
Are you saying that all life on earth being similar in some way is an argument against evolution and for creation??? I'm confused. This argument seems to go the other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM aviator79 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 23 of 301 (433645)
11-12-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taz
11-12-2007 4:54 PM


Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) along with the lack of neccesary mass to counter the effect with an equally strong gravitational pull towards the center means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Because they are still intact and still spinning, either the galaxies must have more mass, and therefore more gravity (the theoretical 'Dark Matter'), or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 4:54 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 5:59 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2007 6:19 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 31 by aristarchus, posted 11-12-2007 6:31 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 38 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 6:51 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 112 by theLimmitt, posted 11-22-2007 3:12 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 24 of 301 (433649)
11-12-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


Again, false dichotomy, but let's assume for a minute that there are two theories: Dark matter vs. Young Galaxies. In an intellectually honest way, please describe what you feel are potential problems with both theories. Do you really feel that a young galaxies theory solves more problems than it creates? Please think about it earnestly before you reply. Familiarize yourself with why astrophysicists think that galaxies are billions of years old and make sure your young galaxy theory can account for any discrepancies.
Edited by aviator79, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 25 of 301 (433650)
11-12-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by aviator79
11-12-2007 5:48 PM


I've already accepted that both 1 and 3 are bunked. And I will accept evidence against creation and for evolution. I'm interested to see what people have to say.
However, I am saying that it's foolish to say that life could only exist on earth. Carbon-based life can only exist on earth, but not all life has to be carbon-based. Unless, however, life needed an Intelligant Designer to be made, and not a random sequence of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 5:48 PM aviator79 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 6:07 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 6:11 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2007 6:25 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 32 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 6:35 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:32 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 301 (433656)
11-12-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


why this still isn't evidence for young creation
... means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years.
Assuming this is true for the sake of argument ...
or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.
... is NOT a logical conclusion: the visible galaxies could be less than 10,000 years old, but the age of the universe could still be totally unaffected. This also leaves open the way galaxies are formed, replacing those that have long since expired due to lack of appreciating the gravity of the situation.
AND, IF this galaxy decay were true THEN we should be able to measure the expansion of the galaxies over time, this leads to the proposition that IF the galaxies are expanding then this is likely to be true, BUT IF the galaxies are NOT expanding then this concept is falsified.
Care to place any bets? Do you think this was neglected in the calculations of galaxy rotation that resulted in the concept of dark stuffs?
Enjoy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:36 PM RAZD has replied

aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5980 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 27 of 301 (433658)
11-12-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:01 PM


quote:
I am saying that it's foolish to say that life could only exist on earth.
I agree. Statistically, it is quite possilbe for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. But you've failed to explain why this requires an Intelligent Designer.
If you are going down the ID road, be ready for the problem of inifinite regression. i.e. who designed the designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 301 (433659)
11-12-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:01 PM


Unless, however, life needed an Intelligant Designer to be made, and not a random sequence of events.
So why is an omnipotent etc Intelligent Designer be restricted to only making life on one planet? Why shouldn't Mars have vibrant life similar to ours in complexity but based on some slight difference in basic structure (not carbon based)? Doesn't the absence speak to inability?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 29 of 301 (433662)
11-12-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds)
"Insanely fast" as in 200,000,000 years per rotation? That's roughly what our galaxy does. It would be pretty tricky to get a collection of 400,000,000,000 stars that's 100,000 light-years across to be "torn apart" in just 10,000 years, even if things were moving at the speed of light. And our Solar System is orbiting at less than a thousandth of that speed.
Someone is telling you lies. It isn't me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 301 (433665)
11-12-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:01 PM


Carbon-based life can only exist on earth...
Why should that be? Carbon is pretty common in this universe. Amino acids and other "molecules of life" have been detected in interstellar clouds a long way from here....a very long way. Planets are apparently very abundant out in space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM Aquilegia753 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