Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,836 Year: 3,093/9,624 Month: 938/1,588 Week: 121/223 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 98 (73200)
12-15-2003 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
12-15-2003 9:29 PM


What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that.
Well, so far science is suggesting that there was only ever one "created" kind - Life. Everything else is just a decendant of that life, within that basic kind.
See, simple! You can have your created kinds and evolution, too. Personally I don't see what use a classification system with only one catagory is, though.
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?
The observation of these changes occuring in contemporary time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:29 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 98 (73211)
12-15-2003 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
12-15-2003 10:56 PM


Science doesn't suggest that, some scientists do. Big difference. Ever read Woese? There wasn't one common descedent. Science and scientists disagree with you.
Variations are very different than the evolution you believe in. There isn't any evidence to support the alleged "great transformations" required by the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2003 10:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 12:30 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 69 by lpetrich, posted 12-17-2003 2:32 AM John Paul has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 98 (73237)
12-16-2003 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
12-15-2003 11:17 PM


There isn't any evidence to support the alleged "great transformations" required by the ToE.
What "great transformations?" There's not a novel biological structure you can name for which we can't find an intermediate step.
There aren't any great transformations. There's just step-wise change, adding up over eons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 11:17 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7014 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 34 of 98 (73362)
12-16-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John Paul
12-15-2003 9:36 PM


quote:
I don't know the timeline of the flood. I don't believe the timeline some creationists do. However if the horse representatives were as genetically diverse as possible than yes it would be entirely possible to get the variations we see today. As I have said, the creation model does not require new genetic information to arise. All that is required is the existing information to get reshuffled and then become fixed. Also we have a different view on what evolution is. That is why the theory is ambiguous.
"As genetically diverse as possible". Um, we're talking about only a pair of them surviving the flood. That's a maximum of 4 alleles per gene. In 200 generations, you're proposing that such horses split to the differences in horses and donkeys.
We're talking about, in donkeys compared to horses, closer growth plates, different digit structure, permanent fat pones and neck crests, succeptibility to lungworms, different vocalization capabilities (due to significant larynx and pharynx differences), the obvious ear length and size differences, as well as different nutritional requirements and dietary capabilities (including water consumption styles), a short upright mane, lighter hair around the eyes, no forelock, a switch tail, no upward whorl on the hair of the flank, "chestnuts" only on the forelimbs, boxy hooves with a thicker hoof wall, with a more upright angle, heavy muscle covering the jugular furrow, longer gestation, numerous sexual anatomy differences in both males and females, less reproductive seasonality, different reaction to anesthesia, different drug metabolism, higher pain tolerance, and even - get this - the number of chromosomes!
Are you going to accept that the number of chromosomes can change? Horses have 64. The domestic ass has 62, and the Asiatic wild ass has 54-56 (yes, it varies, and they can still interbreed with fertile offspring!).
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:36 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:45 PM Rei has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4551 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 35 of 98 (73378)
12-16-2003 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
12-15-2003 9:29 PM


quote:
I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation.
References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.
1. That's not an observation, it is a silly insult.
2. You still have no references! You have yet another unsupported assertion to support your unsupported assertion. You're building a house of cards.
quote:
What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed.
Random mutations didn't have to be added in the way you seem to imply - they are observed in nature. That aside, recombination and other rearrangements of existing material can and do bring about novelty.
quote:
As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science.
Admitting you need science is the first step. The second is admitting that it will never do its job if you try to shoehorn all your evidence into a pre-existing conclusion.
quote:
However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG.
Been there. Failed to impress me. Ditto just about everyone else that posts here. AIG has some great emotional appeals to authority and morality but nothing resembling the scientific support for evolution.
quote:
Ya see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?
Two techniques called interpolation and extrapolation. They teach concrete versions of them in beginning algebra. We know of intermediates for many complex organs of the sort that are often claimed to be IC, or otherwise unevolvable. We can watch small-scale changes that, over time, would accumulate to produce the steps between those points. That is, if you line up all the known organisms with light-sensing structures today, they would be at various points along a continuum, each with one more component than the last, and each of these components can be demonstrated to be evolvable through an accumulation of genetic changes of the kind that can be observed. Thus, a light-sensitive spot with observed variation over generations faces no obstacle to becoming a light-sensitive pit - the only change is in the growth rate of the tissue below the spot. A light-sensitive pit with skin surrounding it may just grow a lens, because the changes needed to produce it are likewise on the order that we can observe - a slight change in growth rate and a change in tissue pigment (since clearer lenses are easier to see through and thus have a selective advantage), repeated many times. The remaining steps have all been laid out in the same way and there is no mechanism to prevent them from happening. This is only one example.
On a more general level, the fossil record clearly shows that the older the rocks are, the simpler and smaller the organisms are. This strongly points to the diversification of life from single-celled organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:29 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:40 PM zephyr has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 98 (73405)
12-16-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
12-16-2003 12:30 AM


The alleged "great transformations" as discussed in the PBS series Evolution- which was given the thumbs up by Eugenie Scott & Ken Miller (and others).
What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?
What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?
True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?
Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 12:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 3:44 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 3:52 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 98 (73411)
12-16-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by zephyr
12-16-2003 2:12 PM


Zephyr you may feel it is a silly insult however my experience shows it is an observation. I have had many evolutionists try to tell me what Creationists say- that is stasis, as in no change, which is total BS.
References? Do you want me to do your history homework?
from Carl Linnaeus :
In his early years, Linnaeus believed that the species was not only real, but unchangeable -- as he wrote, Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]). But Linnaeus observed how different species of plant might hybridize, to create forms which looked like new species. He abandoned the concept that species were fixed and invariable, and suggested that some -- perhaps most -- species in a genus might have arisen after the creation of the world, through hybridization. In his attempts to grow foreign plants in Sweden, Linnaeus also theorized that plant species might be altered through the process of acclimitization. Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus investigated what he thought were cases of crosses between genera, and suggested that, perhaps, new genera might also arise through hybridization.
Where is your reference that recombos/ rearrangement can bring about novelty? Are these alleged novelties akin to eyes from the eyeless or just different colored eyes?
As for pre-existing conclusions that is exactly what evolutionists do! They conclude that organisms did evolve from some unknown population of organisms and tghen look for evidence to support it. They also have the pre-existing conclusion that purely natural processes are all there is. They lead the evidence.
I love your "just-so" story about the eye. Evolutionists are fond of generalizations. Thank you for keeping up the good work. Talk about assertions! LoL!
However they are usually at a loss to come up with any details. That is why the ToE is a useless theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 2:12 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 4:14 PM John Paul has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 38 of 98 (73412)
12-16-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
12-15-2003 9:29 PM


Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.
And this would be the reason that his first edition of Systema Naturae (1758) classified the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes? Because humans and chimps are the same Created Kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:29 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7186 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 39 of 98 (73413)
12-16-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:27 PM


John Paul writes:
What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?
Probably a symbiotic relationship between two single-celled organisms. Picture the nucleus as a parasite that when existing within another single-celled organism created a relationship that increased the overall survival advantage for the both of them.
What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?
I don't think there necessarily needs to be one, although it could have gone something link: single-cellular --> bi-cellular --> multi-cellular.
True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?
We wouldn't necessarily expect to see a present-day eye evolving into another type of present-day eye. Instead, we would probably expect to see the formation of beneficial light sensitive organs of increasing specialization through time. I reckon light sensitivity was a major feature of the very first cellular organisms since even plants have developed their own specialization upon that ability.
Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.
Yes, it is too bad, but with all due respect... so what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:27 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:50 PM :æ: has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 98 (73414)
12-16-2003 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rei
12-16-2003 1:23 PM


Rei:
"As genetically diverse as possible". Um, we're talking about only a pair of them surviving the flood. That's a maximum of 4 alleles per gene. In 200 generations, you're proposing that such horses split to the differences in horses and donkeys.
John Paul:
That is not correct:
Natural Selection vs. Evolution | Answers in Genesis
The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017.
F.J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):48—61, September 1978, quoted on page 55.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 1:23 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 3:53 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 98 (73415)
12-16-2003 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by :æ:
12-16-2003 3:44 PM


Just-so stories and assertions are not to be confused with evidence- scietific or otherwise. I have heard & read the stories. I know about endosymbiosis (Lynn Margulis).
There isn't any evidence of a bi-cellular organism.
Thye point being there isn't ANY evidence an eye can evolve. There isn't any evidence a sensitive light spot can evolve. And there surely isn't any evidence a vision system can evolve. These are all beliefs.
As for the fossil record and punk eek, I was answering another poster. Please try to keep up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 3:44 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 4:06 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 87 by MarkAustin, posted 01-20-2004 8:39 AM John Paul has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4551 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 42 of 98 (73419)
12-16-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:27 PM


quote:
What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?
I'm not ignoring this one, but I don't know enough to answer it.
quote:
What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?
Communal organisms, such as slime molds. These, by the way, have been observed to evolve from single-celled organisms. I've seen the story of a particular lab experiment posted here at least twice. Communal organisms live in groups (the size of which seems genetically controlled) but all cells are identical. Do you know how you differ from a communal organism? Not all the genes are expressed in every cell of your body, even though they are all present. That's not a difficult jump to make - all you require is the selective deactivation of particular genes. Copy and mutate the genes of a communal, shut some off, and you'll have specialized tissues. Mutate them some more and you have organs.
quote:
True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?
Yes. Changes of the type that we can observe in nature are enough to account for the difference between one eye and the next. I went into a bit more detail in my last post.
quote:
Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.
Too bad? Jeez, we're lucky we've found as much as we have. The fossil record may not show every species transition, but it shows large-scale body plan changes from water-dwelling tetrapods to terrestrial mammals. It also shows a disturbingly (for the special creationist) fine-grained continuum of cranial size and degree of upright posture in primates, from chimp-like australopithecines to modern humans, while the fossils oddly go from old to young. If you deny both of these, you're essentially doing this:
1)looking at the big picture and claiming the detail is not fine enough to mean anything, and;
2)looking at a detailed section of the big picture and claiming you can't see enough of the big picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:27 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:00 PM zephyr has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 43 of 98 (73420)
12-16-2003 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:45 PM


John Paul, Ayala is talking about a population of individuals, not two individuals, with that amount of heterozygosity. With two individuals and any particular gene, the heterozygosity could be 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% - there are only four possible alleles with only two diploid individuals. (Biologists - correct me if I'm calculating that wrong!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:45 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:01 PM Coragyps has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 98 (73421)
12-16-2003 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
12-16-2003 3:44 PM


Coragyps:
And this would be the reason that his first edition of Systema Naturae (1758) classified the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes? Because humans and chimps are the same Created Kind?
John Paul:
If you had been following- at FIRST he thought the species level, ie troglodytes, were the created kind. With further research he changed. That is what scientists do. They need a starting point then develop their ideas. Linne did that. As a Creationist he knew humans were a Kind all to ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 3:44 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:01 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 98 (73423)
12-16-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by zephyr
12-16-2003 3:52 PM


Slime molds? How many times does this have to be refuted? Slime molds produce, guess what? Single-celled organisms! Go figure.
Your eye story has been refuted- read "Darwin's Black Box" by Mike Behe.
We now know enough of micro-biology to know that the genes governing fin development are not the same genes that govern limb development in tetrapods. If the ToE were indicative of reality then homolgy would extend down to the microbiological level. It doesn't.
Fancy sayings and slogans are not evidence either. When all you have are generalizations it is time to give up or start filling in the vast blanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 3:52 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:08 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 55 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 4:33 PM John Paul has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024