Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 98 (73471)
12-16-2003 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rei
12-16-2003 4:08 PM


The bacteria are still bacteria and produce bacteria. The algae is still algae and produce algae. No evolution in either case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei:
Your evidence?
John Paul:
Homolgy has been refuted for years. Try reading Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". It is referenced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:08 PM Rei has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 98 (73472)
12-16-2003 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
12-16-2003 4:29 PM


Re: evidence
It is obvious to me why Linne changed his mind- research & evidence. There is nothing to the contrary. Heck his change went against the basic belief, so it couldn't have been pressure from the church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 4:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 5:50 PM John Paul has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 63 of 98 (73474)
12-16-2003 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:16 PM


John Paul writes:
If you want to impress try something from a peer-reviewed journal.
A Pessimistic Estimate Of The Time Required For An Eye To Evolve, D.-E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 1994, 256, pp. 53-58.
Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe.
Hogwash. Behe's IC arguments are plainly refuted by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:16 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 12:00 AM :æ: has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 64 of 98 (73476)
12-16-2003 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:31 PM


quote:
Please , zephyr, what is testable AND repeatable about the ToE? Surely not the alleged single to multi-cellular evolutiuon.
I already referenced such an observed change in the laboratory, on a species that wasn't even being experimented on. Need a cite?
quote:
Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.
Are you saying that the number of nuclei can't change?
quote:
How did that light sensitive spot come about? You do realize that the eye is only 1 part in the vision system....
Actually, read up about photorhodopsins vs. rhodopsins. Do you know what either of these are? I'll assume no, so I'll elaborate.
Rhodopsins are proteins used as "triggers". For example, if you had a flagellum, it could possibly be triggered by the activation of a rhodopsin.
Photorhodopsins are rhodopsins that are sensitive to light. It only takes minor differences, but you can get them to activate by light.
Take any rhodopsin-activated mechanism or pathway - regardless of what *currently* activates it - that it would be at all avantageous to react the same way to light with. There are going to be literally billions of them out there. Add in a mutation that turns it from a regular rhodopsin into a photorhodopsin.
You have an advantageous mutation; natural selection takes over. Thus, you have a primitive light-sensing spot.
quote:
Fossils say nothing of a mechanism.
They ruled out all other theories.
quote:
The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catastrophes.
Nice, delicate, terrestrial fossils, too. And fossilized egg shells, and fossilized footprints.... and the fossils are fully mineralized... and they often lie between basaltic layers... (I could go on for hours)
quote:
Which goes against gradualism. And also calls in to question the age of the strata.
Explain.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Two individuals but how many sex cells?
A bunch - all of which carry ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO POSSIBLE VERSIONS OF THE GENE IN THE PARENT!
The ToE counts on your statement being false. Did you realize that? If all genes remained the same we wouldn't have the change you want us toi believe occured.
Have you never taken 10th-grade biology?
Yes, and more....
Then you would know this most basic fact of genetics. You only have two copies of each gene. That limits a population of two to a maximum of four copies. Now, there can be any combination of these 4 copies passed on, but only these 4 genes will exist until mutation creates new versions. However, there exist *far* more than 4 genes for many locii.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:31 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 12:08 AM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 65 of 98 (73478)
12-16-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:39 PM


Re: evidence
quote:
The bacteria are still bacteria and produce bacteria. The algae is still algae and produce algae. No evolution in either case.
But they're *multicellular*. Aren't you getting that? You're claiming that it's impossible to develop into a multicellular organism. You've been shown that it already happens. What more do you need?
quote:
quote:
quote:
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.
Your evidence?
Homolgy has been refuted for years. Try reading Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". It is referenced.
I'm not going to buy a book for you, when you already have the book yourself. Cite the cite.
quote:
It is obvious to me why Linne changed his mind- research & evidence. There is nothing to the contrary. Heck his change went against the basic belief, so it couldn't have been pressure from the church.
Uh huh. So, Linne is supposedly a bible literalist, but decides that humans and chimpanzees belong in the same group (from pure conjecture, I suppose, despite his supposed viewpoint), and then researches back to the bible view? And the church and his peers are supposedly unhappy about going back to a biblical view?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:39 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 11:58 PM Rei has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 98 (73620)
12-16-2003 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rei
12-16-2003 5:50 PM


Re: evidence
They are NOT multi-cellular. They are aggregates of the same type of cell.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious to me why Linne changed his mind- research & evidence. There is nothing to the contrary. Heck his change went against the basic belief, so it couldn't have been pressure from the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei:
Uh huh. So, Linne is supposedly a bible literalist, but decides that humans and chimpanzees belong in the same group (from pure conjecture, I suppose, despite his supposed viewpoint), and then researches back to the bible view? And the church and his peers are supposedly unhappy about going back to a biblical view?
John Paul:
The point I made was that he did NOT group them together. Please read what I post without twisting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 5:50 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 1:42 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 98 (73622)
12-17-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by :æ:
12-16-2003 5:45 PM


Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?
What evidence refutes IC? Please present it. I have seen most and have read the refutations of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 5:45 PM :æ: has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 12-17-2003 9:28 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 98 (73626)
12-17-2003 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rei
12-16-2003 5:46 PM


Stop moving the goalposts. You did not reference anything that is being debated. Provide the cite and I will point that out to you more clearly.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei:
Are you saying that the number of nuclei can't change?
John Paul:
There isn't any evidence, observed or experimental, that shows a single-celled organism without a nucleus (prokaryote) can evolve into a single-celled organism with a nucleus (eukaryote). THAT is what I am saying.
Where did rhodopsins come from?
Ruled out other theories by rejecting them a priori, not because if any evidence.
Please go on about these fragile fossils. They only show that gradualism couldn't account for them. No one said that the catastrophe had to occur right on top of these things. What we do know about fossilization says a quick burial is required.
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 5:46 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 1:58 PM John Paul has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 98 (73651)
12-17-2003 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
12-15-2003 11:17 PM


John Paul:
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.
Where, exactly, did Carl Woese claim that?
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.
Which ones?
What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?
One organism ate another but neglected to digest it. This is clearly the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and likely also that of the eukaryotic nucleus. But instead of losing much of its genetic material, it gained genetic material from its host.
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).
John Paul, there are oodles of evidence for mitochondrion and chloroplast endosymbiosis.
And what makes you so sure that creationism isn't a "Just So Story"? To me, "Goddidit!" seems like the ultimate Just So Story.
What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?
Colonial ones. All that a one-celled organism has to do is have its offspring to neglect to separate from each other. Their offspring do likewise, and the result is a big mass of one-celled organisms.
True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?
John Paul, what, short of going back in time in a time machine, would you consider acceptable evidence?
Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.
Like what do you mean?
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.
Describe those genes for us. John Paul, if you are such a big expert, that should be E-Z for you to do.
One of the most remarkable results over the last decade or so is that genetic mechanisms underlying development are homologous -- "deep homology". Hox genes were first discovered in fruit flies, where they specify front-to-rear identity, and they have subsequently been found all across the animal kingdom, where they do the same thing.
Likewise, fish fins and tetrapod limbs have related developmental pathways, though there are some differences in detail.
IC has been shot to pieces? By evidence or more "just-so" stories? Any links? Behe has refuted all critics. Go figure...
What are Behe's "refutations"?
Fossils say nothing of a mechanism. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catastrophes. Which goes against gradualism. And also calls in to question the age of the strata.
Poor John Paul does not seem to have ever heard of lake-bed and riverbed sediments.
(on eye evolution)
Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?
WHERE???
(footprints, eggshells, etc.)
Please go on about these fragile fossils. They only show that gradualism couldn't account for them. No one said that the catastrophe had to occur right on top of these things. What we do know about fossilization says a quick burial is required.
LOCAL catastrophes do just fine, like volcanic eruptions, floods, etc. Noah's Flood is an entirely unnecessary hypothesis, and it cannot explain the Earth's extremely complex geological history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 11:17 PM John Paul has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 70 of 98 (73704)
12-17-2003 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:31 PM


John Paul,
Here is a short article I would hope you have read by now. I have paraphrased below, but the main value of this information is in the actual volume - in the fact that there are so many environments so well described in the sequence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column
Please comment on the ability of creation and a single catastrophe to account for any of the information contained there.
The gist of the article is this: in one location, there is a vertical sequence of many distinct marine and terrestrial environments, many of which contain features which required vast amounts of time (each) to form, often in still waters. Also, the sequence of fossils from 15,000 feet deep to the surface supports textbook evolution from simple, primitive life to complex modern organisms. Shockingly enough, many of these organisms are fossilized within the above-mentioned tranquil marine environments.
So, as the author asks, which is the flood layer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:31 PM John Paul has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 98 (73717)
12-17-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by John Paul
12-17-2003 12:00 AM


Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?
No, and this is not the thread in which to discuss it. See John Paul refutes Nilsson & Pelger?
What evidence refutes IC? Please present it. I have seen most and have read the refutations of those.
You are severely confused about the burden of proof. It is up to those who propose IC to demonstrate that IC exists. Some who do not beleive in IC have voluntarily taken it upon rthemselves to demonstarte that systems proposed as IC are not IC.
IC is God-of-the-gaps, and the gaps keep getting smaller.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 12:00 AM John Paul has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 72 of 98 (73720)
12-17-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:24 PM


quote:
Please , zephyr, what is testable AND repeatable about the ToE?
Try the T4 phage experiment Rrhain has posted a few times. Testable and repeatable. You can repeatedly test mutations from parent to child as well. You can repeatedly locate fossils of trilobytes and date them hundreds of millions of years. You can repeatedly locate hominid fossils and fail to date them anywhere near that. You can observe, vertically stacked in one location, the remains of many layers of deserts and seas that each took long ages to form and disappear. If I had the time and energy I could quote these things all day.
quote:
Surely not the alleged single to multi-cellular evolutiuon.
Man, you asked for examples somewhere between single- and multi-celled. You have been given a category of organisms which reproduce as single cells but live as multicellular colonies, and exhibit anywhere from zero specialization to fairly high levels of coordination. All you can do is mock and shout your indignation when you receive what you request.
quote:
Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.
You haven't done anything but say it didn't happen. Fact is that there's nothing to prevent it.
quote:
Willful ignorance? That defines most evolutionists.
Thank you for resorting to the ad hominem. I described an act of willful ignorance (as the information is available on the very same page as this thread) while you have just claimed that the quality thereof defines my very position, and that of almost every educated scientist in the world. In fact, ignorance (rather than knowledge) is the basis for all of your arguments in this thread to date. We don't know how one pathway evolved into another, we don't know exactly what steps produced our eyes and all of our organs, and we don't know how a flagellum appeared on a bacterium. Sure, but we have some really good ideas. They are not invalidated by their lack of every fine detail that could possibly be located, as many of these things never can or will be learned.
quote:
Again nothing depends on us believing all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.
"Nothing" is a rather dramatic statement. If you mean our understanding of our place in the world, maybe something does depend on it. Maybe it feels better to be special and to have a purpose, but that is only the feeling of some people.
Along these lines, one finds better arguments for evolution than against - because those who first discovered evidence for an old earth and the divergence of species were not atheists with an axe to grind. Yet they began the collection of evidence and the synthesis of theory that is the ToE today.
quote:
I am NOT saying that the knowledge that things can change is not helpful. Surely it is. Please don't confuse one for the other.
The only difference between the two is time, of which the geologic record speaks volumes.
quote:
How did that light sensitive spot come about? You do realize that the eye is only 1 part in the vision system....
(dealt with by Rei)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:24 PM John Paul has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 73 of 98 (73783)
12-17-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
12-16-2003 11:58 PM


Re: evidence
quote:
hey are NOT multi-cellular. They are aggregates of the same type of cell.
First off, let's make sure we're on the same page - you're talking about slime mold, correct? I assume what you meant to say is they are not specialized into different functions. Of course they're the same "type" of cell in that they have the same rough internal structure and roughly the same DNA - but so do humans What you're discussing is cellular specialization, correct?
Unfortunately, you fail there too. Slime molds coordinate movement (literally "crawling") by having some cells act as "muscles" and others act as "supports", while yet other cells at the base specialize into creating a trail of slime to crawl on. Then, when they get to their destination, everyone changes their specialization: the cells at the base switch modes and switch to anchoring the cell; all other cells except those at the top switch to becoming a vertical, elongated support (sacrificing themselves in the process); and those at the top change into spore producing cells.
How much more specialization do you need?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 11:58 PM John Paul has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 74 of 98 (73786)
12-17-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John Paul
12-17-2003 12:08 AM


quote:
There isn't any evidence, observed or experimental, that shows a single-celled organism without a nucleus (prokaryote) can evolve into a single-celled organism with a nucleus (eukaryote). THAT is what I am saying.
First off, that's an incorrect definition. Prokaryotes have *multiple* nuclei (and often plasmids, but that's another topic all together).
Secondly, we need not even introduce a new species to the discussion - let's go back to the slime mold While the plasmodium stage contains thousands of nuclei (prokaryotic), the amoeba stage contains just one nucleus (eukaryotic).
quote:
Where did rhodopsins come from?
That's called "Moving The Goalpost". Before we can discuss this, you need to concede that, given a rhodopsin stimulus-response mechanism, a similar photorhodopsin stimulus-response mechanism can develop quite easily - in fact, it's not only possible, it's pretty much guaranteed.
quote:
No one said that the catastrophe had to occur right on top of these things.
Explain how a force which is supposedly scouring - let's say, the Grand Canyon - will leave fossil footprints embedded in rock just inside the walls.
quote:
What we do know about fossilization says a quick burial is required.
Yes, quick. I.e., within years. You, like most creationists, demonstrate an apparent lack of knowlege about geologic time.. If I were to set a chicken egg in my garden (an area where lots of soil gets deposited, because I compost), unless I slam that soil on hard, the egg will probably not even crack.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 12-17-2003 12:08 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:35 AM Rei has not replied

TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 98 (79040)
01-17-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rei
12-17-2003 1:58 PM


Do Creationists Believe in Evolution
My belief is the various animals came off Noah's ark and populated the entire Earth. These species evolved/adapted enough to survive in their new environments. That's my opinion. -open to comments.
If the Great Flood happened, is it possible that it made the Earth look older than it is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarcasm will get you knowwhere
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rei, posted 12-17-2003 1:58 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 11:55 AM TruthDetector has replied
 Message 77 by Abshalom, posted 01-17-2004 12:52 PM TruthDetector 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