Creationist questions from a creationist

quote:

---

At the bottom of this, & every other post is a "reply" button (rather than the big button at the bottom of the page). If you click this then it shows to whom you are replying to.

---

thank you I was looking for donig so.

quote:

---

I responded to EXACTLY this issue in my last post. Given I spent a lot of time writing & researching message 10 for you, & you still raise points as if I never answered them, why should anyone respond to you if you aren't going to read responses to the issues you raise?

---

I'm sorry but while I was writing you posted your replies, I'm sorry if you felt I didn't read it, I did and thanx.

Here is the Coelacanth : and a fossil : for me they are the same, or at least they are still the same kind.
I'm reading evryone's posts but it takes time to reply.[This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003]

DGE,But they are not the same. Similar, yes, same taxonomic group, yes. But not the same. I have explained in message 10 why taxonomic groups survive. The same species has not survived unchanged. There isn't a SINGLE fossil of Latimeria chalumnae (the modern ceolacanth).This does not refute evolution.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-30-2003]

quote:

---

This does not refute evolution.

---

I never meant to refute evolution, just to clarify things up for me.
I don't think there are strong evidences about evolution, it's all about how you want to interprete them. It's like a police investigation, there are many ways to explain something.But Darwin and other naturalist of his time were right i.e., species change to some extent.[This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003][This message has been edited by DoesGodExist, 07-30-2003]

Hi,

quote:

---

Random mutation.What exactly do you need to have explained?

---

here I found this on The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research. Tell me what you think. it's a little bit old though
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
Random mutation, well I don't believe it.. I believe as i said earlier, that organisms adapt to their environment, but it's not at random. I don't think that random is good at anything, only lottery.

quote:

---

Because organisms that have eyes do way better than those that don't? Remember the expression "In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king"?

---

That doesn't really help much, because Nature don't know the physical and mechanical laws as well as optical...well i guess.

DGE, I dealt with this in message 10, too. That natural selection occurs at the genetic level has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.If you don't think mutations are random (in a non-predictive sense), then you'll have evidence that mutations are guided, right? What you believe isn't evidence.Mutations are random, & natural selection acts upon them & ultimately produces structures, systems, & functions that have the appearance of non-randomness & design because they ARE a product of a non-random mechanism.Can you explain Halls 1982 experiment (message 10) where an enzyme, an expression control system, & associated protease EVOLVED VIA RM&NS. How is it possible to come up with something so ignorant as "random mutation, well I don't believe it", in the face of vast contradictory evidence. The statistical spread of mutations has been studied to death, & yet no one is really able to say mutations aren't predictively random? Might I suggest you consult a geneticist for your genetics?I've noticed a lot of your arguments centre around "I don't believe it", or, "I believe it has problems". Interestingly, the only time you support your argument it isn't from a scientific source you seek support your argument, but a religious one.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Mark,You have been promoted to the rank of 'Prophet'! In an earlier post you stated: The proof is in the pudding from post 20: Although not as impressive as my double prophecy regarding Mike, it is still enough to get you promoted.Brian

Thanks Brian,BTW, good post over on Mikes thread.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Mike,Cheers!While I am here can I just let you know that I really appreciate all the work you put into the majority of your posts.Mesage 10 of this thread was particularly interesting, and there are many others that you post that go into great detail. So I thought you would like to know, that whilst it appears that the very people you are trying to help appear to ignore most of the messages, I for one read them and follow the links as well. As I have said before, I am not a scientist, I wouldn't get involved in a purely scientific discussion as it I am not equiped to do so, but your posts, and the messages from other people here, have definately improved my knowledge.Keep it up, while it may appear that certain people 'say' they appreciate your efforts, then take little or no notice of what you post, there are others who are grateful.Brian.

quote:

---

Can you explain Halls 1982 experiment (message 10) where an enzyme, an expression control system, & associated protease EVOLVED VIA RM&NS. How is it possible to come up with something so ignorant as "random mutation, well I don't believe it", in the face of vast contradictory evidence. The statistical spread of mutations has been studied to death, & yet no one is really able to say mutations aren't predictively random? Might I suggest you consult a geneticist for your genetics?

---

here is an article written by Michael Behe himself, about Hall's experiment. Mr Behe is certainly more apt to answer than i am.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe02.aspI know it's from an Inteligent Design website, but still it's very acurate.And Mark evidences are not the same for everyone.

quote:

---

That doesn't really help much, because Nature don't know the physical and mechanical laws as well as optical...well i guess.

---

Nature IS the physical and mechanical and optical... nature is everything we know, including ourselves. Nature is the light, heat, vibrations, colors, and shapes of the world that can kill us or keep us alive. Any sensory capability that allows an organism to track these things (and thereby find food and avoid threats) gives it an advantage. Are you truly claiming that a predator with eyes will eat and mate no better than a blind one?[This message has been edited by zephyr, 07-30-2003]

quote:

---

Last time this came up, someone mentioned that there are organisms with part of the blood clotting system we have. It's not IC.

---

thanx for answering, and I wanted to know if you can give me the link or info about the organisms with part of the blood clotting system?please.Thanx

quote:

---

Are you truly claiming that a predator with eyes will eat and mate no better than a blind one?

---

umm, no. I understand your point of view tho. But I find it hard to imagine such a thing as the formation of an eye or any organs, via pure random and natural selection. Maybe you take that for granted but i need some reflection.

DGE, Wrong.Behe's claim is that Hall didn't knock out a multipart system at all: In fact Neither Barry Hall nor Ken Miller (whom Behe is responding to) claimed he did. What they are claiming that in knocking out a single component of the operon, the entire operon was rendered inoperable. So, in summary. All of this occurred because random mutation culled by natural selection allowed it. You can find the rest of the rebuttle here.Behe is being disingenuous & missing the point, & so are you. Even if a three part system hadn't evolved, even Behe admits that a Galactosidase enzyme DID evolve. This is my point, random mutation & natural selection can produce function, & the appearance of design, it is not pure chance. In disbelieving that this occurs, you are shutting your mind to evidence, & substituting your incredulity.On the key issue, that random mutation & natural selection can't produce "design", even your own cite agrees with me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Let me ask you - how would you go about proving that an organ could not evolve through slight modifications over time?

---

good question. What I understood by IC was that all the component have to be assembled, or unified for it to work, and at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong.I can't find any example right now....like the blood clotting (seems to me the best example right now...)