Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   The Origin of Novelty
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 151 of 871 (690879)
02-17-2013 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Bolder-dash
02-12-2013 8:44 PM


Re: Experimentation, no straw needed
No Blue Jay, the real question I am asking is not whether or not mutations could form an eye, the question is whether or not RANDOM mutations could form an eye-and I think the answer to that is almost certainly no.
Then do you suspect a Direct Evolution might be possible which could be supported by the presence of Instincts in high animals?
Instincts are learned responses that organism acquired while alive, which became integrated into their genetic make up, and reconstituted in their unconscious in future births of the species.
Example:
There's a marvellous little bird called the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva).
It does this fantastic thing, which evolution cannot even BEGIN to account for, and provides further proof if it were needed, that the theory should be abandoned.
The story begins in Alaska, where the birds breed. They lay their eggs, which hatch out normally, and the parents stay with them till they are reasonably able to take care of themselves.
Then the impossible happens.
The parents fly away, leaving them behind. But that's not the amazing part.
The parents now embark upon a 2,800 MILE JOURNEY to Hawaii, ACROSS THE TRACKLESS PACIFIC OCEAN, a journey taking about 88 hours of NON-STOP flying time.
In the process, they lose about half their body weight.
Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you?
Without instruments and maps?
There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.
If they're one degree off course, they'll end belly up in the Pacific Ocean. But even if headwinds/ sidewinds blow them off course, they still make it.
They summer there, and then, head back to Alaska, across another 2,800 mile journey, where they breed again.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-12-2013 8:44 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-17-2013 9:32 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2013 3:23 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 170 of 871 (690949)
02-18-2013 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by mindspawn
02-18-2013 6:36 AM


Until you have a better explanation for abiogenesis, creationism as a starting point looks just as good to the unbiased reader.
But does it seem a better assumption that God ortely performed millions of Spontaneous Generations, one for each current species and one for every extinct organism that ever lived?
And, HOW god may have used His own natural laws to do the job does NOT deny Him in anyway, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by mindspawn, posted 02-18-2013 6:36 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by mindspawn, posted 02-18-2013 2:21 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 171 of 871 (690951)
02-18-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Tangle
02-18-2013 8:30 AM


so did it all get wiped out a couple of thousand years later by the flood too?
For Neanderthals, yes, the whole world and their visions and names for the animals disappeared forever.
After a 100,000 years as the dominant anumal on Earth which had the opportunity to describe that world in humanoid terms, they declined and disappeared as the Modern Homo spaiens "flooded" the whole earth to the mountain tops in replacing them and the ir entire world view, especially the names and visions of the animals they would hunt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Tangle, posted 02-18-2013 8:30 AM Tangle has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 184 of 871 (690987)
02-18-2013 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by mindspawn
02-18-2013 2:21 PM


...until you disprove ToE don't use Bible support
No it doesn't deny him, accepted, but even so it does contradict the literalness of the bible. I'm seriously looking for evidence for complexity over time, reducing complexity is proven which points more towards creationism than evolution, even though it is also regarded as an evolutionary process.
You, the churches, and the Bibke people have NOT satisfatorily discredit Modern Science with your science arguments. In the mean time, you all agree in the Spontaneous Generation of first life which is identical to Abiogenesis.
Why NOT stop there, and claim god did it as far as the Bible and Science can tell.
First life was an Act-of-God.
Why do you place the Bible on the fence with public ridicule on one side and the whole Institution of Religion on the otherside while atheists and devils throw rocks at it?
It doesn't even make god look very intelligent, that he had to personal utilized Spontaneous Generation over and over again for every little germ and creature.
His Natural Laws might well have created everything by using the initial life forms, and evolving them as science is so ready to accept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by mindspawn, posted 02-18-2013 2:21 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 472 of 871 (691615)
02-23-2013 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
02-23-2013 5:37 AM


...the BIGGIE mutation and macroevolution proof...
the question about the formation of actual new genes was answered with a NO by the genetics guys posting there, it does not happen. How could it? The DNA strand would have to incorporate an entirely new segment thousands of codons long between other genes, including the stop-start coding and the works. If this ever DOES happen, it isn't going to happen in a breeding program within a short period of time.
People who preach that Christ was The Truth seem unable to give up their faith in their personal interpretations of Genesis whether confronted with evidence or not.
Is this merely faith in one's personal and ever more peculiar point of view?
The FACT that we can SEE the fused 2nd chromosomes usually separated from one another in the Apes which are 99% the same in their gentic make-up fails to sway you.
Here we SEE an actual example of a macro-evolution from Apoes to a whole new branch of humans that lead to 22 now extinct humans in our own ascent, yet you continue to sell this ridiculous and anti-Bible insistance that Science lies and you don't.
.
.
.
.
"Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes."
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred... before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5).
References:
1.Fan Y, et al. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Research 2002, volume 12, pages 1651-1662.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 02-23-2013 5:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 474 of 871 (691617)
02-23-2013 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by Faith
02-23-2013 10:40 AM


... Truth over established teachings of the churches...
Well, surely even you would concede that in a few short years you aren't going to get macroevolution.
If you ignore the fusion as a hybridization which accomplishes macro-evolution immediately,...
... consider the rapid Foxes to Dogs experiments occuring now in Russian Laboratories which take place in only a few generations:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 02-23-2013 10:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 475 of 871 (691618)
02-23-2013 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Taq
02-23-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Novelty
Is macroevolution the production of a new kind or baramin? How do you determine if macroevolution has occurred, according to your criteria?
We determine the macro evolution by seeing that one previous species is now accompanied by a new species related to the original species, but different genetically and in kind.
Where we had only apes before, man appeared thereafter.
We determine that the fused chromosomes are actually two diferent ones, cemented togather in the middle of the one set, where the beginning of the missing Ape Chromosome can be identified by the teleomeres which oinly appear on the ends of chromosome,... but here, are fused inside the other chromosome.
hence, it was once the other Ape chromosome, and the macro evolution was us.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Taq, posted 02-23-2013 10:49 AM Taq has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 567 of 871 (692067)
02-27-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM


... what about the slow but apparent disappearances of organs...?
f you say that it was a useless mutation, that eventually gained usefulness and then caused an increase in survivability, I think it is incumbent on your side to give a example, a reasonable pathway.
Everyone of these mutations that started out as harmless defects can't have only happened in the past. If this is the pathway to all animal features, the mutations must be continuing today. What are some plausible examples of how this could happen in modern animals, starting from scratch?
Whereas you are looking for evidence of the gradual development of a new organ, how about the same thing, as over time an organ like the appendix can be seen to disappear from non-use.
This is the reverse of exercise of a new initially very limited organ developing and maturing into something complex now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 605 of 871 (692221)
03-01-2013 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 5:46 PM


...off by 10, but very important point...
Humans?
1) We experienced rapid adaptation from about three main family groupings about 4500 years ago.
2) Do you mean Lucy , lol
Or Neanderthals - they are just humans, nothing more, nothing less.
1) From Science and the Bible, both, we have evidence of three Racial Stocks emerging from Africa at exactly the same time that all other humanoids were becoming extinct. This is an important set of correspondences, that both religion and science agree on the basics:
A All other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago
B Modern Homo sapiens appeared 40,000 years ago in three flavors some call Hamites, Japhethians, and Shemians, while science referred to them as Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongolians.
C Modern studies of race by geneticists support that these early initial three racial stocks differentiated into seven genetically identifiable groups living today.
D Genetic evidence indicates that the original three racial stocks that lead to the seven kinds of people alive today are all related to just on man, presumably a Noah, who lived 40,000 years ago.
This is a lot of evidence in support of ancient reports that tell the same story.
2) Yes, Paleontology refers to the 22 humanoid creatures that they list as the 22 now extinct humans in our ascent to modern man as humans.
They were.
They were just not as evolved as we are today, but they walked upright, had their thumbs like our own, and every cell in their body had 23 Chromosomes, including one pair that was actually two sets fused together.
The ancient writings that report the "flood" out-of-Africa, occurring 40 thousand years ago, itemized and enumerated descriptions of the 22 humans which went extinct. In that listing many points are in line with our own discoveries and knowledge about those previous 22 links in our ascent.
Your argument is an excellent example of how ID and YECs ought better align their arguments for Scripture with the Scientific Facts rather than fudge by 10 the time lines as you attempt to so do here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 5:46 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Eli, posted 03-01-2013 10:31 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 628 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 2:11 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 606 of 871 (692225)
03-01-2013 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 546 by mindspawn
02-27-2013 7:23 AM


...right about the wrong things...
1) 3 million base pairs appeared in perfect order out of a pool of chemicals, even though those chemicals are not found in non-biological nature? hahahahaha you living in a fantasy world and you dare to point at creationists??
Abiogenesis involves even more faith without evidence than believing in a creator ever did.
You have a vicious circle to explain, you NEED biological life to create biological life, just that in itself points to a designer.
2) I need links again, if you insist on saying abiogenesis is more plausible than creation prove it!
I prefer to leave abiogenesis and creation out of discussions and look at current genomes and see if they are a reflection of baramins or a long term common ancestor.
I feel that's a true discussion on evolution instead of origins, but if you guys keep insisting on discussing origins, bring it on!
Your are right, that Science has no concrete evidence to support Abiogenesis,...
... but you are wrong not to agree with them on this Spontaneous Generation which was that Act-of-God where he said, "Let the earth bring forth (bacteria, i.e.; NOTE: the Hebrew word is not grass but means "first sprouts of life on Earth"), "grass," (from which condition shall evolve) the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, (all the Plant Kingdom to come), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by mindspawn, posted 02-27-2013 7:23 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Eli, posted 03-01-2013 10:25 AM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 629 by mindspawn, posted 03-05-2013 2:20 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 616 of 871 (692250)
03-01-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by Admin
03-01-2013 11:31 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Are you saying that this thread is for ONLY people who intend to agree with and support whatever the OP states, more or less an opportunity for propaganda from just one side to all talk together?
If that is the case, then I with draw from the one sided nonsense.
Please tell me when you deem this condition to be be in force elsewhere so I don't get suspended for joining in with these rule breakeres here.
Thank you in advance Mr Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Admin, posted 03-01-2013 11:31 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Admin, posted 03-02-2013 7:14 PM kofh2u 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