Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 44 (8394)
04-09-2002 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 8:38 PM



Joe Meert writes:
but I am willing if Mr. DeBlonde can explain lucidly as to why he thinks C-14 dating is relevant to the age of the earth.

Mr BLonDe replies:
Well, if an animal is proven to be x million years old, then
age of the earth > x million years old
since the animal must of lived on the earth.

C-14 dating only works for organic remains no more than about 50,000 years old. It is useless for dating anything millions or billions of years old.

I didn't deny the existance of benefitial mutations, only the ones in which new complexities arise....I'm confused, what made you come to this conclusion? I know it is possible [for information to be added]...
I confess your statements struck me the same way they struck Mister Pamboli, particularly since it's a common Creationist position. Now that you've clarified I'd say that your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Mr BLonDe quotes AIG:
This suggests that the information [for nylon digestion] probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme.

The AIG quote doesn't appear to support your position. It proposes two methods by which bacteria may have gained the ability to digest nylon. One of these methods is gene transfer, a form of mutation. The bacterial recipient of the transfer has gained information, ie, complexity.

Actually, I was refering to the confusions of those who don't know any better.
From all the replies it looks like you confused everyone - I, too, thought you were stating your own misunderstandings. And of what possible relevance here is the fact that some people you once debated with were confused about natural selection?

By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.
Is this a scientific or a religious position? If scientific, why do you cite the holy book of a particular religious sect, and what is your evidence that only degeneration is possible?

What evidence do you have to show that those layers in fact do represent millions of years?
Even before the advent of radiometric dating, geologists were already convinced that the layers represented millions and hundreds of millions of accumulated years. Even the geologists were surprised when radiometric dating pushed the age of the earth back beyond a billion years and eventually to 4.56 billion years old. Dating of moon rocks and meteorites gives the same answer.

On the subject of Argon dating...
Argon is an inert gas (doesn't form compounds either with itself or other elements) that is swept away from molten lava. Fresh lava contains very little argon, and so most of the argon present in ancient lava flows will be due to the decay of potassium to argon.
You expressed some concern about the migration of argon. As an inert gas, it's net migration will be out of rock, not into it, and so any migration would cause younger dates, not older ones.
Potassium/argon dating has increased in sophistication over the past 20 years, and there are now techniques that effectively either remove the possibility of significant error or indicate the rock isn't datable with that technique.

I just want to point out that the odds of a cell assemblying itself by chance from a jumble of amino acids in an ocean from a lightning spark are so low, mathmaticians would consider the proability '0'.
I think there's general agreement that such an event is very unlikely. It isn't postulated that the first life arose by sudden accident. Just as evolution today is the accumulation over time of tiny changes, by some similarly gradual process must the first life have formed.
About the link Page not found – Evolution-Facts, it's probably a bit too long to expect someone to dig out the specific set of stats you're referring to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 8:38 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 44 (8396)
04-09-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 8:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.

Why do we need to get 'bigger' to show evidence of evolution? We certainly have become smarter, would you not agree? We wouldn't then need to be physically stronger to survive. We have cars now - no need to walk. We have restaurants - no need to hunt for food. We have actually become fairly lazy, but smarter nonetheless.
Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?
Why do you use the bible to support this degeneration? I could then use the book 'Green Eggs and Ham' by Dr. Suess, to demonstrate evolution taking place in our taste buds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 8:38 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 04-10-2002 8:45 AM no2creation has not replied

  
Mr BLonDe
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 44 (8397)
04-09-2002 11:46 PM


quote:
C-14 dating only works for organic remains no more than about 50,000 years old. It is useless for dating anything millions or billions of years old.
Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist, so 50,000 years is way beyond 6 - 10 thousand years
.
quote:
Now that you've clarified I'd say that your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?
My argument is that it is implausible in nature. What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.
quote:
The AIG quote doesn't appear to support your position. It proposes two methods by which bacteria may have gained the ability to digest nylon. One of these methods is gene transfer, a form of mutation. The bacterial recipient of the transfer has gained information, ie, complexity.
But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.
quote:
And of what possible relevance here is the fact that some people you once debated with were confused about natural selection?
Forgive me for the confusion I put upon everyone, but it seemed relevant at the time...I get very angry when people use the non-existant natural selection argument at other places. Obviously..this is no other place. People are much...much more educated than me, or anyone I have ever debated with when it comes to evolutoin versus creationism. This forum is designed for the one argument that puzzles us all...and for that I am thankful.
quote:
Is this a scientific or a religious position? If scientific, why do you cite the holy book of a particular religious sect, and what is your evidence that only degeneration is possible?
A scientific or religious response was not specified at the time of my reply. However, it is a common argument among creationists (including myself), that we have no clear-cut evidence of uphill evolution among life on earth. In fact, we argue, things are quite opposite.
Fact - things are changing through mutation
Question - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.
As for a christian argument, this would explain the fall of man as previously mentioned.
quote:
Even before the advent of radiometric dating, geologists were already convinced that the layers represented millions and hundreds of millions of accumulated years.
But, this is irrelevant. Today, it is obvious, that a majority of scientists believe in darwinian evolution (at least to my knowledge), but, that does not confirm the question of rather it is true or not. Again, can you please give me some information as to why you think it is, without doubt, true that those layers represent millions of accumulated years?
Argon dating link: http://www.icr.org/research/as/as-r01.htm
quote:
Finally, in real abiogenesis no one talks about pure chance, which is what he is using in his calculations here. Abiogenesis (which is separate from evolution) is based on the laws and probabilities of chemcistry and physics. This substantially changes the real probabilities and is another reason why pretty much all of these calculations are bogus.
Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance? It doesn't seem it's a natural resting state (as you were indirectly suggesting)..because we would have produced a cell in a lab already. Explain a bit more of why you think the formation of a cell happened in nature.
quote:
We certainly have become smarter, would you not agree?
No, I actually would not agree. I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent)
quote:
Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?
First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.
------------------
Mr BLonDe
"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"
[This message has been edited by Mr BLonDe, 04-09-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by no2creation, posted 04-10-2002 12:33 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 23 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-10-2002 2:10 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 04-10-2002 3:40 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 04-10-2002 12:18 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 04-10-2002 12:19 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 44 (8398)
04-10-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 11:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
We certainly have become smarter, would you not agree?
No, I actually would not agree. I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent)
If Adam and Eve were so intelligent why did they eat from the tree of knowledge?
If we were degenerating, how come populations continue to rise?
If people were more intelligent then, why did Noah have to create an Ark with gopher wood? Shouldn't he have been intelligent enough to make it more like an aircraft carrier? Why is there so much suffering in the bible if we were more intelligent then? Slavery? Killing Kids?
What about modern medicine?
How come they didn't have the technology to travel to the moon?
Why did they travel by camels and not cars?
Did they have telephones?
So show me how they were more intelligent again
[QUOTE]Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?
First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]
How would this be possible? You can’t even digest modern science without first making sure it’s ok with your bible. It would be a total waste of my time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 11:46 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Joe Meert, posted 04-10-2002 1:17 AM no2creation has not replied

  
Mr BLonDe
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (8399)
04-10-2002 12:47 AM


quote:
If Adam and Eve were so intelligent why did they eat from the tree of knowledge?
If we were degenerating, how come populations continue to rise?
If people were more intelligent then, why did Noah have to create an Ark with gopher wood? Shouldn't he have been intelligent enough to make it more like an aircraft carrier? Why is there so much suffering in the bible if we were more intelligent then? Slavery? Killing Kids?
What about modern medicine?
How come they didn't have the technology to travel to the moon?
Why did they travel by camels and not cars?
Did they have telephones?
So show me how they were more intelligent again
I don't think you understand what I mean. We are indeed intellegent today, but it is through standing on the shoulders of those before us. For instance, Adam was smart enough to name every animal present in one single day, noah built an ark nearly the size of the titanic (big deal at that age in time) etc.. They didn't have the kind of technology we have today, but that doesn't mean they weren't smarter.
------------------
Mr BLonDe
"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"
[This message has been edited by Mr BLonDe, 04-09-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by no2creation, posted 04-10-2002 1:02 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 44 (8400)
04-10-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mr BLonDe
04-10-2002 12:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
I don't think you understand what I mean. We are indeed intellegent today, but it is through standing on the shoulders of those before us. For instance, Adam was smart enough to name every animal present in one single day, noah built an ark nearly the size of the titanic (big deal at that age in time) etc.. They didn't have the kind of technology we have today, but that doesn't mean they weren't smarter.

How can you measure the intelligence of a man/woman without first being able to provide evidence of their existance?
How do you know that Adam could name these animals? If Adam and Eve were more intelligent than I, why did they both eat from the Tree of Knowledge if they were instructed NOT to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-10-2002 12:47 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 22 of 44 (8401)
04-10-2002 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by no2creation
04-10-2002 12:33 AM


On the subject of argon dating, I think what is presented by AIG-ICR and other creationists stems partly from the fact that none of them have actually worked with the method and are basing their conclusions on perceived anomalies cribbed, cut and pasted from the scientific literature. The link you provided discusses K-Ar dating of which Ar-Ar is a variant. They then go on to discuss 'problems' with the method. First of all, no radiometric dating method is 100% accurate. As with all things in nature, there will be some rocks that simply cannot be dated. We have two choices, we can throw out all ages or we can examine each data point carefully to look for possible compromises to the assumptions we make when dating a rock. Creationists choose the former, science chooses the latter. If your watch fails to keep accurate time, do you get a new watch or throw out the whole notion of time?
At any rate, K-Ar dating always tells us something about the system we are dating, but the ages of older rocks tended to be more scattered about a general mean. Geologists realized that a variant of K-Ar dating could yield useful information about the incorporation of excess argon or the loss of argon into a mineral or rock. This method clearly showed why certain K-Ar ages varied. Ar-Ar basically looks at a step-by-step snapshot of the K-Ar systematics in a mineral. In the ideal case, each step (obtained by releasing small amounts of gas at increasing temperatures) should show the same age. This is called a plateau. In cartoon fashion it would look like this:
====================== 550 Ma
(each = is one release step and each release step gives an age of 550 Ma)
Note: Previewing this made me realize that the = signs below are not tabbed out. You'll have to imagine them stair-stepping up or down to the 550 Ma age)
In some cases, the crystal lattice will lose argon at very low temperatures and during the stepwise release of the we can see this as follows (same symbols)
=============== 550 Ma
= 540 Ma
= 530 Ma
= 520 Ma
= 510 Ma
= 500 Ma
In this sample, the argon loss is evident, but the crystal also retains a memory of the original age. The K-Ar age integrates all these steps into one, so the K-Ar age would lie somewhere between 500 and 550 Ma.
In other cases, excess argon might be incorporated into the lattice at the time of formation. The argon-argon system would the n look like this:
= 600 Ma
= 590 Ma
= 580 Ma
= 570 Ma
= 560 Ma
==================== 550 Ma
Here, the K-Ar age would yield something between 550-600 Ma whereas the Ar-Ar release pattern tells us that the K-Ar age is incorporating some extraneous argon. Scientists have developed these checks for a host of systems and examined the behavior of these isotopes during metamorphism (for example, K-Ar is easy to reset at low temoeratures whereas zircons are not). What is particularly amazing is how well these isotopic systems work and how consistent they are (see http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/radiomet.htm ). There are a whole host of tricks employed by AIG-ICR to guarantee 'anomalous' looking ages, but in reality these are just tricks or lack of care during collection of the samples (for example http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/crefaqs.htm ).
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by no2creation, posted 04-10-2002 12:33 AM no2creation has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 23 of 44 (8402)
04-10-2002 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 11:46 PM


[b] [QUOTE]Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist ...[/b][/QUOTE]
Why are you? Is there any evidence that particularly convinced that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? Why those particular upper and lower boundaries?
[b] [QUOTE]your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?
My argument is that it is implausible in nature. What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.[/b][/QUOTE]
Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?
[b] [QUOTE]But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.[/b][/QUOTE]
The information was not present in the recipient - it gained in both information and complexity. More interestingly, there is a potential for this new information to have emergent properties in combination with existing information and for these emergent properties to be further refined by mutation and natural selection.[b] [QUOTE]Fact - things are changing through mutation[/b][/QUOTE]
Evidence? What kind of changes do you see or believe in?[b] [QUOTE]Again, can you please give me some information as to why you think it is, without doubt, true that those layers represent millions of accumulated years?[/b][/QUOTE]
Read any geology textbook - preferably a college level one that does not simplify the matter. I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong, then we are all in very great danger indeed from the nuclear industry and radiological medicine. This is particularly so as the technicians in these fields typically all have the same training and background - indeed at many universities the same departments offer radiocarbon dating as do research or provide services to other nuclear sciences. Honestly, if they can be out by factors of thousands, and have so little grounding in science that a non-specialist can see through their mistakes, we truly are in very great danger, don't you agree?
For my part, I see the techniques work in other areas and have no reason to believe that radiological dating is some kind of "black hole of knowledge" where the techniques collapse.[b] [QUOTE]Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance? It doesn't seem it's a natural resting state (as you were indirectly suggesting)..because we would have produced a cell in a lab already. Explain a bit more of why you think the formation of a cell happened in nature.[/b][/QUOTE]
No one thinks cells just popped into existence. The emergence of life from cell-replicating molecules could itself have been a lengthy complex process. One of the most puzzling problems for philosophers today is the definition of what constitutes life: a problem made more complex by the array of viruses and prions which live at the very edges of any definition. The evolution life through similar pathways is really not very difficult to imagine: indeed it is difficult to see what barriers there would be to the emergence of life from other self-replicating forms.[b] [QUOTE]I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent)[/b][/QUOTE]
As a pacifist I wholeheartedly agree! But you mean "shoulders" perhaps? Can you show that we are growing less intelligent? Fascinating stuff, if you can.[b] [QUOTE]... where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?
First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]
As you should be well aware, pretty much this entire forum is a discussion of the evidence for evolution. What you should find, is that modern evolutionists do not believe in qualitative evolution - it is not seen a course of constant improvement, but a course of constant adaptation to pressures. That this has resulted in a markedly more intelligent animal is by no means inevitable. Evolution is directionless, neither uphill or downhill.
Nevertheless, read any topic on this forum and you will find people presenting evidence for evolution. Evidence you may reject, of course, but evidence that we propose to you nonetheless. All that was asked was that you provide some evidence, that we may, in our turn, reject. Is that unreasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 11:46 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 44 (8403)
04-10-2002 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 11:46 PM


quote:
Percy: C-14 dating only works for organic remains no more than about 50,000 years old. It is useless for dating anything millions or billions of years old.
Mr. Blonde: Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist, so 50,000 years is way beyond 6 - 10 thousand years.
In that case doesn't radiometric dating falsify your belief? If there are multiple methods based on radioactive decay ratios that give dates older than 10,000 years, I would say you have a problem. Even C-14 dating, corroborated by other methods, can be used to date materials much older than 10,000 years. If you would care to provide some evidence that decay rates are constantly changing, then perhaps your argument could have some merit.
quote:
My argument is that it is implausible in nature. What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.
...
But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.
Oooh. Information and complexity argument. I like these. Unfortunately, these arguments tend to get a bit confusing. Would you mind defining some of your terms so we have a common frame of reference?
1. Please define "information" in a biological context. Be as specific as possible, and provide examples (if practicable) of you believe constitutes an "increase" or "decrease". Then, or perhaps even first, please identify which methodology you are using: Shannon Communications Information Theory, Kolomgorov-Chaitan Algorithmic Information Theory, Fisher Information Theory, or semantic information.
2. Please define "complexity" in terms of a biological system. At what level are you using the term (structural, organizational, systemic, etc)? If you are using "complexity" as a basis for a design inference (which may be implied from your posts but wasn't explicitly stated), please specify how this form of complexity can be positively identified in nature. How are you differentiating between natural or "apparent" complexity and designed complexity?
quote:
Forgive me for the confusion I put upon everyone, but it seemed relevant at the time...I get very angry when people use the non-existant natural selection argument at other places. Obviously..this is no other place. People are much...much more educated than me, or anyone I have ever debated with when it comes to evolutoin versus creationism. This forum is designed for the one argument that puzzles us all...and for that I am thankful.
You're welcome - although you should be thanking Percy and Ibhandi. However, what puzzles me is your assertion that natural selection is non-existent. On what basis are you making that claim? Which postulate of the natural selection logic is incorrect?
quote:
A scientific or religious response was not specified at the time of my reply. However, it is a common argument among creationists (including myself), that we have no clear-cut evidence of uphill evolution among life on earth. In fact, we argue, things are quite opposite.
Fact - things are changing through mutation
Question - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.
I think it has been pointed out that evolution is not linear, nor is it necessarily "progress". Here's a graphic representation of the three recognized "outcomes" of the selection process:
[Provided a white background for the figure. --Percy]
As you can see, evolution can be directional (I guess this equates to "progress"), it can maintain the status quo, or it can have something akin to "negative" effect (at least at the mean population). In short, there is no evidence of any linearity in evolution - things can get better, worse, or stay the same. I hope this clarifies things a bit for you.
quote:
Question - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.
As for a christian argument, this would explain the fall of man as previously mentioned.
Answer: D. All of the above. You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Even in those instances where "uphill" is not observed (if I'm understanding you correctly), this does NOT axiomatically lead to a supposition that things are getting "worse" for a particular population.
One last note:
quote:
No, I actually would not agree. I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent).
Since you have made this assertion, it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for making it. How was it determined that Adam (assuming he existed) was "more intelligent" than, say, Einstein, Schrodinger, Darwin, or Pope John Paul?
[edited to fix broken link]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 11:46 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 04-11-2002 4:20 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 44 (8404)
04-10-2002 6:50 AM


quote:
By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.
Humans are not degenerating because humans sinned- we are degenerating because the weak and unintelligent can be saved and are therefore adding their weak genes to the human gene pool.

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 44 (8405)
04-10-2002 6:53 AM


quote:
Edit: Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) of human years over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?
We do. Bacteria are capable of adapting to antibiotics in incredibly short periods of time.

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (8406)
04-10-2002 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-09-2002 10:56 PM


quote:
What evidence do you have to show that those layers in fact do represent millions of years?
Perhaps you could explain why radiocarbon dating shows that the lower layers are older that the higher layers. It never contradicts itself...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-09-2002 10:56 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 44 (8407)
04-10-2002 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-09-2002 10:56 PM


Please respond to the issue of nuclear medicine and nuclear power in relation to readiocarbon dating. You're side-stepping.
And BlonDe- do you believe that evolution created ecological diversity after the flood, like many creationists believe on this board?
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 04-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-09-2002 10:56 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 44 (8408)
04-10-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by no2creation
04-09-2002 11:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by no2creation:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.

[QUOTE]Why do we need to get 'bigger' to show evidence of evolution? We certainly have become smarter, would you not agree? We wouldn't then need to be physically stronger to survive. We have cars now - no need to walk. We have restaurants - no need to hunt for food. We have actually become fairly lazy, but smarter nonetheless.
Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?
Why do you use the bible to support this degeneration? I could then use the book 'Green Eggs and Ham' by Dr. Suess, to demonstrate evolution taking place in our taste buds. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with this reply. In addition, I would like to point out that "beneficial", with regards to mutations, is only relevant in the current environment. I would ask our newcomer to define what "better" means? From an evolutionary standpoint, "better" simply means that you get to pass on your genetic information successfuly.
In addition, what about the 10% of Caucasian people (whose ancestors came from, and therefore survived, regions where the Black Plague happened) with either partial resistance or outright immunity to HIV?
Wouldn't this be considered a VERY beneficial mutation?? I sure think so.
I will quote Mark24's post here from a previous discussion from message #30 at "Human Origins", subtopic "Apes vs. man" because it was so good:
quote:
The "defective" gene has a 32 base pair deletion & about 10% of the caucasian population has that gene. It is a co-dominant gene, meaning if you are homozygous (have two of the mutant genes) you are even better protected against developing full blown AIDS. As Joz says, only 1% ish of caucasians get the double whammy protection (due to homozygosity). This rather puts paid to the idea that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God, when there's a protection passed on genetically, itself subject to the random vagaries of mate selection.
The gene is very rare in other races, meaning the 32 base pair deletion occurred after the migration from africa. It is thought that the genes relatively high frequency could not be a result of AIDS, but must be a result of selective pressure due to other pathogens.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by no2creation, posted 04-09-2002 11:40 PM no2creation has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 30 of 44 (8414)
04-10-2002 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 11:46 PM


[QUOTE][b]I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Out of all the mutations occuring, and considering that natural selection will proliferate a useful mutation, how can you sustain that argument? Also I should point out that what you have here is an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You can state that you don't accept the possibility of evolution and then give us no reasons, but it is not helping your case. While I applaud your intellectual honesty and forthright admission of the possibility of beneficial mutations (probably puts you ahead of 90% of the other YECs out there), I see you refusing the obvious and logical conclusion on apparently baseless grounds at the last possible minute before conceding evolution.
[QUOTE][b]But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Are you stating that nylon-digesting bacteria are living in nature? Can you find one? Also, how was it replicated under the aseptic conditions of the lab if the function was obtained through horizontal gene transfer? There would have to already be a nylon-digesting bacterial population present in the culture in which the transformation occured for you to result to horizontal transfer to account for the "information" addition. Because I thought that argument was just speculation, and that it was *assumed* that some bacteria were already carrying it and that it was transferred. This is consistent with AiG's mode of operation, see their Statement of Faith, Part F, "No evidence of any kind...."
[QUOTE][b]Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
This is another logical fallacy, or more accurately, a pair of related fallacies. You've taken a range of possibilities and shoveled us into only two possibilities, that we can go "uphill" or "downhill," and you omit the possibility that we are remaining level (fallacy one). You state that there is "no clear-cut evidence" (question begging - fallacy two). My other problem with the "uphill-downhill" analogy is that "up" and "down" here are subjective. Evolution works towards "fitness", essentially survivability and fertility. Adaptations which lead to enhanced survivability and fertility cannot be easily quantified until they come about, there is a seemingly infinite number of improvements that can come about to cause an organism to produce more offspring or have a reduced mortality rate, and how well each works is determined by a seemingly
infinite number of environmental variables, all of which are in flux.
An adaptation which helps one population can harm another in a different set of circumstances and because organisms are each adapted differently to different environments, to call one direction "up" relative another is unfair. Bacteria cannot build airplanes but some of them can live in concentrated H2SO4. A human cannot live in that environment and if they were to suddenly start evolving towards being mammals they would become extinct before they got very far. That's another problem with the analogy, to say that evolution can go "uphill" or "downhill" implies that evolution has a goal. One can argue that a evolution is a teleological process driven by God but evolution itself, as a process we can observe, simply moves to whatever proliferates the organism's genome. "It" is not "trying" to work towards any sort of "goal" other than producing more offspring that are healthier than itself.
Enough for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 11:46 PM Mr BLonDe 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