Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 4:34 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,030 Year: 15,066/19,786 Month: 1,789/3,058 Week: 163/404 Day: 50/113 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 56 of 173 (515776)
07-21-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by traste
07-21-2009 3:44 AM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
This idea is based on that because rocks are billion years sold organism too are billion yearsold

The alternative to this interpretation of the evidence is that organisms can bury themselves inside rocks. While some bacteria might be able to get inside rocks to some extend, I don't think an organism like a fish is going to manage to swim through solid rock. So, when you find a fossil fish, what is more likely, that the fish is at least as old as the rock, or that the rock is old and the fish is recent?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 3:44 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:45 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 59 of 173 (515781)
07-21-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by traste
07-21-2009 4:18 AM


Re: you are ignorant
If you only tell me that primative fish somehow become amphibians and amphibians become mammals and mammals become humans, tnat is not impresive,because you are unable to provide a basic meahanism that are responsible for there transformation,only your boundless optimsm and wishful speculations.

According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection. It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size. The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve.

You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so?

Actually, Im notignorant of this subject butI guess you are.

Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong.

Edited by Parasomnium, : typo


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:18 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:00 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 89 of 173 (520151)
08-19-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by traste
08-18-2009 11:00 PM


Re: you are ignorant
traste writes:

[T]oday the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"

This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed.

quote:
Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology.
Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA.

Department of Biology, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania 19081, USA.

A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste.

mutation is a process that break genes so easily

Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations.

A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life.

"Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".

The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.

This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.

traste, quoting me writes:


Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong

Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly.
You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.

You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:00 PM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 12:20 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 96 of 173 (520296)
08-20-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by traste
08-20-2009 12:20 AM


Re: you are ignorant
traste writes:

Does mutation reveals it trick to you and not to others(i.e. Dean Kenyon,who said that biochemical evolution was undocumented).

The magic of evolution is revealed to anyone with an open mind, who is prepared to put some work in it and study it in some detail.

The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.

If it is so well-established, then I'm sure you can produce one or more links to some peer-reviewed articles about it.

Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.

Could you name and cite them please?

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by traste, posted 08-20-2009 12:20 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019