Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

So, horses and donkeys diverged in about 1,000 years (both exist shortly after the flood as distinct "kinds")? That's only 200 generations of horse-kinds, and they reach reproductive isolation! Even if we give elephants 4,000 years, that's, again, only 200 generations. African, Indian, and the various pygmy elephants - all in 200 generations? Are mammoths and mastadons in that same hyperevolved category?Do you realize how fast you're proposing evolution occur? Nothing could stop it if it could happen *that* fast!------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

I don't know the timeline of the flood. I don't believe the timeline some creationists do. However if the horse representatives were as genetically diverse as possible than yes it would be entirely possible to get the variations we see today. As I have said, the creation model does not require new genetic information to arise. All that is required is the existing information to get reshuffled and then become fixed. Also we have a different view on what evolution is. That is why the theory is ambiguous.

---

"As genetically diverse as possible". Um, we're talking about only a pair of them surviving the flood. That's a maximum of 4 alleles per gene. In 200 generations, you're proposing that such horses split to the differences in horses and donkeys.We're talking about, in donkeys compared to horses, closer growth plates, different digit structure, permanent fat pones and neck crests, succeptibility to lungworms, different vocalization capabilities (due to significant larynx and pharynx differences), the obvious ear length and size differences, as well as different nutritional requirements and dietary capabilities (including water consumption styles), a short upright mane, lighter hair around the eyes, no forelock, a switch tail, no upward whorl on the hair of the flank, "chestnuts" only on the forelimbs, boxy hooves with a thicker hoof wall, with a more upright angle, heavy muscle covering the jugular furrow, longer gestation, numerous sexual anatomy differences in both males and females, less reproductive seasonality, different reaction to anesthesia, different drug metabolism, higher pain tolerance, and even - get this - the number of chromosomes!Are you going to accept that the number of chromosomes can change? Horses have 64. The domestic ass has 62, and the Asiatic wild ass has 54-56 (yes, it varies, and they can still interbreed with fertile offspring!).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

As a Creationist he knew humans were a Kind all to ourselves.

---

He knew it so well that he wrote the opposite, and changed it only under pressure.

quote:

---

The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017.

---

No. For many genes, There are far more than four possible genes for each *gene*, not for each trait (there are many times more than that as possibilities for each trait). Far more than four that are fixated into the population. Need examples?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Slime molds? How many times does this have to be refuted? Slime molds produce, guess what? Single-celled organisms! Go figure.

---

Wrong. Slime molds, in the right condition, readily assemble into multicellular organisms that are so coordinated as multicellular organisms (not to mention physically attached to each other) that they can even crawl in cooperation. They can alternate between functioning as single cellular organisms and multicellular organisms.There's not really a dividing line between single celled and multicellular; for example, many algae mats have proteins that help hold them together, and do (limited) specialization between (such as interior vs. exterior roles). Some bacterial populations take it a step further, and actually release proteins that act as hormonal messengers to other bacteria in its population. You can go a step further, and look at colonial organisms like volvox, which is little more than a small sphere of algae cells with some minor specialization. Heck, multicellular organisms have even been observed to form in the lab from single celled organisms in a species that wasn't even being experimented on (it was the food source for a phage, if I recall correctly).How far do you want me to take these examples?

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?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

Any evidence to support your assertion?

---

Why do *you* think he changed his mind? Some sort of spiritual revelation?

quote:

---

The numbers didn't copy correctly it should be 2 to the 6700 power or 10 to the 2017 power.

---

That doesn't change the fact that we're not talking about traits - we're talking about individual genes. There are many loci which have far more than 4 genes fixated into the population. You have yet to offer an explanation other than this that is an alternative to evolution producing changes that prove beneficial enough to fixate into the population. Also, you have yet to say whether you accept that even things as dramatic as the chromosome count can change.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

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."

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]

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]

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."