Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

quote:

---

I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation.
References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.

---

1. That's not an observation, it is a silly insult.
2. You still have no references! You have yet another unsupported assertion to support your unsupported assertion. You're building a house of cards.

quote:

---

What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed.

---

Random mutations didn't have to be added in the way you seem to imply - they are observed in nature. That aside, recombination and other rearrangements of existing material can and do bring about novelty.

quote:

---

As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science.

---

Admitting you need science is the first step. The second is admitting that it will never do its job if you try to shoehorn all your evidence into a pre-existing conclusion.

quote:

---

However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG.

---

Been there. Failed to impress me. Ditto just about everyone else that posts here. AIG has some great emotional appeals to authority and morality but nothing resembling the scientific support for evolution.

quote:

---

Ya see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?

---

Two techniques called interpolation and extrapolation. They teach concrete versions of them in beginning algebra. We know of intermediates for many complex organs of the sort that are often claimed to be IC, or otherwise unevolvable. We can watch small-scale changes that, over time, would accumulate to produce the steps between those points. That is, if you line up all the known organisms with light-sensing structures today, they would be at various points along a continuum, each with one more component than the last, and each of these components can be demonstrated to be evolvable through an accumulation of genetic changes of the kind that can be observed. Thus, a light-sensitive spot with observed variation over generations faces no obstacle to becoming a light-sensitive pit - the only change is in the growth rate of the tissue below the spot. A light-sensitive pit with skin surrounding it may just grow a lens, because the changes needed to produce it are likewise on the order that we can observe - a slight change in growth rate and a change in tissue pigment (since clearer lenses are easier to see through and thus have a selective advantage), repeated many times. The remaining steps have all been laid out in the same way and there is no mechanism to prevent them from happening. This is only one example.On a more general level, the fossil record clearly shows that the older the rocks are, the simpler and smaller the organisms are. This strongly points to the diversification of life from single-celled organisms.

quote:

---

What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?

---

I'm not ignoring this one, but I don't know enough to answer it.

quote:

---

What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?

---

Communal organisms, such as slime molds. These, by the way, have been observed to evolve from single-celled organisms. I've seen the story of a particular lab experiment posted here at least twice. Communal organisms live in groups (the size of which seems genetically controlled) but all cells are identical. Do you know how you differ from a communal organism? Not all the genes are expressed in every cell of your body, even though they are all present. That's not a difficult jump to make - all you require is the selective deactivation of particular genes. Copy and mutate the genes of a communal, shut some off, and you'll have specialized tissues. Mutate them some more and you have organs.

quote:

---

True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?

---

Yes. Changes of the type that we can observe in nature are enough to account for the difference between one eye and the next. I went into a bit more detail in my last post.

quote:

---

Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.

---

Too bad? Jeez, we're lucky we've found as much as we have. The fossil record may not show every species transition, but it shows large-scale body plan changes from water-dwelling tetrapods to terrestrial mammals. It also shows a disturbingly (for the special creationist) fine-grained continuum of cranial size and degree of upright posture in primates, from chimp-like australopithecines to modern humans, while the fossils oddly go from old to young. If you deny both of these, you're essentially doing this:1)looking at the big picture and claiming the detail is not fine enough to mean anything, and;
2)looking at a detailed section of the big picture and claiming you can't see enough of the big picture.

quote:

---

Zephyr you may feel it is a silly insult however my experience shows it is an observation. I have had many evolutionists try to tell me what Creationists say- that is stasis, as in no change, which is total BS.

---

Hehe... those evos are just out of date. Creationists said that until speciation was proven to take place. Actually, I take that back. Some still do.

quote:

---

References? Do you want me to do your history homework?

​

from Carl Linnaeus :

---

Jeez, I was only pointing out that what you called a reference was not a reference. Thanks for providing it.

quote:

---

Where is your reference that recombos/ rearrangement can bring about novelty? Are these alleged novelties akin to eyes from the eyeless or just different colored eyes?

---

Frame shift mutation -> new enzyme -> Bacteria digest industrial waste instead of carbohydrate. New species of bacteria have no competition for food. Just one example.

quote:

---

As for pre-existing conclusions that is exactly what evolutionists do! They conclude that organisms did evolve from some unknown population of organisms and tghen look for evidence to support it.

---

You are confusing the efforts of people to identify a particular line of descent with the overall picture.

quote:

---

They also have the pre-existing conclusion that purely natural processes are all there is. They lead the evidence.

---

Methodological naturalism says no such thing. Get your story straight if you want to argue it. MN says that testable, repeatable results are the only ones that can form a basis for a theory. It draws no conclusions about things it cannot test. I think you would even agree that a hypothetical god would resist our attempts to sample and quantify him. Thus says MN and no more.

quote:

---

I love your "just-so" story about the eye. Evolutionists are fond of generalizations. Thank you for keeping up the good work. Talk about assertions! LoL!

---

Now you're just being rude. You asked if there was evidence that it could happen. I pointed out that there are many steps between light-sensitive spot and lensed eyeball, and further noted that the first two steps are products of very simple changes - growth rate and pigment, which see minor variations from parent to offspring in a readily observable way. The beginning, a simple light-sensitive spot, is present in many organisms and - though I do not have a direct cite - from what I have read, relies on proteins that are not necessarily much different from others present in normal tissue. Just-so story? Shameless projection. It seems a creationist mainstay.

quote:

---

However they are usually at a loss to come up with any details. That is why the ToE is a useless theory.

---

Actually, there's a whole thread going on right now about the advances in human quality of life that the ToE has produced. Only willful ignorance can explain such a statement from you.

quote:

---

Slime molds? How many times does this have to be refuted? Slime molds produce, guess what? Single-celled organisms! Go figure.
Your eye story has been refuted- read "Darwin's Black Box" by Mike Behe.

---

I got sick of that book after the first chapter, and that was back when I would have been happy to see some actual arguments against evolution, or *gasp* actual evidence for any other theory, something I have never seen - because that was before I knew enough to lean in either direction. It's a couple hundred pages of tiresome argument from ignorance and nothing more, and every example of supposed IC has been shot to hell since the book was published.

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. If the ToE were indicative of reality then homolgy would extend down to the microbiological level. It doesn't.

---

If you're saying fish fins couldn't evolve into tetrapod legs, I can't confirm or deny because I haven't seen that evidence. I'm not aware that this is necessarily a prediction of evolutionary theory, though it would seem the most likely route at first glance.

quote:

---

Fancy sayings and slogans are not evidence either. When all you have are generalizations it is time to give up or start filling in the vast blanks.

---

I don't have a personal memory of all the facts, so what I give you is the best I have. I lack the time to point you to the specifics but they are out there for anyone who actually looks, and they are posted here all the time. Look at the geologic column. Look at what species are found in rocks of what age. Those two things alone should be enough to convince anybody.

John Paul,Here is a short article I would hope you have read by now. I have paraphrased below, but the main value of this information is in the actual volume - in the fact that there are so many environments so well described in the sequence.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#columnPlease comment on the ability of creation and a single catastrophe to account for any of the information contained there.The gist of the article is this: in one location, there is a vertical sequence of many distinct marine and terrestrial environments, many of which contain features which required vast amounts of time (each) to form, often in still waters. Also, the sequence of fossils from 15,000 feet deep to the surface supports textbook evolution from simple, primitive life to complex modern organisms. Shockingly enough, many of these organisms are fossilized within the above-mentioned tranquil marine environments.So, as the author asks, which is the flood layer?

quote:

---

Please , zephyr, what is testable AND repeatable about the ToE?

---

Try the T4 phage experiment Rrhain has posted a few times. Testable and repeatable. You can repeatedly test mutations from parent to child as well. You can repeatedly locate fossils of trilobytes and date them hundreds of millions of years. You can repeatedly locate hominid fossils and fail to date them anywhere near that. You can observe, vertically stacked in one location, the remains of many layers of deserts and seas that each took long ages to form and disappear. If I had the time and energy I could quote these things all day.

quote:

---

Surely not the alleged single to multi-cellular evolutiuon.

---

Man, you asked for examples somewhere between single- and multi-celled. You have been given a category of organisms which reproduce as single cells but live as multicellular colonies, and exhibit anywhere from zero specialization to fairly high levels of coordination. All you can do is mock and shout your indignation when you receive what you request.

quote:

---

Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.

---

You haven't done anything but say it didn't happen. Fact is that there's nothing to prevent it.

quote:

---

Willful ignorance? That defines most evolutionists.

---

Thank you for resorting to the ad hominem. I described an act of willful ignorance (as the information is available on the very same page as this thread) while you have just claimed that the quality thereof defines my very position, and that of almost every educated scientist in the world. In fact, ignorance (rather than knowledge) is the basis for all of your arguments in this thread to date. We don't know how one pathway evolved into another, we don't know exactly what steps produced our eyes and all of our organs, and we don't know how a flagellum appeared on a bacterium. Sure, but we have some really good ideas. They are not invalidated by their lack of every fine detail that could possibly be located, as many of these things never can or will be learned.

quote:

---

Again nothing depends on us believing all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.

---

"Nothing" is a rather dramatic statement. If you mean our understanding of our place in the world, maybe something does depend on it. Maybe it feels better to be special and to have a purpose, but that is only the feeling of some people.Along these lines, one finds better arguments for evolution than against - because those who first discovered evidence for an old earth and the divergence of species were not atheists with an axe to grind. Yet they began the collection of evidence and the synthesis of theory that is the ToE today.

quote:

---

I am NOT saying that the knowledge that things can change is not helpful. Surely it is. Please don't confuse one for the other.

---

The only difference between the two is time, of which the geologic record speaks volumes.

quote:

---

How did that light sensitive spot come about? You do realize that the eye is only 1 part in the vision system....

---

(dealt with by Rei)