Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:15 PM
32 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Tangle, Theodoric (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,032 Year: 12,068/19,786 Month: 1,849/2,641 Week: 358/708 Day: 52/81 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?
Rei
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 46 of 98 (73424)
12-16-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:54 PM


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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:54 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:04 PM Rei has responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 98 (73425)
12-16-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
12-16-2003 3:53 PM


Two individuals but how many sex cells?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 3:53 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 4:32 PM John Paul has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 98 (73426)
12-16-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rei
12-16-2003 4:01 PM


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

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

John Paul:
Any evidence to support your assertion?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:01 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:11 PM John Paul has not yet responded

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5380 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 49 of 98 (73427)
12-16-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:50 PM


John Paul writes:

Just-so stories and assertions are not to be confused with evidence- scietific or otherwise. I have heard & read the stories. I know about endosymbiosis (Lynn Margulis).


You asked what it could have been, and I answered. If you were going to reject any and all answers provided, then it was a rather disingenuous request, don'tcha think?

BTW - What is creationism if not another "just-so" story?

There isn't any evidence of a bi-cellular organism.

So what?

Thye point being there isn't ANY evidence an eye can evolve. There isn't any evidence a sensitive light spot can evolve. And there surely isn't any evidence a vision system can evolve.

Sure there is

These are all beliefs

So what? Basically the notion that my pen will fall to the ground when I drop it is just a "belief." The difference is that it is well-supported by observations of reality.

As for the fossil record and punk eek, I was answering another poster. Please try to keep up.

I only asked you to make a point above and beyond a statement that is not in dispute. Did you have one? I notice you didn't offer it here either...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:50 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:16 PM :æ: has responded

Rei
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 50 of 98 (73428)
12-16-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by John Paul
12-16-2003 4:00 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:00 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:37 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 51 of 98 (73429)
12-16-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John Paul
12-16-2003 4:04 PM


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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:04 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 4:29 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 2746 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 52 of 98 (73431)
12-16-2003 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by John Paul
12-16-2003 3:40 PM


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 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html :


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 3:40 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:24 PM zephyr has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 98 (73433)
12-16-2003 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rei
12-16-2003 4:11 PM


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

It is possible that the support is for the bare fact that he changed his mind at all not why he changed it. I'm sure it is obvious to all why he may have changed his mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 4:11 PM Rei has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:39 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 54 of 98 (73435)
12-16-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John Paul
12-16-2003 4:01 PM


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!
Have you never taken 10th-grade biology?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:01 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:31 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 2746 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 55 of 98 (73436)
12-16-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by John Paul
12-16-2003 4:00 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 4:00 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:29 PM zephyr has not yet responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 98 (73464)
12-16-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by :æ:
12-16-2003 4:06 PM


I can't believe you linked to Lindsay's website! He, as are all evolutionists, are guilty of "gross anatomy". IOW you haven't any details jujst assertions. If you want to impress try something from a peer-reviewed journal. Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe.

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 4:06 PM :æ: has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2003 5:31 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 63 by :æ:, posted 12-16-2003 5:45 PM John Paul has responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 98 (73465)
12-16-2003 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by zephyr
12-16-2003 4:14 PM


Please , zephyr, what is testable AND repeatable about the ToE? Surely not the alleged single to multi-cellular evolutiuon. Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.

Willful ignorance? That defines most evolutionists. 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. 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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 4:14 PM zephyr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by zephyr, posted 12-17-2003 9:30 AM John Paul has not yet responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 98 (73466)
12-16-2003 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by zephyr
12-16-2003 4:33 PM


IC has been shot to pieces? By evidence or more "just-so" stories? Any links? Behe has refuted all critics. Go figure...

Behe's argument from ignorance? Well it looks like evolutionists are ignorant. He was basing his book on their research/ lack thereof.

Fossils say nothing of a mechanism. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catastrophes. Which goes against gradualism. And also calls in to question the age of the strata.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by zephyr, posted 12-16-2003 4:33 PM zephyr has not yet responded

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 98 (73467)
12-16-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
12-16-2003 4:32 PM


Two individuals but how many sex cells?

Coragyps:
A bunch - all of which carry ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO POSSIBLE VERSIONS OF THE GENE IN THE PARENT!

John Paul:
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.

Coragyps:
Have you never taken 10th-grade biology?

John Paul:
Yes, and more....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 4:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 5:46 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 70 by zephyr, posted 12-17-2003 9:03 AM John Paul has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 98 (73468)
12-16-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by John Paul
12-16-2003 5:16 PM


quote:
Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe.

And Behe has been refuted by the evidence. As soon as you can come up with a viable evolutionary pathway his Irreducible Complexity theorom is shot, of which the eye is one example, the middle ear ossicles another (even better since there is fossil evidence). He also argued that a land mammal to whale transitional fossil would never be found. Six months after this comment one was found. Perhaps you could start a Behe topic and we could all comment there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by John Paul, posted 12-16-2003 5:16 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019