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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
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....
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?