Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
21 online now:
frako, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 17 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,203 Year: 20,239/19,786 Month: 636/2,023 Week: 144/392 Day: 4/53 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3344 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 271 of 298 (341322)
08-19-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Hyroglyphx
08-18-2006 9:50 PM


Re:clarification of background
Sorry NJ,
I was showing how your
quote:
through Gregor Mendel, also not a Darwininiac, but rather a creationist who wrote his thesis years before Origins was being written. Aside
is not incorrect. In truth Lewontin, who's "fact" you video linked considered investigations of Mendel and Darwin to be really all there was seriously to investigations he was involved in.

I was trying to indicate that on the top secular philosophy level they use the example of evolution but get away lignguistically by overdetermining darwinism and underdetermine mendelism to remove objections not even one's to "miracles." Because this has been done philosophically and not biologically ( I doubt it biologically but that is an empirical issue not one that can be argued out right for and against)it provides the foreground into which looks... Ann etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-18-2006 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5845
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 272 of 298 (341339)
08-19-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by NosyNed
08-19-2006 2:06 AM


Re: New info
This is incorrect. We all carry mutations that did not come from our parents.

Yes, mutations can come from external and internal sources too, such as cancer. But I wasn't referring to mutations, I was referring to the shuffling during meiosis and mitosis.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2006 2:06 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by NosyNed, posted 08-19-2006 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 274 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 273 of 298 (341353)
08-19-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 10:51 AM


Re: New info
NJ writes:

You don't have new information that they don't have, your just have a mixture of both their DNA sequenced in a different order.

The above is what you said.

Yes, mutations can come from external and internal sources too, such as cancer. But I wasn't referring to mutations, I was referring to the shuffling during meiosis and mitosis.

It doesn't matter what you were referring to. You statement that "you don't have new information that they don't have" is wrong because you didn't consider mutations.

Edited by NosyNed, : correct grammer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 481 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 274 of 298 (341372)
08-19-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 10:51 AM


5th time
quote:
Either that or someone who has wrapped up their livelihood in the theory of evolution, one could scarcely believe that someone could betray all of their life's work, watching it dismantle before their eyes.

quote:
One professor teaches 100 students. Those students grow up under the assumption that it was correct. Out of those 100 students, 10 grow to become professors of their own. And so and so on. Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.

If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?


"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-19-2006 9:26 PM nator has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 275 of 298 (341392)
08-19-2006 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Hyroglyphx
08-17-2006 7:56 PM


Re: Critique by Jerry Coyne
quote:
Either that or someone who has wrapped up their livelihood in the theory of evolution, one could scarcely believe that someone could betray all of their life's work....

Actually, a biologist (and a geologist, and other scientists) has wrapped up their livelihood in trying to understand how the real world works by comparing the current theories to the available evidence. I can scarcely believe that someone would betray their life's work by dogmatically holding onto an idea that is not supporting by the available evidence.


"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-17-2006 7:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5845
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 276 of 298 (341399)
08-19-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 2:13 AM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
In organisms with a long generation time, you can't rely on mutation to provide enough phenotypic variation. Chromosome shuffling provides a way to generate phenotypic variation without suffering the downsides of increasing the mutation rate.

That doesn't answer my question. What purpose would nature have for selecting the suboptimal over the optimal; remember, evolutionists routinely posit that natural selection is intentional. What you described is an after thought. How did nature produce eukaryotes from prokaryotes? Lets suppose that the earliest components for life did arrive by chance and that it doesn't explain how they got there in the first place; that is was inconsequential. The first simple organisms proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why, then, would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism? Now, think of it on the individual basis first. The organism that first evolved sex organs must have had those glands in an operable, working order and all its contrivances must have been in place, fully developed, in order to produce offspring. What does that organism also need in order for it to pass on its genetic material? It needs a suitor of the opposite sex as well. So, a host of organisms from a certain population had to basically 'devolve' from asexual reproduction but had to now evolve both a male and a female, virtually simultaneously, with all of their sexual organs intact just to proliferate sexual reproduction, much less, to have the population survive. That's inconcievable. What kind of staggering odds would it be for a population of asexual organisms to evolve two separate, yet compatible sexes, simultaneously, in order to create the sex glands perfectly operable in a male and also simultaneously evolve a female partner for the male with all of her sex organs in perfect operation? We know that the first sex organs had to be fully operational because the proto-male or proto-female would have died out before producing offspring. That goes against evolutions trial and error scenario. And again, why would nature select this over asexual reproduction? Its inconcievable.

No one seems to think about these things. They don't consider the finer aspects of what evolution would had to have entailed in order to have a continuance. It just doesn't add up. And if the numbers don't add up, we also have a serious deficiency in producing physical evidence of such an evolvement. As far as anyone can tell, all organisms appeared abruptly, in full formation within their kind. There is nothing linking this to that other than some arguable appearances. But as the adage says, don't judge a book by its cover. And if you flip that argument around by supposing that there is a Creator, then some organisms are going to, at some point, look more similar than others. Even on the molecular level it does not mean that it spells out a lineage. That's purely circumstancial. It could just as easily mean that we know much about DNA/RNA and how Hox protein sequences will configure the morphology of an organism. The appearnace of such a lineage is specious and its subjective.

Lol! Boy, you've just got no idea what you're talking about, do you? Human cells have 46 chromosomes and are diploid for 23 homologous chromosomes. Other organisms have different numbers. Bacteria don't have chromosomes at all. They have one main nucleic molecule, organized in a ring (instead of in a chain like in eukaryotes), and potentially several smaller genetic rings called "plasmids." And because they only have one copy of every gene in their genome - half as many as you or I have - they're called "haploid."

Thanks for the biology lesson, but yes, bacteria do have chromosomes. Chromosomes are all apart of the basic building blocks of even bacteria.

"Prokaryotes reproduce by binary fission, a process during which bacteria replicate their chromosomes and equally distribute copies between the two daughter cells.

· The chromosome is replicated; each copy remains attached to the plasma membrane at adjacent sites.

· Between the attachment sites, the membrane grows and separates the two copies of the chromosome.

· The bacterium grows to about twice its initial size, and the plasma membrane pinches inward.

· A cell wall forms across the bacterium between the two chromosomes, dividing the original cell into two daughter cells."

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/153/2/525

And once shuffling and mutation occur, we get different strains of bacteria, which is the job of bacteria if you think about it.

This doesn't make any sense. A change in a nucleotide - from A to C, let's say - is not shuffling, it's a mutation. Rearrangement of single base pairs doesn't really happen, it's not a common mutation.

Look, I've stated numerous that mutations occur, particularly quickly in prokaryotes. However, apart of the methodology includes those plasmids and transposons to shuffle and resuffle genetic information. Aside from which, you are neglecting the fact that some bacteria are anaerobic and some are aerobic. Because bacterium don't have a well-establihsed nuclei, perhaps you think I'm confusing them with viruses which do contain strands of DNA. But I'm not. And I will try to locate an unbiased website to show you the difference. Bacteria can acquire their information, or steal it, through a horizontal gene transfer. This aids bacteria in their robustness and their ability to survive in such hostile environments.

Bacteria: reproduces by means of a process called binary fission. In binary fission, the single chromosome is replicated, the bacteria divides into two cells, and each cell receives one chromosome. The two cells are thus genetically identical.

Binary fission does not provide bacteria with a way to acquire genetic diversity. Such diversity is necessary to enable a species to withstand changing environments. Many higher organisms gain genetic diversity through the union of reproductive cells from two parents. Lacking this capability, bacteria shuffle DNA between cells by several processes, including transformation, conjugation, and transduction.

In transformation, bacteria take up fragments of DNA released into the soil or water as dead bacteria are decomposed. Transduction involves the transfer of DNA fragments between bacteria cells by a bacteriophage, a virus that infects bacteria. Through mixing genetic material, bacteria develop new traits, including the ability to withstand changes in acidity and temperature, and resistance to antibiotics."

http://html.rincondelvago.com/diferences-between-bacteria-and-virus.html

The definition has never changes. The Theory of Evolution is "the scientific model that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth as changes in allele frequencies due to random mutations and natural selection." That definition covers all changes, from "macro" to "micro", because all those changes are essentially changes in allele frequency.

I wish it were that simple. Unintentional nucleotide alterations that can occur through errors during replication couldn't possibly explain all of the diversity we have. And the shuffling or recombination routinely shows that subspecies arise. this is not a contention of mine. While both mutation and genetic recombination can modify genes, the assertion that mutation is the primary source of variability driving a micro or macroevolutionary process isn't so. Shuffling is the hero here, not mutations. Mutations are a cancer to organisms, literally and figuratively. If you look at the diversity from breeds of dogs, all of them are do to recombination, not mutations.

I'm not referring to hybrids or "subspecies." I'm referring to new species from old ones, which has been observed thousands of times.

The example of a daughter specie that becomes isolated from the parent specie so that once they converge again, they are unable to mate with one another, is not a good example of speciation. In needs to be refined even more in its definition. Speciation could never be so simple the way Dobzhansky descirbes it. Case in point: A female poodle may be physically incapable to mate with a male Great Dane for obvious and graphic reasons. Would you say they are different species? Of course not. If all it takes to cause two species to become one is a reshuffling of genes, then a gene reshuffle presumably caused the original species to split into isolated subspecies in the first place. Since this involves no new information, it cannot legitimately be used as evidence that one can become another, no matter how much time is offered to us in the explanation.

The examples used by TO are evidence of this. For instance, the continued effort to push the drosophila in an alleged example of evolution is pure manipulation of what evidence actually entails.

Example 1: Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating."

Essentially they produced a mule-- a hybrid that is incapable of producing progeny. In other words, an evolutionary dead end. Not an example of speciation.

Example 2: Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970."

In other words, a perfect example of a microadaptive process which no one on earth objects to. Not an example of speciation. The truth is, no significant change has shown speciation, where one specie creates a separate specie. That has not been witnessed. For years, researchers have been trying to mutate the Drosophila with a variety of methods, some that worked brilliantly like bombarding it with radiation. The problem is, all of these mutations act adversely to the morphology of the fruit fly. No bionic fruitfly was ever the bi-product of these experiments, just monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated in the wild. Not even second guessing themselves, natural selection is at odds with evolution as nature tends to weed out aberrations, not propagate them.

Probably more condemning of a testimony is the rate at which fruit fly's mate, and the amount of time that researchers have been studying them. The Drosophila is much simpler on the molecular level than say, a human. What's worse, their lifespan isn't even a thousandth to that to a human. So, surely in the 70 to 80 years of experimentation it should be a prime candidate for a macroevoultionary process. The fruiot fly's genome is simple in relation to a human with a composition of four base pairs iof chromosomes at a rate of 13,000 genes per pair. With more chance of mutation, a higher rate of reproduction, and a shorter lifespan, their generations would reach into the hundreds and thousands in 70 to 80 years of close experimentation, under the hopeful and watchful eye of the experimentors. Compare that figure to human genrerations. How many human generations can come out of 70 to 80 years? Most likely 3, sometimes 4. And yet, no significant changes have occured. They just keep making more fruitfly's and subspecies of them, or bizarre aberrations with wings where its eyes go and eyes where its wings should go. Just like canines have subspecies, just like a rose can produce different color petals or varying shapes in sizes, just like Finches with different color beaks or beaks more slender, some more robust... But as the adage goes, "A rose is still a rose by any other name."

The idea that speciation has never been observed is nonsense. No major creationist organization puts forth that position. I don't know who told you that we've never observed new species from old ones, but whoever did misinformed you. New species are observed all the time.

“If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small, peripheral isolates—rather than by slow change in large central populations—then what should the fossil record look like? We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own right. During its recorded history in the fossil record, we should expect no major change; for we know it only as a successful, central population. It will participate in the process of organic change only when some of its peripheral isolates species to become new branches on the evolutionary bush. But it, itself, will appear ‘suddenly’ in the fossil record and become extinct later with equal speed and little perceptible change in form.” -Stephen J. Gould

In other words, Gould reads like this: 'We have no proof and don't expect to see any proof, just take our word for it that it happens because evolution is the only explanation we will allow for the accumulation of a variety of species. Instead of presenting clear examples of macroevolution, we'll just confuse you by showing nominal adaptations, and call their evolution 'imperceptible.' Read between the lines. He is leery of his own theory. He has a disclaimer for everything. The more I read from eminent evolutionists, the more apparent it becomes that they have to invent new theories to cover up another.

Well, bacteria can generate a new "step" every 40 minutes. How many periods of 40 minutes have existed in 4 billion years? You do the math, you want to know so bad. I don't see it as an important question.

Obviously bacteria would be a much more likely candidate for evolution. But bacteria spawns non-bacteria, all of which is completely mysterious. How many steps must have been required to have a bacilli arrive to a human being? I don't think the figure could be expressed in a mathematical equation. The evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is a missing link far more critical to the theory than whether or not chimpanzees and a humans share a common descent/ascent.

If God created life to look as though it evolved, to act like it had evolved, to expect to be treated like it had evolved, isn't that a pretty big hint that we should damn well do what God clearly wants us to do, and explain life as though it had evolved?

It doesn't look like it evolved at all. That's the problem! It looks like Gould, Smith, Darwin, Dawkins, and Mayr all say it looks like... like organisms appearing abruptly, almost like they were specifically created. If it looked like it evolved we would have links in the chains of life. We have none. None. This is precisely why punk eek had to be invented. The typical Darwinian model failed to produced what Darwin said, that, "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed." Evolution should be unquestionable. But it is. And the evidence of such a polarization can be found in the title of this forum. This is a big debate because there is legitimate reason to seriously question this paradigm.

If you didn't come from prokayotes, why would God build you out of prokaryotes?

He didn't. He made me a eukaryote-- multicellular.

I understand that we're dealing with concepts in genetics that you know absolutely nothing about, and I apologize if my post isn't much clearer. But there's really no simple way to describe these concepts, and your ignorant antagonism certainly doesn't give me much opportunity to correct your misunderstandings. Maybe if you were asking questions in order to learn, instead of making ignorant statements thinking you can win a debate, you'd have an opportunity to learn. Why is that something you're determined to throw back in people's faces?

Teach me, mold me, wise sage.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 2:13 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 3:47 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 481 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 277 of 298 (341415)
08-19-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
quote:
Either that or someone who has wrapped up their livelihood in the theory of evolution, one could scarcely believe that someone could betray all of their life's work, watching it dismantle before their eyes.

quote:
He teaches 100 students. Those students grow up under the assumption that it was correct. Out of those 100 students, 10 grow to become professors of their own. And so and so on. Now, we have a general concensus that macroevolution is an obvious truth and anyone that attempts to cirumvent that must be crazy.

If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 3:13 PM nator has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5845
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 278 of 298 (341419)
08-19-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by nator
08-19-2006 2:53 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.

That all depends. Without evolution there is no good reason to be an atheist. So, I'm not sure how much celebrity, fortune, and fame would come out of it. I would think that resistence would come out of it. Oh wait, that is what is happening.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

Yes, but none that would be so damaging to an atheist as this. That's why a fight, tooth and nail, is going down. This forum is evidence of such.

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?

No, I believe that most people, particularly the laymen, do believe in the veracity of the ToE. I know, however, the more that an expert acquanits him or herself with biology, that they understand very well that the theory doesn't add up. By this time, they have to invent meaningful reasons to the 'keep the faith,' so to speak, alive in their hearts. Gould is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The more you read his works, the more evident it becomes that his belief were shaken to the core.

As far as Coulter goes, she is not a scientist, nor does she pretend to be one. However, her research of the debate led her to her inquiry. She allows for expert opinion to guide her, just as you let expert opinion to guide you. The only difference is her experts differ from yours.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 2:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2006 3:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 283 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 5:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 279 of 298 (341422)
08-19-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
quote:
Without evolution there is no god reason to be an atheist.

Eh? This one again? This is fundamentally untrue. I'll let schraf explain how evolution has little to do with atheism (many evolutionary scientists being definitely not atheists). I'll just let you know that my atheism does not in any way require the theory of evolution. I would be as happy an atheist without the theory of evolution as I am with it.

I believe that there are some threads on this already if you want to discuss it.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Added the last sentence of the first paragraph.


"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 3:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 298 (341428)
08-19-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
That doesn't answer my question. What purpose would nature have for selecting the suboptimal over the optimal;

It's not suboptimal. That's the answer to your question; the explanation about how asexual reproduction is optimal for bacteria. Just as sexual reproduction is optimal in other situations.

remember, evolutionists routinely posit that natural selection is intentional.

No, they don't.

No one seems to think about these things.

Everyone's thought of these things, NJ. They're just better at thinking about them than you are. The evolution of sex is not a mystery. It's been studied extensivly, but you've chosen to remain ignorant of those conclusions lest your faith in creationism be challenged. If you're interested in actually learning the scientific facts behind the evolution of reproduction, I suggest you start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

and pick up a few of the books on this reading list.

Thanks for the biology lesson, but yes, bacteria do have chromosomes.

No, they don't. Chromosomes are linear lengths of genetic material. Bacteria have loops of genetic material. Typically, they have 1 plus a few plasmids. They do not have "46 chromosomes", as you asserted.

Aside from which, you are neglecting the fact that some bacteria are anaerobic and some are aerobic.

Which is completely irrelevant. Look, you're not fooling anybody. You've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Unintentional nucleotide alterations that can occur through errors during replication couldn't possibly explain all of the diversity we have.

And what is your proof of that?

The example of a daughter specie that becomes isolated from the parent specie so that once they converge again, they are unable to mate with one another, is not a good example of speciation.

That is, in fact, a perfect example of speciation. Much of the rest of your post is outright false. It's an amazing example of your poor education and reasoning skills. The donkey thing? Please. Did you even know what you were saying when you wrote that part?

Like, I don't even know where to start. You don't even seem to know what a species is.

He didn't. He made me a eukaryote-- multicellular.

That's not what "eukaryote" means. The reason we know that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is because their cellular organelles - the defining character of eukaryotes - are made out of prokaryotes.

NJ, at this point, I have to say that you're the most ignorant creationist I've ever met. You have absolutely no grasp of the scientific principles at work here. And this thread, about Ann Coulter's book, is not the place to correct them. If you have specific questions about what you don't understand, then I invite you to ask them in more appropriate threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 4:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5845
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 281 of 298 (341437)
08-19-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
08-19-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
It's not suboptimal. That's the answer to your question; the explanation about how asexual reproduction is optimal for bacteria. Just as sexual reproduction is optimal in other situations.

It is suboptimal. What makes more sense: The ability to produce your own offspring, or developing two separate sexes, with two separate sex organs, each with many different components, virtually simultaneously, and having that evolution occur in the same locality so that the suitors would find each other and figure out what sex means in order to procreate? What made asexual proliferation for monera good in some situations and bad in others? In other words, what prompted to evolve at all?

quote:
remember, evolutionists routinely posit that natural selection is intentional.

No, they don't.

Uhhh, yes they do. They constantly say that natural selection is the only non-random process within nature -- that NS selects the optimal over the suboptimal.

Everyone's thought of these things, NJ. They're just better at thinking about them than you are. The evolution of sex is not a mystery. It's been studied extensivly, but you've chosen to remain ignorant of those conclusions lest your faith in creationism be challenged.

No, it doesnt make any sense. Its based purely on specualtion, and even that speculation is poorly understood.

No, they don't. Chromosomes are linear lengths of genetic material. Bacteria have loops of genetic material. Typically, they have 1 plus a few plasmids. They do not have "46 chromosomes", as you asserted.

I said that bacteria have chromosomes, which they do. I went on to say that one cell can hold 46 chromosomes. You seemed to be under the misguided notion that chromosomes have cells within them when its the exact opposite. Bacteria have chromosomes.

Which is completely irrelevant. Look, you're not fooling anybody. You've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, I don't???!!! You can't explain any of the processes you allege take place, you make erroneous claims, then when I correct you on those claims, you say that I don't have a clue.

That is, in fact, a perfect example of speciation. Much of the rest of your post is outright false. It's an amazing example of your poor education and reasoning skills. The donkey thing? Please. Did you even know what you were saying when you wrote that part?

Why don't you start explaining your answers instead of simply telling me that its true and then try to shift the blame when its clearly you that has no idea what he's talking about.

That's not what "eukaryote" means. The reason we know that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is because their cellular organelles - the defining character of eukaryotes - are made out of prokaryotes.

You are in need of some serious remediation... How long have you been debating for evolution? You need to stop now because you are just making yourself look so foolish in front of your peers.

* Streptococcus pyogenes, the bacterium that causes strep throat, is an example of prokaryotes.
* Yeast, the organism that makes bread rise and beer ferment, is an example of unicellular eukaryotes.
* Humans, of course, are an example of multicellular eukaryotes.

The major similarities between the two types of cells (prokaryote and eukaryote) are:

1. They both have DNA as their genetic material.
2. They are both membrane bound.
3. They both have ribosomes .
4. They have similar basic metabolism .
5. They are both amazingly diverse in forms.

The major and extremely significant difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles , while prokaryotes do not. The DNA of prokaryotes floats freely around the cell; the DNA of eukaryotes is held within its nucleus. The organelles of eukaryotes allow them to exhibit much higher levels of intracellular division of labor than is possible in prokaryotic cells."

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/plantcell.html

NJ, at this point, I have to say that you're the most ignorant creationist I've ever met. You have absolutely no grasp of the scientific principles at work here.

Yes!!! In your face, Hovind! I'm the worst. You're a wash-up Kent. No one makes more vacuous statements than me!

And this thread, about Ann Coulter's book, is not the place to correct them. If you have specific questions about what you don't understand, then I invite you to ask them in more appropriate threads.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2006 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 284 by nator, posted 08-19-2006 5:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 285 by kuresu, posted 08-19-2006 7:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 298 (341443)
08-19-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
In other words, what prompted to evolve at all?

I told you already. Sex is advantageous in species with such long generation times, because it increases phenotypic diversity without the disadvantage of out-of-control mutation rates.

Were you just not paying attention, or what? You're not going to help your ignorance problem if you don't make an effort to read my posts.

Uhhh, yes they do. They constantly say that natural selection is the only non-random process within nature -- that NS selects the optimal over the suboptimal.

Those are not the same thing. Show me one quote where evolutionists have posited intent behind natural selection. That's the position of the Intelligent Design camp, not the theory of evolution, which does not speak to the issue of "intent" in the biological world.

I went on to say that one cell can hold 46 chromosomes.

No, you said that all living things have 46 chromosomes. This claim is incorrect.

You seemed to be under the misguided notion that chromosomes have cells within them when its the exact opposite.

Now you're just making up nonsense.

The major and extremely significant difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotes have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles , while prokaryotes do not. The DNA of prokaryotes floats freely around the cell; the DNA of eukaryotes is held within its nucleus

That's exactly what I said. What you are ignorant of is the fact that those organelles are actually devolved prokaryotes that, billions of years ago, began to indwell within other cells. That's why things like mitochondria have their own DNA.

You really need to be paying more attention, NJ. You're simply not understanding what I'm communicating to you in plain language because you're not taking the time to read closely and think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 9:39 PM crashfrog has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 481 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 283 of 298 (341454)
08-19-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
If a scientist actually knocked down the ToE, it would make scientific headlines and he or she would be made a celebrity among their peers.

quote:
That all depends.

No, it really would happen.

It would be something along the lines of Einstein supplanting Newton's work.

And you know the late Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge? And Bob Bakker?

Those scientists became famous among their peers for, in part, knocking down dominant paradigms in their respective fields.

quote:
Without evolution there is no good reason to be an atheist.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I have no idea how this statement is relavent.

quote:
So, I'm not sure how much celebrity, fortune, and fame would come out of it. I would think that resistence would come out of it.

If the evidence strongly leads in a certain direction, that is where scientists will follow.

Since science is a conservative endeavor, it is slow to embrace new explanations for phenomena until a certain critical mass of successfully borne out preditions have been produced.

There are always competing explanations for everything, although all are subject to the same rather brutal scrutiny and efforts to falsify them.

That's what scientists do, you know. They spend their days trying to falsify their own theories.

quote:
Oh wait, that is what is happening.

There is virtually no resistance among active researchers in the life sciences to the ToE.

The only resistance is from people who's religious beliefs make them resistant to Biology.

Really, scientists laud and reward those who do great science, regardless if they personally agree with the findings or not.

You do realize that scientists are lauded and made famous by overturning long-held pradigms, don't you?

quote:
Yes, but none that would be so damaging to an atheist as this.

I still fail to fathom why you think evolution has anything at all to do with Atheism.

quote:
That's why a fight, tooth and nail, is going down.

There is no "fight" within science about the ToE, just as there is no "fight" within science about the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic theory of Matter.

quote:
This forum is evidence of such.

No, this forum seeks to resist the religious movement to get their dogma taught in public school classrooms.

You do realize that you are essentially claiming either a worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of thousands of scientists to maintain an utter falsehood, or that all of those same scientists are so stupid that they cannot see that even an utterly uninformed layperson like Coulter was able to deduce what they could not?

quote:
No, I believe that most people, particularly the laymen, do believe in the veracity of the ToE.

That reply has nothing at all to do with my question.

quote:
I know, however, the more that an expert acquanits him or herself with biology, that they understand very well that the theory doesn't add up.

Er, then shouldn't we see the majority of Biologists publishing papers that directly contradict the ToE?

Why do we see instead the opposite?

quote:
By this time, they have to invent meaningful reasons to the 'keep the faith,' so to speak, alive in their hearts.

So, you ARE claiming a worldwide conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists.

In fact, you are also claiming that these thousands of scientists perpetuate an elaborate fraud, and that every single paper that is published contains false information.

quote:
Gould is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The more you read his works, the more evident it becomes that his belief were shaken to the core.

That is a shameful Creationist lie, and Gould was very annoyed that his work and his words were constantly being misrepresented and misused by the likes of you.

The following is an excerpt from his essay entitled Evolution as Fact and Theory. You really should read it if you want to know what he thinks about the ToE rather than what some creationists website has distorded his position into.

(bold added by me)

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

[snip]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

quote:
As far as Coulter goes, she is not a scientist, nor does she pretend to be one. However, her research of the debate led her to her inquiry. She allows for expert opinion to guide her,

No, she didn't.

She only allowed proponents of ID to guide her.

Her "research" was entirely biased and one-sided.

quote:
just as you let expert opinion to guide you. The only difference is her experts differ from yours.

That's true.

The difference is, however, that I have considerd both the scientific and the Creationist explanations, but Coulter cites not a single non-religiously motivated expert as a source.

Coulter isn't interested in exploring the evidence. She is interested only in promoting her preconceived ideas and assiduously ignores any contradictory sources.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 3:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 481 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 284 of 298 (341456)
08-19-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
One of the biggest advantages to sexual reproduction (over asexual) is the huge leap in genetic diversity it affords, thus giving a population greater flexability to adapt to a changing environment over multiple generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 824 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 285 of 298 (341493)
08-19-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Hyroglyphx
08-19-2006 4:30 PM


Re: Evolution = natural selection/mutation?
have you heard of the endosymiosis theory by (marguillis?).

It goes along these lines:

we have a world full of prokaryotes
we have a world full of eukaryotes
the structures in eukaryotes, particularly mitochondria and chloroplasts, look really, really similar to specific prokaryotes, right down to having thier own plasmids, and the similar prokaryotes do similar things.

why?
well, try this one on for size--eukaryotes came from fused prokaryotes. Or rather, one, maybe like a prokaryotic ameoba (ameoba are eukaryotes, hence the pro part), absorbed another prokaryote. and gee golly whiz, it gave him an advantage. consider this--what happens if you abosorb an organism that's really efficient at producing energy, and none of your fellow specie members have it, that means you're better off. You take the field with your advantage.

so when crash says we're made of prokaryotes, he's right. ohh.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-19-2006 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx 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